Concerning Conan

LOL. de Chump's timeline was crap, and contradicted the timeline REH had all but blessed. L Sprague making up excuses to cover his butt just underscores the man's lameness and lack of respect for Howard's work.

As to legends of the man, I'd blame the storytellers (ie the lame pastiche writers) not the legend. :wink:
 
tneva82 said:
Strom said:
Whatever the tale - it is not hard to imagine Conan accomplished it.

Like doing his youth in two completely different ways at the same time? Interesting. How you think that could work :-)

I think we are arguing two different things...my bad.

All I'm saying is - like Roy - it's not hard imagining Conan accomplishing "more" not "less". The "truth" - as a reader - is the story you are reading at the time. The alternative is believing Conan isn't Conan - but a fraud. That his legend is built on half-truths. Sounds ridiculous - I doubt anyone would suggest that Conan accomplished less than the stories tell us - but like Roy Thomas' writes - Conan accomplishes that story's adventure & 'numerous others besides'. That is all I'm saying. If you like the idea that Conan accomplished less than the stories tell us - then that is your take.
 
Taken with a grain of salt, I find most pastiches not so bad Conan adventures, curiously enough I think Roy Thomas actually makes a better comic adaptation of the pastiches that the books by themselves! (e.g. "A dream of blood" SSC # 40 - 43 is much better than "Conan the bucaneer", I believe). I do profoundly hate "Conan the Rebell" as one of the cheapest non-canon pastiches ever!

As to the movie, although entertaining, I use it more for flavour and ideas than as something valid in the Conan universe.

As to the original discussion about using Conan, my Campaigns take place during Conan´s youth, taking care of being in the oposite part of the world (to avoid Player´s temptations to go and "teach the young barbarian a lesson or two"). What I do is offer my players a post in a new colony, nort of Aquilonia :wink: but so far no-one wants to go claim their tract of land in the recently founded Venarium.

Good luck!
 
I actually never really "heard" of Conan being a big fibber.

I haven't read any other Conan stories other then those of Howard himself.

I haven't touched any of the other authors. I wanted to get the "authentic" feel of the world and the character, if such a thing is possible.

It would be like reading Tolkien's work, then reading someone else's trilogy, made after "the Return of the King".

It just woudn't feel right, to me at least.
 
Strom said:
We are not talking about an alternate timeline - you and kintire are suggesting the Conan mythos - pastiche or canon - are figments of exaggeration. I stand by Roy (expert)- Whatever the truth behind any of these exploits it is not difficult to imagine Conan performing them all, and numerous others besides.

Wrong, my mis-guided Conan comrade.

Keep reading.

Pg. 8, under the heading Here Be Legends, Roy, our agreed upon expert, says:

Besides authentic canon, the subsequent years have given rise to an unverifiable but often facinating body of lore around the larger-than-life figure of Conan. Such tales may or may not be based on actual events that occurred in that distant eon.

And, Roy continues saying...

Perhaps some or all of these things acutally did happen. Perhaps none of them did. Yet they are all part of the illustrious legend of Conan.



It says exactly what I said it did. And, the only thing ridiculous here is your rebuttal.
 
Rodericus said:
Taken with a grain of salt, I find most pastiches not so bad Conan adventures, curiously enough I think Roy Thomas actually makes a better comic adaptation of the pastiches that the books by themselves! (e.g. "A dream of blood" SSC # 40 - 43 is much better than "Conan the bucaneer", I believe).

I'm enjoying SSoC too. And, I think I'll agree. Some of the stories are better than the original novels.

I do profoundly hate "Conan the Rebell" as one of the cheapest non-canon pastiches ever!


Interesting. I think Poul Anderson is a fantastic writer, and Conan The Rebel was a fantasic pastiche. I especially like how Conan doesn't even become the focus of the book until about 1/3 the way in.
 
David St-Michel said:
I actually never really "heard" of Conan being a big fibber.

I haven't read any other Conan stories other then those of Howard himself.

I haven't touched any of the other authors. I wanted to get the "authentic" feel of the world and the character, if such a thing is possible.

It would be like reading Tolkien's work, then reading someone else's trilogy, made after "the Return of the King".

It just woudn't feel right, to me at least.


Understand your position. I like having a lot of Conan to read, though.

I'm a big fan of the James Bond novels. I love the original Fleming books. They're the best. But, the Gardner and Benson novels aren't bad, either. Since we won't get any more Fleming Bond books, these other authors will have to do...and, imo, they do a pretty good job (although it is different from Fleming).

OTOH, I'm also a big fan of Dune. Herbert Sr. work is fantastic. The other Dune novels that have been written aren't worth the paper they're published upon (although some people like them...and, they're selling).



As for Conan, I think many of the pastiches are quite good. There are some, though, that totally suck. Steve Perry comes to mind. I just finished Andrew Offutt's trilogy, though, and it was a damn good read, especially the last book.
 
Supplement Four said:
Strom said:
Wrong, my mis-guided Conan comrade.

Keep reading.

Pg. 8, under the heading Here Be Legends, Roy, our agreed upon expert, says:

Besides authentic canon, the subsequent years have given rise to an unverifiable but often facinating body of lore around the larger-than-life figure of Conan. Such tales may or may not be based on actual events that occurred in that distant eon.

And, Roy continues saying...

Perhaps some or all of these things acutally did happen. Perhaps none of them did. Yet they are all part of the illustrious legend of Conan.



It says exactly what I said it did. And, the only thing ridiculous here is your rebuttal.

Next you will list for me the adventures that Conan never did - oh wait, Roy suggests maybe all of them are not true :roll: Hey now - there's an idea.

Then you can start in on James Bond, Spidey, Batman, Tarzan and every other legendary hero. :roll:

Whatever the truth behind any of these exploits it is not difficult to imagine Conan performing them all, and numerous others besides.
 
Strom said:
Next you will list for me the adventures that Conan never did - oh wait, Roy suggests maybe all of them are not true :roll: Hey now - there's an idea.

Then you can start in on James Bond, Spidey, Batman, Tarzan and every other legendary hero. :roll:


Well, it's nice to see you're a man who admits when he's wrong.... :?
 
Supplement Four said:
Strom said:
Next you will list for me the adventures that Conan never did - oh wait, Roy suggests maybe all of them are not true :roll: Hey now - there's an idea.

Then you can start in on James Bond, Spidey, Batman, Tarzan and every other legendary hero. :roll:


Well, it's nice to see you're a man who admits when he's wrong.... :?

Whatever SP4. I have a ton of posts to prove what kind of man I am - here and on other forums.
 
Im not snobbish about pastiche or cannon, some good, some not so good. I think though, Conan is strengthed by the contradiction, it reminds me of a real-life hero, where, years afterward, individuals are adding to the myth with their own stories, making the original character godlike or semi-divine. Strong myths are always built upon original truth, however. So, I can imagine Conan being a real hero, accomplishing almost imposible things in his lifetime, transcending his modest birthright, and going on to achieve astounding things. After his death, others tell tales of the mighty barbarian, so much that myth bacomes fact, as is the case with all of our famous historic personalities, from Julius Caesar to Elvis.

Its not whether he 'did this or that', its what we all imagine him to be capable of, like an aspect of the real hero myth. This is what gives reality and story potency.

I believe he could have done all those things and more besides.
 
PrinceYyrkoon said:
Im not snobbish about pastiche or cannon, some good, some not so good. I think though, Conan is strengthed by the contradiction, it reminds me of a real-life hero, where, years afterward, individuals are adding to the myth with their own stories, making the original character godlike or semi-divine. Strong myths are always built upon original truth, however. So, I can imagine Conan being a real hero, accomplishing almost imposible things in his lifetime, transcending his modest birthright, and going on to achieve astounding things. After his death, others tell tales of the mighty barbarian, so much that myth bacomes fact, as is the case with all of our famous historic personalities, from Julius Caesar to Elvis.

Its not whether he 'did this or that', its what we all imagine him to be capable of, like an aspect of the real hero myth. This is what gives reality and story potency.

I believe he could have done all those things and more besides.

Exactly what I quoted to SP4 from Roy Thomas - which he ignored. He believes - way back earlier in the thread - that Conan may not of done all he has done - yet even Roy Thomas believes it is easy to imagine Conan doing all he has done & more. Who doesn't think that? Who is gonna list the stories Conan didn't do? SP4? Go ahead - I want to see the list. If someone also buys your "less" is better theory then is their list the same as yours or can it be different?

Lets go back to the description presented by David:

Conan's a big liar with tons of people working for him to make him look good.

Conan the Fraud RPG. Great. BTW - I'm only defending my ridiculous comment post - because I think it is ridiculous to support the above joke with legitimacy. Nothing personal SP4 - I'm just siding with Conan dude.
 
Strom said:
Exactly what I quoted to SP4 from Roy Thomas - which he ignored. He believes - way back earlier in the thread - that Conan may not of done all he has done - yet even Roy Thomas believes it is easy to imagine Conan doing all he has done & more. Who doesn't think that? Who is gonna list the stories Conan didn't do? SP4? Go ahead - I want to see the list. If someone also buys your "less" is better theory then is their list the same as yours or can it be different?

Yet it's obvious he DIDN'T do everything that has been credited for him. If we take everything at face value he would be at multiple place at the same time doing different things...Sorry but I haven't seen any story claiming Conan was god ;-)
 
tneva82 said:
Yet it's obvious he DIDN'T do everything that has been credited for him. If we take everything at face value he would be at multiple place at the same time doing different things...Sorry but I haven't seen any story claiming Conan was god ;-)

I agree. There are too many contridictions.

A great book, Conan the Bold, by John Maddox Roberts, is a fantastic read. But, it flys in the face of so many other books that most Conan chronolgists think of it as myth.

When I read that book, do I dislike it because it breaks some Conan patiche canon? Naw. It's a damn good read. I don't worry about it.

But, if you try to put it in a timeline, it sure mucks things up.

Thus...it may be just legend...

Or, maybe the other tales it conflicts with are legend...

Who knows?

Nobody.

And, the truth may be less interesting than the myth.

Thinking of it that way makes it a bit more "real" in my book.
 
...My goal was to make a joke referring to some authors suggesting that Conan did not do everything that his stories claim.

I found it rather amusing that an author of a fictionnal character in a fictionnal world would claim (or not claim) that all of the stories depicting said fictionnal character were authentic or not.

It's like saying Santa Claus has green trousers instead of read ones.

I found it funny, and I suggested that Conan was just a big fib that had tons of PR people working for him to give him a good public image.

...I hope no one took that sentence seriously, as it wasn't the goal. :(

It was a joke. Maybe it wasn't a -good- joke, but my humor is usually attainted through volume. :) ;)
 
Interesting. I think Poul Anderson is a fantastic writer, and Conan The Rebel was a fantasic pastiche. I especially like how Conan doesn't even become the focus of the book until about 1/3 the way in.[/quote]

Perhaps I was a bit harsh.

You are right and Anderson writes a good books, still there are two things I really could not overcome: 1) the Mitra vs. Set in Stygia. Although it is explained, I wasn´t impressed with the illegal cult of Mitra in Stygia, specially since there is no mention of the cult of Ibis, for example (which, in my opinion it would have been much more in keeping with the tradition of the canon).
2) Belit´s background and character in general. Changing her origins to that of a shemite merchant... well I understand the whole concept of "legendry" built around the characters (both Conan and Belit) during their lives, but still I would have prefered if the author had not changed these simple aspects.

Based on your comments, I have to agree, "Rebell" is a good sword & sorcery novel, but it´s not (by far) my favourite Conan pastiche.

Thanks for pointing this out!

Good luck!!
 
Rodericus said:
Based on your comments, I have to agree, "Rebell" is a good sword & sorcery novel, but it´s not (by far) my favourite Conan pastiche.

Just for clarity... I don't say it's my favorite, but it is a good Conan read.

And, also to be fair, I haven't read it in a long, long time. I need to re-read it. But, I remember liking it a bunch.
 
Back
Top