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

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

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

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

Because that would just be the worst timing ever.

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.

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

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

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

Dear Mr Harron

Reference CAS-1085160-85SYDW

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

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

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

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

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

We apologise for any confusion caused.

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

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

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

Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention.

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

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

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

We apologise for any confusion caused.

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

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

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

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

Again, Stewart Lee said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Finn's gearing up: "Southwestern Discomfit" and Blood & Thunder 2.0

A couple of Mark Finn-related links I wanted to share.

First is something I find to be of tremendous importance: "Southwestern Discomfit," a response to Gary Romeo's "Southern Discomfort."  The interests of impartiality on the REHupa website have meant that the latter essay, despite a few considerable issues (which Mark discusses), is widely available to anyone who comes on the site. Unfortunately, the lack of any counterpoint to the essay means that some have taken this as the Party Line on REH and race, which is certainly not the case.

Bothered by this phenomenon in recent times, Mark decided to offer that counterpoint:

REHupa #173 was a watershed mailing, way back in February 2002, for a number of reasons. Significantly, it was the mailing that featured Gary Romeo's article, "Southern Discomfort." As I read the article, I immediately noticed that Gary, in constructing his argument, was so interested in trawling the bottom that he willfully overlooked so much better stuff closer to the surface.  It made me angry, and it made me instantly defensive.  What I wanted to do was first ask Gary: what was your point in writing the article? Who is the target audience for it? And then I wanted to take it apart, piece by piece in my next mailing.

But I didn't. I was new, and I didn't want to rock the boat, or make any enemies right away. So I held my tongue. Besides, I wondered, I had no idea what my fellow REHupans thought about any of this. Maybe they agreed with Gary.

As it turned out, they did not. In the subsequent mailings, several of the older and more experienced REHupa members took Gary to task, and took a number of calculated swings at his essay, his methodology, and even his intent. I felt a lot better about my involvement in REHupa, but I regretted never having a chance to tee off on the topic.

When the REHupa website started up, it was determined that more recent, more approachable articles could also be listed on the site, if any member so wanted. Gary was one of the few people who stepped up to the plate and actually handed out articles to post. Along with his other Pro-de Camp essays was "Southern Discomfort." I watched it go up, go live, and bit my tongue. After all, I thought, who was I to say that Gary could list all the rest of his articles, except that one? That's when I got the idea of first doing a counterpoint article, just to balance out Gary's essay, especially now that it was devoid of its context within the REHupa mailings and commentary structure. But at the time, I was working on what would become Blood & Thunder: The Life and Art of Robert E. Howard, and so, I thought, I had bigger fish to fry.

Now it's 2011. I've been a member in REHupa for nearly ten years now. And it's high time I took a whacking stick to "Southern Discomfort" publically. It has needed it for a long time, particularly since it's one of the most popular things accessed on the REHupa website. The number of links to it from external blogs, websites, and citations used to indicate that yes, Robert E. Howard was indeed a racist, because look, right here, this guy says so on the experts' website, are too numerous to count. That's the problem with Internet research: it's grab and go, and no effort is made to fact-check it.

Well, you may consider this the official fact-check. This article assumes that someone has already read "Southern Discomfort" and want to know more about whether or not Robert E. Howard was a racist or not.

I don't doubt that the issue of Howard and race is something that will be a subject of discussion for as long as Howard himself is, but the more approaches we have to the argument, the more fulfilling and satisfying those discussions may be.

The second piece of news is on the new edition of Mark's outstanding Blood & Thunder: The Life And Art of Robert E. Howard. He made a tantalizing mention that an announcement will be made on Monday, but to tide us over, he revealed the cover for B&T 2.0, courtesy of the indefatigably talented Keegan duo:

I liked the cover for B&T 1.0, but I like this a lot better. Why? Because it has Robert E. Howard on it! That's always good. Plus, while the previous cover had the requisite sanguinary & brontological elements, Conan hacking lumps out of a giant snake isn't representative of Howard's vast library - something Mark himself keenly notes frequently - so rather than pick one aspect of Howard's work, why not pick a quintessential image of Howard which tells you everything you need to know about the man in a single shot?  Better than the studio photo, certainly.

The Review Show does a drive-by on Howard

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

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

Warning: I am seriously ticked off by this.

Margaret Atwood talks Conan!?!

I meant to post this a while ago, but I prefer to stagger my posts so there's at most one or two a day.  In any case, I'm absolutely stunned by this: not only does Margaret Atwood have something to say about Conan... but that something is good.  Taran of One Last Sketch sent this interview along, and I'm quite impressed.  I'll try and get a transcript up and running, but be forewarned it's two minutes or so of Conan after a half-hour of other subjects, so don't expect this to be a Conan lecture: even so, I found the entire podcast very interesting.

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

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

Conan Meets the Academy
Multidisciplinary Essays on the Enduring Barbarian

Edited by Jonas Prida


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

Buy Now!

Price: $35.00

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

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

This multidisciplinary collection offers the first scholarly investigation of Conan

What the...

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

"Sounds pretty heavy, Doc!"

"Weight has nothing to do with it."

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you like flashes of brilliance hidden amidst filth and smut, we recommend Oglaf.com

WARNING: DO NOT CLICK ANY OF THE LINKS IN THIS PAGE UNLESS YOU HAVE NO ISSUES WITH NUDITY, SEX, GORE, PROFANITY, FILTH, OR ACERBIC WIT. I'M BEING VERY SERIOUS. THIS MEANS YOU, GRAN.*

Oglaf.com is a webcomic which features some genuinely brilliant humour, but it's definitely not for the faint of heart. Full of frank depictions of nudity, sexual acts, gore, profanity and mild peril, it's still a webcomic I brave every so often.  Sometimes you get something truly inspired, like the tale of Kronar's son, which takes the idea of a gay Conan (the very idea of which was a reason for De Camp's strict control over pastiches) and runs with it, even though Kronar still ends up being pretty masculine in the process. No doubt the silly people who accuse Conan and Howard of homoeroticism will feel vindicated, but I find it fun to just think their misplaced jibes are projecting things that aren't there. But, as was the case with Your Highness, I guess I'm just too much of a prude to have much stomach for this sort of thing on a regular basis.  Ah well.

A recent(ish) comic, "The Weird Woman," features a pastiche on Howard's "Worms of the Earth," making it one of the most perceptive examples of Howard humour out there, considering most attempts at it tend to be repetitive jabs at the 1982 film or the fact Conan shares his name with a popular talk show host.  And best/worst of all, we get an endorsement/backhanded compliment if you move the mouse over the image: "If you like high fantasy or xenophobic jerks, we recommend "Worms of the Earth" by Robert E. Howard."

It's difficult to tell whether they're referring to Bran Man Morn as the xenophobic jerk - frankly, I think he's well within his rights to have a problem with the Romans who are invading his lands, torturing his people and threatening to conquer his home - or Howard, but either irk me.  Something tells me it's not meant to be taken too seriously, but given how long Howard fans have been railing against the popular conception of Howard, it smarts even in jest.  The sad thing is, it does seem like the sort of thing a DeCampista would write.  Still, I get the distinct impression that the folk of Oglaf.com are entirely irreverent, and no-one is sacred to them, so I shouldn't expect any special treatment in regards to Howard. Or perhaps I'm misreading the thing.  Who knows.

*You can, however, look at some of the safe for work comics which show off the sort of delightful humour I love about the comic: Magic Fish, Fountain of Death, Skulls!, Wolf!, King-Shaped, Princess, A Very Deep Chasm, Northerner, Human Women, Labyrinth, Sharks vs Jets, Changeling, Frog 3, Blanket, Use Item, The Huntsman, Scheherazade, Weeping Woods, Kindly Hunter, Gorek the Magnanimous, and the above Fountain of Doubt. For those who don't mind a bit of nudity, there's Ulric the Just, which might be my favourite on the whole site. JUST DON'T CLICK NEXT/PREVIOUS/HOME if you know what's good for ya!

The division between the literary story and the action one

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

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

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

S.H.I.E.L.D.W.A.L.L. Operation Illuminate

============================

WARNING: CLASSIFIED MATERIAL

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.

Shields Up,

--Agent Taranaich

Reading Howard With A Sense of Humour

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.

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

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

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

The Politics of Howard Fandom

That's it.  No more posts about "Bankrupt Nihilism" unless I'm seriously forced to.  However, the honour of The Blog That Time Forgot is at stake, and since I don't have the PayPal account with which to order a username at MetaCritic (which I cannot fathom, unless I'm doing something wrong), I'll have to do so here.

First of all, the comments here are naturally very critical of Leo's political leanings, which isn't really the crux of the argument.  I'm not going to argue with their assertions of Leo being a right-wing lunatic, because Leo's right-wing lunacy doesn't have a bearing on his erudition and wealth of reading experience, and I'm not very good at judging which point being right wing changes from "conservative" to "berserk craziness."

It's the comments which claim Leo is ill-read in the fantasy field - some think he hasn't even read Elric, ferchrissakes! - that I have issue with, not just because I know them to be true, but because it's patently absurd, unless this is the only Leo Grin essay you've ever read.  Fair enough if it is - though it would be nice if some people did a Google search to see if Leo has, in fact, ever written about Howard, Tolkien, or any other fantasy author before.  Just common courtesy, you know?

"Bankrupt Nihilism's" running riot

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

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

When a chap kills his father, and causes a lot of bother...

This is a very unsettling development.

If it does turn out that Marique and Zym's relationship is somewhat more involved than most, then that makes me worry an awful lot. Considering Marique's mother has been cast in the film, I wonder if we'll actually see some sort of play on Sophocles' Electra in the film, where Marique murders her mother to avenge her father, or some such variation. Yeah, the whole "villain engages in incest to make him seem even more depraved" has already been done in Gladiator, Chinatown, mythology and who knows how many other films, but let's go with it.

In concept, I could deal with it. Hell, I love the idea of mythological allusions in a Conan film to complement those in "The Frost-Giant's Daughter," "The Scarlet Citadel," The Hour of the Dragon and others, and it would show a level of sophistication the film would sorely need. And as we all know, mythology is rife with bizarre family situations. However, this particular myth, in conjunction with the horrible old ideas on Howard the Oedipal, I see bringing nothing but migraines.

Good Scot/Bad Scot: Tom Shippey on Robert E. Howard

I'm not sure if he's that Tom Shippey, but since that Tom Shippey is noted to write book reviews for the Wall Street Journal, it's a safe bet he is.

Well... brace yourselves, folks.

In Praise of Robert E. Howard's Works

Inspired by Deuce's marvellous thread over at the Robert E. Howard forums, collected herein are a bundle of quotes in praise of the Man from Cross Plains from those in the business.

I just thought it would be good to have them all collected in a single post, which I'll update with new additions whenever they come by. If anyone finds any good ones, don't hesitate to put them in the comments, and if you can, put a link to a source.

A Shadow from the Dark Days of Fantasy "Scholarship"

Michal Wojcik of One Last Sketch and The Lurking Humour, also known as Taran in the blogosphere and beyond, is a very smart chap, and very knowledgeable. A while back, he mentioned a particular essay by Hans Joachim Alpers, which he felt may have been an encapsulation of a great deal of ill will towards fantasy fiction that had been formulating in science fiction circles.*  Rusty Burke, impressed by Taran's studiousness, suggested that he investigate the matter further, and address it.  Well, wait no longer, for "Spacesuit, Blaster, and Science(!)" has arrived, and fired a withering broadside against a hideous little piece of work masquerading as scholarship that has evaded criticism for far too long. I think Taran's done a great job here.

Alpers does not seem to realize that the authors he cites for support were opposed to fascism in their personal lives.  J.R.R. Tolkien, for instance, made his views of Nazism and “that ruddy little ignoramus Adolf Hitler,” (Letters no.45) quite obvious.  Michael Moorcock describes himself as “an anarchist and a pragmatist,” (Mythmakers & Lawbreakers: Anarchist Writers on Fiction) who goes out of his way to critique British Imperialism and yes, Nazism in many of his novels.  Robert E. Howard, whose work scholars often mislabel as latently fascistic, held a long correspondence with H.P. Lovecraft decrying fascism and Nazism; the groupthink of Nazism and obeisance to authority did not gel with Howard’s extreme individualism.  We are more likely to find empires fall than get built in Howard’s works.[*] 

Indeed, one need not look far to see what Howard truly thought of the Nazis and fascism in general. I'll have to get a "Robert E. Howard and Fascism" post for the Newcomer's Guide finished, which'll probably just consist of a bunch of quotes from the letters.

[*] Alpers’s belief that heroic fantasy’s barbarians mirror “the barbarism of concentration camps and aggressive war” comes as an unimaginative conflation; the “barbarism” he refers to and the barbarism found in sword & sorcery constitute two completely different terms, one modern, one historical.  Barbarians, in heroic fantasy, would never stoop to the excesses of the Nazis—that only becomes possible with the decadence of civilization.  I believe the Holocaust would have come as no surprise to Howard, had he lived to see it.  It is the ultimate example of modernity gone wrong.

Heh,  this reminded me of a few Howard quotes in regards to the different contexts of "barbarism":

Considering it again, I am not so sure that even cultural and artistic things will not suffer as civilization “advances” along its present lines. You seem to take it for granted that Fascism would guarantee absolute freedom of thought and mental research. I wonder if this faith is justified. I don’t notice any hilarious renaissance emanating from Germany or Italy or Austria resulting from the exhilarating freedom of dictatorship.

I’m not surprized at the massacre of helpless people, the torturing and abuse of women and children. It’s what I expect of cultured Europeans. It’s what I’ll expect of the people of this country when they get sufficiently imbued with European culture and civilization. It didn’t surprize me when Dolfuss [sic] murdered the helpless women and children of his enemies. That’s the “superior European” style. It didn’t surprize me when his enemies assassinated him; that too was in keeping with the best traditions of European culture. Reading in one of the biggest capitalistic dailies of the state - which is above all charges of “radical” - I noted the outrages committed on women by the Fascists of Germany and Austria. That too is characteristic, both of the Fascist movement and of the European character.

- Robert E. Howard, letter to H.P. Lovecraft, December 1934

Well done, Taran!

*And cheers for the clarification.

More Fodder for the Newcomer's Guide

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

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

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

How cute.  My response is below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Philip Palmer Challenge

I like to imagine he's contemplating how his company is going to take over the Crown.

In his recent post, Philip Palmer gives the very silly man Edward Docx both barrels for his very silly post.  It's from The Guardian, that home of baby intellectuals, so I can't be surprised at the silliness.  How silly?  Here's an excerpt:

... in my view, we need urgently to remind ourselves of – for want of better terminology – the difference between literary and genre fiction; because, to misquote the literary essayist Isaac D'Israeli, "it seems to me a wretched national compulsion to be gratified by mediocrity when the excellent lies before us".

It appears to be of the typical tired "fantasy, science fiction and horror aren't "real" literature" stripe, and again, he brings up that odious, snivelling, miserable, worthless malapropism "literary fiction."  Few phrases infuriate me more than "literary fiction": "now a major motion picture" is pretty close, though.  Hell, by his definition, isn't literary fiction in itself a genre - and thus, genre fiction?  I'd love to see Docx bend over backwards to make allowances for the many classics which couldn't be anything but "genre fiction".  Palmer does a fantastic job destroying, disintegrating and defenestrating Docx's idiocy.

However, he has something to say about Howard.  Something both challenging, and awesome.