"...it's used to define the character in the trailer and they should have chosen a different line to present him. The line and specially the way it was spoken presents Conan primarily as a seductive man, not as a tough warrior. And we fans we don't want a movie about a lover, we want a movie about a warrior (if he also loves it's ok, but it should't be a essential part of the character from the start). Conan was not into giving his heart to every women he met. He was gentle with them, but he just *beep* them, didn't loved them.
In the REH story the line was told to his most important lover (his true love indeed, not one of his several bitches), to seduce her and let her know he had a heart besides being a slayer. He was actually speaking about his happy days with Belit, when he killed men and loved her after the battles, but these days were not his normal way of living cause he usually was a total loner who didn't gave his heart to anyone. In that quote with Belit he was opening his heart as he never did before. It's not Conan said that line to every person he met to define himself, at all. It's absolutely taken OUT OF CONTEXT. If you choose that particular quote you are thinking on letting know the audience this character is equally a lover and a killer, and that's not the point. He was a survivor, warrior, a killer, mainly. Then he could also love but only to a very few women really, so it doesn't define REH's Conan spirit.
I think the quote was, sadly, chosen to attract female audience.
A line which would more faithfully define Conan's spirit would be "I live, I *beep*, I slay...". Of course that wouldn't attract female audience cause that's too male chauvinist and zero romantic. Ironically is more faithful to Conan's everyday life."
Hmm. I'll have to discuss this.
"...it's used to define the character in the trailer and they should have chosen a different line to present him. The line and specially the way it was spoken presents Conan primarily as a seductive man, not as a tough warrior.
"I live, I love, I slay, and I am content" - saying "I slay" as one of the three things he does doesn't portray him as a tough warrior?
Besides, do we truly need to define Conan as a warrior? Everyone KNOWS Conan's a tough warrior: pop cultural osmosis means we define Conan by the fact he's a huge dude who can take on entire armies on his lonesome. Introducing this aspect of Conan shows that there's more to him than being a tough warrior, which might be of interest to those who think he's little more than a prehistoric Terminator.
And we fans we don't want a movie about a lover, we want a movie about a warrior (if he also loves it's ok, but it should't be a essential part of the character from the start).
Why on earth shouldn't Conan's romantic side be promoted? Conan's a more complex character than simply a "warrior": he's an adventurer, an outsider, a leader, and many more things. Hell, here's how Howard described Conan to Novalyne Price:
Conan’s the damnedest bastard that ever was. He got a long black mane of hair, crystal blue eyes. He’s a fighter, born on the battlefield. To him, combat’s a way of life. It’s all he’s ever known, all he ever wants to know! He’s no soldier who was taught to fight. To him fighting’s an instinct, it’s a part of him. Like his legs, his arms, his chest, his bull neck. And believe me, he don’t take it from nobody. He’ll fight man, beast, devil or god. “And when those women feel those tree-trunk firm arms around their waist, they melt like butter on a hot skillet.”
- "The Whole Wide World"
Evidently Howard did, in fact, think Conan the Lover was an important part of his character - especially considering this is a facet which marked him as very different from his other Sword-and-Sorcery characters, some of which were functionally chaste.
Conan was not into giving his heart to every women he met. He was gentle with them, but he just *beep* them, didn't loved them.
Except it's pretty evident that Tamara is more than just one of his "several bitches," but rather someone for whom Conan does feel stronger emotions. The fact that this is early in Conan's career means that this may well be Conan's first major relationship. Sure, I'm not happy about Belit or anyone else being pipped to the post, but I reject the notion that Conan's heart was only for one or two women.
In the REH story the line was told to his most important lover (his true love indeed, not one of his several bitches), to seduce her and let her know he had a heart besides being a slayer. He was actually speaking about his happy days with Belit, when he killed men and loved her after the battles, but these days were not his normal way of living cause he usually was a total loner who didn't gave his heart to anyone.
That's a misreading of the original context. First of all, Bêlit is the one who seduced Conan: he doesn't need to prove anything to her, least of all that he has a heart. Secondly, this isn't about love, but with religious belief and Conan's existentialism. Here's the whole passage:
The cold light struck icy fire from the jewels in Bêlit’s clustered black locks as she stretched her lithe figure on a leopardskin thrown on the deck. Supported on her elbows, her chin resting on her slim hands, she gazed up into the face of Conan, who lounged beside her, his black mane stirring in the faint breeze. Bêlit’s eyes were dark jewels burning in the moonlight.
“Mystery and terror are about us, Conan, and we glide into the realm of horror and death,” she said. “Are you afraid?”
A shrug of his mailed shoulders was his only answer.
“I am not afraid either,” she said meditatively. “I was never afraid. I have looked into the naked fangs of Death too often. Conan, do you fear the gods?”
“I would not tread on their shadow,” answered the barbarian conservatively. “Some gods are strong to harm, others, to aid; at least so say their priests. Mitra of the Hyborians must be a strong god, because his people have builded their cities over the world. But even the Hyborians fear Set. And Bel, god of thieves, is a good god. When I was a thief in Zamora I learned of him.”
“What of your own gods? I have never heard you call on them.”
“Their chief is Crom. He dwells on a great mountain. What use to call on him? Little he cares if men live or die. Better to be silent than to call his attention to you; he will send you dooms, not fortune! He is grim and loveless, but at birth he breathes power to strive and slay into a man’s soul. What else shall men ask of the gods?”
“But what of the worlds beyond the river of death?” she persisted.
“There is no hope here or hereafter in the cult of my people,” answered Conan. “In this world men struggle and suffer vainly, finding pleasure only in the bright madness of battle; dying, their souls enter a gray misty realm of clouds and icy winds, to wander cheerlessly throughout eternity.”
Bêlit shuddered. “Life, bad as it is, is better than such a destiny. What do you believe, Conan?”
He shrugged his shoulders. “I have known many gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by the Nemedian skeptics, or Crom’s realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer’s Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.”
“But the gods are real,” she said, pursuing her own line of thought. “And above all are the gods of the Shemites – Ishtar and Ashtoreth and Derketo and Adonis. Bel, too, is Shemitish, for he was born in ancient Shumir, long, long ago, and went forth laughing, with curled beard and impish wise eyes, to steal the gems of the kings of old times.
- "Queen of the Black Coast," The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian, p130-131
This isn't Conan trying to seduce someone, this is Conan explaining his perspective on the world. There is no preoccupation with love, and Conan has frequently expressed his religious beliefs with others, though never quite to this level of detail. Belit isn't seduced: just after Conan apparently poured his heart out with "I live, I love, I slay, and I am content," she immediately "pursues her own line of thought." If Conan was trying to seduce Belit, it didn't work.
It seems the poster is applying an anachronistically modern idea of the definition of "love" which is very different to how it was applied back in the 1930s and earlier. Nowadays, "love" is an emotion restricted purely for the most powerful, unique emotion one can feel once a lifetime, that there can only be one soulmate who they can say they truly loved. It gets to the point where there's a cliche about men being incapable of using the phrase "I love you," due to the massive commitment inherent in the phrase in modern times. This isn't the way it was always used, and crucially, it wasn't the way Howard used it:
These beings were mortal, as are all things built of flesh and blood. They lived, loved, and died, though the individual span of life was enormous.
- "Queen of the Black Coast," The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian, p137
Their lives are vague, erratic, and without plan. They dream, they wake, drink, love, eat, and dream again.
- "Xuthal of the Dusk," The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian, p219
“I can not remember,” she murmured, nestling her dark head against his mighty breast. “Everything is dim and misty. It does not matter. You are no dream. You are strong. Let us live while we can. Love me!”
- "The Devil in Iron," The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian, p308
But folk who have tasted of death are only partly alive. In the dark corners of their souls and minds death still lurks unconquered. By night the people of Dagon moved and loved, hated and feasted, and remembered the fall of Dagon and their own slaughter only as a dim dream...
- "The Devil in Iron," The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian, p313
Evidently, Howard was using "love" in the sense of "love-making" rather than the far-too-specific sense of "connection to a soulmate."
It's not Conan said that line to every person he met to define himself, at all. It's absolutely taken OUT OF CONTEXT.
I agree that it's out of context - but then, we don't know the context in the film itself either. Besides, I think it's a far better way to define Conan than, say, "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women."
A line which would more faithfully define Conan's spirit would be "I live, I *beep*, I slay...". Of course that wouldn't attract female audience cause that's too male chauvinist and zero romantic. Ironically is more faithful to Conan's everyday life."
Here's what Conan himself says on the subject of love:
"What king has roamed the countries, fought the battles, loved the women, and won the plunder that I have?"
"People of the Black Circle" The Bloody Crown of Conan, p74
I guess Robert E. Howard doesn't "faithfully define Conan's spirit" or something.
http://www.roguebladesentertainment.com/2011/04/the-philosphical-underpinnings-of-heroic-fantasy/
ReplyDeleteI must say, I don't like that "I burn with life" is missing, that seems to rob the quote of some of its depth and intensity, and I don't think Momo's delivery was that great in this instance either.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm not going to jump to conclusions about the movie as a whole based purely on the trailer. This guy went crazy and he seems to have gotten an awful lot out of it, even if he did get some of it (or most of it) wrong. It's just a knee-jerk reaction to something that has almost no substance. People need to be patient and wait for the actual product.
"The Conan Completest"...sigh. When will they ever stop babbling about things they don't quite understand, namely, Conan?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that they used Howard's line, instead of what was established by DeCamp is great... and I am content! I know how Hollywood is debased, and how they would comprises art and dept for the sake of maximized box-office returns. This is the risk of letting no-nothing goldbrickers call all the shots, so some degree of suck is unavoidable. In the most extreme, they would butcher it, like what they did with G.I.J.O.E.: Rise of Cobra. That movie is so divorced from the Hama's established canons and the vary basic premise, it should have been called Action Force: Rise of Fishbowl-Head! So let nerds and fans debate Hollywood's treatment of art vs entertainment, but all I am concerned with is that they don't made Conan look like a total jackass. All I what, is to see a good story, with a dynamic character who thinks, who f**ks, who kicks ass, and am content!
ReplyDeleteEvidently, Howard was using "love" in the sense of "love-making" rather than the far-too-specific sense of "connection to a soulmate." - The Devil in Iron examples, yes (especially the first one), but the others don't necessarily feel that way to me. Perhaps your point was REH didn't necessarily use "love" in one sense alone?
ReplyDelete"What king has roamed the countries, fought the battles, loved the women, and won the plunder that I have?" - "love" here could really mean the whole gamut, from carousing with showgirls to loving Belit. --- Martin
http://www.roguebladesentertainment.com/2011/04/the-philosphical-underpinnings-of-heroic-fantasy/
ReplyDeleteDarn, how did I miss this? Cheers, M.D.!
I must say, I don't like that "I burn with life" is missing, that seems to rob the quote of some of its depth and intensity, and I don't think Momo's delivery was that great in this instance either.
Agreed, though I think Momo didn't do too badly.
"The Conan Completest"...sigh. When will they ever stop babbling about things they don't quite understand, namely, Conan?
They can be a great source of information on the films, and there are a few good users over there, but as you say, there are also some who have something of a skewed perspective.
All I what, is to see a good story, with a dynamic character who thinks, who f**ks, who kicks ass, and am content!
If they fail to show that, then it's the equivalent of a World War 2 film about the Battle of Kursk that doesn't have tanks. Yet as we've seen, Kull the Conqueror managed to fail on so many levels. So many...
Evidently, Howard was using "love" in the sense of "love-making" rather than the far-too-specific sense of "connection to a soulmate." - The Devil in Iron examples, yes (especially the first one), but the others don't necessarily feel that way to me. Perhaps your point was REH didn't necessarily use "love" in one sense alone?
"What king has roamed the countries, fought the battles, loved the women, and won the plunder that I have?" - "love" here could really mean the whole gamut, from carousing with showgirls to loving Belit. --- Martin
Martin, you've actually encapsulated exactly what I was trying to say! Howard used "love" in a variety of ways, not just in the sense of "true love," with examples such as you show here.
There are many other examples of Howard using "love" in different sense: characters stating that they have "no love" for others, or that they love a particular leader. You just put it in a much more succinct manner than I did.
I'm so sorry I have to enter this way on your house, cause I smell you ain't half a bad guy at all. But maybe this is the only way I can pass though this black gooeish barier of discount you guys create and promote.
ReplyDeleteWell.
You know... It's quite funny you report someone's overthinking and exagerating on a subject, then you obsessively analize each sentence he wrote and try to take it to your ground.
I mean, wtf.
We are internet geeks. We overanalyze issues. It's what we like to do. Aw boy... you just pointed the gun to your own head there, don't you see?
Ok, you disagree. Fine! Interesting, let me hear you! Thing is, what is exactly your point? In a few words? Cause I find it hard to resume, since you don't seem to state any specific point to defend but just systematicaly opose to every sentence. Until one realize that, yes, there's one point on your article: "HE IS WRONG, HE DIDN'T GET IT, I DO".
So, was that all about it. Aw c'mon.
Really, is that what you needed to state? Is that why you didn't share your opinion personally on that forum, and instead did it on your personal blog? Just a... jerking off? A jerking off inspired by my text?
Fuck...
Er, man look, even though you do sound educated and well read, and your prose is sweet to read, the evidence shines clearly through the clouds of your words: you are in a childish jihad which I am NOT interested on, AT ALL.
Each time anybody says things like "hah, those completists, they never get it... unlike us", the god of Fandom feels an uncomfortable deeply shame.
I know this is new to you but Completists we don't wanna be more right than you, neither we want to be more "howardian" than you, not to be better than you or more special than you or any shit your overcreative minds are paranoid of. Surprise! (Suprise just in case that truth entered through your passionate eyes to your brain... cause I suspect that info is not allowed by obsessive-compulsive filters -is that the case? Do you have one of those?-).
Do we "misread" REH? Let me get that straight: your point is, subjective points of view of each different reader is not allowed? Do you make a oiuja for Bob to confirm if your interpretation of the text is correct?
ReplyDeleteI understand, respect, and admire scholarship on Howard in order to objectively collect facts to support the reader's experiencie, but sharping that into a tool to insult and despise subjective points of view againts other readers, and the fact that other readers are considered enemies, is to me something despicable and that literally shits and farts all over the seriousness the scholarship initially have.
Again, shooting against your own family, clever guys.
You do have the right to defend your point of view. Rightfuly. And surely, based on interesting facts -therefuly, surely worth listening, why not? Ok, but then same right I have to defend mine, and also let myself be heard when feel my balls caressed by your unelegant slight. Lack of respect equal to lack of respect. So no apologies here, for showing you my hairy ass and laugh at you total lack of misunderstanding of cinema languaje on general.
Is this the game you wanna play?
On the end. And after taking my medication.
It's a shame we loose important opinions and contributions from each side because of this motherfucking conflict between purists and miliusians. I do think some of you are quite perfectly fine guys who are quite able to point to facets and shades of grey, based out of your knowledge, which may perfectly enrich a healthy debate were we all win. Same as a thinking out of the box coming from us can hugely benefit you too, if only to hear something different and lacking the passion you all share, which is a passion to be respected, but is also a passion that honestly, plays only ONE fucking single note from the damn piano with all the boredom it surely brings.
Don't want that?
Prefer this nerdy struggle, hating each other, pretending to win the "I own Reh's soul more than you, bleh" thingy? Is that what you find enjoyable?
ALLRIGHTY THEN!!! Let's play that!!! Let's insult each other and disrespect each other as we are in a whore's tavern. Ok. But let's do it with some taste, and dignity: say insults to the face. Show balls. Is that thing that hangs besides your dick. Go grab them, they must be there... somewhere.
Found them?
...
I'll wait.
After my cathartic rant, which I sincerely hope made clear nobody likes to be despised by equals, I want to debate the issue in a non-defensive way, which is the way I'd really like to speak with you, and I know in my guts it's the way you'd like too. I cannot believe you'd rather prefer the other retarded game better than a civilized -in the best meaning of the term- discussion on a subject we all love. In case not, I guess I don't loose anything writting this, anyway.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I want to state what I dislike about a very specific side of "purism", which in origin I think has nothing wrong but that I feel it ironically has the danger of selfdestruct it's own virtues. And I will state it taking what I think was a very good point on your article: for Howard, the concept/word "love" would mean "passion" or even "sex". Therefore the sentence he told to Belit could be extended to his attitude towards life, and not just to that particular days beside her. That sort of analysis, searching for the word on other Howard's texts is a line of work I honestly respect and have no shame on admiting I could be wrong on interpreting the word. At the very same time, I consider Howard's poetic prose, specially in passages as the one we have here, to be extremelly open to subjectivity and to be read giving more importance to the reader's feelings rather than reasons. To me Howard's texts are sort of expressionists, and as you know in expressionism it's very hard to really define and confine the lines and limits, when they are intentionally so roughly defined in origin. Of course scholarship helps to enhance the reader's subjective experience as that knowledge puts you more "in tone" with the writter's energy field, but in the end if you limit the meanings too much, you are killing the magic. If Howard would have wanted to be more specific and rational over Conan, he would have done it that way. The vagueness and ambiguity was intentional, a gift for the reader. So I appreciate and respect scholarship, but I don't if it sterilizes the text and doesn't respect the reader's unquestionable right to get it "wrong", which in the end doesn't matter since what matters is the reader's journey.
So your journey is different than mine. Ok. Do we all Conan fans need to be clones?
I don't think so. I do think REH was more into warriors than into soldiers. And warriors do think, feel and live different, even though they fight together to defend what they care for, and respect each other on what they are equals.
"Do we truly need to define Conan as a warrior?"
YES. Cause a warrior is not a "prehistoric terminator" as you defined it. A warrior is a complex creature with lots of virtues and facets. That is what Conan represents, the dignity of the Warrior with capital, and to define what that "Warrior" word means is essentially what his stories are about. Milius intented that on his movie -maybe a failure, you'd argue, but the point is he consciously was giving importance to that theme, and I think Howard also was (maybe more succesfully, you'd argue again... and I won't discuss that).
"Why on earth shouldn't Conan's romantic side be promoted? Conan's a more complex character than simply a warrior"
ReplyDeleteSo that's my point, again: who said "a simply warrior"?? What does a warrior has to be simple?? Nothing. If you really go deep into the concept, it's rich and interesting enough to be an epic and classic theme with no need to edulcorate on "romantic" colours to give it an extra dimension it doesn't need. The theme of "WHAT TO BE A WARRIOR MEANS" is the theme of every epic myth since Gilgamesh, to Ulises. I'm sure you are familiar with Joseph Campbell's works, to name a well known scholar on the theme. I'm sure you are familiar with Akira Kurosawa's epics "Yojimbo" or "Sanjuro", or the "Man with no name" Leone's westerns. They all talk about that theme, try to answer that question: "What to be a Warrior means?". It's not about killing baddies. It's way more than that.
And everyone that reads Howard knows this, more consciously or less.
“Why on earth shouldn't Conan's romantic side be promoted?”
Nothing wrog with a warrior being able to show love and even tenderness and compassion. AT ALL. That’s not the point, cause I support it 100%. It's essential in showing a true complex warrior, indeed.
My complain was about "romanticism", which as you probably know, has also 2 meanings today: one is the pink, oversweet genre girlfriends love, about games of seduction between a gentleman and a lady, that meg bullock stuff...
And other meaning is the classic, 19th century literary meaning, where "romanticism" was also something you could label to Friedrich Nietzsche's works, or "Frankenstein", "Dr Jekyll" or "Arthur Gordon Pym" novels. Romanticism on that sense was all about a man's search for his soul, not necessarily on a woman's heart -though it could be a form- but also on confronting nature's forces or inner demons. That is what the "way of the Warrior" is about on Gilgamesh or Ulises writtings too, and those are Romantic in essence. Howard’s works could be labeled as “romantic” in this sense too, specially the magnificent Kull tales.
Now, what does a movie like "Conan 3D" has to do about that classic meaning of Romanticism? Do I hear “zero”?
And what about a Meg Ryan movie? Id's say it has way more to do with this second than with the first.
Man, you yourself proved my point quoting this. SEE how Reh's is giving extreme and primary importance to the fact he was a Warrior? FIVE sentences describing the Warrior essence of Conan, against ONE last line about his sexual powers?
ReplyDeleteConan’s the damnedest bastard that ever was. He got a long black mane of hair, crystal blue eyes. He’s a fighter, born on the battlefield. To him, combat’s a way of life. It’s all he’s ever known, all he ever wants to know! He’s no soldier who was taught to fight. To him fighting’s an instinct, it’s a part of him. Like his legs, his arms, his chest, his bull neck. And believe me, he don’t take it from nobody. He’ll fight man, beast, devil or god. “And when those women feel those tree-trunk firm arms around their waist, they melt like butter on a hot skillet.”
"Evidently Howard did, in fact, think Conan the Lover was an important part of his character.
Here's what Conan himself says on the subject of love:
"What king has roamed the countries, fought the battles, loved the women, and won the plunder that I have?"
I guess Robert E. Howard doesn't "faithfully define Conan's spirit" or something.”
But then, my friend, I simply don't understand your disagreement when you absolutely have it there. You are 100% agreeing with my point there! I said that a more coherent sentence for Conan to selfdefine his way of living would be "I live, I >beep<, I slay". Cause that's what Bob's description was ALL about. No "meg ryan’s romantic love" there in his daily life, but animal sex and sweat. You also stated that REH uses the word “love” for “sex”. So, why the need to defend Reh’s honour there?? I wasn’t attacking Bob there at all, but the use of the movie for that word. Do you really think the trailer on the movie was promoting REH’s original use of the word “love” as “sex”?? C’mon man, this is disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing.
“ Besides, I think it's a far better way to define Conan than, say, "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women."
And for an end… and not fully entering in that room cause it’s subject for a whole encyclopedia of discussions , but I’ll simply point that sentence was never used to present the character to the media when the movie was released, simply because that sentence was meant to define a character in a particular scene and in a particular situation –where he by the way was repeating quotes he learnt from texts his captors forced him to learnt-, not the whole mentality of the character in his whole life. The sentence wasn’t used on posters, trailers, or anything to make an initial presentation on “who this guy in this movie is”, opposed to what “Conan 3D” did with the Belit one. In the Milius’ movie, this character saying that in that moment with that people, and specially knowing that he has still to free himself and start living a true free man’s life when he will really start to develop a personal life philosophy he still doesn’t own, was totally coherent. Another thing is it doesn’t fit with Howard’s original creation and therefore you don’t like it, which is a different matter and as said I won’t go in there.
Same, Momoa saying that sentence on the trailer was coherent with the KhalDrogo hottie the movie was pretending to make out of Conan. My complains come from the fact the movie makers lied as much as they could saying this Conan was going to be the most faithful to REH’s version Conan that we could dream about. And that I knew it was a total LIE since the moment they released that trailer with that sentence. Cause they weren’t using the word “love” in the sense REH used it in his texts, but in the way Meg Ryan movies use it instead.
I think my point is clear enough. Still, If you or any want to find that my words and points of view claim that I hate you guys and I hate REH, well, there you go, you will find them.
Well, I’d like to end with a friendly shake of hands, if you want to take it. I just want to INSIST that we probably agree more on what really matters, than on what we disagree. And that disagreements are perfectly ok, and that I respect your way of living and loving the Cimmerian, and I ask you the same for my own way, no matter how “whatever” you want to think it is –I will have my own “whatever” labels for yours too, but I promise I won’t use those as a weapon to make you look a lower lifeform than me-.
ReplyDeleteRegards.
Don't worry, sir, I welcome discussion. Truth is a lot has changed in regards to my opinions on the film, Conan as a character, everything since then (it HAS been years), so I welcome commentary on it. Thanks for coming by, and I appreciate the offer to metaphorically shake hands. :)
Delete