"Then there was Clark Ashton Smith, who wrote for Weird Tales and who had a wild imagination. He wasn't a very talented writer, but his imagination was wonderful"

In this quote, Jack Vance offers a nuanced appraisal of Clark Ashton Smith, a prominent author understood for his contributions to the pulp publication * Weird Tales *. The review is layered with both affection and appointment. Vance acknowledges Smith's vast creativity, which he thinks about the writer's most powerful possession. This acknowledgment is substantial since it highlights Smith's ability to craft worlds and situations that mesmerize the reader's mind, transferring them into worlds of dream and horror that are both special and immersive. Creativity, in the context of speculative fiction, is a crucial tool, and Vance suggests that Smith wielded it with remarkable skill.

Nevertheless, Vance tempers this praise by keeping in mind that Smith wasn't "a really skilled writer". This part of the statement suggests that while Smith had the innovative vision and the ability to dream up detailed stories, he may have done not have specific technical skills that define a competent writer. This might describe aspects like narrative structure, dialogue, pacing, or the accuracy of prose, which might not have actually matched the level of his imaginative ideas. Such a review welcomes readers to consider what makes up literary skill-- whether it is the finesse of language, the profundity of concepts, or an unified mix of both.

Vance's quote also implicitly opens a discussion on the distinction in between storytelling and composing craftsmanship. It raises the question of whether raw imaginative strength can or should compensate for technical imperfections in writing. In the world of pulp magazines like * Weird Tales *, where sensational plots and expressive environments frequently took precedence over literary polish, Smith's vivid conceptions may have undoubtedly eclipsed any shortages in traditional writing skill.

Eventually, Vance's evaluation of Smith exhibits the frequently complex nature of literary critique, bridging the gap in between creative expertise and technical execution, and tough readers to value both in their own right as they appreciate Smith's contribution to the category.