Literary Afterlives

See, Howard just got pirates. None of this "arrrr matey" theatricality: just a surly, burly man slouching with a sword.

22nd of January, another in a month with a disproportionate amount of memorials to death authors who've shaped my imagination. Tolkien, Smith, Lovecraft... Howard.

Even before I knew Howard's work, he was always there. He was in my genes, as my parents and grandparents read his work - and the work of those which informed his writings, like Conan Doyle, Burroughs, Haggard - so if nothing else, it's keeping in the family. During the long spell between when I read Almuric and my rediscovery of Howard through Conan, he still managed to be there, that liminal figure on the boundaries of my imagination. Howard's ideas and thoughts echoed throughout the stories I enjoyed even without my realising it: many of the things I liked were mirrored in Howard's work.

Still Remembering Steve

It's been 5 years now. I wish he could be here to give his thoughts on new Howard and Tolkien developments, the Hobbit films, the 1,000th anniversary of the Battle of Clontarf, everything. Even that ridiculous Shadow of Mordor game. But he's surely not forgotten:

Before his death in 2009 Steve Tompkins was probably the most erudite of the Howard scholars on the scene. Now, Leo Grin has received the blessing of Steve’s family and put out a call for material by the late, great critic. Here’s what he’s looking for:
• As complete a bibliography as possible of what Steve published in various fanzines, websites, and comic book letter columns.
• e-texts of these items, either from the original Word docs, or from OCR.
• scans of the actual printed pages, to compare to the e-texts as necessary when editing.
• any email correspondence or paper letters anyone cares to share. Where personal confidences must be retained, strip out the offending passages and replace them with a “***REDACTED***” placeholder.
• Any remembrances of things Steve said to you in person or over the phone, no matter how fleeting or seemingly trivial. Just tell the story and context as best you can. Doesn’t have to be composed for deathless publication, just the facts for now.
If anyone would like to help in this endeavor, shoot us an email at info@rehfoundation.org and we’ll get you in touch with Mr. Grin.

I'm hopeful we'll have a concrete book to supplement the undoubtedly rich legacy left behind.

Bite-Sized Blog: On Conan, REH and The Times In Which He Lived

“Crom!” It was an explosive imprecation from Conan’s lips as he started up, his great fists clenched into hammers, his veins on his temples knotting, his features convulsed...

In case anyone's wondering: I've not been up to much due to an attack of bruxism, which has resulted in me biting into my left cheek to the point where it feels like someone takes a pair of pliers to my jaw muscles every hour or two. Luckily it's starting to heal now, though I'll be needing gumshields and whatnot. Stayed in most of the last week washing my mouth with benzydamine and whisky.

Hopefully nothing interesting's happened in my absence, like a new Conan movie that's actually an adaptation of one of the original stories being announced with Patrice Louinet taken on board as advisor. 

Because that would just be the worst timing ever.

Robert E. Howard and Meditations on Manliness

I write about bears with primitive faults and failings and even if I am nothing but a cub writer, still the faulty characters I make are more real than most of the young intellectual fools with their egoist hooey. I mean my characters are more like bears than these real bears are, see. They’re rough and rude, they got paws and they got tummies. They grumble and they hug; break the fur of teddies and you find the bear, roaring and red-pawed. That’s the way teddies are.
- Robeart E. Howard, letter to Teddy Clyde Smith, week of February 20, 1928.

I was planning on doing a post on Robert E. Howard for his birthday, but couldn't think of anything to write. What is there left to say that hasn't been said over the past 107 years? There are some very interesting ones from Jim Cornelius, Todd Vick, SFGateway, Read at Joe's, Kaijuville, Temple of the Sun, and naturally the Robert E. Howard Forums, but I couldn't think of a "hook." Luckily fate intervened and provided an excellent opportunity via a Rob Bricken article on Io9.com: 11 Preposterously Manly Fantasy Series:

What makes a book series manly? Is it the action? The violence? The lack of female characters? Is it male wish-fulfillment? Misogyny? Or a combination of all these things?

What makes a book series manly? Well, I have an idea of that...

Stewart Lee's Redemption... Sort of

You may remember I gave Stewart Lee a tough time of it a while back, which amounted to a hill of beans. Well, I have good (Scot) news and bad (Scot) news.

Good news: Stewart Lee's published an article on Robert E. Howard.

Bad news: Stewart Lee's published an article on Robert E. Howard.

Bite-Sized Blog: Adventure Author News

Preview of "Kalina & the Baba Yaga," which goes on sale from Black Hearted Press on Hallowe'en 2012, with a launch party at 55 Parnie Street, Glasgow at 7pm.

Another round-up of links and musings before Hallowe'en, featuring Conan novelisations, Howard reviews, Howard-inspired poetry, Machen, Lovecraft, Lewis, Saunders and Smith.

Connor Coyne's Oberservations on Conan

I thought I'd share this interesting little link by author Connor Coyne (what a name!) which discusses Howard in context with Tolkien. I can't seem to log in to comment, so I'm going to take the liberty of doing so here.
Of course, Connor is only discussing The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian, and so he still has some great stories to look forward to should he wish to go on to the next stories.

In terms of the writing: Tolkien’s epics took place in “Middle-Earth” which had hints of but little direct connection to the present world, while Howard’s Conan stories took place in the Hyborian Age which was explicitly placed in a period of barbarism and empire-building that occurred between the fall of the continent of Atlantis and the rise of the ancient civilizations we know; these explicit references are most conspicuous in names we recognize from legend and history: Argos, Corinthia, Himaleya, Zimbabwe, and others.  Not only did Tolkien write novels, but he envisioned all of these novels being joined by subject matter and common history into an organic whole. Howard works were almost uniformly short stories, and while it is possible to read these as part of an organic whole, he preferred an episodic presentation that emphasized narrative unreliability.  Tolkien was quite comfortable deferring to magic as accounting for miraculous events; Howard posits a sort of invisible cosmic ground-state which makes magic-seeming events possible. Tolkien’s gods are unassailable, unreachable, and in fact, only angelic (and demoniac) messengers for a higher power that is only mentioned by name once. Howard’s gods intrude upon the world, and do battle with mortals in a way that is not only corporeal, but which expands the definition of the physical rather than constricting that of the spiritual. And so forth.  There are many differences.

 While it is indeed not as explicit as in the Hyborian Age, Tolkien's Middle-earth is indeed set in the distant past of this world. Also, it's the Himelian mountains, not "Himaleya," and Zimbabwe was later rendered Zembabwei in "The Servants of Bit-Yakin," but I left my pedant-lock key on as I was typing.

The most significant difference, however, I thought, is the different take on morality. I recall Carpenter’s biography of Tolkien, at least, saw much significance in his Catholicism, and that the various ranks and orders of beings, good and evil, in Middle Earth, was a validation of the Catholic cosmological order via Tolkien’s own thoroughly British upbringing.  Whereas in Conan, while morality is present, it is subjective, in flux, and almost post-modern.  The main conflict is not so much good vs. evil as barbarism vs. civilization.  The chief difference here between barbarism and civilization isn’t any notion of mercy, or compassion, or empathy, or cooperation; it is a difference of regimentation, and as a result, barbarism doesn’t dissemble. So we are meant to relate to the barbarian, and not the sorcerers, monarchs, pirates, and monsters with whom he contends.

In fact, Conan himself is often not sympathetic, although he probably has something closer to what we’d call a “conventional” morality than most of the other characters. But he’s not above, say, genocide (as in “Vale of the Lost Women”).

I definitely disagree that Conan was advocating genocide in "Vale." Obviously Conan's at his most dastardly in this story, but the destruction of the Bakalah by the Bamula is really little different from the endemic warfare of countless historical tribes throughout history. Obviously hardly morally defensible, but there's a difference in degree here. Conan hates the Picts more than any other people, but you never hear him call for their extermination as king despite him being entirely capable of doing so.

Curiously, this solved a big problem I have with most high fantasy: How is it that characters meant to embody all that is good and pure — to the extent of making huge personal sacrifices to save the world — are grim killing machines. And I don’t even mean “the good soldier” so much; you don’t see hints of pathos or PTSD after Aragorn, or Drizzt Do’Urden, or Aslan, or whoever kills their 999th orc. This is most often explained away as “all members of X race are evil,” and maybe that passed as acceptable in the decades surrounding the Civil Rights era, but in 2012 it seems deeply troubling on even casual examination. Other high fantasy strategies to reconcile this seem equally wanting.

Tolkien wrestled with the matter of the orcs all his life, but the reason you don't see hints of pathos or PTSD after Aragorn because this is a world where evil is practically a quantifiable matter, and an entire race is evil explicitly because they were "created" (or rather, abducted and raised en masse) by a supremely evil being, that perversion of life and robbing of free choice being considered one of Morgoth and Sauron's greatest crimes. Aragorn can sleep at night because he knows that if he doesn't, all he loves will be lost or destroyed. That said, there's definitely an element of regret when it came to the Haradrim and Easterlings, who were either deceived or actively enthralled to Sauron.

Conan partially solves this problem by making the protagonist consistently erratic and violent (though surprisingly, never amoral). I never see him as embodying all that is good and pure, but rather all that is barbaric and pure, and this makes his internal logic plausible. It also gives some measure of cover to Howard writing as a product of his time and place, which is to say, often much more explicitly racist than Tolkien ever was (we’re talking about a man who grew up in rural Texas boom-towns, and witnessed lynchings).

There is no evidence Howard ever personally witnessed a lynching, but the sheer pervasiveness and virulence of racism in the world during that time period and environment means that Howard's views must be properly contextualised.

However, the real reason I'm doing this post is to give proper praise to this:

...this being “low fantasy” did not prevent it from engaging in poetic, powerful language and grand philosophical themes. Although action-oriented in the manner of (though with much better craft than) TSR-fare, there is a tightly controlled correspondence between the words and actions of the characters.  Conan typically prevails because he is typically direct and straightforward; his battle prowess is as much a symptom of this transparency of character as it is his upbringing. Other characters weave byzantine plots only to dramatically fail when they learn that the realities the universe has created for the villains are no more stable than the “realities” they use to trap their victims. A sort of cosmic version of “getting caught in a lie.” There’s a lot of lush, powerful, rich, almost pungent imagery here, but beneath the beautiful writing is an ongoing discussion of Things That Matter.  And also interestingly (I’m using that word a lot) this comes forth all the clearer in the “weaker” Conan stories — those featuring little plot except an extra-dimensional monster and a naked damsel — because the Big Questions continue to get play even when the pulp clichès ride heavy.  So the lesson there, I suppose, is that I can depart from a “high fantasy” writing style without abandoning, or even mitigating, thematic depth.

Couldn't agree more, Mr Coyne.

Bite-Sized Blog: Prometheus, Frost-Giants and Indo-Europeans

"The Frost-Giant's Daughter" may be only 9 pages long, but it's one of Howard's biggest stories, tying in an awful lot of themes and ideas from across multiple stories and mythic inspirations. It's one of the stories that I feel is really important to do justice to, which is why it's taken such a blasted long time to finish: I could've skipped ahead to "The God in the Bowl," but I really want to do everything in the order Howard wrote the stories, since that in itself takes up a big chunk of proceedings. Probably should've split it into multiple parts a while ago. So, in lieu of the next 80 Years of Conan, here's a round-up of links I found of interest.

S.H.I.E.L.D.W.A.L.L. Operation Auntie: A Follow-Up

Over four months later, Auntie's responded.  Due to what they are calling "a backlog of correspondence," my complaint to the BBC was lost in the shuffle, meaning that any possibility of rectification is long gone.  Sturgeon's law dictates that beaurocratic jumbling and IT gremlins are probably to blame over human error or open contempt, so I'll offer them that boon.  Unfortunately, their response comes far too late to be of any use, and doesn't seem to understand the problem in the first place.  They are sorry I was offended, but they weren't sorry they did anything wrong.  I had asked them to rectify this in a follow-up, but what would be the point in doing so five months after the original show came out?  The damage has been done.

Here are the contents of that email, received 19th March 2012:

Dear Mr Harron

Reference CAS-1085160-85SYDW

Thanks for contacting us regarding ‘The Review Show’ broadcast on the 4 November.

Firstly, please allow me to express my most sincere apologies for the long delay in replying. I'm sorry to say that your e-mail was caught up in a backlog of correspondence. We know that correspondents appreciate a quick response and we’re sorry you have had to wait so long on this occasion.

We understand you were unhappy with the final segment of the programme.

In regards to Kirsty Wark stating that the books discussed were out of print, it wasn't actually suggested that all of the books in Stewart Lee's library are out of print.

Kirsty Wark said, "Here’s comedian Stewart Lee with a selection of his favourite books, most of which appear to be out of print. Should that tell us something?"

We apologise for any confusion caused.

In regards to Stewart Lee’s comments on Robert E. Howard, this was not a documentary, but a discussion and Stewart Lee's sentiments were presented not as fact, but as his own personal opinions. He is a contributor and is not speaking for the BBC.

We apologise if you felt his comments about Robert E. Howard were offensive and if you felt the item was poorly researched, but any comments made by Stewart Lee were that of a contributor in a discussion and are not subject to the same levels of research and preparation a documentary.

We’d like to assure you that we've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is an internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily and is available for viewing by all our staff. This includes the programme makers and presenters, along with our senior management. It ensures that your points, along with all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention.

Right, let's look at it in more detail.

In regards to Kirsty Wark stating that the books discussed were out of print, it wasn't actually suggested that all of the books in Stewart Lee's library are out of print.

Kirsty Wark said, "Here’s comedian Stewart Lee with a selection of his favourite books, most of which appear to be out of print. Should that tell us something?"

We apologise for any confusion caused.

I think it's pretty clear that this sentence can be taken in two ways.  First, one could assume that Wark is talking about most of Stewart Lee's selection of his favourite books being out of print, which makes sense, since we're talking about his favourite books, not all of the books in Steward Lee's library.  Or, one could assume that Wark was talking about most of Stewart Lee's books in his own library are out of print - even though the segment is specifically talking about a selection of his favourite books, and his library isn't even mentioned.  If, indeed, Wark was talking about Lee's entire collection being "out of print," then that should've been clarified, since there's a big difference.

Nonetheless, this is all besides the point, since none of the books in question were out of print at the time of the show's broadcast.  So if Wark was talking about those other books which were not featured, why mention that little factoid and mean-spirited snipe when it has zero bearing on the books that are being discussed?

In regards to Stewart Lee’s comments on Robert E. Howard, this was not a documentary, but a discussion and Stewart Lee's sentiments were presented not as fact, but as his own personal opinions. He is a contributor and is not speaking for the BBC.

We apologise if you felt his comments about Robert E. Howard were offensive and if you felt the item was poorly researched, but any comments made by Stewart Lee were that of a contributor in a discussion and are not subject to the same levels of research and preparation a documentary.

Again, Stewart Lee said:

Because he was insane, he maintained that he didn't write any (of the stories) - these characters stood over his shoulder, and dictated to him. 

How is a viewer supposed to know that this was Lee's "opinion," given that this isn't being presented as anything of the sort?  This is being presented as fact.   Not "I think he was insane," or "I heard that he maintained he didn't write any of the stories," this is presented as black-and-white, this-is-how-it-is-so.  I can't know if Lee himself considers the insane hallucinating REH to be a factual account of the man, but his language certainly suggests he does.

See, I recognize that this isn't a documentary, but does that mean all attempts at journalistic rigour and fact-checking are thrown to the wind?  I expected better from the BBC.  I can understand a live show being unpredictable and inaccurate, but The Review Show is filmed in advance.  The idea that there's nobody on that show doing a modicum of fact-checking even among contributors absolutely astounds me.  How could anyone be so blasé about the content of a programme which is allegedly about education, encouragement of learning, and discovery of new things?

I think it's the complete lack of accepting complicity which bothers me.  "It's not our fault, you misunderstood what Wark was saying, and we can't be held accountable for what that loose cannon Stewart Lee says!"  All the blame for the misunderstanding is placed back on the viewer for "misunderstanding it."  They try to reassure me by saying my complaint and others like it are circulated around the BBC offices and made available for all to read, but notably fail to ensure that any of the makers, presenters and management will actually make a point of reading it.

Putting it on a desk doesn't mean they will read it.  How do I know?  Several of my friends and family work in the BBC, and I haven't heard anything from them on the matter.  Either they didn't read it, and this "make it available for all" didn't work, or they didn't make it particularly available whatsoever.  Or maybe they just had a paper plane fight one afternoon, who knows.  Who knows what sport they make of license-payer's complaints?

And to top it all off, the email made a point of noting that the address could not be responded to.  The only way to get a response to the response is to go through the complaints process all over again.  I can't be bothered waiting four months just to get another brushing off.

It's times like this I really miss Points of View, but then, I think that show was one giant joke to the BBC, an elaborate prank set up to ridicule all the Tunbridge Wells sorts who complain about all the sex and violence on television. Knowing my luck, they'll get some voice actor to impersonate me on their web show.  If you're reading, Auntie: at least make sure I sound Scottish.

The Review Show does a drive-by on Howard

After all that heavy emotional lifting Germaine does, it's time to send you into the weekend on a slightly lighter note. Here's comedian Stewart Lee with a selection of his favourite books, most of which appear to be out of print - should that tell us something?
 - Kirsty Wark's condescending lead-in to Stewart Lee's discussion of Robert E. Howard, Arthur Machen and Nina Hamnett on The Review Show, and yes, it should tell us that The Review Show needs to learn how to use %&$@ing Google

The more I think things are getting better, that people are finally starting to let go of the old myths, the more angry I get when something like this comes up.  Mike Chivers of Necronomania sent me this, and I simply have to discuss it.

Warning: I am seriously ticked off by this.

Back again, Mr Herron?

Hee hee, this is fun.

Meanwhile, over in the World of Robert E. Howard Studies (or at least one encampment where skin-clad knuckle-draggers sit around and devour the latest issue of the Conan comic book in cannabalistic fashion — yum-yum, eat-em-up):

Oh noes, Don Herron is disparaging the faithful Lost Souls!  Good sir, I respect your pre-eminent authority in Howard scholarship, but this slight shall not go unanswered.  They may be skin-clad knuckle-dragging cannibals, but by thunder, they're my skin-clad knuckle-dragging cannibals!

I'm still somewhat astonished that Don Herron has read my blog...

I deliberated over waiting to post this until February, so as to keep up my newly-appointed nickname "Lightin' Al," but I figure it'd be more fair to address things now than to let them fester.

I’m getting the distinct impression that good old Al Harron, over in the World of Robert E. Howard Studies, isn’t the fastest blade out of the scabbard. Back on February 11 I addressed some concerns he had raised about where I stood in the Howardian action, and I see that on October 17 he suddenly discovered that he had been answered.

If this had been a debate, people would have died of boredom in the interval.

Just as well this isn't a debate!  Then again, if I wasn't the fastest tortoise out of the scrub (hey, I can make my own metaphors), then Conan Movie Blog would be in a bit of a sorry state, only now bringing us the news of Jason Momoa's casting and shooting beginning in Bulgaria.  But then, that isn't really Robert E. Howard studies related.

But in answer to a couple of Al’s “points” — the idea that we couldn’t possibly be related in any way because our last names are spelled Herron vs. Harron indicates someone who isn’t familiar with names or how inconsistent they have been historically. While I don’t have the time or interest to explore the issue today, within my own family my father was one of eight siblings — half of those brothers and sisters spelled the last name “Herron” and the rest spelled it “Herren,” and I met some cousins once who spelled it “Herrin.” I have some Scots roots (Al is over in Scotland), so don’t regard his statement as in any way definitive.

Evidently my light-hearted quotation from The Simpsons went over like a lead balloon, and was taken to be an definitive statement on my belief on genealogy.  That's what I get for not sourcing my attempted cartoon references.

Al’s only 27 years of age at this point, so he hasn’t been around the block much as yet (though by that age I had written “Conan vs. Conantics” already and duked it out with L. Sprague de Camp in the letter column of Two-Gun Raconteur, so I probably expect more out of potential Howard critics than most people).

My block perambulation deficiencies are more pronounced considering I hadn't begun studying Howard seriously until around 2007, having only discovered REH in earnest in the late 2000s after an adolescence dominated by science fiction.  So if I haven't created a defining piece like Conan vs Conantics, well, I can happily say it's because I'm not Don Herron, and I dare say few people ever will be Don Herron.  I can only assume that what I have written on The Cimmerian and here has left Mr Herron wanting in terms of Howard criticism.  Ah well, not much I can do about that except try harder. That said, it's kind of hard for me to duke it out with de Camp on account of him currently being indisposed, and there isn't really a comparable figure with whom to duke in current Howardom.  Leaves me in a bit of a spot.

Then there’s the idea that Al doesn’t get that I get it. It might be the American vernacular throwing him, but who in Western Civilization doesn’t understand the concept of What Have You Done For Me Lately???
I guess we can put Al on that list. . . .

Oh dear, another failure of communication on my part.  What I was trying to say, in my roundabout way, was that I couldn't understand how Don could interpret my bemoaning his absence as a criticism, that I felt some sense of betrayal or defection from the Shieldwall, when in fact I felt nothing of the sort.  Thus, my lack of understanding of "What Have You Done For Me Lately???" isn't in reference to the phrase itself, but the application.  I get that he gets it, I just don't get how he got it from this instance.

And somewhere in those long months I do recall Al taking the side of Professor Frank Coffman in a little dust-up I had with him — my only advice, Al, is that no one who really knows Howard Studies would ever side with Frank over me about anything. Honest.

I can't really talk about the background of the kerfuffle, but suffice to say, I place more stock in making up my own mind and being proven wrong, than taking someone's word for it and being right by proxy.  That said, I've disagreed with Frank and I've disagreed with Don on various myriad details and sticking points, and I'm likely to continue to do so.  I don't particularly want to be on anyone's side: if there's anything reading the Lion's Den has taught me, it's that I'm not interested in making enemies among Howardom, when Howard studies has enough to contend with - far less than in previous decades, for sure, but no reason to be complacent.

Nonetheless, I do have rapturous news, for Don actually compliments me on a post I made!  Me!  Al Harron!  Oh fraptious day, calloo, callay!

But I must compliment Al on another recent post he did — very funny, and spot on — concerning the upcoming book of essays Conan Meets the Academy, where the initial blurb says flat-out that it is the first scholarly investigation of Conan. The only way you could suggest that it is “first” would be if you consider the idea that the essays are written by academics (including Professor Frank) and that only professors can do litcrit (some people apparently believe that — the poor saps, the poor deluded saps). To me, it just looks as if the profs are cribbing the pattern that L. Sprague de Camp used in books such as The Conan Reader, The Blade of Conan, and The Sword of Conan — sorry, academics, but it’s been done, decades ago.

Seriously, I'm thrilled to bits.  It might be hard for Don to understand, but being a young Howard fan, I still hold his generation of Howard scholars to a somewhat mythical pedestal.  Going to Cross Plains and meeting individuals like Rusty Burke, Mark Finn, Damon Sasser, Dennis McHaney, Bill Cavalier, Rob Roehm, Frank Coffman and more felt - if you'll indulge in a bit of hyperbole - a bit like I was Jason appearing on the playing board of the Olympians in Jason and the Argonauts.  All I could do was look up in wide-eyed wonder at these people that seemed so tall and huge to me - literally in Rusty Burke's case - and I felt like, "what am I doing here?"

Since that first Scottish invasion of Cross Plains, the veil of mystery and awe surrounding those scholars has dissipated, but like the wizard beyond the Great and Powerful Oz, the humans behind the gods are no less intelligent and wise: I felt less like a lowly mortal, and more like an aspiring champion.  But Don's taking me to task reminds me not to rest on my laurels: I still have a long way to go.

"It's your scholarship, Bobbie! Something's got to be done about your scholarship!"

With The Evolutionary Heroes of Robert E. Howard still on the horizon and more and more academically-minded folks recognizing Howard's scholarly virtues, it's with great enthusiasm that I announce the latest of the Shieldwall's assaults against the ivory towers of Academia who yet deny the Man from Cross Plains' merits as a Real Author of Real Literature - Conan Meets the Academy: Multidisciplinary Essays on the Enduring Barbarian. The press release is excellent, as a somewhat tongue-in-cheek, cheerful explanation of Howard's Conan being more than just a dimwitted brute:

Conan Meets the Academy
Multidisciplinary Essays on the Enduring Barbarian

Edited by Jonas Prida


Print ISBN: 978-0-7864-6152-3
EBook ISBN: 978-0-7864-8989-3
5 maps, 2 photos, tables, notes, bibliography, index
softcover (6 x 9) 2012

Buy Now!

Price: $35.00

Not Yet Published, Available Spring/Summer 2012 About the Book
In 1932, Robert E. Howard penned a series of fantasy stories featuring Conan, a hulking Cimmerian warrior who roamed the mythical Hyborian Age landscape engaging in heroic adventures. More than the quirky manifestation of Depression-era magazines, Conan the Barbarian has endured as a cultural mainstay for over 70 years. This multidisciplinary collection offers the first scholarly investigation of Conan, from Howard’s early stories, through mid-century novels and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s iconic films, to the 2011 cinematic remake of Conan the Barbarian. Drawing on disciplines such as stylometry, archeology, cultural studies, folklore studies, and literary history, the essays examine statistical analyses of Conan texts, the literary genesis of Conan, later-day parodies, Conan video games, and much more. By displaying the wide range of academic interest in Conan, this volume reveals the hidden scholarly depth of this seemingly unsophisticated fictional character.
About the Author
Jonas Prida is an assistant professor of English and head of the English Department at the College of St. Joseph, in Rutland, Vermont.

Looks great!  Can't wait for its release, and to find out more about its contents. But there's something bothering me that I can't quite put my finger on... Wait...

This multidisciplinary collection offers the first scholarly investigation of Conan

What the...

"Aly!  You've got to come back with me - back to the future!

Whoa there, Doc, you want 8-year-old Aly, I'll just get him:

...

"Doc, I got my older self's Robert E. Howard Foundation award here, I was just going to try out my new victory pose!"

"Well, bring it along, it concerns it too!"

"What do you mean?  What happens?  Does something happen to Robert E. Howard?  Does he get erased from existence?"

"No, you and Robert E. Howard turn out fine: it's the scholarship, Aly!  Something's gotta be done about the scholarship!"

"According to my theory, someone interfered with Glenn Lord's discovery of Howard's work. If Glenn doesn't read it, he won't read any more Howard, he won't start The Howard Collector and he won't open the gates to Robert E. Howard scholarship - no Dark Barbarian, no Blood & Thunder, no Echos de Cimmerie, no Evolutionary Heroes, not even The Robert E. Howard Reader! That's why your copy of The Barbaric Triumph's disappearing from that photograph. The fanzines will follow, and unless you repair the damage, your Foundation Award'll be next!"

"Sounds pretty heavy, Doc!"

"Weight has nothing to do with it."

"You're right, I don't know why I used a popular idiom to illustrate my feelings to an absent-minded professor. To the Delorean!"

*I should point out that just after I posted this, Agent Theagenes posted this on the REH Forums:

I brought up that problematic sentence with Jonas this morning after I saw it and there is some discussion underway right now about changing it. His intent was not to diss all of the previous REH scholarship, but to point out that this is the first study of Conan as an over-all pop culture figure---not just Howard's Conan. But the sentence is poorly worded---hopefully it won't be much of a problem to get it changed.

So that's cleared up, but dammit, I just watched Back to the Future with my cousin and infant second-cousin for the first time (theirs, not mine) and I'm still buzzing from the fun of it.

** I should also point out that this was also partially inspired by my recognition of Glenn Lord's impending 80th birthday.  I truly hope to meet him someday, though due to his health and age and my wet-behind-the-ears level of experience in Texas, time is running out.  Unfortunately, I don't have a Delorean.

*** Damon Sasser alerted me to another rupture in the space-time continuum, as Doc and 8-year-old Aly inadvertently created a universe where Glenn Lord's journal was called The Howard Reader rather than The Howard Collecter. Luckily the original timeline has been restored, or my name isn't Al Rudiger Cunningham.

The division between the literary story and the action one

I think I understand why Otto Penzler went with "The Devil in Iron" when composing The Big Book of Adventure Stories: because it's just that, an adventure story.  It doesn't have the special something which puts it among the ranks of Howard's greatest works, or even the greatest of Howard's fantasy, or even the greatest of Howard's Conans, or even the greatest of Howard's eastern Conan stories - but it is what is, in the ol' vernacular, a Ripping Yarn.

It's one of my favourites, and to say that it doesn't have the cosmic tragedy of "The Tower of the Elephant" or the dystopian degeneracy of "Red Nails" doesn't necessarily make it a bad story, just not an exceptional one. Howard wrote dozens of these sorts of tales that are great fun to read, but there isn't much else lurking beneath the surface - at least, nothing that we haven't seen better executed in previous Howard tales. With this in mind, Penzler's choice actually seems fairly good for the sort of book he was trying to compile - rough-and-tumble, boy's own adventure tales.

Unfortunately, such an approach can sometimes lead to reviews like this.

Conan = Mary Sue?

As Robert E. Howard once wrote for his famous Mary Sue character Conan the Barbarian what the best things in life are (to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women). Respectfully, he was wrong and Conan is a chump.
- The Flying Welshman, who doesn't elaborate on how you can respectfully call someone's creation a Mary Sue and a chump

What you said, specifically, dude, was that Conan was the most badass.
That’s not true. Conan is badass for dummies, just a big mary-sue he-man who always wins in some incredibly manly way every time, with lots of screwed princesses and flexing of mighty thews along the way.
- Samuel, during the "Conan vs Harry Dresden" battle at Suvudu.  By the way, Jim Butcher himself commented on the situation, and he himself said that Conan would wipe the floor with Harry - and yet some Dresden fans still protested Conan's eventual victory!

One thing he's not, though, is a "Mary Sue". While apparently he was something of the author's alter-ego, Conan is not the sort of character who is all-powerful, all-knowing, super-keen that makes you want to vomit. He's not Drizzt or Elminster. He's very much human. Tough, yes, to the point of being a bad ass. But not invulnerable, and not insufferable.
 - RPG Net's review of The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian, because I want to have at least one positive quote

I keep seeing things like this on occasion.  Frankly, I'm getting tired of Mary Sue being used to describe any character who's more capable than other characters.  No, just because a character is awesome in every field and endeavour they undertake doesn't make them a Mary Sue.  Some people are just awesome.

So I've decided to use my considerable and unparalleled Howardian expertise (considerable and unparalleled they are, as there is nobody else currently in my house who could challenge my brobdignagian knowledge) to make the great test: put Conan through the Ultimate Mary Sue Litmus Test.

Why not?  Well one reason is sheer length: what follows is a simply colossal post, where I post the questions and my commentary on them.  I don't know how, but it got to something in the region of 8,000 words.  Why is it I can go on and on with something like this and not other projects...

You have been warned!

On Tributes to Howard

I wasn't actually aware that Roy Thomas had written a comic tribute to Howard (inked by Sandy Plunkett) that depicts his suicide.  Frankly, I wish I didn't.

Jonathan Bowden on Robert E. Howard: A Lecture in Seven Parts

(In the recent hubbub, I realised that I had written, but not published, something fairly relevant to the discussion. The reasons why will become fairly evident.)

Jonathan Bowden is an outspoken right-wing speaker, and was for a few years a member of the BNP. The BNP being a political party whose aim is to, through legal and peaceful methods, offer "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home". Essentially, to kick all the non-whites out of Britain. So for him to speak about Howard is worrisome, to say the least. I have no problem with anyone from any political background talking about Howard, but the potential for him to be hijacked to make political points is there.

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?

"Bankrupt Nihilism's" running riot

Thunder in the black skies beating down the rain,
Thunder in the black cliffs, looming o'er the main,
Thunder on the black sea and thunder in my brain...
- "Red Thunder," Robert E. Howard

Crom, I have a thrice-murrained headache, my nose is a veritable Pheidippes, and perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, but Leo's "Bankrupt Nihilism" post is all over the internet.  While there are plenty who agree with Leo's point, there are a lot of people with a dissenting opinion.  That's fine, of course, but a couple of them seem to disagree based on a misinterpretation of Leo's post.

More Fodder for the Newcomer's Guide

As I've said before, sometimes coming across something... not complimentary about Howard can inspire me to look at the author in a new way.  Take this post at Man vs Clown!, which speaks about the Iris Edelba controversy of Thor:

Not seeing Thor simply because a black man was cast in what you think ought to be a white man’s role may be racist; however, not seeing it because you think the casting may be symptomatic of many other boneheaded directorial choices isn’t. It’s not okay to complain about this because you’re a racist. It is okay to complain about this if you’re a fanboy, the same kind of person objects to the casting of Stargate: Atlantic actor Jason Momoa as Conan the Barbarian because his eyes are brown rather than the “volcanic blue”² described by Robert E. Howard (who was a racist, which complicates matters).³

2. Whatever “volcanic blue” means. I’ve never understood this one. Last time I checked, volcanoes were grey to brown and threw up in reddish orangey colours. This must be what they call colour-blind casting.
3. As much as I love his pulp fiction, imagine how badly someone like Robert E. Howard would do as a casting director, given his reliance on broad, crude racial stereotypes. “Need a sinister villain? You want a Chinaman. Get me Jackie Chan’s agent.” “Crafty? Let’s get a bankable Jew. How’s Adam Sandler sound?” “Brutish? That part’s made for a Negro. Is Sidney Poitier still working?” It just wouldn’t work.

How cute.  My response is below:

Oh come now, that's just ridiculous and not borne out by any sort of analysis of Howard's fiction.  The vast majority of villains in Howard stories are white men.  Pick a Conan story: it's more likely than not Conan's enemy is a sinister white sorcerer, a crafty white general, or a brutish white warrior.  Sure, Howard was writing in the age of Yellow Menace and Jim Crowe laws were still in effect, but if you break down the stories, white men outnumber all other ethnicities combined.  It is simply false to state otherwise.

Besides, if you pluck most pulp fiction authors of the 1930s, of course they're going to have "broad, crude ethnic stereotypes."  That's how bad it was in the 1930s.  It was illegal for a black person to marry a white person in most states.  Miscegenation was outlawed.  Lynchings, while not common, were frequent in the south during Howard's lifetime.  Scientific theory, at the time, was inundated with the pseudoscience of racial theory.  Is it really any wonder that Howard said and wrote things that would be considered incredibly insensitive nowadays?

In any case, Howard would clearly cast Sidney Poitier as Ace Jessel, the intelligent, cheerful, courageous, sympathetic boxer, the only of Howard's boxing heroes to be a world champion.  For a supposed racist, it's strange that Howard wrote two stories featuring an intelligent, sympathetic black man, especially one where he has to overcome the town's prejudice towards him - and succeeds.

"Volcanic blue" is a reference to larimar, a very rare and highly prized variety of volcanic rock noted for its vibrant, intense blue hue.

So, I have a few more things to put up on the Newcomer's Guide: "How many of Howard's villains were black/Asian/Jewish/Not White," and "What does volcanic blue mean?"

I've already answered the latter, though a more in-depth explanation of what larimar is and a helpful image wouldn't go amiss.  However, for the latter I'll actually go through the stories, and note the ethnic origin of each villain, as well as heroes.  Can't forget the heroic minority characters like Ace Jessel, N'Longa, Sakumbe, Ajonga, Yasunga, Laranga, N'Yaga, N'Gora, John Garfield, Lala Tzu, Conchita, Belit, Juan Lopez...