Wow, no. Not even close. “She” was a half-decent read, but it suffered from all the flaws I objected to in my OP. “King Solomon’s Mines” was a better book…and it, too, has severe drawbacks.
(I’m mostly talking about stylistic flaws, such as giving away plot elements in advance, extremely long speeches, and pedestrian narrative that lacks concrete visual details. Stupid mistakes regarding eclipses hardly count.)
Well, yes and no. I’m very fond of many writers from earlier times, quite a few of whom are stylistically Haggard’s superiors. Conan Doyle is certainly better.
On the other hand, yes, I do favor a “modern” descriptive/narrative style, and plots that have unitary cohesion rather than being sequences of episodes. I like “the state of the art” as it is today.
And on the gripping hand, there’s a hell of a lot about 20th century literature I heavily dislike. Hemingway is, in my opinion, next to unreadable.
I’ve never read any Merritt: is “Burn Witch Burn” a good book to start with? Or do you have another recommendation for a reader as an introduction?
I like the Fu Manchu novels, but, wow, do they have flaws. They, too, are highly episodic (were they originally published in serial form?) They’re also repetitive: you’d think, after the thirtieth time, Nayland Smith would learn not to just charge into a series of tunnels that Fu Manchu has been using. There are going to be traps!
(What’s most intriguing about the Fu Manchu novels is how, by the very end, Rohmer had gotten past the stereotypical racism, and was able to make a young Chinese man the hero of a novel. Chinese communism was the creeping evil that needed to be opposed, not merely Chinese culture.)
Still, in terms of pure story-telling skill, Rohmer is ahead of Haggard. Rohmer simply spins the superior yarn.