I've seen some hilarious battles over at the IMDB. Idiots presuming to know about something because they saw a film, read a few reviews, or whatever. Here's the latest.
McQualude fails on so many levels. First of all, he adamantly refuses to acknowledge how I shot down his ludicrous statement that the Conan stories were variations of a theme, specifically "Conan rescues the damsel and kills the bad guy." Second of all, he shockingly mentions that he has not read "Beyond the Black River" and, no doubt, several others on the list.
How on earth can you make a statement about an author's series being "variations on a theme" when you admit that you have not read everything? Absolutely astonishing, and very entertaining for me. For a guy who loves his Hemingway, I'm amazed he proclaims ignorance of Penguin Classics, one of the biggest publishers of classic literature.
Besides, I'm sure I could play the same game with his favourite authors. Hemingway's stories are just variations on "Americans talk about death." Melville is just "Men going on self-destructive paths." Steinbeck is merely "families go through struggles." Of course, I'd never say those things, because those statements are wrong. Just like how categorizing the Conan stories as variations on a theme is wrong.
And, of course, I mention all the scholarly websites, publications, books, journals, critics, authors and the like who speak in praise of REH. He didn't act like he even noticed. How predictable.
EDIT: What bullshot. Apparently, someone complained about the discussion, and the administrators deleted the whole topic. How infuriating: now McQualude thinks we're a bunch of spineless wimps who go to the authorities, and my smackdown of his stupid statements is lost forever.
Truly, the IMDB is not a good place for discussion in general.