|
Post by kent on Aug 18, 2011 21:30:27 GMT -6
Ha! I put the F&GM stories in the order they were written and began reading them that way only a month ago. I made the following comment on my blog,
I really enjoy reading Leiber and imagine that he is closest in spirit to A/OD&D gaming along with Hodgson's The Boats of the "Glen Carrig" (1907) which feels very close to an adventure in Bledaw's Wilderlands. Even if I don't consider him to be in the very top four or five authors his ability to create character, our two adventurers, has not been bettered in fantasy I would say.
I want to give praise to Adept's Gambit which I mentioned above. It is a strange work, different to much of his other stories and one of my favourite fantasy tales.
ADMIN EDIT: Fixed the quote box
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 19, 2011 7:52:21 GMT -6
Here's my take on Leiber. The sixth book of the collected work is unreadable, the seventh even worse. Of the five excellent volumes as published the fifth is the weakest. You see where Im going here. Leiber was not one of those writers who improved as he matured. Sadly, I have to agree. The later stories almost seem like parodies of his earlier work. He loses a lot of the grim swords & sorcery elements and seems to focus on the more comedic and outlandish. The first four volumes mix up the order in which the stories were written but I am now reading them in the order they were written. Order they were written, or order they were published? For Leiber I'm having a hard time determining actual written order. For example, “The Tale of the Grain Ships” was written in 1939 and is one of the oldest stories, but it wasn't published until 1961 (as “Scylla’s Daughter”) and then again later in expanded form in 1961 (as "The Swords of Lankhmar"). Seems like this sort of thing makes it hard to accurately determine written order.
|
|
|
Post by kent on Aug 19, 2011 10:13:44 GMT -6
Yes, the order of publication is all we can be confident about but I did read Adept's Gambit first because I knew he wrote that first!
Something to note in favour of the published order over the written order is that Leiber was fully conscious of the order of introduction of his characters to the public, via publication, and so we see (yet another) charming initial description to the two lads in The Jewels in the Forest.
In reading in published order there are three things of interest to me: How did Leiber build up the characters, how did his writing style evolve and did his sense of what an adventure entailed change. These notions will survive slight inaccuracy of order.
== By the way I didn't use the quote box because I am finding the font is almost unreadably small inside it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2011 10:23:57 GMT -6
By the way I didn't use the quote box because I am finding the font is almost unreadably small inside it. I know, right? I used to have a Firefox/Greasemonkey script that fixed that, but I lost in a computer crash. Hmmm ... I'm going to have to see if I can relocate it.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 19, 2011 11:08:36 GMT -6
By the way I didn't use the quote box because I am finding the font is almost unreadably small inside it. Sorry. Often folks get confused by that stuff so I fix typos and format issues when I see them. I didn't mean to tamper in ways not welcome.
|
|
|
Post by kent on Aug 19, 2011 13:54:08 GMT -6
Finarvyn, No I didn't mind. I was hoping you'd say there was a setting somewhere which made quoted stuff the same size as Dubeers hinted. I think the quote box is usually ok because people can refer back to the original comment but in the case where the quote comes from somewhere outside the forum it is probably best read at full size.
Of course I may just need glasses.
|
|
|
Post by kenmeister on Aug 31, 2011 13:25:25 GMT -6
Here's my take on Leiber. The sixth book of the collected work is unreadable, the seventh even worse. Of the five excellent volumes as published the fifth is the weakest. You see where Im going here. Leiber was not one of those writers who improved as he matured. Sadly, I have to agree. The later stories almost seem like parodies of his earlier work. He loses a lot of the grim swords & sorcery elements and seems to focus on the more comedic and outlandish. And yet Adept's Gambit has a considerable element of the comedic and outlandish - every time they cozy up to a woman she turns into an animal, remember? - and that turned me off to that story somewhat. On the other hand, Bazar of the Bizarre was also comedic and it worked brilliantly. Lean Times in Lankhmar - that's the one where Fafhrd becomes a cult figure, right? - was also pretty amusing.
|
|
|
Post by kent on Aug 31, 2011 17:46:54 GMT -6
And yet Adept's Gambit has a considerable element of the comedic and outlandish - every time they cozy up to a woman she turns into an animal, remember? Sounds sexy to me.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 31, 2011 20:49:39 GMT -6
I was hoping you'd say there was a setting somewhere which made quoted stuff the same size as Dubeers hinted. I think the quote box is usually ok because people can refer back to the original comment but in the case where the quote comes from somewhere outside the forum it is probably best read at full size. Sigh. I've looked all over the Admin section and I can change the font but not the font size. Nothing so far about making quote box fonts larger, either. I'll have to look again at the ProBoards FAQ...
|
|
|
Post by kent on Aug 31, 2011 22:14:26 GMT -6
Finarvyn, I wouldn't worry about it as it hasn't bothered members up till now. Remember I was just quoting something outside the quote box to make it more readable and that is a handy enough solution.
|
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
Post by jasmith on Sept 1, 2011 8:12:35 GMT -6
On the other hand, Bazar of the Bizarre was also comedic and it worked brilliantly. Lean Times in Lankhmar - that's the one where Fafhrd becomes a cult figure, right? - was also pretty amusing. "Where is the jug?" "WHERE IS THE JUG?" I read the stories about 28 years ago and those are the two that I found most memorable. I've started re-reading them and have finished the first three (as published, in the stories' timeline.) Really struck this go around by how modern the tales seem. My favorite of the first three? The Unholy Grail. Enjoyed all three, immensely. Much more so, than I did at 15. I'm now wondering if, conversely, I would presently enjoy Moorcock, as much as I did during my teenage years. I have a feeling I wouldn't. Though, I don't see how I could ever fall out of love with "The War Hound and the World's Pain."
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Sept 6, 2011 21:44:42 GMT -6
I'm now wondering if, conversely, I would presently enjoy Moorcock, as much as I did during my teenage years. I have a feeling I wouldn't. The original stories are definitely worth re-reading, if you haven't been picking up the recent Del Rey collections, James. I also still like the revised and expanded versions publishing c. 1977 and c. 1994, too. YMMV, of course. Though, I don't see how I could ever fall out of love with "The War Hound and the World's Pain." Warhound is my favorite Moorcock fantasy novel; non-fantasy is Mother London.
|
|