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.

The de Camp Controversy: Essential Reading For Those Not in the Know

I've noticed a number of inquiries recently regarding L. Sprague de Camp; more specifically, "what's the deal Howard fans have with L. Sprague de Camp?" Well, I think the best and most complete analysis of the sort of thing which many Howard fans take issue with is Morgan Holmes' Hyrkanian Award-winning "The de Camp Controversy."

For the ease of navigation, here are links to all 16 parts of "The de Camp Controversy."

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11
Part 12
Part 13
Part 14
Part 15
Part 16

Of the essay, Holmes says:

“The de Camp Controversy” started out because of some heated debate at the Conan forum regarding L. Sprague de Camp’s legacy. I had originally intended it to be three or four blog posts and that would be it. Once I got into it, there was so much more to cover. I would still like to fill in some blank spots like the shopping of Conan to paperback publishers in 1963 and ’64. A trip to look through de Camp’s papers is in order someday along with some talks with still living players of events from decades gone by. So with some time and effort, an expanded version may see the light of day in the future.

I'd like to reiterate that my personal knowledge and interpretation of de Camp is probably very different from those of long-time Howard fans for the simple reason that I only got into Howard fandom at large years after his death. As such, all I have to go on is history and the word of those who were there at the time, and going on that, my take on him is that he was an extremely intelligent man who simply didn't get Howard - perhaps because he was very scientifically minded as opposed to emotionally minded, his background was just so different, or a simple blind spot - but rather than assume it was something he didn't understand, he presumed it was because there was nothing to get. For decades the idea that Howard was an inferior writer and world-builder whose work had no serious literary merit was, essentially, the status quo, even when you had essays arguing the latter all the way back to 1974 with Hoffman's "Conan the Existentialist." Nowadays, with Howard being considered a Serious Writer With Real Literary Merit more and more, it's important to note just how far we've come since those days.

Robert E. Howard: A New Manifesto

(The following is a special message from none other than Mark Finn.  It will be proliferated on various websites as a measure to increase awareness on Howard, Howard scholarship and newcomers to the world of Robert E. Howard.  I encourage all who read this to forward it to anyone and everyone who needs to read it. Click on "But Wait, There's More" for more details on the Manifesto from Mark.)

Why a New Manifesto?

In the past twelve months, I've seen several rounds of speculation from various bloggers lately, two of which were the equivalent of Internet train wreaks that ended rather badly, despite everyone’s avowed intentions. In the interest of using the Internet as an actual research tool, I have written this manifesto on behalf of the fans and interested parties in the life and works of Robert E. Howard, as a guide to the person or persons who are new to Howard studies, or perhaps would like to write an article, essay, or blog post about him. If you’d like to delve deeper into the history and current state of Howard studies, and get some advice for participating in the debate, click on the link at the end of this Manifesto.

A New Robert E. Howard Manifesto

I am a fan of Robert E. Howard, the Texas author who created a multitude of unique characters, wrote original and inventive fiction, defined the genre of epic fantasy as we understand it, and inspired me to become a professional writer. There are tens of thousands of other fans just like myself. As fans of Robert E. Howard and his works, we are interested in reading more about our favorite author. We are interested in sharing and exchanging new ideas about his life and work, and we actively seek out these new ideas online, in print, and elsewhere.

What we do not want to see are semi-uninformed retreads of the same discussions that were in vogue circa 1984. The field of Howard Studies is alive and well, with new discoveries and voices appearing all the time.  Interest in the author is high and remains so. If you have a thought or an opinion, even a controversial or untested one, and want to share it with the world at large, we encourage that you do so.

We expect responsibility and accountability on your part. We are not interested in your grand pronouncement on a subject which has yet to be settled by people who have spent decades studying the issue at hand. We expect you to do your homework. There are a number of websites and literally stacks of new books that likely cover or answer most of your questions regarding Robert E. Howard. To not utilize those sources when doing your research smacks of willful ignorance and will not be tolerated by the fans of Robert E. Howard. 

If you want to write a review about how much you didn’t like Kull: Exile of Atlantis, have at it. Take it apart for any and all textual reasons you choose to invoke. We may not agree because Howard’s work isn’t for everyone, and we understand that. But the minute you start bringing Robert E. Howard’s life story into your Kull review, it will garner a much more careful reading, and if you don’t have your facts straight, or your opinions backed up by same, then we will call you on it.

The online Robert E. Howard fanbase calls itself the “Shield Wall.” Some writers who have been on the business end of the Shield Wall’s attacks have accused us of being bullies and overly-obsessed for the protective stance we take. While it is not our intention to bully anyone, and while we may get a little carried away on occasion, let me be very clear here as to why this is so: Robert E. Howard has not had a voice for 75 years now. For four decades after his death, he had very few advocates who would defend him against the libel and slander of those who stood to profit from his work. He has been misunderstood and misrepresented for years. The Shield Wall’s goal has been to stop in its entirety the kind of character assassination employed by L. Sprague de Camp and others who would adopt his methodology. 

Consider this a challenge to survey the amount of work that has been done in Howard Studies in the last ten years alone and then try to come up with your own take on a topic or angle of discussion that has not been beaten to death. Do not make the mistake that so many others have made; just because Robert E. Howard isn’t considered a “classic” author by the literary establishment that you can beat his literary reputation (or his personal life) like a rented mule and you will not get kicked for your efforts.

We expect you to accord Robert E. Howard the same respect as any other 20^th century American author with continued and perennial popularity. No more back handed compliments. No more snide insinuations. No more rampant and irresponsible speculation with no basis of fact or evidence to bolster it. And for God’s Sake, no more “oedipal complex” crap, either. Those theories are thirty years out of date, and we are sick and tired of seeing it. Give us something new, or keep your parochial and backwards thinking to yourself. 

Mark Finn

Author of Blood & Thunder: The Life and Art of Robert E. Howard

And Commander of the Texas Shield Wall

Pastiches 'R' Us: Ryan Harvey Inadvertently Destroys De Camp

Full confession time: I haven't read Conan of the Isles.  I have, however, read Roy Thomas' adaptations of various De Camp/Carter pastiches in the recent Marvel reprints courtesy of Dark Horse, and from what I can gather, Thomas was - unfortunately - as faithful to De Camp as he was to Howard. Admirable on Thomas' part, but leads to a lot of infuriated spluttering on my part. Like Conan the Liberator. To hell with that.

King Conan Volume 1

I... am confused.

KING CONAN VOLUME 1
Written by Roy Thomas, art by John Buscema and Ernie Chan.
Conan is king! Join Conan, king of Aquilonia, his queen Zenobia, and their son Conn in this comics adaptation of L. Sprague de Camp, Lin Carter, and Bjorn Nyberg's stories "The Witch of the Mists," "Black Sphinx of Nebthu," "Red Moon of Zembabwei," "Shadows in the Skull," and "The Ring of Rakhamon"!
King Conan collects issues #1 through #5 of the early '80s series originally published by Marvel Comics.
King Conan is based on a series of five short stories by Robert E. Howard, originally published in Weird Tales.
192 pages, $17.99, in stores on August 25.

So... wait. Howard only wrote three King Conan stories. What are the other two? If they're referring to the five stories they mention, then... how did they miss "L. Sprague De Camp, Bjorn Nyberg and Lin Carter's stories" right there? One paragraph above?

I hope they change that sentence. Something like "King Conan is based on the stories by Robert E. Howard, originally published in Weird Tales." Or some such. Something that doesn't directly contradict the previous paragraph.

Then again, I'm not particularly interested in this collection. No Howard, and I resolved never to read another De Camp Conan after the astonishingly horrible Conan the Liberator. I cannot tell you how much I hated that "novel."

Triangulation: Trifectas, DeCampistas, Reviews, Kush & Almuric

I'm really down about Painbrush's passing, so this'll likely be brief. I really wish the new year got off to a better start. This was going to be the year I finally met Painbrush at Howard Days, and it tears me up knowing I won't. Damn it.

On Monday, I'm a bit late to the table regarding a trifecta of Weird Tales poetry books: I thought I was being a good little reporter with an awesome scoop, but it turns out I was late to the table. Oh well, any excuse for that awesome picture.

On the penultimate day of the year, the DeCampista Awards make their debut. I think Mark's idea is brilliant: I'm sure some will be going "but why even give them an award? You'll just encourage them!" To which I would counter: there is no way anyone would take this as a badge of pride. Except maybe Gary.

So as not to go out on a sour note, I saved the best for the last day of 2009: a review of the year. There are probably a few things I missed, but this is all the stuff I felt most relevant.

Also that day, a quick post about Charles R. Saunders' Kush essay, making a return to public after thirty-odd years. I've been meaning to ask Charles about that essay he did about Kush for Savage Sword.

The Saturday post, and the first of the new year and decade, is devoted to Almuric. I have big plans for this series over the year: chapter analysis, comparison to other stories by Howard and others, as well as a few extra surprises.