Lord Dunsany

[Connavar]

I moved recently and seem to have misplaced my copy of The Worm Ouroboros which sucks royally since i hadnt read it yet.

 

[Fried Egg]

I just re-read "King of Elfland's Daughter" with some trepidation it has to be said as I was concerned it wouldn't live up to my fond memories of reading it the first time. I am happy to say that I need not have worried. I fell in love with it all over again.

It's not the plot or characters, that some modern readers might find lacking, but rather the poetic phraseology employed to wonderful effect. It is a story meant to be read slowly and savoured.

Now I think I might want to re-read "The Blessings of Pan" or maybe I should try and get hold of a copy of "The Charwoman's Shadow" to read something I've not read by him yet...

 

[Extollager]

When I see this discussion popping up again I feel kind of a yearning: Dunsany was such a beloved author for me when I was around 15, as I've said above; but when I revisit his stories now I generally don't find they matter much to me any more. I guess when you think,as I do, that Dostoevsky must have been the greatest fiction writer of (at least) the past 200 years, you're not necessarily going to find that Dunsany speaks to you.

 

[Fried Egg]

I take it that you feel Dostoevsky does what Dunsany does but better? That is the implication anyway. I can't comment as I haven't read any of his work.

 

[Extollager]

No, Dostoevsky doesn't do what Dunsany does, but what Dosty does do helps to show up (for me) the triviality of much that Dunsany does do. So where Dunsany was important to me 45 years ago, he now seems to me, in large part and especially in his most famous work, a confectioner.

 

[galanx]

No, Dostoevsky doesn't do what Dunsany does, but what Dosty does do helps to show up (for me) the triviality of much that Dunsany does do. So where Dunsany was important to me 45 years ago, he now seems to me, in large part and especially in his most famous work, a confectioner.

Absolutely- but sometimes a little plum-cake and icing sugar is just what you need.

I remember Le Guin, in her famous essay "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie" warning new fantasy writers against trying to imitate his style as the "First Terrible Fate that Awaiteth Unwary Beginners in Fantasy"- something along the lines of "unless you yourself are a member of the 19th Century Anglo-Irish aristocracy with a background in Classics and Medieval literature".

However, it seems like many have chosen the opposite fate, of being too Poughkeepsian, as she singles out Kathrine Kurtz's Dernyi series for.

 

[Extollager]

Oh yeah, Galanx: I read that Le Guin essay at an impressionable time, and it pretty much killed any chance of my reading the Deryni books! It's influenced me against a whole generation or two of fantasy epics with prosaic narration and dialogue. And, really, I'm grateful for that.

I'll have to try Dunsany yet again. It's not that I can't stand his work now, certainly, but in my recent experience it's far from captivating. Your plum cake remark sounds about right. I wonder if someday I won't be in just the right mood to enjoy Dunsany. But it seems like it's been many years since I was. I do somewhat exempt "The Hoard of the Gibbelins" from this critical view of Dunsany; at any rate when I taught a course in fantasy I was sure to include it. It has perhaps more of a story than many of the other tales from around that time in Dunsany's output.

I used to belong to an amateur press association or two, and occasionally drew cover designs for the mailings. This was around the time of my greatest liking of Dunsany. I drew a picture of the knight riding the dragon to the tower of the Gibbelins, said scrawny dragon having a neck of board-like rigidity. But what fun it was to draw scenes from Dunsany's stories. There's a bunch of attempts at scenes from The Charwoman's Shadow.

 

[Bick]

No, Dostoevsky doesn't do what Dunsany does, but what Dosty does do helps to show up (for me) the triviality of much that Dunsany does do. So where Dunsany was important to me 45 years ago, he now seems to me, in large part and especially in his most famous work, a confectioner.

But couldn't you say that about any SFF writer? If I got hung up by the fact that Asimov doesn't provide the depth and quality of Balzac or Dickens or Conrad, and therefore I stopped reading him, I'd miss out on a lot of enjoyment. Or perhaps I've missed your point?

 

[Extollager]

Bick, I take your point. I was reading Asimov for the first time around the time I got into Dunsany. I can still read Asimov with enjoyment. It just seems to be the case that, for whatever reasons, when I have tried to reread Dunsany's characteristic stories now, it takes a bit of effort to do so. Now that I'm an adult, I could buy every day the sweets that used to be a treat when I was a kid. But some how I'm not attracted to Jolly Rancher hard candies, etc. I've kept several volumes of Dunsany (all the Ballantine Fantasy series ones, notably), for sentimental reasons mostly; but can't seem to read them now.

Any Asimov story is going to have some kind of "problem" at least. There's still something there to think about. I guess with Dunsany the reader "needs" to let the names and imagery just sort of flow past him, like watching soap bubbles drift by on a mild summer day. That's not the case with lots of sf and fantasy writing, even if it provides little but entertainment.

How about it, Dunsany fans? Don't you find that you have to "turn off your minds, relax and float downstream" -- not really cease from any kind of mental activity, but what kind of mental activity do you engage in when you read again the first stories in, say, At the Edge of the World, if you have that one? I thought a while ago I would reread that, a book that was dear to me when I was around 15. I found I just was not staying with it. So enough about my dissatisfaction, let's hear about your experience of reading Lord Dunsany. If you read him many years ago, what do you still like other than the nostalgic experience of revisiting an old favorite? Again, I'm thinking of his characteristic imaginary-world tales such as "The Fortress Unvanquishable, Save for Sacnoth," "The Bride of the Man-Horse," "The Distressing Tale of Thangobrind," "Idle Days on the Yann," "Poltarnees, Beholder of Ocean," "etc. -- to name some whose titles come to mind. I'm not thinking of the Jorkens stories, The Curse of the Wise Woman, etc.

 

[Fried Egg]

Hmmm...I'm not sure I can quite agree with you that in what I take as your meaning: That there is little or no depth to most of Dunsany's stories.

I can't really comment on the stories you listed since it is quite a few years since I read them and don't recall them in any detail but thinking back on "The King of Elfland's Daughter", I think there is much subtle commentary on contemporary life and society to be found. Often it was quite ironic and humorous. I think this is one of the defining characteristics of his work, not just his sublime phraseology.

I think this characteristic of his writing is readily apparent in "The Blessings of Pan". Also I think one does not need to look too hard to find it in "The Gods of Pegana" either. And I know you said it was an exception but "The Hoard of the Gibbelins" is a great example of this too.

 

[Extollager]

Fried Egg, to clarify: I was thinking of Dunsany's "characteristic" short stories -- the ones Lin Carter mined so extensively in At the Edge of the World and Beyond the Fields We Know, especially the stories Carter selected from the first half-dozen or so books of Dunsany's fantastic tales. Later on, Dunsany may have become a bit tired of writing that type of story and written things with more substance. As I recall there's more going on his his book-length fantasies. But it's the type of story that I mention in #69 above that I meant by "characteristic." Those are the ones that people imitate when they have their Dunsanian phases.

Contents:

At the Edge of the World (collection) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beyond the Fields We Know - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The stories I'm thinking of were originally published in books with titles such as Time and the Gods, The Sword of Welleran, etc.

It may be that if I had tried yet again, and harder, to reread the Carter collections, I'd ultimately have had a more favorable impression, but, as I say, on several attempts in the past few years, I found the stories didn't hold my interest. So I'm asking people who have read these stories as adults and liked them to discuss the experience.

 

[Connavar]

No, Dostoevsky doesn't do what Dunsany does, but what Dosty does do helps to show up (for me) the triviality of much that Dunsany does do. So where Dunsany was important to me 45 years ago, he now seems to me, in large part and especially in his most famous work, a confectioner.

Doestoevsjky is important author of his era,school, type of literature but he could never write the sheer prose,poetry of Lord Dunsany. Lord Dunsany might write fantastic,fairy beauty but his talent is above most authors. He might not be the easiest writer to like but that you cant call some of his best works triviality imo. Because the poetry of Shakespeare is silly romantic poetry about summers day but its great writing.

Im a huge fan of Gogol of the Russian classic greats but i have huge respect for Dostoejsky and im not keen on Lord Dunsanys all abstract, too fairy,elfish type stories often but thats not all he writes. Many of his short stories are about nature vs the modern world, some of them are more real, more powerful than a whole mundane Brother Kamarazov type book. Read his works that isnt confecioner, some of the shorts are much real, critical social realism than a novel about the Daughter of an Elf-king.

He might not be important to you anymore but he is a must respect, read for all fan of world literature. He had a story in a new 50 great short stories of world literature anthology that i bought in German airport. The kind with all of the whole hyped modern classics authors,the Hemingway's type and it was chosen by American literary professors because he is not for all but he is classic great. Despite his fantasy ghetto genre he is an author to compare to great Irish classics, Yeats, Becketts. Thats from his historical reputation and not only the view of a fan like me.......

He is not someone to compare to Asimov, Heinlein type author even if i adore those authors. Mental activity? I think you have read the wrong, lesser works of Lord Dunsany.

 

[Connavar]

Extollager: I say all this with respect and not to sound like a hardcore fan. I missed these forums where you could discuss literature like this

There are problems,issues to think whole day about, wonder about the state of our world in short stories written by Dunsany like 100 years ago but what i want to ask you most is whats wrong about a poet, dramatist writing literature for sheer poetry, for literatures sake and not tackle a problem, real issue of the world?

Like reading a Sylvia Plath, Dylan Thomas for their sheer poetry, thoughts of their poems, reading the comedy,wit of Dunsany/GK Chesterton in their novels/plays or reading a Beckett for the surreal,absurd story of Waiting for Godot? Is a generic SF Mystery by Asimov better literature, writing because its about a problem you can think about like human vs robots?

 

[Extollager]

He might not be important to you anymore but he is a must respect, read for all fan of world literature.

Connavar, I was restricting my comments to the "Dunsanian fantasy" type of story that he is, or was, best known for, such as the ones I mentioned.

I assure everyone that, if I were teaching a course again on the development of modern fantastic literature, I would include Dunsany. I taught such a course years ago and included "The Hoard of the Gibbelins" and "The Fortress Unvanquishable, Save for Sacnoth."

But during our current discussion, I keep thinking, apropos of Dunsany, of a remark someone made about an American composer, to the effect that his symphonies are like lengths cut from an endless roll of handmade wallpaper. That remark helps me to put into words my experience of revisiting some Dunsany stories. But, as I said above, I expect I will try him again.

Also, maybe I can clarify my Dostoevsky remark. I certainly don't mean that I intend to restrict my reading to Dostoevsky or writers who were trying to write like him. I meant something like this: To become able to enjoy writers such as Dostoevsky who have so much to give, I had to develop as a reader, to become more alert and "active," more able to vicariously struggle towards the light of understanding, and more ready to laugh, more receptive to the variety of human character, etc. But the characteristic Dunsanian fantasy, it seems, isn't suited to this kind of reading. It evidently was suited to a kind of reading a engaged in when I was 15, a relatively passive kind of reading easily pleased by little more than a series of "strange" names, references to antique battles and preposterous gems, inevitable dooms and chortling monsters. Note -- I'm not saying that, if that's all there is to this type of story, those who can (still) enjoy it ought not to read it sometimes.

 

[Extollager]

Do folks want to discuss work by Dunsany other than that "characteristic" type of Dunsanian story?

 

[Fried Egg]

I'm always happy to discuss Dunsany but I find it hard to discuss something I haven't fairly recently read. I guess that's the advantage of a reading group in that you all read something together and then discuss it with fresh recollections.

 

[Connavar]

Connavar, I was restricting my comments to the "Dunsanian fantasy" type of story that he is, or was, best known for, such as the ones I mentioned.

I assure everyone that, if I were teaching a course again on the development of modern fantastic literature, I would include Dunsany. I taught such a course years ago and included "The Hoard of the Gibbelins" and "The Fortress Unvanquishable, Save for Sacnoth."

But during our current discussion, I keep thinking, apropos of Dunsany, of a remark someone made about an American composer, to the effect that his symphonies are like lengths cut from an endless roll of handmade wallpaper. That remark helps me to put into words my experience of revisiting some Dunsany stories. But, as I said above, I expect I will try him again.

Also, maybe I can clarify my Dostoevsky remark. I certainly don't mean that I intend to restrict my reading to Dostoevsky or writers who were trying to write like him. I meant something like this: To become able to enjoy writers such as Dostoevsky who have so much to give, I had to develop as a reader, to become more alert and "active," more able to vicariously struggle towards the light of understanding, and more ready to laugh, more receptive to the variety of human character, etc. But the characteristic Dunsanian fantasy, it seems, isn't suited to this kind of reading. It evidently was suited to a kind of reading a engaged in when I was 15, a relatively passive kind of reading easily pleased by little more than a series of "strange" names, references to antique battles and preposterous gems, inevitable dooms and chortling monsters. Note -- I'm not saying that, if that's all there is to this type of story, those who can (still) enjoy it ought not to read it sometimes.

I understand better now what you mean and i have several authors i read for the reasons you read Dostejesvky. Some authors i read to understand something im curious about and some to laugh, the wit and many to understand human condition, modern history. For example Chinua Achebe is to me a writer who writes the world in ways i try understand where i came from and from postcolonial modern history of our common continent.

 

[Connavar]

Do folks want to discuss work by Dunsany other than that "characteristic" type of Dunsanian story?

I would be very interested because i have in recent years have explored his surprisingly big collection stories that are far from his "characteristic" Dunsanian story. Fore example i was surprised to learn he was famous for his plays in UK,US theater scene.

I read The Ginger Cat and other Lost Plays collection few months ago. It was a shock to learn the elegant fantastic writer could write in The Ginger Cat such fine humor that was compared rightly by the reviews, editor as precursor to Britcom like Blackadder, Monty Python.

 

[Connavar]

But the characteristic Dunsanian fantasy, it seems, isn't suited to this kind of reading. It evidently was suited to a kind of reading a engaged in when I was 15, a relatively passive kind of reading easily pleased by little more than a series of "strange" names, references to antique battles and preposterous gems, inevitable dooms and chortling monsters. Note -- I'm not saying that, if that's all there is to this type of story, those who can (still) enjoy it ought not to read it sometimes.

I agree Dunsanian fantasy often are the kind you read like it was prose poem or a verse poem for the words, meaning behind or the kind like The Sword of Welleran collection, stories who are mostly just elegant literary sword and sorcery full of monsters, ancient battles etc

What meant in my first replay to you is that i understand what we expect from certain authors change over time. I enjoy the typical Lord Dunsany fantasy but sometimes it is too much or style over substance and those times i read his other fiction, other genres he wrote in.

 

[Extollager]

Perhaps if I still drew, Connavar, I would be a lot more enthusiastic about the "characteristic" Dunsany stories. Back in the day I turned to his tales more than to those of any other author. I thank him for that. My efforts to illustrate Dunsany helped me to get out of a rut of drawing barbarians and monsters when I was a kid, just as barbarians and monsters had replaced my even earlier habit of drawing costumed superheroes.