lionmane said:
Well, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, of course. Having said that, here's mine.
All of the pastiche stuff(especially DeCamp's) I've read is crap. Why?Because the author in question has no grasp of Conan or the Hyborian Age. They turn Conan into some happy-go-lucky adventurer with a smile on his face and a song in his heart as he goes off to battle the evil wizard of the week, 'cuz he's good and wizards are evil, and if he's real good, maybe Crom will come talk to him and save him from trouble.Crap. To me, saying the pastiche stuff is superior to REH's writings is like saying the corny Batman tv show from the 60's is better than the dark, menacing tone the original comics had( and have recently regained). These writers impose moralities and attitudes on Conan and his world that REH never intended. You could change the names of the characters and places and have your average generic fantasy tale-put conan's name on it, and you have a sale.
Here's the thing....if you're going to do a pastiche..keep it in the spirit that REH intended. I think this is what Busiek is trying to do with the new comic. If you like pastiches, fine. If you like them better than the REH material, the guy who created this world, then I think you just don't get it.
I think you're completely wrong. The pastiches I've read do nothing of the kind and are firmly rooted in the Hyborian Age, and they treat Conan as a down to earth traveling mercenary who wants what all men want: money, women, food, booze and respect. The problem is most of his employers either minimize the danger they are putting him in or outright lie to him and then betray him at an opportune moment. That's exactly what happens in REH's stories, when Conan isn't the one directly putting himself into danger through some scheme. None of the pastiches treat Conan as a joke or anything but a strong, cunning and honorable warrior with some larcenous tendencies when times get tough. He is always a very likable and believable character who you want to read more of again and again. He is a reluctant hero, not in the "bitch and moan" annoying sort of way, but because all he wants is to live the good life, but he keeps ending up in situations where he is forced to "do the right thing", often to his financial detriment. He minds his own business as much as he can. He is not so much hero or anti-hero, so much as he is an unwitting catalyst for strange and terrible events. He is a bit of a lovable rogue and bastard in it for himself, a rogue with a heart of gold, LOL. Wherever he goes, trouble follows, but he doesn't complain. He deals with whatever the problem is in the most expedient, straightforward manner possible and then moves on, hoping his luck will improve around the next bend. And it does, for awhile, but the good times never last, much like his purse never stays full. The Conan of the pastiches IS Conan to me, just as much as REH's ever was. Yes, the pastiches make Conan out to be not quite the bastard REH would have had it, but that makes him more marketable, and I don't mind, as the change isn't that great. I've never read a pastiche that made me say, "Wait a minute, this isn't Conan!"
None of the ones I've read have him expecting Crom to save him, not even the one where Crom does save him. Conan is not treated as being a "good guy out to save the world" nor are all wizards he meets evil (just 99% of them, which is consistent with REH), though none of them are truly good, either (more like not insane enough yet to lose their humanity). By the way, I don't ever remember saying that I thought the writing on the pastiches was superior to REH. I did say some are as good as REH, and I stand by that statement. Good is subjective, remember. :wink:
I happen to like the cheesy Batman TV show a thousand times better than the Dark Knight Returns or Batman movies (barf to all of them). It's pure over the top fun. But I like the more serious Batman of the '90s cartoon, too. I rarely bothered to read DC Comics because I was always a Marvel guy, so I can't speak for the comics. I just don't think that darker always equals better. Look at the original Battlestar Galactica vs. the 2003 mini-series remake. The original was pure fun despite its imperfections, while the remake was mind-numbingly boring "darker equals better" nonsense that forgot what made the original so memorable. I like anti-heroes, bastards, villains and A-holes as much as anyone, but I don't like seeing my childhood friends "reimagined" into something unrecognizable (Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar, Lost in Space, Flintstones, Scooby-Doo, etc.).