While I agree that not everyone is going to like Conan, and that someone of a particularly analytical and scientific mindset may have a harder time, I must respectfully disagree with Mr Finn in his suggestion that Conan was the same sort of guy who would stuff 8-year-old Mark into lockers and take his lunch money.* I can't speak for American experiences with bullying, but that sort of thing sounds a lot more like Postumo of "The God in the Bowl" than Conan to me: the sort of cowardly jackbooting and macho posturing which would get you killed if you tried it in Cimmeria. I tend to think that if Conan was someone you knew at school, he'd be the one sent to juvie for beating up the gym teacher after being browbeaten once too often. And then stealing his car.
The script Paul was referring to seems to be Conan the Conqueror rather than the more famous Crown of Iron, since Conan doesn't become king of Aquilonia in the latter, at least in the script I've read: either that, or he's read a very different version of the script from me, which is entirely possible. Or maybe he liked Crown of Iron better than I did, which is also feasible (it'd be harder to find someone who liked it less than I did!)
I really wish I hadn't brought up that "barbarians didn't burn the Library of Alexandria" comment, since I don't think I was clear about it: what I was trying to say is that there's significant cultural baggage when it comes to the term "barbarian," equating it with destruction, violence, atavism and the like at the exclusion of positive traits. As such, when you say to some that Conan had a great love and respect for art, poetry and song, it comes as a shock to them: isn't Conan the Big Dumb Barbarian who's only interested in lowly carnal pursuits? That's what I was getting at.
Finally, isn't it amusing that a panel ostensibly about Conan talks about Robert E. Howard a lot more, especially the second-to-last question where we talk about what an alternate-universe Howard wrote instead of Conan?
When Ben posts up the rest of the panels, I'll let you know.
*Michal points out that Mark may have been talking about adherents of scientific positivism having that impression of Conan, not that Mark himself held those sentiments: that makes more sense to me. Hopefully Mark'll come by and clarify.