Because it bears repeating.

Every so often, someone asks me why I get so worked up about the upcoming "Conan" film.

This is why.

The reliance on overused tropes and cliches makes this movie dangerous. It gives the entire genre — print, graphic, film — a bad name. By its very nature, fantasy is most vulnerable to appearing ridiculous. Unlike, say, a contemporary thriller, if a fantasy movie is bad, it's not just a bad movie, it's a stupid idea, a foolish excursion into unreality — escapism at its most puerile.

If you create walking, talking cliche of a movie and market it heavily, the crap splashes on everyone working in the genre. How many people will see a trailer for a dumb-ass, cliche Conan and not bother with HBO's Game of Thrones?

I don't want to even think about the damage it does to Howard's credibility and prestige, so painstakingly built by the very people who work this forum and TC and the venerable REHupa.

It's NOT "just a movie." It's a statement.

Couldn't have said it better myself. How much nonsense did we already have to put up with when the sins of Conan the Barbarian were visited upon Howard? Roger Ebert assumed the fascist sensibilities of the film were perfectly faithful to the author--nothing could be further from the truth. Tons of idiotic authors apply Nordic mysticism erroneously to the Celtophile Howard, not to mention fallacious National Socialist sympathies.

What about this film? Say the film is terrible (astoundingly unlikely as it is). We'll get idiots saying that Milius was right to deviate from Howard, since Lionsgate are touting this as a "faithful adaptation." Therefore, their argument would go, if this was a "faithful adaptation," and CtB was an "unfaithful one," Howard's work was just puerile, shallow pulp in need of "elevation" by an artist such as Milius. We already have fanboys saying that Milius made Conan "better" than Howard: how much more are we going to hear this when they have a supposedly "faithful" film to compare it to?

Then we'll get the added bonus of people attacking REH for stuff he didn't even do. If they don't change Singh's name, people will accuse REH of being racist towards Sikhs and Indians - something he most assuredly wasn't, seeing as Khalar Singh doesn't exist in REH canon. The ludicrous "King becomes powerful, Queen must die" Acheronian garbage will have people accusing REH of misogyny and patriarchal leanings. Having one of Conan's nemeses be black--AGAIN--after Doom and Bombaata gives the impression that the Cimmerian has it in for black people. And, as with Conan the Barbarian, people will accuse REH of falling to the "Home village and parents destroyed by villain, life becomes quest for revenge" trope every other fantasy story is blighted with.

So yeah, it matters.

How to Choose Names for Fantasy Fiction

More fun!

This is an interesting little article, even if it's all kinda obvious. Of course, poor Val Kolavin (reviewer of M/M gay romance fiction, as it happens: didn't know reviewers got quite that specific) doesn't know a lot about Conan.

Cliché #1: The One-Word Name. The one-word name often carries an identifying label: Conan the Barbarian. Aragorn, son of Arathorn. Taran of Caer Dalben from The Chronicles of Prydain by Lloyd Alexander.

This naming tradition is one of the most worn-out tropes in fantasy. I'm guessing it comes from the Scandinavian custom (still practiced in Iceland) of not using surnames. Instead, a baby receives a given name plus either a descriptive trait or a patronymic (a name based on one's father's given name).

Here is an Icelandic name: Erik the Red (the guy who gave Greenland its misleading name). I like his patronymic (Erik Thorvaldsson) better because it sounds more like a "real" name to me: that is, a given name plus surname.

A name like Conan the Barbarian implies that the world is so sparsely populated that people only need one given name plus a descriptive trait. To be fair to Conan's creator Robert E. Howard, he based Conan's people upon a prehistoric tribe ^{[2] [3]} when maybe the world really was that small – at least region to region. But most fantasy is set in populous, quasi-medieval times in which a one-word name seems unrealistic and quaint.

I guess being the only Cimmerian for hundreds of miles isn't enough, eh? Calling himself Conan is usually enough, or at most, Conan of Cimmeria.

Still, it raises an interesting question: there are three Amalrics in the Conan stories. This led to a little confusion among fans, though not too much. I doubt the two Nemedian Amalrics are the same character. Still, I'd wager that it isn't their full names. We have examples of both Aquilonians and Nemedians with surnames: Servius Gallanus, Emilius Scavonus, Aztrias Petanius. I'd wager the Amalric from "Tombalku"'s full name would be Amalric Valerus, since he's from the House of Valerus. The other two Amalrics would presumably also have houses to which they belonged.

Still, it's nice to see someone mention the fact that Cimmerians were a real people, even if Val clearly hasn't read much, if any, Robert E. Howard.

Mark Chadbourn on Solomon Kane

During my trawl for Howard-related things via Google Alerts (you guys need to try this, it's tremendously useful) I came across James Long's review for Solomon Kane, which links to novelist Mark Chadbourn's thoughts on Solomon Kane.

I couldn't not cover this.

And the most barking mad of all was Solomon Kane. A Puritan adventurer setting out to bring a little God-fearing justice to the world, this was not a sympathetic character. Let’s face it, Puritans are not known for their gut-wrenching sense of humour, but Kane was beyond sombre, a miserable git who hated fun, drink, probably women – although that was left to the sub-text – and, apparently, life in general. He put the loon in gloomy (okay, that doesn’t quite work, but you get my drift).

What astonishing nonsense. How on earth is Kane not sympathetic? He's by far one of the most likeable and sympathetic of ALL REH's protagonists, for all his idiosyncracies. For a guy who hated "fun" he sure went on a lot of adventures, and enjoyed an acerbic sense of humour. I don't remember him crashing any parties or telling off a bunch of youths for drinking. For a guy who "probably hated women," he seemed to be terribly fond of Marilyn and the mysterious Bess, and he was incredibly gentle to that girl in "Red Shadows."

This "miserable git" might describe the caricature of puritans blighting popular culture (the kind that make jokes about how they never make love standing up for fear it would give way to dancing), but it sure doesn't describe Kane.

NOOOOOOO!

Says all I need to say.

And Now, Some Nonsense: Conan in Cage Match 2010

Yay, Comic Book Battles!

It seems to be a particular thing for guys to make things compete. Who would win in a gunfight, George Washington or Teddy Roosevelt? Who would win in a race, a snail or a slug? Who would win in a bare-knuckle boxing match, Stephen Fry or Ronnie Corbet? Guys are weird, aren't we?

Being a very rough-and-tumble sort of guy, Conan turns up in these a lot. Here's one that caught me attention.

S.H.I.E.L.D.W.A.L.L. Operation 1415181923

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

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

03/08/10

Gentlemen,

I'm operating in deep cover for the duration of the week. As such, my reports here and at The Cimmerian, as well as observations at the Robert E. Howard forums and elsewhere, are likely to be sparse, unless there is important news in S.H.I.E.L.D.W.A.L.L. interests.

At this time, I cannot divulge any further information. However, an update will be forthcoming next week, where all shall be revealed.

Shields Up,

Agent Taranaich

Triangulation: Casting, Owchar, Awards, 2GB and Dammit I'm still a Man

Happenings afoot, folks!

What Exquisite Irony.

You can buy this Distressed Conan the Barbarian T-Shirt. Much like faded and pre-torn jeans, I have to wonder the sense in creating a T-shirt specifically designed to look old and worn, but hey, fashion has always been immensely stupid.

But that's not the fun part.

A Little Blast from the Past

Even though I've been nominated for a Venarium Award (somehow), make no mistake, I'm still an ornery old coot trapped in an angry young man's body.

Case in point, lookie at this old article from Richard Zeszotarski.

How in the hell did I get nominated for an award?

I'm flabbergasted.

The Venarium Award — Emerging Scholar

(Nominees have never won a Foundation Award before, and in the last year displayed the beginnings of what could be a movement into the upper echelon of Howard movers and shakers. You can only be nominated for this award once, in the year you make your first big push into the wider world of Howard publishing and scholarship.)

BARRETT, BARBARA: Compiling The Wordbook is just one of Barbara’s recent accomplishments. She is a frequent poster on the Cimmerian blog and had an article, “Six Degrees to Cross Plains,” published in the final volume of The Cimmerian.

HARRON, AL: In 2009 Al Harron became one of the stand-out voices on the Cimmerian blog. His witty and insightful posts bode well for his future in the Howardian arena.

Barbara I can understand: she has published articles and a book out. She's a real REH scholar. But I never thought I'd be up for a Venarium at this point in my Howard studies. Past Venarium winners include Rob Roehm and Mark f'n Finn (who beat out Steve f'n Tompkins and Dale f'n Rippke that year!), who all had published articles and many other accolades. I've basically just blogged a lot on The Cimmerian, in addition to lots of posts on the Robert E. Howard forum.

Wow. And the funny thing is, this morning I had started work on my book, with the full intent of not procrastinating and getting it finished. This just adds even more incentive.

Wow.