Friday, November 8, 2024

REPOST: Pulp Fantasy Library: The Ship of Ishtar

(Pulp Fantasy Library was, for years, one of the signature features of this blog and, even though I haven't posted a new entry in it in more than a year, it nevertheless remains the largest series of posts I've written. Today marks the 100th anniversary of the publication of Abraham Merritt's The Ship of Ishtar, which was serialized in the pages of Argosy All-Story Weekly. To mark the occasion of its centennial, I'm reposting and updating my original entry on it from nearly fifteen years ago.)

Nearly all of the authors whose works I highlight in this space each week are those whose fame was once greater than it is today. There are exceptions, of course -- Robert E. Howard and H.P. Lovecraft being two good examples -- but contemporary fame often brings with it misunderstanding, with the author's stories and ideas reduced to mere caricatures. For good or for ill, Abraham Merritt has avoided that fate, his works largely unknown today, despite the fact that he was arguably the most popular fantasy and science fiction writer before World War II.

Dying suddenly of a heart attack in 1943 probably didn't help Merritt's career, but it's still almost inexplicable to imagine how the author of Seven Footprints to Satan, Dwellers in the Mirage, and The Moon Pool, never mind The Ship of Ishtar could be so obscure today. The Ship of Ishtar alone ought to merit (pun intended) its author more than throwaway mentions here and there, usually in reference to more well known authors whom he influenced, such as Jack Williamson, Walter Shaver, and H.P. Lovecraft. Clark Ashton Smith, whose birthday I commemorated just last week, was very taken with The Ship of Ishtar, explaining:
I enjoyed the rare and original fantasy of this tale, and have kept it longer than I should otherwise, for the sake of re-reading certain passages that were highly poetic and imaginative. Merritt has an authentic magic, as well as an inexhaustible imagination.
High praise indeed.

The Ship of Ishtar was originally released as a six-part serial novel over the course of November and December 1924 in Argosy All-Story Weekly. These parts were then collected into a hardcover in 1926, but in abridged form, excising some chapters and rearranging the text. It's this incomplete version of the story that's been reprinted again and again over the decades, with only (I believe) a single 1949 edition including the full text of the novel. The new centennial edition of DMR Books follows Merritt's preferred version of the text, as well as including vintage illustrations.

The Ship of Ishtar is the tale of Jack Kenton, a modern man who receives a package from an old archeologist friend. The package contains an ancient stone, inside of which Kenton finds a remarkable model of a ship. The ship is a magical creation and draws Kenton into it, pulling him backward in time to Babylonian times and into the midst of a struggle between the followers of the goddess Ishtar and followers of the god Nergal – the cursed inflicted because a priestess of Ishtar and a priest of Nergal dared fall in love with one another against the wishes of their respective deities. Now, the lieutenants of the priestess and priest, both of whom, for their own reasons, aided their superiors, are trapped on a ship divided between light and darkness and from which there can be no escape.

Kenton, not being a man of this time and not laboring under the curse of the gods, can move freely back and forth between the two sides of the ship. Having fallen in love with the beautiful Sharane, priestess of Ishtar, he offers to go to Klaneth, priest of Nergal, and attempt to find a means by which to end the conflict on the ship. In this respect, The Ship of Ishtar resembles many pulp fantasies of its time and after: a modern man, thrown into an unusual locale/time, finds himself able to go places and do things that those native to it cannot. What differentiates Merritt's novel, though, is its gorgeous prose and deep characterizations. Merritt is an author who takes his time in telling a story, presenting little details and nuances that other authors would rush past in an effort to get to the action.

This may be why Merritt fell out of favor in the years after the Second World War: he's not a "breezy" author. That's not to say his prose is slow going, because it's not. Indeed, I find Merritt much easier to read than, say, Lovecraft or even Smith, both of whose prose is every bit as adjective-laden and evocative. Yet, Merritt dwells on details, particularly the beauty or ugliness of characters, and it's possible that, for some, these details get in the way of their enjoyment. I think that's a pity, because, as I said, Merritt's text is not plodding and his descriptions and dialog are every bit as appealing as his action, but perhaps he is an acquired taste.

Regardless, Abraham Merritt is an important early fantasy author, one mentioned by Gygax in Appendix N, and The Ship of Ishtar may well be his masterpiece. Many thanks to DMR Books for making it available again. With luck, Merritt may soon gain the wider admiration he so richly deserves.

11 comments:

  1. Maybe it isn't read much because it has sentences like the following in it. When Kenton first lays eyes on the main girl character, we read his evaluation of her: "In the hollow of her throat a dimple lay; a chalice for kisses; empty of them and eager to be filled." (In Chp 3 of the centennial edition). I read that quote to my wife, and she said "Ew. That literally made me feel like gagging. It is an over the top description of male urge." Interesting reaction. For me, it seems to imply a mindset that the female body wants such attention without the consent of the person, and thus it seems to fall prey to the "objectification" critique people speak of these days. Anyway, I'd guess a lot of people would find such dialog to be offensive, or in bad taste.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You sound like a woman.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous, you sound like a moron.

      Delete
    3. We are _all_ starting to sound a bit ridiculous.

      Delete
    4. I'm not sure when or how the world reached the point of complete intellectual insanity.

      Just for (I daresay) fun, replace Her Throat with His XYZ and suddenly the voicing changes and men get blamed again for somehow projecting or whatever the contemporary predatory term constitutes.

      Fifty Shades of who the eff cares.

      Here is how it is, for most of us - I mean men - over the age of about 35, all over the world. Like all adults with children and professions and Now & Later bills and community obligations, there isn't a lot of extra time to play games.

      Here is what happens: You're attractive (maybe it's an attractive car, or a huge hot fudge sundae) or some feature about you catches my eye. Sure, maybe I am a monster, and I notice your breasts or your hair or your perfume or your Fendi handbag that I should have bought my wife in Hilton Head in 2022. Biology.

      That lasts about one and a half seconds, tops. I am a grown man with mature responsibilities. If I convey appreciation in a way that doesn't mesh with the precise recipe of the moment for how it should be received, gosh I'm sorry. I am not leering at you. There is no sly grin and wink. It is a brief and largely impersonal acknowledgment.

      Then I move on to calculating escalation costs for Long Term Care Insurance for my parents and wondering if my idiot son got his oil changed and tires rotated and somehow my wife is apoplectic that our daughter at university hasn't been in contact for 12 straight hours and EFF the lawnmower is a new guy and ran over a sprinkler head and now I look like that neighborhood clown who casts water all over the sidewalk instead of my lawn. And worse, that I'm not aware of it.

      I have less than two seconds to waste time being aware of you. It is at best a passing glance clouded with real-world responsibilities.

      Grown men - grown people - acknowledge briefly and move on. That is all it is, nothing more. Making it more yields a waste of your time, not mine.

      Delete
    5. it's story that's a product of it's time. Viewing through a post-modernist lens skews the story's impact, like saying "objectification". This is why fantasy and sci-fi today sucks today: self-censorship.

      Delete
    6. Thomas, what a bizarre response to colorful prose.

      Delete
  2. Well, it was written in 1924, not 2024, so……

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's telling, to me, that all the men responding here are so quick to overlook or dismiss Thomas's wife's response to that piece of writing.

    I see a clear issue with the description of the woman's dimple as "eager to be filled" with kisses - it's taking away her agency, her right to ask for or refuse kisses. The implication is that if Kenton were to kiss her dimple, he would simply be responding to its eagerness, and wouldn't need to ask for the woman's permission.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. Thanks for commenting, Unknown. I know a lot of women and I listen to them, and you nailed the issue. We all need to be careful to not use language that makes implications that make women feel like prey. In a world in which 1 in 5 women have been abused (according to one statistic) we should bend over backwards to be careful about the language we use. If we're insensible of how our language can be interpreted, we should learn. Of course, this can be taken too far, to the point where we feel frozen, like we can't talk at all, and that is not good. But we should work at being careful. That's all I have to say.

      Delete