Friday 23 July 2010

Solomon Kane, Redemption and White Supremacy

Or, "Just In Case You Thought I Was Being Overly Positive..."



Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.  This is a Science Fiction website: SF audiences haven't been kind to fantasy over the years.  Still, I felt the need to comment on some specific elements.  For expediency, I'm going to address them here, though I also commented on the site itself.

Returning to Howard's written word: at least half of the savage tales of Solomon Kane take place in Africa and it's here in particular that the writing is in equal parts enthralling and repulsive. Some of the most entertaining stories are in this African sequence, but Howard's depiction of Africans is very much a product of its time and place, America in the 1920s and 30s. There's no point gilding the lilly, these stories are quite simply and very blatantly racist. The superiority of the white man is fundamental to Howard's world view.

First, the idea that "the superiority of the white man is fundamental to Howard's worldview": this is a simplification of Howard's view of civilization as cyclical. The superiority of the white man to Howard was always transient and impermanent: that eventually, the superiority of the white man would fade, and be usurped by another race. This is entirely in keeping with Howard's many tales of civilizations becoming decadent, before complacency set in. Great white civilizations have fallen to ethnic barbarians, just as ethnic civilizations have fallen to white ones. White men just happened to be in charge during the 16th Century, and through to the 20th. Howard was reflecting this. Indeed, one story, "The Last White Man," portrays just such an uprising in the distant future.

For that matter, so does the boxing story "The Spirit of Tom Molyneaux," albeit in a more subtle way. The world champion, "Mankiller" Gomez, is a Senegalese boxer who's completely unstoppable. A search for a "Great White Hope" is announced, mirroring Jack London's call for a white man to defeat Jack Johnson. Here, there is no Great White Champion to conquer Gomez: they're all lying down on the mat. Who does defeat him? Ace Jessel, one of the most sympathetic, gentle, intelligent heroes Howard ever wrote of, the only of his boxing heroes to ever be a world champion - and he was black.

And before some apologist for the author pipes up in his defence, it's not that Howard has successfully captured the values of the times about which he was writing - the 16th Century. Frankly, his writing is not that sophisticated. Africans are characterised as sullen, wide-eyed, ignorant and superstitious. While they are often physically powerful, they are depicted as barely more than beasts.

First, I don't like the tone.  "Some apologist" "pipes up," doesn't sound very accommodating of divergent views, and is rather condescending.  Anyway.

Calling Howard's writing "unsophisticated" is patently absurd. As for calling his writing "unsophisticated" for his descriptions of African men - is he suggesting that Howard should completely break from type? This is how Howard described all the barbarians he didn't like - even his Vikings, which were pretty clearly white men. Sure, they're not described like Conan, but not everyone can be Conan. Besides, did he somehow miss N'Longa, who starts off playing right into reader's prejudices of a goofy, comic Juju-man before being revealed in 'The Hills of the Dead" to be a man of immense intellect, wisdom and power? Were the frightened boy and girl of "The Hills of the Dead" really anything less than what they were - frightened youths faced with horrors they could not understand? Was the friendly yet haunted Goru really "little more than a beast"?

A subtle though telling distinction is drawn between Europeans and Africans when referring to colour: Howard invariably refers to a European as a "white man" but frequently refers to Africans simply as "blacks", only very infrequently referring to an African as a "black man" (and never referring to "black men").

Any thought that there's some sort of telling "distinction", that Howard was insinuating black people were not truly "men" (rather than simple terminological differences - like, the fact blacks were simply called "blacks" in the 1930s) is dispelled when one remembers that Kane has risked his life on multiple occasions for black people. In "The Footfalls Within," he braves an entire Arab slave train to free African slaves. In "Wings in the Night" he seeks to defend a black village from winged horrors numbering in their hundreds. In "The Hills of the Dead", Kane protects a single black girl from vampires. What, are we to suppose that Kane is only protecting them as he would protect cattle or dogs, rather than the fact that Kane is protecting them because they are people?

Wings in the Night (1932), a great story, but otherwise repellent, epitomises this entrenched racism. Kane has defeated a bunch of harpies, famously dealt with in an earlier age by the Greek hero, Jason:
"Kane stood, an unconscious statue of triumph - the ancient empires fall, the dark-skinned peoples fade and even the demons of antiquity gasp their last, but over all stands the Aryan barbarian, white-skinned, cold-eyed, dominant, the supreme fighting man of the earth, whether he be clad in wolf-hide and horned helmet, or boots and doublet - whether he bear in his hand battle-ax or rapier - whether he be called Dorian, Saxon or Englishman - whether his name is Jason, Hengist or Solomon Kane."
It's not often I say this, but for once I'm looking forward to the adaptation in the hope that it improves on the source material.

Again with that paragraph of "Wings in the Night." Jerard's dismissal of "Wings in the Night" for that paragraph utterly irks me, for the story contains the single most profound, soul-shuddering expression of grief, pain and sense of failure in any Howard story.

Kane looked at the shambles that had been Bogonda, and he looked at the death mask of Goru. And he lifted his clenched fists above his head, and with glaring eyes raised and writhing lips flecked with froth, he cursed the sky and the earth and the spheres above and below. He cursed the cold stars, the blazing sun, the mocking moon, and the whisper of the wind. He cursed all fates and destinies, all that he had loved or hated, the silent cities beneath the seas, the past ages and the future eons. In one soul-shaking burst of blasphemy he cursed the gods and devils who make mankind their sport, and he cursed Man who lives blindly on and blindly offers his back to the iron-hoofed feet of his gods.

This is the most emotionally distraught Kane has ever been. it's the most emotionally distraught any Howard hero has ever been - and it's because Kane failed to stop the massacre of a little African village. Not an innocent lily-white virgin, not a youthful Englishman, but a village of Africans. Sure, one can put this down to Mighty Whitey, but when it comes down to it, Kane's purpose in life is to protect the innocent. In this, he failed. It didn't matter the colour of their skin to him: all that mattered was that they were human. He failed. And his impotent fury and anguish is plain to see.

In the end, yes, to modern eyes some of the things Howard wrote were racist. Such was the era in which he wrote. Decades of civil rights movements have addressed that great injustice, and the world is unquestionably better for it. Reading some of Howard's work can be very jarring at times. However, one should remember that Howard was not unique for his time - and, in many ways, Howard was arguably more enlightened than the average. This is a time and place when mixed marriages were illegal, where people considered black people's inferiority to be scientific truth, and where lynchings were practically wholesome local traditions. People like Mark Twain and Harper Lee were the exception to a vast majority - not just in America, but the world at large.

Yet even in this time,- Howard managed to rise above it. How many contemporaneous authors would have a pagan Juju-man be a puritan's closest ally, and a man far more intelligent, wise and powerful than the white Christian hero at that? How many authors would describe black women as just as attractive and comely as white women? How many boxing authors would've even written about a black champion, let alone one that's intelligent, empathetic, and with no sense of deference or supplication to white men?

I originally found this via a later review on Bassett's Solomon Kane. It isn't free from its own silliness.

Although the plot of Bassett’s adaptation bears no relation to any of Conan creator Robert E. Howard's stories, Bassett has captured their spirit remarkably well. What he has crafted is an origin story that explains how the Puritan warrior of Howard's stories came to be the man he is: where Bassett’s film ends with Kane on the war path against all that is Evil, Howard’s stories kick off. In Howard's tales Kane is little more than a force of nature in the blind pursuit of justice, and like a force of nature, he is just as self-aware: which is to say, not at all. Allowing Kane to have a back-story is a stroke of genius as Bassett can humanise the warrior and allow the audience to engage with the character.

Oh come on, Gerard.  Kane doesn't have any self-awareness?  No, Kane isn't introspective - but he knows he isn't.  He may not know why or how he became the avenging puritan, but he knows he doesn't know - he's aware that there's a reason for what he does.  Kane is self aware.  For goodness' sake, Gerard.

Second is the idea that Kane can't be humanized.  Again, I point to my favourite, "Wings in the Night," where Kane is faced with the reality of failure.  What could be more human than his helpless, frustrated, uncontrollable torment?  Hell, what about "Solomon Kane's Homecoming?"  What about all the times where Kane shares his emotions, fears, concerns, hopes, jokes?  I have to wonder if this fool's even read the damn stories.

Finally, the idea of Bassett's Solomon Kane working as a suitable prequel.  It doesn'tOf course it doesn't.  I'll happily defend the film's cinematic merits, but there's no way it's Howard's Kane, and there's no way Howard's Kane could've started out like Bassetts - not just for thematic, but simple continuity reasons.  Also, I love how an origin story, one of the most tired and overplayed setups in cinema, is apparently a "stroke of genius."  Gerard must've freaking loved the Star Wars prequels: after all, they totally humanized Darth Vader, didn't they, made him into a sympathetic hero the audience can engage with?

So what chance now of a trilogy? Next to zero I’d have to say and that is truly disappointing. For all that Howard’s stories are repugnant for their blatant racism (a racism that is difficult to excuse but must be recognised as a symptom of the times in which Howard was writing), they are exciting and enthralling tales and Bassett and Purefoy have established the best of foundations for some thrilling cinema. 

Gerard, do you know what I think's repugnant?  Intolerance.  And intolerance stretches to intolerance of an author for the crime of writing in the 1920s. Well, that'd technically mean that I'm being intolerant of intolerance of an author, and therefore repugnant myself... OK, I think it's just regrettable.

When I first read the Kane stories, I had already survived "The Vale of Lost Women."  That first chapter was difficult for me to read the first few times, until I fully understood it (and realised that it really isn't as racist as it appears on a surface level, or at least, it isn't about racism so much as alienation, corruption and barbarism vs civilization).  I have an aunt, a wonderful aunt, from Kenya.  She told me stories from her homeland, taught me a little Swahili, and enthralled me with her heritage.  She married my uncle, a tall, blond, blue-eyed man, and their children are gorgeous.  I'm all into African culture.  Yet, as is so sadly depressing, racism isn't dead.  I was mostly sheltered from it when I was younger, but my aunt and cousins have had to put up with a lot, even in this day and age.

So racism is something that's utter anathema to me, and I've seen just how hurtful and damaging it is.  However, it's simply unfair to apply modern mores to those written over 80 years in the past.  It isn't any more fair than writing off science fiction that relies on now outmoded science: one shouldn't dismiss "The Rats in the Walls" because of a reference to the Piltdown Man, or The War of the Worlds for the Martians' shakey quarantine measures. To do so would be to dismiss the story, and the story deserves more. So do the Solomon Kane stories.  The racism must be acknowledged, but so should the story's strengths.  More than half of Gerard's article was based on targeting the racism, without actually taking the time to note the positive depictions of black people.  Generally a thorough examination of a subject must take both sides of the story, and I note that many critics who concentrate on Howard's racism (or sexism, or anti-intellectualism) are guilty of that fault.

See, I agree with Gerard on Solomon Kane's merits.  He brings up some excellent points when he's only talking about the film, and not Howard or the literary Kane.  That's probably why I'm so frustrated at his condescending dismissal of Howard.  He even goes so far as to hope that the new films can improve the original stories!  Well, if having Kane fight two flaming lions on a rope bridge while a young, hip warrior N'Longa helps out counts as an "improvement," I say don't bother.

At the end of all that rambling, I guess what I'm saying can boil down to "the writings of a white male writer from 1930s Texas don't jibe with modern progressive thought on black people - and I'm supposed to find this surprising, notable or unusual because...?"  I too am saddened by the racist elements in Howard's literature, but racist elements were common in the 1920s: anti-racist ones were not. I think it's better to judge Howard on the elements that make him stand out, not the ones that make him the same.

19 comments:

  1. Actually I hated the Star Wars prequels. My point about Bassett's movie being a suitable prequel to Howard's stories is that Bassett imagines a back-story for Kane that is absent from Howard's tales (and yes, I have read them all), and while there are significant differences between the character of Kane in Bassett's adaptation and Howard's fiction, Kane is now effectively introduced to a new audience (and surely that is a good thing for Howard?). I rarely prefer an adaptation to the original work of fiction, but I do accept the reality that the two media are so very different that changes are inevitable. Sometimes the changes are worse than others of course.
    I describe this adaptation as a stroke of genius (perhaps a little enthusiastically, true) because it makes the character of Kane more accessible to a modern audience - it humanises him and gives him motivation. I do stand by my analysis that Howard's Kane lacks awareness in terms of his motivation for what he does. He does what he does because he is driven to do it - and frankly there's not a lot a filmmaker can do with that. As I generalise in the article, Howard's Kane is no conflicted soul. What he is, is no more nor less than a force of nature in the blind pursuit of justice. And that does not allow an audience to get inside his head – to empathise with him. So yes, Bassett does humanise the character, and for a movie audience this is a positive outcome as they don’t have access to those elements in Howard’s writing which might perhaps be seen to humanise Kane.
    Your statement that I am intolerant of Howard for being a product of his time is at best an unsophisticated reading of what I do say, or a cynical misrepresentation. I very clearly express my view that the racism in Howard's fiction reflects the values of his time: the purpose of my article however is to comment about those values. While I agree that I could perhaps have pointed out some of Howard's more positive qualities as a writer, I'm certainly not convinced by the examples you provide. Below I’ve copied my response to your (considerably more polite) comment to my article which explains my interpretation of Kane’s angst in “Wings of the Night”.
    Clearly however I have far less invested in Howard's fiction than you do - in part I suspect because in my opinion his writing, while exciting and often great fun to read, is not great literature. Howard has a well developed philosophy, an incredible imagination and some truly memorable characters, but I’m not going to pretend that it is anything more than the best of pulp fiction. As I said earlier however, my interest in the article was on a narrow aspect of Howard’s fiction and I make no pretence of undertaking an in-depth analysis of his work. Clearly I’m not that motivated to do so as I don’t judge Howard’s work to merit the effort – but of course that’s simply a matter of taste and literary judgement. By all means rave about the literary sophistication of Howard’s writing – just don’t expect too many people to agree with you.
    You also dismiss our analysis because you mistakenly assume we are exclusively a science fiction website and by definition hostile to fantasy (do you also judge books by the cover?). You should check the content of the site, at east half of which is dedicated to fantasy.
    I’ll add my response on sciencefictionworld.com to your comment below (seems I’ve raved a little too much and have exceeded your word count!)

    ReplyDelete
  2. First of all taranaich, thanks for your most excellent and thought-provoking comment.
    Ultimately I think we are in agreement about the main point I was making in the article – that Howard was a man of his times, that his writing is racist in some ways and reflects the institutionalised racism of his day, and that as a consequence reading his work these days can be very jarring at times. I do agree with your final statement that perhaps “it's better to judge Howard on the elements that make him stand out, not the ones that make him the same” as his contemporise, but don’t you agree that his flaws are also worthy of mention?
    I agree that my statement that "the superiority of the white man is fundamental to Howard's worldview” is a simplification of Howard's view of civilization as cyclical, but it is, I believe, nonetheless true, and while I’m interested in Howard’s philosophy, the current article was unfortunately not the place to elaborate on it. Howard certainly did believe in the rise and fall of civilisations, but that does not negate his belief in the superiority of the white man nor does it mean that he looked forward to (or valued as a positive situation) the rise of black civilisation.
    Regarding “Wings in the Night”, I certainly didn’t intend to dismiss it (and in fact I do describe it as a great story), but it is one that expresses Howard’s belief in the rise and fall of civilisations and quite clearly his repellent (though historically understandable) belief in the superiority of the white man.
    As for Kane's protection of the “natives”, in the end I do think there is something of Mighty Whitey in this. As you say, Kane’s purpose in life is to protect the innocent and in “Wings of the Night” he has failed to do so, but what is his motivation and what is his angst? The “good” black villagers are innocent primitives and worthy of protection for their innocence but Kane’s protection does have something of the father looking out for the welfare of children. And while Kane’s angst at the massacre of the villagers must in part reflect his concern for the people, it has at least as much to do with his own sense of failure to protect them (i.e. his sense of failing his own grand purpose).

    ReplyDelete
  3. I find Mr. Wood's characterization of Howard as unsophisticated particularly amusing. I don't know a great deal about REH, but one only has to a few of his letters or to glance over some of the titles in his personal library to realize he was a man of impressive erudition. I'm also reminded of S.T. Joshi statement's that of the many correspondents of H.P. Lovecraft (including many notable authors and thinkers), Howard was one of the few who "could hold a candle to Lovecraft intellectually."

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm sorry - that should say "...one only has to READ a few of his letters...".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Actually, Art, "Gerard" will be fine but if you insist on titles, it's Dr Wood ;-)

    Rather than saying Howard's writing is unsophisticated, what I actually say is that it's not great literature, but also that "Howard has a well developed philosophy, an incredible imagination and some truly memorable characters, but I’m not going to pretend that it is anything more than the best of pulp fiction." Do you disagree with this? Do you think Howard's writing is great literature or something more than great pulp fiction?
    That's not to say I don't enjoy Howard's writing - I grew up on the stuff - and I believe it has a worthy place in the history of fantasy literature.
    And for the record, I don't think I say anywhere that Howard was unsophisticated or unlearned.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry. Gerard it is, then. :)

    Actually, you DO say in your piece, "Frankly, [Howard's] writing is not that sophisticated." (2 paragraphs from the end) The implication is that the man himself was unsophisticated, an implication that I feel is unwarranted.

    As far as the question of my opinion of whether or not Howard's work qualifies as "great literature," at the risk of sounding like I'm trying to side-step the question, I don't know that I can give a good answer to that, first of all because I've only read a dozen or so of his short stories and a couple of his poems, and secondly because I feel that the demarcation line between "literary" fiction and genre/pulp fiction is not as clear-cut as it may at first seem (I see that you're a student of Philip Dick's work, so I would imagine that you're more aware of this than most). I WILL say, based on what I've read of Howard's work that it is very, very good of its kind; that Howard had an amazing facility for turning genre tropes upside down (see, for example, his fascinating inversion of Lovecraftian horror conventions in "The Tower of the Elephant"), and there is some credence to (I believe) Charles Hoffman's argument regarding Conan as an existential protagonist, thus indicating the work's relevance vis-a-vis contemporary philosophical thought. These factors (as well as others) indicate to me a body of work of noteworthy aesthetic merit, and one that is, therefore, at least within shouting distance of "great literature."

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with Taranaich arguments about Howard and racism, some very good points there. The problem with it is that you really need to know Howard and have some deep insights in both the person and his work to understand those points just by reading the stories. Like you (taranaich) say, you had to read Vale of lost women several times before realizing why it was not racist. I have read some of Howards stories, but far from all of them, and my base assumption was similar to that of Gerard, as there always seems to be a core or nobility of white/fair people ruling the few black people that has risen above savagery, and there is very much emphase of race in general (even if the stories speak of nationality as race some times). I guess you should not judge an author if you dont have extencive knowlege of him/her, but I think most of the stories I have read (mostly Conan I must admit) has in themself (ie if you dont happen to be a Howard scholar) a clear racist theme. How could a casual reader understand that Howard saw a cycle of fall and decline in "races" and that he was simply writing most of his stories in the era of fair skin dominance?
    Like I said, I think Taranaich made some good points and thank him for that, but perhaps Howard was a little too sophisticated, on a level that he didnt include it in his stories other than in a highly subtle and fragmentary way. But I see how this is the power of his storytelling, a power that echo that of Lovecrafts stories: the more stories you read, the more drawn in to an "untold" world you get, where the sum of the stories is far greater than just the casual short story (how exiting and beatiful they now might be).
    I can see the frustration of someone devoted Howard fan (to put it mild), that people keep judging his work and person based on bad research, but the stories have to be able to stand in them self, without any deep knowledge of the autor, and at that point, racism is an issue, as far as I see it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. sorry, when I wrote
    "and that he was simply writing most of his stories in the era of fair skin dominance"
    I meant that he wrote stories SET in the era of fair skin dominance.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I describe this adaptation as a stroke of genius (perhaps a little enthusiastically, true) because it makes the character of Kane more accessible to a modern audience - it humanises him and gives him motivation. I do stand by my analysis that Howard's Kane lacks awareness in terms of his motivation for what he does. He does what he does because he is driven to do it - and frankly there's not a lot a filmmaker can do with that."

    Complete rubbish. If you ask most readers what they like about the Solomon Kane stories, a large number of them will tell you it's precisely the character's enigmatic nature that makes him so interesting. Have movie audiences really become so dumb in the past couple of decades that they can't handle a little mystery and mystique? I don't remember anyone panning Sergio Leone's westerns because they didn't know exactly what the Man With No Name's background was.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Taranaich, I'm seriously impressed by the overall quality of discussion on your blog - it really is a reflection of the quality of your own writing (well, insults aside of course ;-) ) and you should be congratulated. I'm not a Howard expert (although I am widely read and informed enough to have an opinion), and it's refreshing to engage with some very knowledgeable people in the field.

    Art, thanks for your last response - I have no disagreement with you about Howard's work being the best of its kind (and I think I write that in at least one of the articles on sciencefictionworld.com) - as I say, I grew up reading Howard, and I mostly enjoyed revisiting the savage tales of Solomon Kane late last year (after probably 20 years), but I've read far more fiction across many more genres in that time and while hugely entertaining, Howard's fiction is outshone both within the genre and without. Again, it's a personal opinion, but when I think of authors of great literature within the fields of SF and Fantasy (and even without), I think of writers like Gene Wolfe, Ursula Le Guin, Tolkien, Stephenson, Gaiman, Holdstock. For all that Howard is an entertaining writer, he is in my opinion not a patch on these guys.

    As for the charge of calling Howard unsophisticated, what I say is that Howard's writing is not sophisticated enough to successfully capture the values of the times about which he was writing - the 16th Century. This is not to say that Howard was unsophisticated (a very different and patently silly claim), but that he paints a picture with very broad brush strokes.

    Nicely said, Fredrik! I too learned something from Taranaich's response (and have subsequently read more on his blog).

    Andy, "complete rubbish you say", and yet I think you answer your own question: as a broad generalisation, yes, audiences have become that dumb... And it's always necessary to draw a distinction between what readers enjoy and what a cinema audience enjoys - often very different things. How many adaptations have you been impressed with? I can't think of a single adaptation of a work of fiction that I like (including Jackson's LOTR and Scott's Blade Runner) that manages the adaptation in a way that I, the reader, am happy with. Perhaps because I have so little invested in Solomon Kane, I can enjoy it for being a good film in its own right - but as I write in my review, it is most definitely not Howard's Solomon Kane.

    ReplyDelete
  11. First of all, Gerard, it's very good of you to come over to my little abode. I'm appreciative of the lengths you're going to defend your depiction.

    My point about Bassett's movie being a suitable prequel to Howard's stories is that Bassett imagines a back-story for Kane that is absent from Howard's tales (and yes, I have read them all), and while there are significant differences between the character of Kane in Bassett's adaptation and Howard's fiction, Kane is now effectively introduced to a new audience (and surely that is a good thing for Howard?)

    The problem with Bassett's origin is that it just flat-out contradicts a good number of the Howard stories. This is not really a great idea when a film's designed to be an introduction for a new audience. "Red Shadows" in particular is very problematic when one considers the events of this film. True, Howard never told us Kane's origin, but that doesn't mean it was a complete blank.

    And I suspected you would've hated the Star Wars prequels. Very few seem to like them!

    I describe this adaptation as a stroke of genius (perhaps a little enthusiastically, true) because it makes the character of Kane more accessible to a modern audience - it humanises him and gives him motivation. I do stand by my analysis that Howard's Kane lacks awareness in terms of his motivation for what he does. He does what he does because he is driven to do it - and frankly there's not a lot a filmmaker can do with that.

    As with Art, I have to disagree. Yes, giving an explanation for a character's motivation sheds light on them - but at the same time, it also removes a lot of their mystery. Wasn't Darth Vader a much more interesting villain before we knew he turned to the dark side because he had premonitions of his pregnant wife dying?

    Kane does not know where this desire to do right comes from, but that's something that affects people in real life too. Not every person's life has a clear-cut cause-and-effect justification, like Batman or Spider-Man. Some people just don't know why they do these things, but they do. That in itself is interesting, precisely because it's a mystery. Giving Kane a reason for his crusade does not make him more complex or interesting, it just makes him more straightforward - and, frankly, I consider it rather dull.

    As I generalise in the article, Howard's Kane is no conflicted soul. What he is, is no more nor less than a force of nature in the blind pursuit of justice. And that does not allow an audience to get inside his head – to empathise with him.

    This, too, I disagree wholeheartedly with. Kane is very much a conflicted character: the conflict, however, is between his pagan and Christian soul - and indeed, one can find an explanation for Kane's actions, even if he himself doesn't recognize it: adventure. Kane is afflicted with a severe case of wanderlust, a desire for action and excitement. But this hardly squares with his staunch Puritan beliefs, so he explains it to himself as doing "the Lord's work."

    That dichotomy of the pagan with the christian, the worldly with the intellectual, is what makes Kane interesting in his quest. Not a desire to atone for past sins: that's simplistic and lowest-common-denominator, even if I love a good redemption story. And frankly, I think this refusal to accept a part of himself that disturbs him, makes him think of himself as "unchristian," is pretty humanizing in itself.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Below I’ve copied my response to your (considerably more polite) comment to my article which explains my interpretation of Kane’s angst in “Wings of the Night”.

    I would apologise, but your pre-emptive dismissal of those with dissenting views as "apologists" "piping up" got my heckles up.

    Clearly however I have far less invested in Howard's fiction than you do - in part I suspect because in my opinion his writing, while exciting and often great fun to read, is not great literature. Howard has a well developed philosophy, an incredible imagination and some truly memorable characters, but I’m not going to pretend that it is anything more than the best of pulp fiction.As I said earlier however, my interest in the article was on a narrow aspect of Howard’s fiction and I make no pretence of undertaking an in-depth analysis of his work. Clearly I’m not that motivated to do so as I don’t judge Howard’s work to merit the effort – but of course that’s simply a matter of taste and literary judgement. By all means rave about the literary sophistication of Howard’s writing – just don’t expect too many people to agree with you.

    Ah, now we come to the crux of the thing.

    Well, here's the thing: Howard's work is collected in Penguin Modern Classics, which is an imprint dedicated to collecting the best examples of world literature in modern times. The collection, "Heroes in the Wind," includes the Solomon Kane story "The Footfalls Within". Thus, Howard is collected alongside the likes of Kipling, Conan Doyle, Joyce, and countless other authors of Great Literature. Howard also has stories in the Library of America, and with his fellow Lovecraft already gaining a volume dedicated to his work, Howard can't be far behind.

    If I have more invested in Howard than yourself, I'm certainly not alone. Over the years, Howard has been the focus of dozens of literary journals dedicated to discussing the man's work: allusions to history, comparisons and contrasting with other works, philosophical studies, errata. There have been a dozen or more books doing the same. Among fantasy authors, only Tolkien can boast a greater volume and quality of such study.

    Even genre masters like Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, Karl Edward Wagner, David Gemmel, and certainly H.P. Lovecraft and Clark Ashton Smith will exalt Howard's literary merits.

    Here are some lists of that apparent minority of books and journals that agree with me on Howard's literary merits:

    http://howardworks.com/about.htm
    http://howardworks.com/alphasource.htm#period

    So, while you might not be convinced, you'll forgive me if I say "your loss, mate."

    You also dismiss our analysis because you mistakenly assume we are exclusively a science fiction website and by definition hostile to fantasy (do you also judge books by the cover?). You should check the content of the site, at east half of which is dedicated to fantasy.

    I do apologise, but with a name like "Science Fiction World" I think I can be forgiven in thinking it's a science fiction site, though as you note, it was very glib of me. I shall indeed peruse the site.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree that my statement that "the superiority of the white man is fundamental to Howard's worldview” is a simplification of Howard's view of civilization as cyclical, but it is, I believe, nonetheless true, and while I’m interested in Howard’s philosophy, the current article was unfortunately not the place to elaborate on it. Howard certainly did believe in the rise and fall of civilisations, but that does not negate his belief in the superiority of the white man nor does it mean that he looked forward to (or valued as a positive situation) the rise of black civilisation.

    That indeed is true - however, that's probably because Howard himself was white. Why would anyone look forward to the usurpation of a civilization by another ethnicity when, in all likelihood, it would mean the downfall and suffering of his own?

    As for Kane's protection of the “natives”, in the end I do think there is something of Mighty Whitey in this. As you say, Kane’s purpose in life is to protect the innocent and in “Wings of the Night” he has failed to do so, but what is his motivation and what is his angst? The “good” black villagers are innocent primitives and worthy of protection for their innocence but Kane’s protection does have something of the father looking out for the welfare of children. And while Kane’s angst at the massacre of the villagers must in part reflect his concern for the people, it has at least as much to do with his own sense of failure to protect them (i.e. his sense of failing his own grand purpose).

    That is true, but Kane views all of his protectees as children - not least because most of them seem younger anyway. The white characters of "The Blue Flame of Vengeance," "The Moon of Skulls" and that girl from "Red Shadows" are treated by Kane in much the same way, excepting the historical separation which exists between the white and the black, which has as much do to with civilization level as it does with colour.

    Ultimately, though I still disagree with many of your statements, it shows a lot of chutzpah on your part to take the fight to me, especially considering my (in retrospect, undue) belligerence. I'm just so used to people shooting from the hip in regards to Howard that I've become rather cynical in my discussions with such folk, but clearly, this is a result of two different points of view.

    So, I'm glad you came by, Gerard, you gave me a lot to think about, even if I'm ultimately in disagreement. If only more were willing to actually argue with me, rather than fling meaningless insults. I'm definitely going to check out the site, since despite my earlier words, I am a great science fiction fan as well as a fantasy fan.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "...in my opinion his writing, while exciting and often great fun to read, is not great literature. Howard has a well developed philosophy, an incredible imagination and some truly memorable characters, but I’m not going to pretend that it is anything more than the best of pulp fiction."

    This clearly presupposes that "pulp fiction" cannot be "great literature." So the question becomes, "What is great literature?" If "exciting," "great fun to read," "well developed philosophy," "incredible imagination," and "some truly memorable characters" aren't enough, what is it that we're missing?

    I recall that in his essay in the first issue of THE DARK MAN, Don Herron noted that Gore Vidal had rather contemptuously dismissed Ursula LeGuin (a writer for whom my respect is second to none), grudgingly admitting her to be an "estimable sci-fi writer" but hardly worthy of being quoted on the subject of so notable an author as Italo Calvino. It all rather reminds me of Swift's big and little fleas -- whether a given "genre" author or "pulp" author or "paperback" author rises to the heights of "great literature" seems to be a matter entirely of one's perspective.

    I do not hold that there is any particular type of fiction that cannot be regarded as "great literature." To be great, I think it must be entertaining, certainly; it must be well-written, and -- purely my opinion, here -- the writer should demonstrate a unique and original style; and the tale should engage one critically, by making one think seriously about issues, relationships, insights, or what have you, that might have been the central theme or focus. On all these scores, I think Howard succeeds admirably in his best work, such as "Worms of the Earth," "Red Nails," "Lord of Samarcand," and any number of others, including "Wings in the Night," in spite of its lamentable racial perspective.

    In my introduction to GRIM LANDS: THE BEST OF ROBERT E HOWARD, VOLUME 2, I wrote of "Wings in the Night": "The 'white-skinned conqueror' business at the end makes us rather uncomfortable today, but as Patrick Burger notes, 'Solomon Kane is all about contradictions,' and the text itself subverts one reading with another: the Aryan fighting man, we note, is standing with his ju-ju stave in one hand; the ardent Puritan who thanks the Lord for bringing him through was earlier the gibbering madman who 'cursed the gods and devils who make mankind their sport...' Kane is one of the most complex and fascinating characters in fantasy literature."

    I don't think the fact that Kane spends little time analyzing why he does the things he does means he lacks self-awareness. I mean, how many people *really* know why they do what they do? Howard wasn't altogether sure why he wrote -- he supposed it had something to do with freedom. I know a great many writers and artists and musicians, and most of them, I'd say, have difficulty telling you *why* they do it. They just do it because they have to, there's something inside them that has to get out. Same reason some of us can't keep our opinions to ourselves. The prophet Jeremiah was instructed by the Lord to explain to the Judeans why He was sending the Babylonians to smite them. Jeremiah was beaten, pilloried, imprisoned, and thrown into a cistern, yet he could not stop himself: "Then I said, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name. But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay."

    It seems to me that "lack of self-awareness" is an odd charge to bring against a fictional character, particularly used to disparage the character.

    Enough, I have useful work to do. Not sure why I do these text notes in the Howard books, but I can't stop.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I've always thought that someone crass enough to ask to be addressed as "Dr." when another had respectfully addressed him as "Mr." was demonstrating that he deserved neither...

    As for any charges that Robert E. Howard was racist: it's absurd to judge attitudes and opinions expressed more than 3/4 of a century ago by today's standards. Howard might be judged as racially biased (but not racist) were he writing today; however, his attitudes merely respect mainstream populist thinking for his time. It's fine to say that they seem racially biased by today's standards, but it's wholly inaccurate to describe him as racist unless you can demonstrate that his racial views were so far out of his contemporaneous mainstream that he would have been considered racially biased (or even more extreme, racist) by the standards of his day.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Taranaich, I absolutely understand the impulse to a combative response – as readers and scholars of SF and Fantasy fiction, we’re frequently confronted by the prejudice of others regarding the value and quality of the fiction we love. It’s probably more of an issue for those of us who have dedicated a lot of time to the study of a particular author – Howard in your case, PK Dick in mine – especially when we come across a statement that disagrees with our “better informed” opinion! But there’s a full spectrum for opinions, especially when it comes to literature, and not all views that disagree with our own are invalid. While it’s great when readers agree with what we write, it can be more enjoyable when they don’t and when, as you say, they argue their point. That way we all benefit – as I have by this discussion. I’m certainly tempted to return to Howard’s fiction for a reassessment. And I invite you, if you feel so inclined, to set the record straight on sciencefictionworld.com – if you’d like to write something about Howard (whether Solomon Kane or not), we’d be happy to run it on the site.

    Rusty, I’m in full agreement with you when you say “I do not hold that there is any particular type of fiction that cannot be regarded as "great literature." The issue here is a difference of opinion about the quality of Howard’s writing. Again, I think you’re absolutely right when you say “this clearly presupposes that "pulp fiction" cannot be "great literature". That’s exactly what I believe.

    I need to be really careful here as this issue is a veritable minefield as it concerns definitions and value judgments about what is and what is not great literature, so I’m going to prefigure all of this with a big “IN MY PERSONAL OPINION”! Unlike genre definitions like SF, Fantasy, Realist, etc., I think that describing fiction as “pulp fiction” or as “great literature” represents a value judgment based on an assessment of the quality of the writing. Science Fiction and Fantasy can be (and often are) great literature. By the same token Science Fiction and Fantasy can also be pulp. So can fiction that appears in a pulp magazine for example be great literature? Absolutely it can, it’s just not “pulp” fiction.

    So the question then is, do I think that Howard’s fiction transcends pulp to become great fiction? Now I need to be careful here because I’m clearly communicating with people who do consider Howard’s writing to be great fiction, so I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. I believe that Howard’s fiction for the most part is great pulp fiction based on my assessment of the quality of his writing (as an informed reader and scholar of literature but admittedly not someone who has undertaken a study of Howard’s writing). I know I could support my opinion based on examples of his work, but I'm also certain that you could more readily (given your familiarity with his work) point to examples in his work that support an argument that his fiction is great literature. So again, I think for now we must respectfully agree to disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Cliff, just when I thought the quality of contributions on this blog were of a high standard, along you come. Your contribution is almost beneath response but I’ll say this – a blog is a casual environment in which titles are unnecessary – given the combative tone of Art’s opening sentence, do you really think Art was being respectful when he referred to me as “Mr Wood”? My point to him was, mate there’s no need for titles, but if you’re going to insist on one…
    As for your comments regarding charges of Howard’s racism: whether Howard’s views were mainstream or not does not change the fact that he was racist. Would his contemporaries have considered him to be racist? Some maybe not, but only because they shared his racist views. But does that change the nature of his opinion about other races? Absolutely not. And his fiction is still with us today – so do you really think you or I or anyone else read it as his contemporaries read it? No, we read it from a (hopefully) more enlightened perspective. I’m not even going to bother discussing your ridiculous distinction between “racially biased” and racist.

    ReplyDelete
  18. according to Brian Murphy, I think he said that, if Howard doesn't died at 30 and he lived 20 or 30 years more he could became a kind of new Hemingway... hey Al, I cant express it right in English, correct me please...
    more things, Robert E Howard is a black panther if you compare his works with the Hammer film of 1966 Slave girls, not only racist but machist too... blonde women and white men are the good guys and girls with black hair and black men the bad... and the film was done 30 years after Howard's death...
    Francisco...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi Francisco, allow me to answer (fascinating first post and comments, by the way).

    There has been speculation (from the likes of REH authorities Don Herron and Mark Finn) that Howard may have evolved into a western/historical fiction writer had he not taken his own life. Howard said in his letters that historical fiction was his true passion and that he wanted to tell the real blood and thunder story of Texas.

    The context I raised this in, though, was that we shouldn't dwell too much on the great writer Howard may have become, as I think it can diminish the writer Howard was. Such speculation also casts his sword-and-sorcery material in a negative light, as a stage he would have evolved or "matured" out of. Just my opinion.

    ReplyDelete