For the ease of navigation, here are links to all 16 parts of "The de Camp Controversy."
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11
Part 12
Part 13
Part 14
Part 15
Part 16
Of the essay, Holmes says:
“The de Camp Controversy” started out because of some heated debate at the Conan forum regarding L. Sprague de Camp’s legacy. I had originally intended it to be three or four blog posts and that would be it. Once I got into it, there was so much more to cover. I would still like to fill in some blank spots like the shopping of Conan to paperback publishers in 1963 and ’64. A trip to look through de Camp’s papers is in order someday along with some talks with still living players of events from decades gone by. So with some time and effort, an expanded version may see the light of day in the future.
I'd like to reiterate that my personal knowledge and interpretation of de Camp is probably very different from those of long-time Howard fans for the simple reason that I only got into Howard fandom at large years after his death. As such, all I have to go on is history and the word of those who were there at the time, and going on that, my take on him is that he was an extremely intelligent man who simply didn't get Howard - perhaps because he was very scientifically minded as opposed to emotionally minded, his background was just so different, or a simple blind spot - but rather than assume it was something he didn't understand, he presumed it was because there was nothing to get. For decades the idea that Howard was an inferior writer and world-builder whose work had no serious literary merit was, essentially, the status quo, even when you had essays arguing the latter all the way back to 1974 with Hoffman's "Conan the Existentialist." Nowadays, with Howard being considered a Serious Writer With Real Literary Merit more and more, it's important to note just how far we've come since those days.
Thanks for putting this up in one easy to read list. I've read it before but it benefits from reexamination. The machinations of de Camp re: REH are astounding no matter how many times I read about them.
ReplyDeleteMy only problem is the dismissive MH's takes towards de Camp's own work. It reads like a lifelong smoker who's become a anti-smoking campaigner. I guess the whole Norman bit is pretty offputting as well. It's like the poor analysis applied by de Camp to REH is being turned around on him. Still, much good stuff.
I hope Morgan decides to revisit the essay, since as he says, there's even more to it than this.
DeleteMy only problem is the dismissive MH's takes towards de Camp's own work. It reads like a lifelong smoker who's become a anti-smoking campaigner. I guess the whole Norman bit is pretty offputting as well. It's like the poor analysis applied by de Camp to REH is being turned around on him.
I can see why that might bother some. I personally like some of de Camp's work like Lest Darkness Fall and some of his other fantasy work. That just makes it all the more frustrating comparing good de Camp with bad de Camp... which tends to be a lot of the Conan stuff.
Still, the main value of the essay, as I see it, is the documenting of various quotes and such by de Camp himself. Regardless of Morgan's personal opinion on de Camp, the man's own words paint the picture, I think.
I think something to consider is, yes, DeCamp pretty much did a good thing(and some bad things) for a bad reason, but something good (Conan's extreme popularity) did come out of it. You can say all you want that Conan has always been popular, but I think the prices of books on E-bay for the interim period between REH's death, and LsDC's involvement rather reinforce the idea there was, if not a lack of interest, then certainly a limited market.
ReplyDeleteI know that Gnome and a few other people printed books in the 50's, but I've never seen one of them with my own eyes.. But even the Lancer books from 63 and 64 are not at all hard to come by or expensive to acquire.
This sort of quantity now, nearly 50 years later, means that they must have been in a great magnitude of scale back in the day. The ACE reprints from the 80's are even more easily available.
Were his edits unnecessary, yes. Did Conan need to have extra stories added in, no. On the other hand, I feel that collating the Conan stories into a sort of chronological adventure likely was a brilliant idea.. and it certainly helped several of my friends read the stories. I bought them Del Rey's they weren't interested once the second story didn't follow the first.. but then I gave them an Ace book and they loved it.. So clearly there has to be something to the idea.
I think something to consider is, yes, DeCamp pretty much did a good thing(and some bad things) for a bad reason, but something good (Conan's extreme popularity) did come out of it.
DeleteWell, I definitely think de Camp was a part of why Conan became a phenomenal success - but just a part. I think there were several elements which worked together to create that perfect storm in the '60s:
- the price of paperbacks
- the resurgence of Tarzan and other pulp properties in the late '50s/early '60s
- the appropriation of Lord of the Rings by the counterculture of the '60s resulting in a fantasy resurgence
- Frank Frazetta's covers
- Glenn Lord's tireless efforts
- Robert E. Howard being a damn fine writer, ensuring that people bought books after the first Lancers came out
At least, that's my take.
On the other hand, I feel that collating the Conan stories into a sort of chronological adventure likely was a brilliant idea.. and it certainly helped several of my friends read the stories. I bought them Del Rey's they weren't interested once the second story didn't follow the first.. but then I gave them an Ace book and they loved it.. So clearly there has to be something to the idea...
There was a time when I thought that way, but the more I thought about it, the more I prefer Howard's own chronology, or lack thereof. See, with the stories as Howard wrote them, there's a sense of connection that simply isn't there when presented in "chronological" order - but Howard's written chronology does.
- "The Phoenix on the Sword" refers to Conan's time among the Aesir and when he was a thief, which led into "The Frost-Giant's Daughter," "The God in the Bowl" and "The Tower of the Elephant"
- "Tower" introduced the idea of a sorcerer who conducts terrible experiments in his lair while merely hinting at them: this would be explored much more deeply in "The Scarlet Citadel"
- "Citadel" makes many cryptic references to Conan's piratical days, leading to "Queen of the Black Coast"
- "Queen" takes place after Conan was part of a mercenary army, which would be expanded in "Black Colossus"
And so on. I've found, then, that reading the stories in Howard's written order is more satisfying than any of the invented chronologies, because - ironically enough - the stories feel even MORE like they hop around without any relation to each other. But in Howard's written order, there are signposts to the next adventure, and that strengthen the sense that these are the adventures of one man.
right, but if one's friends have read a steady diet of Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind and others who write those sorts of massive tomes in huge series... it can be understood why such a chronology would simply be a turn off to them. They expect constant progression, not jumping around. The same thing afflicted the recent Del Rey reprints of Elric...
ReplyDeleteAnd yeah, all of those elements were important to the success of Conan, I simply have come across this idea that seems to way to say that with or without DeCamp Conan still would have been huge.. maybe.. is the only reply to that.
Oh, definitely.
DeleteWell, let me start off by thanking you for posting this. Although I read Holmes' articles some time back, it is very nice to have them so easily accessible. Some observations:
ReplyDelete1. de Camp bashing:I think that Holmes is a bit too dismissive of de Camp's own writing. LEST DARKNESS FALL, the Harold Shea stories,THE DRAGON OF THE ISHTAR GATE, THE ANCIENT ENGINEERS, "Language for Time Travelers," "A Gun for Dinosaur" :These are all fine, highly entertaining works.
2. de Camp's pastiche efforts: Well, here I am in complete agreement with Holmes. De Camp's (and Lin Carter's ) Conan pastiches were just abysmal.
3. Packaging order: I'm torn on this. I can well understand the fannish mind-set that wants to read a saga in chronological order. However, on purely aesthetic grounds, one must admit that the writing/publication order makes more sense. "The Phoenix on the Sword" was meant to be our introduction to Conan, and subsequent stories were designed to reflect that fact.For a more recent comparison, imagine having a kid start off THE STAR WARS films with THE PHANTOM MENACE and not A NEW HOPE. Sure, it makes sense in terms of internal chronology, but it makes no sense in terms of story-telling. A NEW HOPE was designed to function as our introduction; THE PHANTOM MENACE assumes that we are already up to speed.
De Camp and Howard,Derleth and Lovecraft: Surely one of the odder literary coincidences of recent times is the fact that both Howard and Lovecraft ended up having their artistic legacies marred/managed by men who were so out of sympathy with their artistic aims. Derleth and de Camp simply could not grasp the underlying darkness and despair in the visions of Lovecraft and Howard. Just try to imagine a de Camp Conan pastiche echoing the themes in BEYOND THE BLACK RIVER, or a Derleth Lovecraftian story with the bleak power of THE COLOUR OUT OF SPACE! Both de Camp and Derleth seemed eager to reduce Howard and Lovecraft's work to a kind of cops and robbers framework, turning Thoth-Amon into a comic-book style archvillian and balancing the amoral Old Ones with a pantheon of "good guy" deities.
Syon
De Camp and Howard,Derleth and Lovecraft: Surely one of the odder literary coincidences of recent times is the fact that both Howard and Lovecraft ended up having their artistic legacies marred/managed by men who were so out of sympathy with their artistic aims.
DeleteIt's interesting, isn't it?
I think the key thing that this shows is, they were fans of the author's works, but not maybe of the author's ideas.
DeleteYou can be a casual fan, or even an obsessive fan, of something and not really dig any deeper than what is immediately present on the page. Perhaps thats the trick with DeCamp and Derleth?
I know a lot of people who will read various different people and not ever grasp what these people were trying to say.. or, if they are college professors.. ignore what the writers were saying and come up with some completely off the wall idea of what "What it really means"..
I think the key thing that this shows is, they were fans of the author's works, but not maybe of the author's ideas.
DeleteDefinitely. I mean, deCamp was part of the old guard of science fiction back in the Golden Age, where Science was great and infallible, civilization was wondrous, and the future was optimistic. It's no wonder he couldn't fathom Howard's extreme cynicism in regards to civilization.
By the same token, Derleth simply didn't share Lovecraft's view of the indifferent cosmos, and so it's practically natural he set forth making Good Gods opposed to Evil Gods.
You can be a casual fan, or even an obsessive fan, of something and not really dig any deeper than what is immediately present on the page. Perhaps thats the trick with DeCamp and Derleth?
Yes, very much so. I think there are two major groups of Conan fans: the fans who simply read the stories for fun, and those who read them for the critical analysis and "deep stuff." You can be a fan who just reads them for fun while acknowledging the latter, and you can read the stories just for fun even if you primarily read them for their extra content. The trick is acknowledging that each interpretation is equally valid, and neither is "wrong" or "right."