In between penning Apocalypse Now and establishing his position as chief propagator of Republican revenge fantasies with films like Red Dawn and Clear And Present Danger, writer-director John Milius introduced the world to Arnold Schwarzenegger, and through him, Conan The Barbarian.
This sentence is a bit worrying: is it saying that John Milius introduced the world to Conan the Barbarian the film, or Conan the Barbarian the character?
Milius’ 1982 film (reworked from a script by Oliver Stone) plays with the same surprisingly subtle themes as the Robert E. Howard pulp stories that inspired it. In telling the tale of Conan’s vendetta against Thulsa Doom—the dark shaman and cult leader who slaughtered Conan’s people—Milius ruminates on the relation between civilization and violence, with references ranging from Nietzsche to Genghis Khan.
Notice how the article gives the distinct impression that "the tale of Conan’s vendetta against Thulsa Doom—the dark shaman and cult leader who slaughtered Conan’s people" is inspired by Howard, and that among Howard's "surprisingly subtle themes" are "references ranging from Nietzsche to Genghis Khan."
Articles like this come up all the time, sadly.
Interestingly enough, this was an article in The A.V. Club which is an offshoot of the Onion. Although it's a less humorous side of the Onion, so I don't think they were trying to be funny.
ReplyDeleteRe: your comment on my blog, I wonder what source you found to say that "Howard has plenty of respect for strong, virile civilizations." I know he had great respect for Alexander the Great, but I always thought his respect was more for his military accomplishments than for Hellenistic civilization. Can you point me to where you found evidence of which civilizations Howard favored? I've always struggled with what seems (to me, anyway) to be Howard's blanket condemnation of civilization as a whole (such as in his correspondence with Lovecraft, and in his talks with Novalyne Price as she recalls in One Who Walked Alone). I'd appreciate if you would make another comment on my blog to clarify, so I could know where to look. I'd really like to see Howard say some good things about civilization, for once!
ReplyDeleteIn my humble opinion, the Milius movie may have done more harm than good for our modern conception of Conan. For example, though Conan's parents weren't murdered and he's not out for revenge in the original Howard material, this theme has popped up again and again in modern Conan interpretations, and I've heard it's going to be in the new movie, Crom help us all!
By the way, as a long-time follower of The Cimmerian, I was sorry to see it close down. It was a great resource, and thank you for your work on it.
Cheers, Atom Kid, didn't know that.
ReplyDeleteBluefish: while Howard's criticism of civilization is well known, there are certainly a few occasions where he spoke admiringly of it.
Here are some where he speaks well of Rome(!):
Another thing difficult to understand is my aversion toward things Roman. As you say, Rome made no attempt to destroy the folk-tradions of her subjects; life in the Roman republic and early empire must have been far more desirable than life in the later feudal age. Rome built system and order out of chaos and laid down the lines of a solid civilization – and yet the old unreasoning instinct rises in me and I cannot think of Rome as anything but an enemy! Maybe its because Rome always won her wars until the very last days, and my instincts have always been on the side of the loser – Celtic instincts again, I suppose.
- Letter to Lovecraft, June 1931
Dont worry about my instinctive distrust of Rome! Though somewhere in this life or one previous, I have picked up a decided personal antipathy for things Roman, I have no quarrel with anyone’s preferance for those things. In fact, I am highly interested in your Roman leanings, and would like to know more about your feelings for that age and empire, and your instinctive placement therein. As far as that goes, I wouldn't mind to have been a British or Gothic mercenary in the Roman army in the days of the later empire, when political graft and corruption made possible the acquisition of large fortunes quickly. I would like to have been stationed somewhere in the Orient, rather than in Germany or Britain, where there was less chance of acquiring treasure than there was of acquiring a split skull. I would like to have had control of some rich territory or city, and after a few years spent in systematic plunder, to have retired to a large villa in southern Italy, to spend the rest of my life in idleness and luxury, honored and respected by all. Roman civilization must have been paradise to such barbarian warriors as entered the ranks of her legions and acquired wealth and power.
- Letter to Lovecraft, October 1931
Howard was a big fan of the ancient Mesopotamian civilizations, more than the Greeks or Romans:
I envy you your visit into Massachusetts. The museums must be fascinating, and I would have enjoyed examining the Hittite relics, I know – not that I know much about such things, but remains of the Hittite and Babylonian civilizations have a peculiar fascination for me. Assyrian, also. Something that strikes me as strange, is the fact that Assyria’s rule was a never-ending series of wars to put down revolts, which threatened her domination to the very end of her empire. There was scarcely a year that did not see some of her various provinces in rebellion, and the more savagely the Assyrians punished rebellions, the more fiercely the rebels rose. Those ancient Semitic nations must have been people of remarkable virility; and yet the Aryan Persians and Medes crushed these same nations easily, and had little trouble with the very races that had struggled, more or less successfully, against Assyria for centuries.
- Letter to Lovecraft, 24th May, 1932
And here (I think this is a very important letter) Howard explains how he has no illusions as to whether barbarism is "better" than civilization or not. Many misinterpret his fondness of barbarism as part of "noble savage" idealism, a naive point of view Howard is quick to deny:
ReplyDeleteThat word reminds me of our discussion concerning what I said about my preference for a theoretical former existence. I didn’t say that barbarism was superior to civilization. For the world as a whole, civilization even in decaying form, is undoubtedly better for people as a whole. I have no idylic view of barbarism – as near as I can learn it’s a grim, bloody, ferocious and loveless condition. I have no patience with the depiction of the barbarian of any race as a stately, god-like child of Nature, endowed with strange wisdom and speaking in measured and sonorous phrases. Bah! My conception of a barbarian is very different. He had neither stability nor undue dignity. He was ferocious, vengeful, brutal and frequently squalid. He was haunted by dim and shadowy fears; he committed horrible crimes for strange monstrous reasons. As a race he hardly ever exhibited the steadfast courage often shown by civilized men. He was childish and terrible in his wrath, bloody and treacherous. As an individual he lived under the shadow of the war-chief and the shaman, each of whom might bring him to a bloody end because of a whim, a dream, a leaf floating on the wind. His religion was generally one of dooms and shadows, his gods were awful and abominable. They bade him mutilate himself or slaughter his children, and he obyed because of fears too primordial for any civilized man to comprehend. His life was often a bondage of tambus, sharp sword-edges, between which he walked shuddering. He had no mental freedom, as civilized man understands it, and very little personal freedom, being bound to his clan, his tribe, his chief. Dreams and shadows haunted and maddened him. Simplicity of the primitive? To my mind the barbarian’s problems were as complex in their way as modern man’s – possibly more so. He moved through life motivated mainly by whims, his or another’s. In war he was unstable; the blowing of a leaf might send him plunging in an hysteria of blood-lust against terrific odds, or cause him to flee in blind panic when another stroke could have won the battle. But he was lithe and strong as a panther, and the full joy of strenuous physical exertion was his. The day and the night were his book, wherein he read of all things that run or walk or crawl or fly. Trees and grass and moss-covered rocks and birds and beasts and clouds were alive to him, and pertook of his kinship. The wind blew his hair and he looked with naked eyes into the sun. Often he starved, but when he feasted, it was with a mighty gusto, and the juices of food and strong drink were stinging wine to his palate. Oh, I know I can’t make myself clear; I’ve never seen anyone who had any sympathy whatever with my point of view, nor do I want any. I’m not ashamed of it. I would not choose to plunge into such a life now; it would be the sheerest of hells to me, unfitted as I am for such an existence. But I do say that if I had the choice of another existence, to be born into it and raised in it, knowing no other, I’d choose such an existence as I’ve just sought to depict. There’s no question of the relative merits of barbarism and civilization here involved. It’s just my own personal opinion and choice.
- Letter to Lovecraft, November 2, 1932
In addition, Howard is fairly complimentary to Aquilonia in the Conan stories: it's hard to imagine Conan becoming king of a nation he personally despises, even given past history with his kinsmen. Lots of references to "virile, powerful civilizations" in "The Hyborian Age" essay, too.
ReplyDeleteI'm in complete agreement about Conan the Barbarian doing harm to modern conceptions of Conan. Charles R. Saunders seems to agree. The "parents killed, village destroyed, enslaved, quest for vengeance" motif has ingrained itself into modern interpretations. And yes, it's in the new movie.
You're very welcome: I miss The Cimmerian too.
The author that wrote this , as you qoute says " ruminates on the relation between civilization and violence, WITH references to Nietzche and Genghis Khan" He does not say that they ARE the references Howard used, as you seem to imply.It may a simple grammatical misreading but it changes the meaning and part of the point. Not that I completely disagree with you on this though,as technically incorrect as the movie may be, I do think Milius's Conan opened the door for alot of people ( including myself) to further read Howard and all forms of Conan, and there are far worse forms in print than Milius's film has to offer.It has been 28 or 29 years now though and I think it's time to move past this and onto how to proerly get the correct perception of Conan out there, instead of blaming old movies and authors for skewering the image . This new movie though again flawed as it may be creates a unique opportunity for all of you Howard SME's to jump on.As vocal as you are, organize or petition paradox on the canon of conan( say that ten times fast)or even see if you could get funding to do a tv special on Conan ,the history of the character and REH akin to what they do every time a star trek or batman movie comes out.Guys like yourself and Patrice Louinet have the knowledge and clout. As a fan of Conan that would be something I would like to see coincide with the movie.
ReplyDeleteThe author that wrote this , as you qoute says " ruminates on the relation between civilization and violence, WITH references to Nietzche and Genghis Khan" He does not say that they ARE the references Howard used, as you seem to imply.It may a simple grammatical misreading but it changes the meaning and part of the point.
ReplyDeleteAh, I see now. I didn't think of it that way, but that reading seems more logical.
I do think Milius's Conan opened the door for alot of people ( including myself) to further read Howard and all forms of Conan, and there are far worse forms in print than Milius's film has to offer.
There are indeed many worse forms in print and other media (like the live-action show), but the film reaches an audience that none of the others could by virtue of its medium and cult status.
It has been 28 or 29 years now though and I think it's time to move past this and onto how to proerly get the correct perception of Conan out there, instead of blaming old movies and authors for skewering the image.
That's true: however, getting the correct perception of Conan necessitates discussion of old movies and authors in some instances, even if only as a pre-emptive measure.
This new movie though again flawed as it may be creates a unique opportunity for all of you Howard SME's to jump on.As vocal as you are, organize or petition paradox on the canon of conan( say that ten times fast)or even see if you could get funding to do a tv special on Conan ,the history of the character and REH akin to what they do every time a star trek or batman movie comes out.Guys like yourself and Patrice Louinet have the knowledge and clout. As a fan of Conan that would be something I would like to see coincide with the movie.
Hah, I may have some modicum of clout, but Patrice is on a whole other echelon from the likes of myself.
However, such an opportunity to discuss the history of the character and REH to coincide with the film has been on my mind since the film was announced. The projects I'm alluding to at the beginning of the post are directly related to that, and I'm hoping they'll reach a wide audience.
Hi Al thanks for responding so quick to my comment, you da man.This is M from Movie blog, if I had half a brain and knew what the hell a url is( wifes the computer expert Im a goon) I'd put it down and not list myself as anonymous.And yeah it is true , as the old film did and now the new one will reach far broader audience I can completely understand the need to show that 1 Howards Conan and world is still more colorful and deep than anything presented on film and tv thus far 2 protect (as much as one can, ) the original works from further misrepresentation which is likely to happen even if the new flick is decent.But do I think the people who will go see this flick,like what they see are gonna go further into Conan like many of us did as teens when we saw the Milius flick and will find Howard ( with less of a detour by decamp and carter like we had growing, as guys like Louinet are cleaning up that mess and getting Howard out as he wrote it:))all on their own with guidance and analysis from sharp minds like yourself . Give yourself and your peers credit just since going on conanmovie blog then learning about cimmerian then rehupa I've learned a semesters or two worth from you guys and can approach REH in a whole new light.
ReplyDeleteAh, good to see you, M! I rarely comment on Conan Movie Blog for the simple fact that I want to be fairly impartial, as well as there being so many comments, but I try to pop in whenever I can.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, it isn't so much a matter of saying Conan the Barbarian sucks and Howard rules, so much as saying that CtB and Howard are very different, and you can't judge one based on the other. This is what's important about getting the information about REH out. While I personally think REH's Conan is superior to Milius', I don't want to assert it as "fact", and I think it's far more appropriate to simply note the differences where applicable.
And thanks very much for the vote of confidence. Conan Movie Blog turned into a pretty big deal before I came along, and judging by the sheer amount of links to other, bigger websites, it's still a big deal, and I think I'm going to make a point of linking to other articles and essays by other Howard scholars to show where I'm coming from, as well as to expose more people to REH.
talking about Brythunia,in which civilization based it Howard, Poland in the feudal times or the ancient Britain?
ReplyDeleteby the way,I have been less than a year following blogs like the cimmerian, the silver key or yours but in this time you helped me to discover all the excellence in Howard, until then I consider him a very entertaining pulp writer...
Francisco...
Francisco, I think it's both! The little we know of Brythunia has elements shared by the Romano-Britons and the feudal Poles. Overall, I'd say that the primary influence was Poland, with the Romano-British a second, and the Brythonic Celts a third (though in the latter case, I think the Brythunian Aesir who would become the Gauls and Britons provided most of that element). It's the subject of one of my Hyborian Age Gazetteers (not yet published). And thanks!
ReplyDeleteI can't remember any story by Howard located in this kingdom, do you remember any in tales or in comics?
ReplyDeleteaccording to a guide of the hyborian age published by Marvel comics in the 80's, I think Alan Zelenetz is the author, women in Brythunia are the most desirable and loveable of the hyborian age and men object of jokes in the rest of hyboria, aren't there jokes about polish in USA?
by the way, great the idea of a gazeeter about Brythunia...
Francisco...
Howard never wrote any story in Brythunia, but he did write of two Brythunian characters: Aratus ("Iron Shadows in the Moon") and Natala ("Xuthal of the Dusk") as well as a few references here and there.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of Brythunian women being highly prized is based on Howard, but the joke on the Brythunian men is a product of later authors (not sure who).
according to a spanish forum, a very good one, the idea is of Roy Thomas...
ReplyDeleteaccording to wikipedia,geographically Aquilonia could be France in the middle age, Nemedia the Holy Roman Empire and Brythunia Poland, Lithuania and Latvia in the feudal times, these theories are taken of an article in Conan the swordsman by L.S. de Camp...
Francisco...
Thank you for your quick and very detailed response. Particularly that last letter to Lovecraft illustrates in clear and powerful language that Howard's philosophy and understanding of civilization and barbarism was much deeper and more mature than many of his readers (myself included!) believe(d). Thank you again!
ReplyDeleteThat's correct, francisco: De Camp did seem to adhere to those general points of view. However, I think it's important to remember that Howard seemed to intend Brythunia to be a civilized nation, with "mysteries" comparable to those of Aquilonia, Nemedia and Koth: later authors have chosen to make Brythunia "semi-barbaric", which I think isn't in line with what Howard said.
ReplyDeleteNo problem, bluefish, glad to be of help!
a very interesting point of view, how do you know the intentions of Howard with Brythunia?
ReplyDeleteand what the topography and the names of places suggests?
when I started to read Conan, at first with the comics I wanted the stories to be located in Brythunia, bit all the stories seemed to be located in Zamora, must be the overused kingdom by Howard and his followers in tales and in comics...
Francisco...
but all the stories...
ReplyDeleteFrancisco...
Well, nobody can truly tell the intentions of Howard: it's just my guesswork. I'll explain all when I get "Hyborian Age Gazetteer: Brythunia" finished.
ReplyDelete