The Hunger Games, and Hope for Dark Agnes

"A star of darkness shone on her birth, of darkness and unrest. Where ever she goes shall be blood spilling and men dying. I knew it when I saw her standing against the sunrise that turned to blood the dagger in her hand."
 - Robert E. Howard, "The Sword Woman"

So while John Carter's doing a wee bit better than Disney and most of the world's media predicted, it still isn't the resounding success it really should be, certainly not in the homeland of the story's creator. In contrast, another literary adaptation, The Hunger Games, is doing gangbusters (to use a favourite vernacular) to the tune of being the most profitable box office debut for the first film of a franchise, only The Dark Knight and Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows: Part 2 beating it.

Unlike John Carter and, well, most films adapted into books, I haven't read so much as a page of the source material on which The Hunger Games was based. This, then, was a rare opportunity to go in to an adaptation and not be informed or distracted by my preconceptions of the source material. This is a double-edged sword: I may not get as much out of the film as I would had I read the books, and I could stumble upon plot points that are explained in the book - but at the same time, I may not be as distracted by divergences or clashes with my personal preconceptions.

Well, I fairly enjoyed it, and was pleasantly surprised, not least because my faith in the future of blockbuster cinema has been revived, at least a little.

Lost Howard Manuscript Discovered?

This is just too incredible not to share.  Truly it turns our perspective of Howard and his work completely on its head!

At the time of his death in 1936, thirty-year-old Robert E. Howard had published hundreds of works of fiction across an astonishingly broad swath of genres. His voluminous output, according to Paul Herman of the Robert E. Howard Foundation, is estimated to have been “approximately 3.5 million words of fiction, poetry, letters and articles.” Among those millions of words were the iconic stories of Conan the Cimmerian, a character whose popularity has firmly established Howard’s reputation as the father of heroic fantasy, parallel to J.R.R. Tolkien’s place as father of epic fantasy.

But while Howard was an extraordinarily prolific writer, he was also a somewhat disorganized one and left behind a trunk of unpublished works. The so-called “Howard Trunk” contained thousands of typewritten pages by Howard. These abandoned stories and early drafts were collected and published in 2007 by The REH Foundation Press as The Last of the Trunk.

One manuscript, however, baffled the Howard estate. The handwriting was not Howard’s. “Not even close,” laughs George Angell, professor emeritus at Brown University, who was asked to authenticate the manuscript. “I could see at a glance that it was one-hundred percent positively not his. Howard’s hand is tight and masculine. This was a beautiful script, almost calligraphic, and my gut told me it was English, about two hundred years old.”

Well, I'll be a bumblebee's ombudsman!  You know, this'd make a great piece for an upcoming Robert E. Howard's Savage Sword...

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.

Three Years Gone

Now it really is three years since Steve Tompkins' untimely death.

Once again, I'll be looking back on his posts on The Cimmerian blog, flicking through the journals graced by his essays and comments, and really wishing he was still around to see what he thought of everything that's happened in the last three years.  I particularly wonder what he'd have thought of John Carter, "Game of Thrones," Imaro: The Naama War, and of course the other film.  I guess I won't know in this lifetime.

Skål, sláinte, prost, and many, many cheers for Steve Tompkins.

The Agony of What Could Have Been: John Carter of Mars

I have one request: before you read any further, please read all of it until the end. It's quite a long read, but I really hope it's worth the time.  There are a few controversial opinions in here. Don't just read the preview and decide not to bother clicking on.  It's very important you read the whole review, or none of it - though naturally I'd be thrilled if you read until the end.

I write this blog because I feel like I have something worthwhile to share with the world. It seems everyone and their dog has a blog these days, so it's understandable that some consider the currency to be about as valuable as a Weimar Papiermark. But there are days when the sense of self-consciousness is overridden.  There are some things you just have to yawp from the rooftops, screaming at the stars, begging for someone to listen, for the message to be heard and understood.  This is one of those occasions.

John Carter is one of two things on the internet: it's either a hyperinflated, safe, cynical, lifeless flop destined to be considered along the likes of Ishtar and Heaven's Gate, or an unappreciated future classic unfairly dismissed by the media worthy of joining the ranks of similarly originally maligned films like Blade Runner and The Thing.  Ever a man to instinctively side with the underdog (even though the underdog, in this case, has a $300 million budget: there's a turnup for the books) I figured that this is a classic case of schadenfreude against the Evil Disney Empire, a meme which got tiresome before I was on the 'Net.

But then again... I figured, perhaps the critics have a point?  The advertising campaign for the film has been nothing short of horrendous.  Burroughs fans obviously don't need to know who John Carter or Dejah Thoris or Tars Tarkas are, but the masses don't.  Trailers for, say, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring do a great job of not only appealing to the Tolkien fans, but hooking non-Ringers in with a straight outline of the plot and basic ideas of the characters, with a few "greatest hits" clips for flavour.  What's more, there are some parts of the trailer that were actively baffling, not to mention misleading ("Earth is next!" - that line's not in the film I saw, although the threat of the Therns is implied).

Complicating matters is the fact that many of my friends, colleagues and acquaintances are bending over backwards to promote the film.  I'm not kidding, just about everyone loved this film, on the forums, on the message boards, mailing groups.  I was concerned that I might be turned off the film by simple hype aversion, as happened with Firefly and A Song of Ice and Fire - both of which I enjoy in parts, but not nearly to the extent of my compatriots.  So even going in as I always do, with the best will in the world and desire to enjoy the film, that fear that my friends and colleagues were delusional - and that if I enjoyed the film, my gushing review would create the same problem for those still undecided.

So I'll say some things, and again, I implore you: if you've read this far, please read the rest, so you can understand where I'm coming from.  I saw John Carter.  I understand why it's doing so poorly.  I think this is a perfect illustration as to why directors like Andrew Stanton rarely get the chance in this era.  This is a tremendous missed opportunity.  I didn't like it.

And hopefully when you finish reading, you'll understand why I say these things.

The Quest for Truth, Or, Why Do I Go On These Crusades?

My crusade against misconceptions and fallacies being perpetuated is by no means limited to Robert E. Howard. My hatred of rumour being presented as fact is at least in equal measure to my appreciation of the Man from Cross Plains, and why I tend to get pretty passionate about the misrepresentation of the Hyborian Age, Middle-earth and the like.  The difference is that most of the time, I don't post it on my blog.  I thought I'd share this recent exchange to give you an idea of why I do what I do.

Tilting the Glass to Steve Tompkins

Next month, it'll be three years.*  I don't have much to say, but I don't want to leave the day unmarked.  I have a more traditional tribute planned, which will hopefully be up in a few days.

I've been re-reading "New Barbarians," a fantastic essay of his in the Cimmerian print journal: it is central to an upcoming post in the Aquiromians series, while I'm trying to decide just which of his many fantastic essays on Howard's work is "the best" for my REH analyses post.  Damned hard to tell.  Just going through his posts on The Cimmerian site alone and his 'zine Visions, Gryphons, Nothing & the Night should give you an idea.

Skål, sláinte, prost, and many, many cheers for Steve Tompkins.

*As Damon said, there's never a bad time to pay respects, though I'm a bit annoyed I got such an important date mixed up.

Hyborian Musings: Aquiromian Holiday, Part Four

Back to our regularly scheduled programming. Quick forward: the subject of the Aquiromians and question of whether the Hyborian Kingdoms were predominantly ancient or medieval in inspiration has been raging over at the Robert E. Howard Forums. I highly recommend that anyone reading these articles should peruse those topics. The topics on Aquilonia and Acheron are also important reading. My goal in this series is to present my argument that Howard's primary inspiration for the Hyborian Kingdoms (not the Hyborian Age in general, otherwise what would that make Stygia and Shem?) was the Middle Ages, with any influence from ancient or classical sources being either universally applicable, or intrinsic to the Middle Ages themselves.

I was, as always, much interested in your remarks concerning the classical world, of which I know so little. What a city Alexandria must have been! I had no idea of the origin of the word parchment. As I’ve said before, your letters are an actual education for me. Some day I must try to study the ancient Grecian world. Its always seemed so vague and unreal to me, in contrast to the roaring, brawling, drunken, bawdy chaos of the Middle Ages in which my instincts have always been fixed. When I go beyond the Middle Ages, my instincts veer to Assyria and Babylon, where again I seem to visualize a bloody, drunken, brawling, lecherous medley. My vague instincts towards classical Greece go no further than a dim impression of calm, serene white marble statues in a slumbering grove. Though I know the people of the classic times must have wenched and brawled and guzzled like any other people, but I can not concieve of them. The first mythology I ever read was that of Greece, but even then it seemed apart and impersonal, without the instinctive appeal I later found in Germanic mythology.
 - Robert E. Howard, letter to H.P. Lovecraft, 13th July, 1932

In most adaptations and illustrations, the army of Aquilonia resembles a host straight out of the classical period: if not legionary cohorts, then certainly Greek phalanges. But how does this compare to Howard's original descriptions?

Good Scot/Bad Scot: Conan the Barbarian #1 Review

We have two very different ongoing Conan comics right now. The first is from the established team of Timothy Truman and Tomas Giorello, an adaptation of the very first Conan story written and published; the second from newcomers Brian Wood and Becky Cloonan. I've read both of them, and I think studying the two might give an interesting appraisal not only on the state of Conan adaptations, but Conan fandom today.

Just So You Know What To Expect

I've given up any hope of providing an objective review of Conan adaptations, but then, you can go to just about any other site for a more balanced opinion. Plenty of interesting reviews from hardcore Conan fans, complete newbies, even recent converts are out there.  They seem to be more suited to answering the question "is it a good comic" than I, so I'm not even going to attempt to do the same. I have no idea if Conan the Barbarian #1 and King Conan: The Phoenix on the Sword #1 are good comics purely on their own merits: to me, direct adaptations such as these are inseparable from the source material.  So the only opinion I can possibly offer is how they relate to the source material, how they differ, and how these changes alter the narrative and character of the work.

However, there's something interesting going on here in the reception the two comics have among the Conan fandom.  Some dedicated Howard fans really hate Conan the Barbarian #1, yet absolutely adore King Conan: The Phoenix on the Sword #1; others consider the former a poor adaptation, but a fair story in its own right, while viewing the latter as a closer adaptation.  On the other side of the fence, critical opinion of Conan the Barbarian #1 by non-fans seems to be much warmer than that of King Conan: The Phoenix on the Sword #1. This seems to imply two things: firstly, that KC:TPotS #1 is a more faithful adaptation than CtB #1, and secondly, that the level of fidelity has a correlation between its reception by fans and non-fans.

Could it be true that, given the choice between a "faithful" adaptation and an "unfaithful" one, non-fans are more likely to enjoy the unfaithful one? Having read both issues, I have to question this conclusion, for a number of reasons. But first, my thoughts on the new series' first issue

Hyborian Musings: Aquiromian Holiday, Part Three

Two nobles of Shamar wearing robes reclining on a couch, eating grapes, drinking wine, watching the gladiators in a coliseum, in a comic from the Conan the Savage era. Howard's Conan would probably just let the Kothians raze this decadent cesspit to the ground.

Looking at Part Two, you'd think that there was more than enough evidence to support a Roman interpretation of Aquilonia. But doing so would require ignoring or re-interpreting evidence of a rather later inspiration.*