Thursday 17 February 2011

The Politics of Howard Fandom

That's it.  No more posts about "Bankrupt Nihilism" unless I'm seriously forced to.  However, the honour of The Blog That Time Forgot is at stake, and since I don't have the PayPal account with which to order a username at MetaCritic (which I cannot fathom, unless I'm doing something wrong), I'll have to do so here.

First of all, the comments here are naturally very critical of Leo's political leanings, which isn't really the crux of the argument.  I'm not going to argue with their assertions of Leo being a right-wing lunatic, because Leo's right-wing lunacy doesn't have a bearing on his erudition and wealth of reading experience, and I'm not very good at judging which point being right wing changes from "conservative" to "berserk craziness."

It's the comments which claim Leo is ill-read in the fantasy field - some think he hasn't even read Elric, ferchrissakes! - that I have issue with, not just because I know them to be true, but because it's patently absurd, unless this is the only Leo Grin essay you've ever read.  Fair enough if it is - though it would be nice if some people did a Google search to see if Leo has, in fact, ever written about Howard, Tolkien, or any other fantasy author before.  Just common courtesy, you know?



Anyway, some choice comments:

Ah, finally, a take-down of contemporary fantasy literature ...

Alas, I haven’t read it

Oh. But you read one previous book by the author and feel like it doesn't live up to the Catholic technophobia of Tolkein and the violent and occasionally deranged pulp of Howard.

*Sigh* again with the alleged technophobia of Tolkien.  There's a difference between not wanting the world to become so industrialised the environment suffers (and hasn't history kinda proven Tolkien right on that score, with energy and environmental conservation seeing a massive increase in the past few years?), and being afraid of technology.  Howard's "deranged pulp" doesn't need a rebuttal.  However, yet again it's a case of people seeing Leo talking about Tolkien and Howard, and thinking he's only read those two authors, or only likes those two authors.  In which case, I'd say read The Cimmerian, where Leo gives props to Clark Ashton Smith, Charles Saunders and more.

So... I'm guessing not a big fan of The Last Ringbearer then.

And you know, it's not like Tolkien or Howard is ever going to go away. If you're so offended by modern fantasy, just reread LOTR ten thousand times.

And, once again, people equate Leo's argument as meaning "all fantasy is gritty and I hates it so I does" rather than "I hate supposedly gritty fantasy."  That's like if someone said "I think Doom metal is redundant nonsense," and someone criticized me for saying I hate all metal ever recorded.  Which is wrong, of course.  I also dislike Grindcore.

The quoted section above suggests that the author's problem with contemporary fantasy is that "it's all crap now," an annoyingly ignorant proposition which seems easy enough to refute.

But upon further reading, his article actually seems to be complaining that contemporary fantasy no longer features the simple good/evil dichotomies and archetypal heroes/villains and glorification of war that the great fantasy of old offered.

Instead, the new fantasy offers complicated, ambiguous readings, with complicated characters who are neither fully good nor bad, whose motivations are complex. Depicting these complicated characters with their complicated motivations, begins to unpack the whole good/evil idea itself, challenge preconceptions, even question whether heroic war is actually heroic, and deconstructs the simplistic assumptions behind the mythologies that fueled adolescent fantasies.

Okay, Leo Grin, I was all set to defend fantasy, but, uh... you got me there.

*buries head in hands* How can you get the first part right and the first part wrong?  I mean, unless you're saying that Leo's saying "all modern fantasy is crap," which is a blase dismissal which can be addressed when Leo cites his favourite modern authors in the comments?  That said...  You seriously think The Lord of the Rings glorifies war?  I could understand thinking Conan glorifies war, but LotR?  Really?  That there are no complicated, ambiguous meanings with complex motivations in Tolkien or Howard?  Mitra H. Christ, dude.

I am astounded. astounded! that this person is suggesting that different books written by people in drastically different time periods are not clones of what has come before.


Someone devoted that amount of writing about fantasy and nihilism and complaining of the lack of prose poetry and mythopoeic creation... and didn't once mention Donaldson and his Thomas Covenant books (of which the final final, completely final volume is being written RIGHT NOW)???

I'd say the lad doesn't really know what he's talking about, then.


By Jupiter's beard, man, are you saying Donaldson has prose poetry and mythopaeic creation? That the Thomas Covenant books aren't full of nihilism?  Or are you saying that because Donaldson's hateful chronicles featuring the most loathsome protagonist in fantasy literature was written a long time ago, that Leo's tirade is somehow invalidated?  Wait, don't answer, I don't think I want to know.

First, he is right, in that this is not standard heroic fantasy. If you want to read heroic fantasy, you can always go back to the Belgariad, or even the Wheel of Time.

... Did you miss the part where he explains why he doesn't consider Wheel of Time, or by extension the Belgariad, as "heroic fantasy" worth his time?

Hang on, that sounds pretty great. Might have to pick up Abercrombie's latest. (The LotR, which I mostly read because it was de rigueur for nerdy 11 year olds in the 1980s to do so, put me off fantasy for life - the 'heroes' seemed such complete, utter dickheads that a surprise cancer twist would've been most welcome.)


Really?  Eh, well I suppose if you think someone like the selfless and heroic Samwise Gamgee, the humble Beregond, and the magnificent Gandalf is a "complete, utter dickhead" then I guess I can't finish this sentence.

I'm a little suprised by the lack of C.S. Lewis, or anything much assides from Howard or Tolkien as if their works sprang out of nowhere - on the other hand I get the impression he doesn't read much. I sort of doubt he's read much Howard, TBH.

Elric would blow his fucking mind.

Heh. I've combined a few comments into one, since they all suffer the same problem.

* - It should be noted, of course, the Conan was a usurper, thief, and pirate, so pointing to him as an example of black and white Heroism and not mottled in shades of gray is prolly not the best idea.
Like a lot of conservatives, this dude seems to pine for an idealized past where men were men, women were women, young people respected their elders and books had happy endings where the good guys won and there were no messy ambiguities.
There's a lot of good contemporary fantasy - I mean, honestly, how can anyone go on writing or reading the same LOTR ripoff over and over again? That way lies the madness or Sword of Shannara, either/or and worse, you start getting forsooths and nays thrown in there. At some point you begin to beg for something, anything, different to happen and I'm delighted when it does.
Basically, Leo Grin likes classic fantasies with traditional, non-threatening archetypes, dark villains, and heroes in white...
Every fantasy author has to, in the end, answer to Tolkien. But to discount every single piece of fantasy that isn't ghosts'n'goblins because you think it's about teenybopper elves snorting cocaine, which I hope someone has written, is the purview of thirteen-year-olds only.

Just as well Leo said nothing of the sort.

Half the descriptions of things he hates sound exactly like Howard. 

It would've been nice if Artw explained exactly what sounded "exactly like Howard" so I could know where he's coming from, but there you go.

But on the other hand, I once had a big realization that I wouldn't want to hang out with anyone in any of Tolkien's books (well, maybe Smaug). Think of how rare it is for anybody to tell a joke! Sam, occasionally, and maybe Gandalf. And even then the jokes are pretty stiff.

No love for Pippin, Merry, Gimli, Legolas, Gollum, Tom Bombadil?

Well, for all of Tolkien's experience in the Great War, both The Hobbit and LotR come off as being very prim, Victorian, and Bowdlerized. Sexuality is probably the biggest thing he pushed to appendices that he was reluctant to write or see attached to his novels, but Aragorn is not Beowulf to kill his foes barehanded by ripping out their arms either. Contrast that to Hemmingway or Remarque who were also veterans but much less saccharine about the brutality of warfare. 

Calling any of the battles in The Lord of the Rings "saccharine" is somewhat anathema to me.  Did KirkJobSluder miss the gallons of blood, fire and hell?  The Witch-King purposely trampling the heads of the fallen in his march through the Gates of Minas Tirith?  Tolkien didn't have Aragorn killing his foes barehanded by ripping their arms out because... well, Aragorn isn't Beowulf.

deconstructing the hero is nothing new - i guess this guy's never heard of fritz leiber or james branch cabell, who was as cynical, even nihilistic, as any of the moderns are

People seem awfully quick to suppose Leo hasn't read any fantasy outside The Lord of the Rings and Conan, don't they?

I wouldn't put Howard in the same class as Tolkien as a writer, either: I love me some Hobbits but the prose? Seriously? Eeek.

This is quite funny, since you'll find a lot of people making exactly the same argument, except the positions reversed.  "I wouldn't put Tolkien in the same class as Howard as a writer, either: I love me some Conan but the prose?  Seriously?  Eeek."

Especially telling is the bit near the end where Grin quotes Robert Bloch's hilarious takedown of Conan, and responds by quoting Tolkien's fuck-you to his critics from the back of one of the LotR editions and posting a picture of Tolkien from WWI, instead of directly referring to Robert E. Howard, who for all of his talent and genre-shaping influence was a chubby college dropout that lived in or near his hometown nearly his entire life, had only one off-and-on girlfriend (who left him for his best friend), and committed suicide on the eve of his mother's death. (This should not be taken as a personal criticism of Howard, BTW.)

Well that's sure nice of you, Halloween Jack, for qualifying that at the end!  Otherwise, saying Howard was a fat, uneducated, insular, Oedipal loser might've been construed as "personal criticism."  Except... well, how can anyone consider that anything but "personal criticism"?  Even if it was true, as opposed to Howard being a fit amateur boxer who dropped out of college to pursue a writing career, travelled thousands of miles in his lifetime, and only got on with one girl intelligent enough to understand him?  Really?  Slapping on "oh, but I'm not judging him" doesn't exactly make it ok, good sir.

Oh, please. All I can imagine is Grin sulking back off to his room decorated with tapestries of magnificent wizards to read the Warcraft tie-in novels because they've got an orc in them.

This is inadvertently hilarious, since I don't think Leo's touched a videogame since the age of Pong.

And nobody would lay a wreath at Tolkien's feet more than G.R.R.M, whose main fantasy text I suspect Grin is also disapproving of. The man is so old school his math homework was done on stone tablets.

That's actually quite an awesome little line.

Leo Grin has apparently deliberately crafted a rant with the specific purpose of making my brain melt. I... I... NERD EXPLOSION
I don't know where to begin. I don't even know if I want to begin. Have fun masturbating to your Vallejo covers, Grin.


Whoa, where'd Leo say anything about Vallejo?

Grin's reading of Tolkien is so obviously facile that one finds it hard to take him seriously. Yes, Tolkien is all about the history and the mythopoetics. But Grin is only taking the superficial aspects into account. Tolkien's fundamental worldview is far more dangerous, backwards, and anti-humanist than anything in Abercrombie or his cohort. Abercrombie, Morgan, Lynch et al are cynical because they want the world to be fair and they recognize that it isn't. They want the world to be a better place. Tolkien may be earnest (although even that is missing the less simplistic aspects) but he wanted the world to be worse. He wouldn't phrase it that way but no-one ever does.

Even if that weren't true Grin has no grasp of the history of the genre. The modern fantasy genre was launched not by Tolkien (although he is, of course, the single greatest influence... even if that influence is often subject to the second artist effect) but by Donaldson and Brooks. The authors Grin so hates are in the Donaldson tradition, the ones he no doubt loves are in the Brooks. You can guess which I prefer.

No, not really. Seriously, did people miss the part where Leo talks about how much he hates "fat fantasy"? And, again, people are mistaking Tolkien's heroism for "pure white and pure black with none betwixt".  Is it that hard for people to read and comprehend an article?  Or am I wrong?  Have I been reading Leo's article wrong all this time?  Guys, please tell me if I've been making an arse of myself all this time.

You may be wondering where The Blog That Time Forgot comes in.  Wonder no further!

Does anybody believe for a *moment* that this guy would have approved of Robert E. Howard if he wasn't already considered a "classic" just by virtue of the passage of time?

If this conservative shitball were writing in the '20s and '30s he would be hating on Howard just as hard as he's loving on him now.

I hated this bad enough when it was linked to on the Blog that Time Forgot (which is usually excellent, but suffers from kneejerk hostility to anybody hating on Howard -- which isn't so bad -- and kneejerk enthusiasm for anybody complimenting Howard -- which in this case led them to side with this jerk.)
 - edheil

Wait, a fan of Robert E. Howard reacting defensively to when his hero is being criticized, especially when he feels he's being unfairly criticized?  Heavens above!  And a fan of Robert E. Howard preferring to think Howard fans should stick together and support each other rather than fall asunder due to differences in politics, religion or any other personal matter?  By Jove, it's scandalous!  That said - again, Leo explains why the sex and violence isn't the problem, it's the use of said sex and violence.

But make no mistake - this isn't because I'm particularly sensitive about Howard, but because there are still so many myths and misconceptions about Howard.  If somebody came up with some damaging nonsense about Clark Ashton Smith, C.L. Moore, A. Merritt, Lloyd Alexander, Conan Doyle, or others, you'd bet I'd leap to their defence - it's just been my experience that most people have been fair with those authors, with silly nonsense like "Jirel was an ironbox" and "Holmes & Watson were gay" kept to, more or less, a relative few instances.  There have been more for the likes of Tolkien, Lovecraft and Burroughs in the past, but even they don't get the ludicrous treatment Howard got.  Conversely, I feel the need to accentuate the positive by highlighting nice links about Howard, because Howard could do with the extra props.

On the plus side, I'm honoured that edheil thinks highly enough of the blog that he seems to think there's more than one person working on it.  Hopefully my momentary lapse of madness in choosing to support a fellow Robert E. Howard fan who was instrumental in my very presence in the blogosphere - without the confidence and work ethic instilled to me during my time on The Cimmerian, I don't know if I'd have this blog at al - won't sour edheil on future posts.  Politics are secondary: art takes precedence.

Seriously, this is starting to get a bit upsetting.  I'm not worried about Leo: he's a big guy, and obviously he can take care of himself.  If nothing else, he "brought it on himself" = no doubt his intention in the first place.  Instead, I'm concerned about Howard fandom in general. How many people are going to find Leo's blog exalting Howard and Tolkien while decrying Morgan and Swanwick, and feel that it Leo enjoys/despises those authors because of their political themes?  Plenty of commentators have noted some alleged link between Howard and Tolkien exalting "conservative values," "ethnocentrism," and other such buzzwords I don't quite understand due to the panoply of definitions. It wouldn't take much of a leap to then tar all Howard/Tolkien fans with the same brush - and that is very unfair, in my opinion.

Criticizing Leo for being a mini-Bill O'Reilly is one thing, and I don't know if Leo might take it as a compliment.  But as we've seen, politics make people crazy.  Already Lagomorph fears that Howard Fandom is predominantly right-wing, and knowing a number of Howard fans who could be considered that by their own admission, I wonder if he has a point.  Michal offers to clarify his thoughts on post-modernism, though he also touches upon politics at the end.*  The Official Robert E. Howard Forums (very wisely, in my opinion) keep a tight lid on all discussion of politics and religion, so it's hard to gauge the proportion.  It's also an international forum, so American ideas of what is "right wing" and "left wing" may well not be the same for Howard fans of France, Brazil, Germany, Sweden, Argentina, and the United Kingdom.

So, if I may, I'd like to open it up to the Howard and Tolkien fans.  If you feel comfortable enough stating your political leanings, I'd very much like to know what they are.  I'll get the ball rolling by say "I have no real political leanings whatsoever, and find Right, Left and Centrist views equally perplexing and would probably vote for anyone who promised me the keys to the Natural History Museum."

I'm saddened this has devolved into what nearly every Internet argument does.  It may or may not have been what Leo intended, but man, I wished the few erudite, measured responses weren't drowned out by the hysterical screams of politics.  We get enough of that in the newspapers.

*Thanks to Michal/Taran for the correction.  I seriously need to go to bed now.

29 comments:

  1. I just want to clarify, I do feel there is a decided undercurrent of American-right-wingism running through the Howard Fandom.. exactly the same way it runs through the G.I.Joe Fandom. Transformers is a mixed bag, back when all the forums had P&R sub headers.. several of them were very right wing and several were very left wing.. I can't comment on any other pop culture's politics since I've now basically exhausted all the pop culture topics I know.


    But there isn't persay anything wrong with it.. I just Personally, feel that politics are not something which one discusses in polite company. And while lots of people view the Internet as a rug with which to wipe their feet.. I view it as an extension of my living room.

    And i think that the only reason why Leo's article has gotten the attention it has is because of the venue he chose to post it at.. had it have been on the Cimmerian.. I don't think this would have happened.

    What i want to know is.. what does that dude mean that Tolkien wanted the world to be worse? if that were the case wouldn't he have.. i dunno.. let the orcs win? but I'm sure they represent the proletariat or something and blah blah blah whatever...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Where in that post did I state the Howard fandom was predominantly right-wing? My greatest problem with Grin was one line: "postmodern blasphemies against our mythic heritage"...when, as I've made quite clear, postmodernism does not blaspheme against a mythic age so much as attempt to recognize and re-introduce the importance of mythic narratives in a culture that has tried to destroy them.

    My initial post was a long-thought-of response to reading Morgan's and Douglass's (as well as Moorcock's and Pullman's) attacks on fantasy. I thought I was safe, considering Morgan already got his drubbing; these articles have been around for a while. Little did I know that exact moment would be some sort of tipping-point that would motivate Joe Abercrombie and Bakker to dip their pens into the fray.

    ReplyDelete
  3. *not attacks on fantasy, but rather, attacks on Tolkien. Whoops.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The man is so old school his math homework was done on stone tablets."

    I, too, disapprove of these newfangled 'abacus' gizmos. They will only lead to trouble.



    "If you feel comfortable enough stating your political leanings, I'd very much like to know what they are."

    Well, here you go—I am but a lowly peasant, and though I have a vote, it never changes anything. Thus, I am neither of the Right nor the Left. Seriously, here in America the Right has the war and the Left has the health care. Me, I want neither.

    Things are more complex than that in reality, but I've always had the impression that affairs of state from the early 20th century till now have been so intricate only because the people who are running things like it that way. What they're hiding behind all this, I can't fathom, but they've clearly succeeded in bringing millions of my fellow peasants along for the ride.

    ReplyDelete
  5. But there isn't persay anything wrong with it.. I just Personally, feel that politics are not something which one discusses in polite company.

    Oh, I realise that, of course: I just feel it can't do any author any favours if it's considered resolutely of a particular affiliation. Sometimes it's inevitable, like in pro/anti-war science fiction (I doubt there's a lot of intersection of a Joe Haldeman/Robert Heinlein Venn diagram), but with Howard and Tolkien, I'd like to believe they're too universal and timeless to be tied to any current political climate.

    What i want to know is.. what does that dude mean that Tolkien wanted the world to be worse? if that were the case wouldn't he have.. i dunno.. let the orcs win? but I'm sure they represent the proletariat or something and blah blah blah whatever...

    Ya got me. Bizarre.

    Where in that post did I state the Howard fandom was predominantly right-wing? My greatest problem with Grin was one line: "postmodern blasphemies against our mythic heritage"...when, as I've made quite clear, postmodernism does not blaspheme against a mythic age so much as attempt to recognize and re-introduce the importance of mythic narratives in a culture that has tried to destroy them.

    My profuse apologies, Taran: my poor diction strikes again. By "Michal too laments the matter," all I mean is that you lament, well, the matter in general, not any one facet of it. Despite the politics dominating the debate, there's also the confusion over nihilism, optimism, realism, and post-modernism.

    This is the second time I've made such a stupid mistake in regards to this damned business. Just as well I'm bowing out for now. All I can offer as an excuse is that my nose has expelled enough muckus to supply an entire season of Nickelodeon game shows, and so I'm not exactly in the most lucid state of mind.

    My initial post was a long-thought-of response to reading Morgan's and Douglass's (as well as Moorcock's and Pullman's) attacks on fantasy. I thought I was safe, considering Morgan already got his drubbing; these articles have been around for a while. Little did I know that exact moment would be some sort of tipping-point that would motivate Joe Abercrombie and Bakker to dip their pens into the fray.

    Indeed. Funny how the internet works, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, here you go—I am but a lowly peasant, and though I have a vote, it never changes anything. Thus, I am neither of the Right nor the Left. Seriously, here in America the Right has the war and the Left has the health care. Me, I want neither.

    Cheers, Butcherhammer, for your candour. I suspect there are more than a few Americans who feel the same.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In the interest of full disclosure, I took out the little political jibe at the end of my post, because it didn't seem particularly appropriate, or a point really worth making.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The problem with these people, in a nutshell, is what I call "thinking in binary". If you say you don't like something, they feel the need to put words in your mouth to carry it to the other opposite *extreme*. They can think in only two modes: good/bad, yes/no, right/wrong, left/right, etc., with no "in-between" or shades of grey. Sad, really.

    These folks aren't worth the trouble you're taking to discuss them. I'm not a big admirer of Tolkein but do love the work of REH. But when I mention that to a Tolkein fan, they usually come back with something like, "Oh, so you only read that pulp crap?" My reply is "So how would you classify E.R. Eddison, whose work I also enjoy?" And the dumb look I get in reply is all the confirmation I need that ending the conversation is the best idea.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry, let me amend that, replacing the word "usually" with "often". No knock on Tolkein fans in general, just the few I know personally. (Sorry, late at night and typing in a hurry)

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'll tell you what I put on my FaceBook page: I'm fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. Many people, upon hearing that, have waved a dismissive hand at me and said, "Oh, so you're a libertarian." My reply is, "I don't know about that. I don't think crack should be legal, and I don't think that six year olds need access to handguns." This inevitably confuses them and they leave me alone after that. I hate pigeon-holes.

    This probably needs to be my own blog post, but it dovetails into an earlier comment about how most readers really want the same thing, over and over again, instead of reading widely in other genres and types of fiction. The other side of that coin is the take-away message. In other words, what are you, the reader, getting from the fantasy books you are reading? Thematically, religiously, politically, socially, economically, philosophically, what are you getting from your flavor of fantasy? And do you get it from more than one author?

    I ask this because anyone noddingly familiar with my writings on REH or this blog or any of the half-dozen other REH sites out there know about Howard's themes and recurring motifs. It's my experience that few, if any, other writers had Howard's unique world view (which is a big part of the problem with why he's often imitated but never duplicated).

    Reading what other people are taking away from Howard, Tolkien, and other authors has been illuminating, to say the very least. It makes me wonder just how fresh some of their recollections are, and if they in fact aren't casting their brains back into the pot-smoke of their youth. I don't know, myself. It is different for me and Al (and others) as we are pretty constantly revisting the REH well to drink deep. Not having re-read Lieber in fifteen years, I could tell you what the stories were about, but I would be at a loss to tell you the driving impetus behind Fafhrd and Grey Mouser. I could fake some entry level lit crit by slapping the words "Darkly Picarresque" onto them, but I could not tell you what Lieber's take away message was, or is, to me right now. Hey, I'll at least admit it! Not so sure some of the other nattering voices in this giant rugby scrum would say the same.

    I think I just lost the thread of my point, so I'll shut up now. Besides, I have another paper to write. I'm presenting it at a pop cultural conference in two months, and it's aimed at changing the minds of some academics who might think they already know all there is to know about Robert E. Howard. So, that's how I'm rolling, gents.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well...

    I'd say I'm "conservative" because I believe in individualism (and if there's a "right wing" strain in Howard fandom, I think this is the root of it) and I can't stand governments or bureaucracies, especially when they try to expand and encroach on my day-to-day lifestyle. OTOH, I'm favorable toward stuff like environmentalism and animal rights and getting out of fossil fuels, and those are generally considered "liberal" positions today. *sigh* Some days I just feel like I'm going to rip apart in many directions ;)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Georges Clemenceau, premier of France in the early 1900's said: "Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." That quotation fairly well reflects my own political leanings.

    Not that it matters one whit what one's political leaning is. It means something different in my country (Canada) than it does in America or Great Britain. To judge someone's literary taste and /or abilities based on their political affiliation is stupid in the extreme.

    And that is the crux of the problem: most people are stupid and most people who think they are intelligent are not as intelligent as they think they are. They read but they do not comprehend. They write but have no skill in getting across their meaning. Perhaps what passes for a liberal arts education in the U.S. is to blame, although the problem is endemic worldwide.

    (And just so there is no confusion I use the term "liberal arts" because that is what it is called in most universities. I do not mean to put down liberalism, although I do mean to say that most post secondary education is piss poor and those institutions are more interested in collecting tuition than teaching students to read or write with any sort of alacrity.)

    You, Al, are an exception to that. Even with a head stuffed full of phlegm you are more considered and erudite than the great majority of folk who write on the interweb-thingy. I'd like to think that most people who read this blog and come back regularly are exceptions and so far I have not been proven wrong.

    The internet is visceral. It' is designed for people with small attention spans. I know those of us who write blogs consider ourselves above that, nevertheless the internet does not encourage deep reading. It seems that most people skim over an article, get stuck on a few points which prompts a knee jerk comment with little or no consideration or thought but much passion. As Honoré de Balzac said "Passion is born deaf and dumb." . There is little of his "clean hands and composure" about most of the writing one finds on the internet.

    There are a few gems here and there, a few souls who read and write coherently, but they are few and far between. The rest is merely the unenlightened and uninformed chatter of monkeys.

    ReplyDelete
  13. wow this is heavy stuff we're getting into here. proof in fact of the doors writers like tolkien and howard open to our own world.I am registered independent, I try to vote for the least of evils.Last election was complicated for me as I could not bring myself to vote for anyone,so that tells what I think of our climate right now. I've always understood the practice of politics, much like maintenence work to be a necessary evil as a need to apply an ideology or ideologies and philosophies to practical use so civilization can develop and thrive culturally and economically, our humanity our greatest asset as well as our greatest foil.We Innovate just as we corrupt. And all things have an end.I think Tolkien and Howard knew this,and it's how they approach their subject matter and how it encompasses people which gets us all bickering.think about the character rinaldo in the phoenix on the sword his motivations his attitude his incompetence in the combat scene( though he does get in a "cheap"shot)and try to fit him to a modern personality type: does he strike you as a so called bleeding heart? or hippie musician type? maybe. what about the corruption of sarumon? can anyone think of any conservative industrial types that fit the bill?Even if I'm off the mark, the only judgment the authors place is in the tip of sword and spell,to entertain us, we bring our own political leanings to it, and they know we will.I think thats why lovecraft employs nihilism in his horror the thought that our endevours have no meaning in the scope of these nightmare alien gods beyond our sense of reason is terrifying.He and author Ayn Rand( who am not endorsing just using as an example) were major endorsers of a civilized world and there's a vast difference in their creative writing.It's as if lovecraft did a 360 in what he believes in to be effective.thats why their statments are so strong lotr as this ww1 parable and Howards, beyond the black river: he never says civilization is a bad thing but that nature usually wins. what I am ultimatley driving at is we see the personalities in their works and relate to them and to people we know or even ourselves,we relate the times in these stories to todays strife, it gets political cause the stories fool us into interpreting it that way, part of why they cant be imitated.its part of howards and lovecrafts brilliance.so conservative and liberal , communist and capitalist will argue and interpret who the hero leans more towards and guess what? they ( the authors) got you! and personally great job leo , tis better to debate this than be at each others throats. just remember their heroes are their own men( and women ) and like real life heroes rise above the times.I wish I could articulate this and tie up my loose ends together better, but we all shouldnt get hung up on each others personal politics and find joy in the fact that despite our differences we can all appreciate and value the art created by these writers which to me defeats any nihilism people think exists in it, and thats a start.-Mario

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks, all, some wise words I'll have to consider!

    These folks aren't worth the trouble you're taking to discuss them. I'm not a big admirer of Tolkein but do love the work of REH. But when I mention that to a Tolkein fan, they usually come back with something like, "Oh, so you only read that pulp crap?" My reply is "So how would you classify E.R. Eddison, whose work I also enjoy?" And the dumb look I get in reply is all the confirmation I need that ending the conversation is the best idea.

    Ah, a pain I know too well.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Amusingly enough, one of my favorite political theory quotes comes from Tolkien: "My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) . . . the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity." I could do without the king-who-collects-stamps he goes on to mention, but Tolkien himself wrote the Shire to function mostly without government of any kind, an ideal I happily share.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "... the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity."

    I was not aware of this quote previously, but that's what I've been saying forever.

    I'd be pretty center if it weren't for the "Right" and the way it plays the Social Conservatism so heavy-handedly, which is something that feels personally upsetting to me and makes them impossible for me to even consider them as representing me.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Politics dont have much to do with being REH fan, i know american REH fans who are conservative but who i respect alot for what we have in common. Their political beliefs i dont care.

    In Sweden i vote for the left,socialdemocrates because they are close to what i believe on when it comes social values.

    Howard fans being right wing,backward comment is very ignorant and off putting. Howard fans are much bigger than American politics...

    ReplyDelete
  18. I find "The Political Compass" gives a better measure of someone's political stance that the tired old Left-Right continuum. I'd recommend anyone who's not sure where they stand to try the test: http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

    I come out as:

    Economic Left/Right: -7.50
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.56

    That probably makes me the diametrical opposite of Leo...

    I tend to view myself as a pragmatic rather an ideological person. I find that ideologues tend to see everything in the light of their own narrow-minded obsessions.

    An example is China Mieville, a member of the Socialist Workers Party, who straight-facedly explains in his introduction to "At the Mountains of Madness" that Lovecraft's shoggoths are actually a depiction of his bourgeois fear of the Industrial Proletariat and the revolutionary potential thereof.

    Similarly, I once heard a lecture about Dracula from another SWP academic who claimed that the bloodthirsty Count was a symbolic depiction of Bram Stoker's rage against British Imperialism - which he must have had, of course, being Irish and all that; these people don't trouble themselves with finding evidence for their crackpot theories.

    All this proves it not just the Right Wing which annoys me!

    I'd just like to throw another name in the pot; William Morris. A Marxist revolutionary who preached the violent overthrow of capitalism. Writer of heroic fantasy which was a major influence on Tolkien and would, I am sure, tick all of Leo's boxes.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Amusingly enough, one of my favorite political theory quotes comes from Tolkien: "My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) . . . the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity."

    An excellent quote.

    Howard fans being right wing,backward comment is very ignorant and off putting.

    Hi, Libaax, good to see you here! I certainly don't think *all* Howard fans are right wing, but I'm not the best judge of such a matter.

    Howard fans are much bigger than American politics...

    That's true, certainly: think of the multitude of international Howard fans out there.

    I find "The Political Compass" gives a better measure of someone's political stance that the tired old Left-Right continuum. I'd recommend anyone who's not sure where they stand to try the test

    I tried that a long time ago, and even that's too complex for me. Take "Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation" = I can't honestly answer that, because I don't think the Government can be trusted either! "When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things" = how in the hell am I supposed to answer that? "First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country" = I refuse to think in such absolutes; some first-gens can, some first-gens can't, and likewise, some will, some won't. "What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us" = what kind of corporations are we talking about? "The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes" = no, but does the test take into account that my problem isn't with the death penalty itself, but the fact that there's always room for miscarriages of justice and wrongful convictions, which is why I'm strongly opposed to it?

    I've taken the test multiple times, and seem to veer from authoritarian to libertarian an awful lot, though I'm always on the left economically, for some reason. I just took the test again, and I'm fairly close to yourself: -4.00/-5.28. Apparently I'm in the rough region of the Greens. Maybe I should vote for them.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "I just want to clarify, I do feel there is a decided undercurrent of American-right-wingism running through the Howard Fandom.."

    Wow. News to me. I was an REH fan long before I had an interest or even an understanding of politics, and to say that REH's writings have shaped my world views would be an understatement...and yet I'm left of center on virtually every issue, both social and economic. I'd love for someone to explain how subscibing to many of REH's philisophical views would make one more predisposed to a right-wing view of politics. And please, something a bit deeper than "conservatives=real men, liberals=bleeding heart girly men", as that's certainly not true in my case.

    ..not entirely comfotable doing this, as I'd rather find common ground with my fellow REH heads than become divided over something as personal and petty as polotics, but you asked for it, Al.

    -Amsterdamaged

    ReplyDelete
  21. You dont really need "The Political Compass" to know what values you care for and what you want political parties to do for you. I have no loyalty to any side. I vote for them closes to my views.

    About Howard it would be nice if more fans,non-fans/critics remembered he is timeless and belong to world as a writer. You cant limit him to American in the 1930s. If his writing,themes appealed only to US he would not be legendary.

    Very nice blog Taraniach !

    ReplyDelete
  22. maybe the libertarian ideology of John Millius is the responsibile for seeing Howard fandom as more conservative oriented, by the way that libertarian ideology it remembers me a writer we have in Spain Fernando Sanchez Drago who considered himself a right wing anarchist
    my ideology, I'm a thirty-... who haven't voted in my life, I think politicians are more interested in their own careers and benefits than in the people, and the bipartidism we have in Spain doesn't help for identify me with some ideology but I only have a clear idea I'm republicanist, for me the monarchy is a obsolescence from the middle ages...
    by the way I recently read, I think in black gate blog that fantasy tends to be monarchist...!!!
    the issue with Leo Grin, ehem althought I'm following the controvery here and in silver key and bg I haven't read the article yet, but I think Leo Grin has the reason defending Howard and Tolkien but not attacking Joe Abercrombie, I think he has just obtain the opposite of his intentions, a few people in the bg comments in the subject are interested now in reading Joe Abercrombie and I have just bought the mass market paperback edition of The blade itself...
    when I read the article I will add something more... sorry for my english...
    Francisco

    ReplyDelete
  23. ...not entirely comfotable doing this, as I'd rather find common ground with my fellow REH heads than become divided over something as personal and petty as polotics, but you asked for it, Al.

    I'm very grateful you did, Amsterdamaged, just so we can get a better idea of the politics in Howard Fandom. I had no intention of pressurising anyone, or making anyone feel "obligated" to reply, I just felt that Lagomorph's statement deserved some exploration.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I took the Political compass test. Apparently, I'm Gandhi.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I think you misunderstand. I never said I felt REH's views caused it, merely that among the fan base it existed. If you can't see it you are perhaps doing too good of a job finding common ground.

    And according to that political compass I'm somewhere south of Hitler and slightly east of Stalin. But I've never once had the urge to murder millions of people.. Maybe its the question about abstract art that did me in.

    I always fancied myself as something of a Bull-Moose Progressive to be honest..

    ReplyDelete
  26. At this point I'm going to let off some political steam that would probably be out of place on the REH forum:

    I'm getting mighty peeved off with all the dissing of "liberals" that is coming from Leo's direction, as though he wants Tolkien and Howard fandom to be some kind of exclusive right-wing club. The fact he is such a respected figure makes it worse. Personally I'm not bothered about what BNP nutters and the like have to say about anything, but this guy has some credibility he is abusing.

    For a pragmatist such as myself, politics as a matter of practical solutions to practical problems. All this guff about "mythopoeic splendour" and the "ennobling" power of fantasy means absolutely nothing when applied to political and economic issues.

    What is "ennobling" about being on the dole? Where is the "mythopoeic splendour" in facing needless months of agony on a hospital waiting list? It's mundane, tedious reality. Tolkien isn't going to help us, Howard isn't going to help us, not even William Morris is going to help us!

    Of course, there are some very different ideas about how to resolve these problems. These need to be thrashed out and explored. Demonising people with a different point of view on the basis of what fiction writers you presume they like has no legitimate part in this discussion. It's positively infantile.

    It reminds me of when I used to get bullied by some of the kids at Junior School because I liked Bowie and T.Rex and they preferred Sweet and Slade. The best advice I got back then was "ignore them and they'll go away"...

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm not even sure what you're talking about (being on the dole?) but I daresay you're reading too much into it. Whatever comments Leo has made about liberals, I never got the impression from his pieces that he wants Howard fandom "to be some kind of exclusive right-wing club." Maybe I just have developed a thick skin about this stuff but Leo's essays strike me as pretty mild all in all.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The dole? You know, political stuff. Left, Right, Liberal, Conservative etc.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I have just read the article and I must blame the reactions and mere informations on some blogs of create a controversy where is only the lamentations of a nostalgic of the golden age of fantasy
    reading the articles and comments in blogs like the silver key, black gate or this one I got the idea of a strong attack against Joe Abercrombie and an article full of right wing issues and after reading it I haven't noticed any attack on Abercrombie or the political issue, only the mentions to nihilism and conservatives
    I don't know, much do about nothing? in this case a great controversy on a more or less innofensive article
    sorry for my english
    Francisco

    ReplyDelete