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.
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...
Universal Pictures has made a deal for The Legend Of Conan, an action film that will star Arnold Schwarzenegger
in one of his signature roles as Robert E. Howard’s mythic barbarian.
The deal brings Conan and Schwarzenegger back to Universal, which
released the first film that launched Schwarzenegger’s movie career back
in 1982. Universal has world rights on the film.
The film will be produced by Fredrik Malmberg and Chris Morgan.
Malmberg is CEO of Paradox Entertainment, which holds the rights to
Conan. Morgan is the Universal-based writer and producer whose credits
include the last four Fast and the Furious films, along with Wanted and 47 Ronin.Morgan has hatched the story and might write the script. The caveat is that the studio wants The Legend of Conan for summer 2014, and Morgan might not be finished writing the seventh Fast and Furious installment by then. If that happens he will be a very active producer, because this is Morgan’s dream project.
Schwarzenegger starred in two Conan films before moving on to Terminator
and other blockbusters as he became the world’s biggest action star.
Paradox was involved in a 2011 reboot at Millennium Films that starred
Jason Momoa and misfired. Paradox’s Malmberg, who moved the project away
from Warner Bros after seven years of development with big name
filmmakers because the project was moving too slowly, feels that this is
the version of the film that he and everybody else always wanted to see
on the screen but couldn’t while Schwarzenegger was Governor of
California.
“The original ended with Arnold on the throne as a seasoned warrior,
and this is the take of the film we will make,” Malmberg told me. “It’s
that Nordic Viking mythic guy who has played the role of king, warrior,
soldier and mercenary, and who has bedded more women than anyone,
nearing the last cycle of his life. He knows he’ll be going to Valhalla,
and wants to go out with a good battle.”
There are no plans for Momoa to return. Morgan said that in his mind, The Legend of Conan
not only skips over that film, but also the 1984 sequel that
Schwarzenegger starred in. The direct link is to the original, which was
directed by John Milius from a script that he wrote with Oliver Stone.
That was a testosterone-laced exploration of Howard’s mythology of a
child sold into slavery who grows into manhood seeking vengeance against
the warlord who slaughtered his family and his village.
“After the original seminal movie, all that came after looked silly to
me,” Morgan said. “Robert E. Howard’s mythology and some great
philosophy from Nietzsche to Atilla the Hun was layered in the original
film. People say, he didn’t speak for the first 20 minutes of the film,
but that was calculated in depicting this man who takes control of life
with his own hand. This movie picks up Conan where Arnold is now in his
life, and we will be able to use the fact that he has aged in this
story. I love the property of Conan so much that I wouldn’t touch it
unless we came up with something worthy. We think this is a worthy
successor to the original film. Think of this as Conan’s Unforgiven.”
Let's go through stages of grief of a Howard fan - not representative of all Howard fans, of course, just one in particular. I'll approximate it through the use of video clips. Then I'll try and give a more level-headed commentary. Emphasis on try. I am so crotchety right now.
While I certainly have a great number of Conan-related piece of paraphernalia interned in my household, I'm not what you'd call a Conan collector: I just buy what I like, rather than feel compelled to get the whole set, as it were. I have many of the reprints of the Marvel comics that adapt the stories, but I didn't see much point in going beyond the Roy Thomas run: likewise, I have thus felt no need to liberate the Conan the Adventurer action figures from whatever warehouse they're currently collecting dust in.
I was going to make an exception for the McFarlane Conans. You can't exactly call these action figures on account of the preposterous lack of articulation: "action" figures would be something of a misnomer. Even the Battlechargers had more freedom of movement. However, one doesn't buy these to enact fun little battles: one buys them to display, like you would a sculpture. It just happens to have some variety in accessories and trinkets available. It's a nice idea, all the same.
However, the more I looked at the McFarlanes, the louder Bad Scot started to grumble.
Remember a while back I was going to do a tongue-in-cheek historical analysis of the 1982 Conan the Barbarian where I erroneously put forward the idea that the film is set in historical times? Conan as a Sumerian, Subotai a Hyrcanian, Thulsa Doom a Nubian, and whatnot. However, I thought better of it, because I wouldn't want to contribute to the misinformation regarding Conan around the 'net, even in jest.
UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS WILL BE DETECTED, OBSERVED, AND SEVERELY DEALT WITH TO THE FULL EXTENT OUTSIDE THE LAW
THIS IS YOUR SOLE WARNING
============================
07/06/11
Shieldbearers,
I'm mobilizing for Operation Albanach Invasion as we speak, so I'm not going to be able to engage in operations for a while. But that's no reason I should keep all the fun from you folks, so I'm going to post the review in its entirety now, and invite you to comment in the comments section: I'll be updating this alert with my analysis in due course. I'll just say that Subject Bittertree has some very good company in Zack Davisson - if the latter's advance review for Savage Sword of Robert E. Howard is any indication.
Even though he is one of my favorites, I will be the first to admit that Robert E. Howard was not a great writer. He was mediocre at best, with limited style and skills, stilted dialog, often hack-kneed plots, and shallow, one-dimensional characters. But somehow, through some mystical confluence of inspiration and muse, when Robert E. Howard wrote Conan he was transfigured; he became a great writer, one of the greatest. But only when he was writing Conan.
Okay, so I'm being uncharitable. Howard also did a good job with King Kull, Solomon Kane and a few others. His work was character-driven; if he had a good character, he produced good writing. If he had a great character, he produced great writing. And if he had a mediocre or completely lame character… well, you can guess what level of writing he produced.
Dark Horse took on a daring challenge with Robert E. Howard’s Savage Sword: to take these lesser-known, lesser-written characters and make good comics. Sailor Steve Costigan. The desert gunslinger El Borak. Dark Agnes de Chastillon, who would be combined with another Howard creation Red Sonya of Rogatino to become the comic character Red Sonja. The Viking Niord. Not exactly household names. There are six stories in total, two of them continuing serials, one a reprint from 1970s fantasy anthologies, and one an illustrated version with Howard’s text. That makes for a good mix, and allows new readers to pick up any issue while still encouraging ongoing collection.
I am impressed with the results. One of the benefits of using the lower-grade Howard pantheon is that the writers are more free to write their own stories. When I read Conan comics, I am constantly comparing them to Howard’s Conan and am nitpicky about the departures. But when I read this El Borak story, I just sit back and enjoy.
The showpiece of this anthology is El Borak, the Texas-Cowboy-in-the-Middle-East who makes his first comic appearance here. Rendered by writer Mark Finn and artist Greg Scott, El Borak is remarkably well done, with cinematic pacing and imagery. This story is an original piece by Finn, set as a sequel to Howard’s El Borak adventure Hawk of the Hills. Finn and Scott have obviously studied their desert adventure flicks from the period, because they captured the look and feel just right. The sword duel between El Borak and Hakim Khan was fantastic -- beautifully written, beautifully drawn.
The Dark Agnes is another original story, which is not surprising as Howard only wrote three Dark Agnes stories. This Dark Agnes is still a “She-Devil with a Sword” but don’t expect her to run around in a chainmail bikini. Written by Marc Andreyko with pencils by Robert Atkins, Dark Agnes is one of the two continuing serials. Andreyko gave Dark Agnes a more feminist theme than Howard probably intended, but then he was a 1930s Texan. Atkins’ art is good enough, but not particularly memorable.
I have never liked Sailor Steve Costigan, and the story here didn’t convince me otherwise. He is one of Howard’s “fighting characters,” a tough guy who gets into problems then settles them with his fists -- basically Popeye will all the mirth sucked out. Writer Joe Casey and artist Pop Mhan do their best to make something out of the meager source material. Mhan in particular draws some interesting faces, while Casey tries to weave some twists and turns into the tale. But ultimately it is a typical Sailor Steve Costigan adventure, and he just punches people until he wins. The following Sea Cruise, which combines Howard’s original text with illustrations by Tim Seeley, is a far better story. The scene of a corpse getting its eyes eaten out by crabs is one of the best in the book.
The Valley of the Worm is the sole reprint, coming from 1972's Supernatural Thrillers #3. Story-wise, this may be the worst in the book. It is a typical Howard device of a modern man experiencing his wild past life where he was a powerful barbarian warrior. The story is entirely saved by Gil Kane’s perfect art, looking even more beautiful with modern coloring.
And finally comes Conan. There is something primal about Conan. He dominates the book as soon as he steps on the page. You get the feeling that Conan would easily take down everyone else in this book without dinging his sword raising a sweat. Paul Tobin and Wellington Alves do the Conan story The Jewels of Hastern, and do it well. I haven’t heard of either Tobin or Wellington, but they get right into the heart of Conan with a story that's all blood, women, jewels and strange gods -- the way a Conan story should be. Artist Wellington did a great job on the armor and castle setting of the story, and Tobin leaves the story on the edge of a climax, leaving the reader wanting to flip the next page but being forced to wait until the next volume of this anthology comes out.
I don't think there's a single sentence in this document that I can leave without comment. However, time is of the essence: I invite all S.H.I.E.L.D.W.A.L.L. agents and allies to address this review, utilizing the Utterance Device located below. As ever, keep the mantra of savage courtesy in mind.
It’s now Saturday morning in the UK and this fits perfectly. I was going to write a post explaining that I have serious problems with Robert E. Howards’ Conan stories and with most subsequent sword and sorcery stories that were inspired by it. I was also going to mention that they’re all a bit crap.
*Cracks knuckles, poises fingers on keyboard, prepares to read about these serious problems and allegations of partial craptitude*
Instead you are getting this.
... Aww. Well, alright, what're we getting?
Conan the Adventurer is how I first discovered the character of Conan. It aired on the BBC after school and I was probably eight. Unlike homework it didn’t bore me and unlike Australian children’s TV didn’t agitate my childhood fear of clowns. You can go on about the two Arnold Schwarzenegger films and the riddle of steel and camel punching, but this is better.
Yes this is also terrible. It’s just a better league of terrible.
Dude, come on. I feel so played.
This chap, Will Ellwood, got my hackles up for nothing. Here I was, fingers poised on the keyboard, eager for a chance for me to debate. Debate is good. If he had honest, understandable problems with the Conan stories that I'd have to work to address, that'd be great: it'd force me to really assess the Conan stories, and maybe discover something I hadn't noticed before. If he came up with a bunch of garbage about how Conan always got the girl, always beat the wizard, always got the treasure and so on, then I could be further inspired to finish those entires in the Beginner's Guide refuting those silly myths. But no, Will does the old bait-and-switch and goes for the easy target of Conan the Adventurer. Oh, you cad, Mr Ellwood.
I don't begrudge people having different tastes. I just don't think you can leave people hanging on proclamations on what you were going to write, make pretty strong statements about "serious problems," and then not follow up on them. Bit of a tease, is all.
In the June 2011 issue of Maxim magazine, there is a brief "fast facts" snippet about Conan and Robert E. Howard. I have to parentheses the facts portion as "We" all know better.
Amaron's post over at the Robert E. Howard Forums piqued my interest, but further developments are just too good to leave alone. I'll just replicate what I said over there.
It says, Conan debuted in 1932, making him older than Superman but younger than Mickey Mouse.
Cool factoid: Solomon Kane's older than all three!
Mickey Mouse first appearance: November 1928
Solomon Kane's first appearance: August 1928
Conan was born in the fictional Hyborian Age in Cimmeria, thought to be modern-day Ukraine - (Funny, that is the first time I have ever heard that one.)
I think they're getting it mixed up with another Cimmeria: the historical Cimmerians lived in the area of modern Ukraine. I've heard it a few times, usually when people try to justify the Austrian accent. ("Austria's right next to Ukraine!")
At least they didn't say "Hyboria," though.
Howard described Conan as 6'2", 210 pounds, supposedly the authors own weight and height.
(Note: you'll notice that I've not been keeping up on the blog. Part of it's stuff for Conan Movie Blog, part of it's the book, another part's getting ready for Cross Plains. And gremlins. As consolation, here's a Review Review I put on the backburner due to its contentious subject matter, but considering I'm pretty sure Ebert's going to do a review of the upcoming Conan film, I figure I may as well.)
Ah, Roger Ebert. Doug Walker, a fan of Siskel & Ebert, has a tribute to the pair which illustrates nicely the nature of the man and his work. While I can appreciate his popularity and contributions to film studies, I'm not a fan. I find that he's too quick to apply a perceived agenda to films, and can be derisive of films not adhering to a script 3-act structure made in the past 50 years. He also tends to make a few factual errors, which is one of those things only nitpickers like myself are really bothered with.
Because I can't correct this minor error on Filmshaft:
I don't think it's unfair for me to say that there's more than a few fans out there who are overly cautious about Millennium Pictures' long awaited reboot of Conan the Barbarian, and with good reason too. It has taken the project several years to get off of the ground, with production dates being pushed further and further back as a result. Also, to be fair, the original films, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger are hardly classics, so what could be worth looking forward to in the reboot which crashes into cinemas later this year?
Well to start with, you may (or may not, take your pick) breath a sigh of relief to find out that the new film, directed by Marcus Nispel, is NOT based on Arnie's movies, but rather the Robert E. Howard comicbooks.
Of course, I can't comment, because evidently Martyn Conterio is still peeved that I patiently and helpfully corrected him, and...
And unless some other good soul corrects Craig Sharp, his article will continue to reflect poorly on him.
A curious post regarding the recent teaser's use of "I live, I love, I slay, and I am content" over at the IMDB, apparently originating over at The Conan Completist:
"...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."
I may have come under fire for wasting everyone's time yesterday, but hopefully this'll be more worthwhile. Unlike Arthur Knowledge, the commentators of this article appear to be intelligent, reasonable human beings who happen to be grossly misinformed. It is my duty as a Howard fan to correct and enlighten them on several key issues.
The place: Discover Magazine Blog. (Why is it always the sources that are supposed to be informed and intelligent that end up getting things the most wrong?). The gentleman in question is Razib Khan, but a certain chap named Leviticus says some things that are just... Well, you'll see.
Troll quotes are image macros that consist of an image, a quote, and a recognized speaker, though none of the three match up to each other. The concept, as the meme name suggests, is to use such images to troll fandom boards for any of the three elements to get reactions to them.
And from its official website (for every meme worth its salt has its own domain):
1) Get a picture of someone people idolize. Obi Wan Kenobi, Barack Obama, Captain Kirk — any beloved public figure will do.
2) Slap on a famous quotation from a similar character from a different book or movie. Pick something close enough that a non-fan might legitimately confuse them. If you’re using Captain Picard from Star Trek: The Next Generation, for example, you’ll probably want to grab a quote from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Babylon 5 or Battlestar Galactica.
3) Attribute the quotation to a third character, from yet a third universe. This way, nothing about your image is correct, and you’re trolling fans of all three characters at once.
This amuses me far more than it should. These images range from the spectacular:
An interesting link regarding George R. "The American Tolkien" R. Martin and J.R.R. Tolkien.
I don't like calling Martin the American Tolkien for a few reasons. First, he isn't the American Tolkien. Not even close, jack. I care not a whit what Time Magazine has to say on the matter. When somebody spends their entire life writing a single opus derived from history, mythology and language, then maybe we can start talking about calling people American Tolkiens. Besides, we've had plenty of preceding authors being called the American Tolkien: Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind, Stephen R. Donaldson. Probably even Christopher Paolini. It's a meaningless phrase that makes light of Tolkien's monumental achievement.
Second, why refer to him as the regional derivative of a more famous author when he could, and should, stand on his own two feet? I'd rather refer to him as the first George R. R. Martin than the American Tolkien, if it's all the same to you chaps.
But that's just me, of course. Then there's this bit.
Quite a few of them are adventure stories that celebrate violence, or more often treat it as something unreal and without cost. These aren’t the projects that are reaching outside the usual genre readers to talk to the wider audience. If there were a market for the celebration of warfare, we’d have any number of options inside epic fantasy. That isn’t what people are responding to. We have no appetite for Conan bathing in the blood of his enemies.
Hmm. Well, at least he gives Conan the credit of being literature, albeit literature that seems to either glorify violence or consider it of no consequence. Possibly both. My response:
Perhaps that’s true of the stories by other authors, but the original stories by Howard don’t celebrate violence, so much as render it as an unavoidable facet of the human condition. It is a cause for sombre reflection, as much as the carnal thrill of fear, energy and exertion could be considered glorification. Conan loves the thrill of battle because it is life at its closest to being lost: it’s the same sort of thing that attracts extreme sports enthusiasts, danger-seekers, and criminals. But at no point does Howard give any impression that war and battle in the Hyborian Age is as loveless, petty, relentless, hollow and miserable as it is in real life, regardless of the fleeting joy the Cimmerian experiences in the moment.
Nor can one consider the violence in Conan as lacking verisimilitude, or lacking cost. Conan’s scars sting, bleed and ache following every battle; his dead allies are mourned and their loss is palpable. There are plenty of stories where Conan barely gets out alive, and is dripping with blood from a multitude of fresh wounds. Not all the characters survive the story, be they friend or foe, be they deserving or undeserving of death.
One need not look further than “The Hour of the Dragon” to see the relevance of the Conan stories to the cynical approach to war:
“Men said the gods were satisfied because the evil king and his spawn were slain, and when his young brother Tarascus was crowned in the great coronation hall, the populace cheered until the towers rocked, acclaiming the monarch on whom the gods smiled.
Such a wave of enthusiasm and rejoicing as swept the land is frequently the signal for a war of conquest. So no one was surprized when it was announced that King Tarascus had declared the truce made by the late king with their western neighbors void, and was gathering his hosts to invade Aquilonia. His reason was candid; his motives, loudly proclaimed, gilded his actions with something of the glamor of a crusade. He espoused the cause of Valerius, “rightful heir to the throne”; he came, he proclaimed, not as an enemy of Aquilonia, but as a friend, to free the people from the tyranny of a usurper and a foreigner.
If there were cynical smiles in certain quarters, and whispers concerning the king’s good friend Amalric, whose vast personal wealth seemed to be flowing into the rather depleted royal treasury, they were unheeded in the general wave of fervor and zeal of Tarascus’s popularity. If any shrewd individuals suspected that Amalric was the real ruler of Nemedia, behind the scenes, they were careful not to voice such heresy. And the war went forward with enthusiasm.”
– “The Hour of the Dragon”
Not unlike a certain other war in recent memory that people are increasingly cynical towards…
Any thoughts, lads & lasses? I'd say Howard, like Tolkien, doesn't so much celebrate or glorify battle and war - rather, they celebrate heroism and bravery. I easily see echoes of Conan, the Æsir, and the myriad soldiers of Aquilonia in the blood-and-thunder of Gimli, Boromir, and the Rohirrim. At the same time, they certainly don't shy away from the cruelty, gore, grief and misery war and battle results in. More than a few Conan stories start at the aftermath of a battle, robbing the reader of the excitement and thrill of action, and leaving us wandering among the red ruin of conflict, screams of the dying punctuating the deathly silence. One need not deny the feats of glory and triumph to accept the dark, horrific reality of war. Howard and Tolkien seem to get it. I'm not far enough in A Song of Ice and Fire to judge whether Martin does this too, but no doubt if they're there, they're plain to see.
When it comes to antagonists, let's just say that if you have ever played a game about Conan that has featured characters from the books, a few of them were "boy lovers". Conan was before political correctness when it was written, and while it was never a focus, Conan has a major amount of contempt for gays and "boy lovers", and while never descriptive a number of his enemies were supposed to have been weakened by such "civilized decadence". Of course in the video games they rarely even go as far as the stories (both canon, and very old non-canon) did, which wasn't very far. Like most heroes a lot of his enemies "almost get him" in one way or another (a trap or spell, if not a straight fight) so you really can't call them impotent (so to speak) for their orientation irregardless of what Conan might think.
Two words: Citation. Needed.
I'm absolutely stumped by Therumancer's statement. I can think of about three situations that might be construed as vague allusions to homosexuality:
- Thalis' gleeful whipping of Natala in "Xuthal of the Dusk"
- Tascela's suggestive lust for Valeria's youth in "Red Nails"
- A couple of naked slave boys on wine-pouring duty in "The Scarlet Citadel"
And that's it. Exactly zero examples, references, allusions or hints that Conan has anything that could remotely be considered "a major amount of contempt for gays and "boy lovers,"" nor that any of his foes could even be conjectured as homosexual, nor that homosexuality was some sort of result of "civilized decadence." That's not even getting into the fact that I can't recall a Conan game beyond Age of Conan that does feature antagonists from the stories, and even then, from what I can tell they aren't explicitly or suggestively gay. Seriously, am I missing something, guys?
What's even more bizarre is how our man says that this was before the age of PC, as if the public perception of homosexuality in the 1930s had anything to do with political correctness. See, here's the thing: up until the 1970s, homosexuality was largely considered a mental disorder. Think about that. For much of the 20th century, it was the opinion of the scientific community that homosexuality was as much a psychological-behavioural problem as anorexia, schizophrenia, and the multitudes of manias, philias and phobias. In the 1950s and 1960s, you got public service announcements like Boys Beware practically equating homosexuality with paedophilia and sexual predation.
This was made a quarter of a century after Howard's death - and you expect a 1930s Texan to think differently?
So to expect Howard to treat homosexuality as anything other than what not only society, but science considered homosexuality to be at the time - that is, a mental disorder, and anyone who practised what was termed sodomy was breaking the law - is simply preposterous. It's even more ridiculous than expecting him to produce strong female characters (even though he did) or sympathetic black characters (even though he did).
Perhaps he's thinking of one of the pastiches - Lagomorph? Charles? Morgan? - but even then, the first Conan pastiche wasn't around until 20 years after Howard's death. I wouldn't put it past someone like Carter, Moore or Perry. Perry had some weird stuff.
Oh, and Therumancer said "irregardless." That isn't a word.
Full disclosure: this is going to be a very polarized post. Yeah, one of those. Lots of very angry things, and lots of super-duper happy things will be said. It regards the upcoming film. Just warning you.
However, missing in these images is Conan's oft-remarked-upon blue eyes - commonly used in descriptions of the warrior - that may leave some die-hard fanboys disappointed (you know, the kind that freak out about that kind of thing).
- spill.com makes my ears burn
Will people really miss the blue eyes?
- Ciaran O'Keeffe, in the comments section
"blue eyes?"
- sol aka "Cap'n Hates-A-Lot!"
REALLY? Blue eyes? That's the stupidest complaint anyone could ever make. If anyone does, I'm going to their house and kicking them. repeatedly. in the face.
- Stiver, and by Crom, I really want him to try that, and see if his internet tough-guy act translates over into real life
Blue eyes? I was a big Conan fan in my teen years, but these days I don't really care that much about the color of his eyes.
- Relentless Monkey
People who complain about the blue eyes are in the same category as the James Bond fans who said "Bond is not blonde".
- Omega Dinobot, and for his sake I hope he wasn't one of those people who complained about the flames on Optimus Prime in the Transformers movies: said the frying-pan to the kettle, get away, blackbreech!
This is one of those times where I'm actually at a loss. I know Conan having blue eyes is important. You lads and lasses all know Conan having blue eyes is important. But... how can you make the point across that, no, Conan's eye colour is not the same sort of thing as Daniel Craig's hair colour or Spider-Man's organic web shooters? That it's one of the most important distinguishing factors of the character, a defining aspect of his place in the setting, a crucial visual element which marks him as utterly different from just about every other character?
Well, since I still need to get my mind off the teaser (DREADLOCKS! LIPS! GUITARS!) I decided that, instead of going about correcting People Who Are Wrong On The Internet, I would present an argument as to exactly why Conan's blue eyes do, indeed, matter. All that was left to do was delve back into the Del Reys and pore, pore, pore.
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...
(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.
Well, this is interesting. I've posted my response, but as always, I'll provide it here in case Blogger eats it.
The problem with the essay is that its author has fundamentally misread Tolkien and Howard.
On the contrary, I feel that the problem here is that you have misread his position.
For one thing, you are missing one extremely salient point: that both Tolkien and Howard differ from the nihilists Grin mentioned because there is genuine heroism, hope and exultation in their works.
Tolkien is full of loss, sorrow and decline, but it's also full of great men doing great things, be they humble Hobbits, or heroic Kings of Men. Howard's stories are full to the brim of similar examples.
THAT is what Leo is talking about which is missing in the stories of which he speaks. There are no heroes, no beacons of humanity to show that while the universe is a dark, cruel, unforgiving place, there are those who defy it with shining beacons of optimism, altruism, and bravery. How can anyone describe anything like that as Nihilistic? Surely if a work is nihilistic, then there would be no victories, no heroism, no hope?
There are no Frodos, Aragorns, Theodens, Balthuses, Solomon Kanes or Kulls in the works Leo is decrying. In short, there are no heroes in these particular works. You say The Lord of the Rings isn't a happy ending: true, but vastly preferable to the alternative. It is an ending I can happily call bittersweet: victory and peace at great cost. Nihilistic? Certainly not.
Your mention of Grin's dismissal of Wheel of Time, and your similar argument that Grin seeks a more "black versus white" approach, is also inaccurate, in my opinion. I read his argument as being that there should be more distinction between the shades of grey going on. Black, white and grey, not just lighter and darker shades of grey.
I'm actually not sure if my rebuttal was sufficient: doubtless someone like Brian would do a better and more articularted job of explaining how, no, Leo did not misread Tolkien or Howard. I'm convinced that the blog author has simply misread Leo's argument, not that he disagrees with his points. Either that, or he really thinks Tolkien's a nihilist...
Special mention should be given to Maurice's comment, which is the most profound misinterpretation of a Conan story since Unhappy "Conan threatened to rape Yasmina in the burning ruins of her palace" Anchovy:
I remember also thinking about characters like Conan being chivalrous until a friend of mine told me to actually read an original Howard, The Frost Giant's daughter, where he basically chases and kills a woman's family of giants just so he can rape her.
I'm impressed with how easily you colour that story by the choice omission of several extremely important details to give a completely fallacious and disingenuous impression of the plot in order to make Atali and her brothers out to be the helpless, innocent victims of a brutish Conan.
You miss out the extremely important detail that the woman in question was hypnotically compelling Conan to follow him to his death. She has done this to unnumbered men through the millennia, appearing to dying men on the battlefield, luring them to their doom through sexual manipulation and supernatural compulsion. Men may be bleeding to death and exhausted, but a "strange madness" forces them to walk leagues upon leagues far from civilization in pursuit of a mocking, taunting goddess. Said family of giants, by the way, were lying in wait in preparation to murder him - once again, as they have done to COUNTLESS others - and sacrifice his heart to their father-god.
The guy who wrote the article must have never read one of Howard's works.
Leo Grin is one of the most respected Robert E. Howard scholars out there. His journal, The Cimmerian, is highly regarded, and twice nominated for the World Fantasy Award. He most certainly has controversial opinions not all Howardists agree with - many Howardists disagree on multiple subjects - but to allege he has never read Howard's work, or that he has misread them, is simply preposterous.
Given your grotesque misreading/misrepresentation of "The Frost-Giant's Daughter," I have to question how on earth you came to such a conclusion - or even if you've read the story at all.
In fairness, the near-rape aspect of "The Frost-Giant's Daughter" is often misunderstood: however, the way he implies that Conan just raged into a peaceful giant's town and slaughtered an innocent girl's family as a counterpoint to Conan's chivalry is actually rather nauseating.
More recently I decided to read Robert E. Howard, particularly his Solomon Kane and Conan stories.
I am not a fan of Conan, I’m afraid. At least for the first several stories that Howard wrote, I felt like they were all derivatives of each other.
This is exactly why I've set up the Newcomer's Guide. This gentleman, Bruce Nielson, has claimed to have read the first thirteen Conan stories - presumably this means The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian - yet I can see much reason to doubt that statement. If he has read them, I really thinks he needs to read them again.
Ah well. Can't please everyone, even though I don't know how anyone could consider "The Phoenix on the Sword," "The Frost-Giant's Daughter," "The God in the Bowl" and "The Tower of the Elephant" remotely similar enough to be "derivative of each other. But that's not my problem. My problem is that Mr Nielson has gone to the trouble to produce a "Conan formula" which apparently applies to the stories, based on his reading of the first thirteen. The problem is, as I shall demonstrate, that this formula does nothing of the sort.
Sure, he's just a blogger on the internet. But I'm just a blogger on the internet. This is the kind of stuff the Newcomer's Guide seeks to challenge. And challenge it is what I intend to do.
Any thoughts, lads & lasses? I'd say Howard, like Tolkien, doesn't so much celebrate or glorify battle and war - rather, they celebrate heroism and bravery. I easily see echoes of Conan, the Æsir, and the myriad soldiers of Aquilonia in the blood-and-thunder of Gimli, Boromir, and the Rohirrim. At the same time, they certainly don't shy away from the cruelty, gore, grief and misery war and battle results in. More than a few Conan stories start at the aftermath of a battle, robbing the reader of the excitement and thrill of action, and leaving us wandering among the red ruin of conflict, screams of the dying punctuating the deathly silence. One need not deny the feats of glory and triumph to accept the dark, horrific reality of war. Howard and Tolkien seem to get it. I'm not far enough in A Song of Ice and Fire to judge whether Martin does this too, but no doubt if they're there, they're plain to see.