Dark and Gritty tips

[Hervé]

Khorshemish was a city of Turan, an empire built on brutal conquest and slavery.

Ooops, I guess you screw it on that one... I also guess you meant Khawarizm...

Anyway, I don't think Turan is as brutal as you suggest. Of course there are slaves, but there are only a few lands on the Thurian continent that are against slavery. Of course there are conquests, but there's no empire without conquests.
Turan is a warlike nation for sure, but it is also a nation of culture and enlightenment. Aghrapur is probably the most civilized city in the world, and Turanians are most advanced in art, literature and mathematics, when most of their western hyborian counterparts are a bunch of uncouth barbarians that just learned to build castles.
Turan is dragging itself from the mud to reach civilization, but that rise comes with a price. Think of the Roman or Ottoman empires, which also used slavery and conquest, but who also brought light and civilization to the world.

 

[kintire]

The most important thing, I guess, is to understand the context in which REH wrote a story or another and to not find some kind of artificial character development which simply is not there. REH was no slouch, so he was consistent with Conan's 'bio' elements from a yarn to another, but it's not with those informations that will help you to predict how he will act in the 'next' story.

I don't think this is true at all. Conan does have a consistent character development through the works. Just read Rippke's summary of his career.

Red Nails is (among other things) great because Valeria is Novalyne. And BtBR is as good because Balthus is REH and Slaher is Patch. When REH wanted to exalt a 'manly' sexuality, then he creates Black Colossus with his "bastardly/raping" character who screws the heroine on the altar.

Oh really? Novalyne Price was an expert swordswoman who loved bloody combat more than anything else, and REH was a cheerful, optimistic young hero-worshipper? No I think you are being rather simplistic here! There were elements, doubtless, of Novalyne in Valeria, and of Howard in Balthus, but they were both characters in a story, and were developed according to the demands of that story. It looks to me like you are engaged in special pleading: all the things REH wrote when he was particularly depressed are the essential truth, and all the rest of his work is just driven by his subjective feelings at the time. Why isn't it the other way about? Why isn't the "Conan is a bastard" quote that's the product of mood?

Personally, I prefer to view REH's most real work as the bits that he, on reflection and after consideration and editing, actually decided to publish.

When REH wanted to exalt a 'manly' sexuality, then he creates Black Colossus with his "bastardly/raping" character who screws the heroine on the altar.

Thats a deeply selective reading of Black Colossus. He and the princess spend most of the story falling for each other, and their encounter in the ruins certainly isn't rape. I also note that it isn't on the battlefield, its in a deserted city, and the villain isn't nailed to a wall, so whatever that letter was referring to it was at best an early draft.

See Hervé's post. It seems to me (and it's also Patrice Louinet's opinion, IIRC) that the Arthurian/old Celtic kinghood overtones became important at the time REH wrote The Hour of the Dragon. Years after Phoenix.

Who mentioned Phoenix? And i don't think that particularly "Celtic" kinghood overtones ever enter. In fact, I'm not convinced that they even exist. However, Arthur was a warrior king with a doubtful heritage who built his reign on military victory. I think the similarities are close.

Being apologetic doesn't change Conan's (a)moral choice.

The only sense I can make of this bizarre remark is "the context of a moral choice is irrelevant to its morality". This is such obvious rubbish that I cannot believe you meant that. What did you mean?

What?
A Turanian city?
Aren't you confusing "Khorshemish" with "Khawarizm"?

Yes, you are quite correct: Khwarizm was the city Conan was going to burn.

This one and the previous quote block are beyond me. IF you don't think that ALL Blacks/Ku$hites/Argosseans/Zingarans "deserved it"....
WHY those apologetic words?
I don't know for others, but I have a hard time with "guilt by association". I guess that this forum is not the best place to talk about it, so I'll stop here.

Your problem is that you seem to be locked into the idea that introducing morality into fantasy must mean that characters are identified as "goodies" and "Baddies", and that if I'm saying Conan was a "goodie" I must be saying he never did anything wrong. I am not saying that: morality is more complex than that, and morality in REHs work is as well. They are not "apologetic words", whatever that means. They are explanations as to how and why Conan committed evil acts without being a black-hearted villain (tm).

BTW, where did you find out that Ku$hites were known for being pirates? Southern Islanders, yes, but this habit doesn't extend to all Black kingdoms, if my memory is correct.

I am using the standard Hyborian habit, and referring to all negroes as Kushites.

I don't think I used the word "cruel". If you don't believe that accepting to commit a cold-blooded murder is "amoral", it's not worth discussing the character's morality anymore.

I certainly don't. I think that if someone has assassinated Stalin or Pol Pot they would have been doing a great job. I would happily shake the hand of the man who had murdered Bin Laden before he could arrange 9/11. Nor do I see why murder is any worse than killing someone in a fight, which Conan does loads of times. Nor am I convinced that the morality of killing someone is affected much by whether your blood is cold or hot. What matters is what your reasons are for deciding its justified.

True, he took care of his retainers and was willing to put his life in danger for them, even be it only for his sex-slave. A strong pack-leader/"Alpha-male"/tribal mentality. And yes, the Cimmerian was always portrayed as someone couragous. Later, when REH writes THotD, he adds Arthurian elements to Conan's kingship.

He is prepared to sacrifice his life for those who he considers too weak to defend themselves: even those who have worked against him in the past. He is prepared to sacrifice his life for those who he feels responsible for, even when they are currently trying to kill him. He will sacrifice the greatest treasure of the age to save a single human life: a human, whats more, who is the ex-servant of an enemy and to whom he owes nothing. And of course he is prepared to sacrifice his life rather than betray his people.

Of course, he makes mistakes too. And he makes them, sometimes, on a heroic scale. He is, through his early and middle career, rather tribal in outlook and definitly subscribes to collective responsibility, which I consider an error. He resorts to violence very quickly, and often on a large scale. He is certainly not a candidate for sainthood, and is probably less good than Balthus, for example. But he is certainly not amoral... ever.

Anyway, I don't think Turan is as brutal as you suggest. Of course there are slaves, but there are only a few lands on the Thurian continent that are against slavery. Of course there are conquests, but there's no empire without conquests.
Turan is a warlike nation for sure, but it is also a nation of culture and enlightenment. Aghrapur is probably the most civilized city in the world, and Turanians are most advanced in art, literature and mathematics, when most of their western hyborian counterparts are a bunch of uncouth barbarians that just learned to build castles.

Turan is based on the Ottoman Empire. Its culture and enlightenment exist in a tiny elite, supported by the oppression of the bulk of the population. It is a bloody and brutal dictatorship. I don't know where you got all that stuff about their art literature and mathematics, but that wasn't even true of the historical ottomans, and the Hyborian civilisation is millennia old.

Turan is dragging itself from the mud to reach civilization, but that rise comes with a price. Think of the Roman or Ottoman empires, which also used slavery and conquest, but who also brought light and civilization to the world.

Very apt examples. The Romans and the Ottomans have a lot in common: brutal conquest, widespread use of slavery and a complete failure to produce any significant advance in civilization... because it was cheaper to solve all problems with larger gangs of slaves. Also, both derived much of the light and civilisation that they did possess from the Greeks: Classical and Byzantine respectivly. The only thing they did was provide a framework in which other people's good ideas could spread, and frankly the Ottomans didn't really even do that. Yes, very apt!

 

[Sir Hackalot]

Who is Novalyne Price?

 

[Axerules]

I don't think this is true at all. Conan does have a consistent character development through the works. Just read Rippke's summary of his career.

I have read Rippke's stuff AND I don't think you're right at all.
I believe that what Louinet wrote on the creation of the various yarns is faaar more interesting and gives us a much clearer sight of REH's creation process than any of Darkstorm's "interpretations".

Oh really? Novalyne Price was an expert swordswoman who loved bloody combat more than anything else, and REH was a cheerful, optimistic young hero-worshipper? No I think you are being rather simplistic here! There were elements, doubtless, of Novalyne in Valeria, and of Howard in Balthus, but they were both characters in a story, and were developed according to the demands of that story.

Because YOU believe that the stories weren't modeled because of some psychologic elements of the author? Don't you think that REH put himself into his yarns (FWIW, that's what HPL said).

Once again, you should first read what Louinet has written. It's far from being simplistic, believe me. You could learn a thing or two.

It looks to me like you are engaged in special pleading: all the things REH wrote when he was particularly depressed are the essential truth, and all the rest of his work is just driven by his subjective feelings at the time.

I'm engaged in a special pleading? WTF?
:shock:

Strange interpretation of my posts. The "essential truth"? When did I say that the "Arthurian elements" were the results of subjective feelings, per instance? I merely meant that his creation process was not linear and that there was no "clearly" defined progression of the character from early on.
As you (IMO wrongly) reaffirmed it. "Conan does have a consistent character development through the works."
REH knew that Conan would become a king, period.

I merely reacted because YOU pretend that 'Kintire's interpretation' is the Ultimate Truth. Conan was like this, the character was like that.
It's not because you repeat page after page 'Kintire's interpretation' , sometimes very impolitely (some adjectives like "rubbish" to qualify someone elses writings are handy behind the comfort of your screen, they should be avoided when you want to discuss in a civil manner with an unknown).

PLEASE take the time to read what Patrice Louinet wrote, then come back to talk about REH's creation process. Since then, I will not respond to your strong, oh-so sarcastic (and mostly WRONG) affirmations anymore, it's a waste of time.

Personally, I prefer to view REH's most real work as the bits that he, on reflection and after consideration and editing, actually decided to publish.

There was no market for his poetry and his personal correspondance was never meant to be published. Do you think they give us zero informations on his creative process? BTW, how much familiar are you with them?

Who mentioned Phoenix? And i don't think that particularly "Celtic" kinghood overtones ever enter. In fact, I'm not convinced that they even exist. However, Arthur was a warrior king with a doubtful heritage who built his reign on military victory. I think the similarities are close

.
You talked of Conan as a king. The first yarn where we see him on a throne is Phoenix.

The only sense I can make of this bizarre remark is "the context of a moral choice is irrelevant to its morality". This is such obvious rubbish that I cannot believe you meant that. What did you mean?

"Rubbish" Once again, when cornered, a sarcasm. See what I said above. I'll finish this post, then I'm out of here. Too much for my stomach. I wonder if you would have the guts to talk this way to someone you don't know if you were in front of him.
As I said, it's handy for some kind of people to sit behind a screen...

Your problem is that you seem to be locked into the idea that introducing morality into fantasy must mean that characters are identified as "goodies" and "Baddies", and that if I'm saying Conan was a "goodie" I must be saying he never did anything wrong. I am not saying that: morality is more complex than that, and morality in REHs work is as well. They are not "apologetic words", whatever that means. They are explanations as to how and why Conan committed evil acts without being a black-hearted villain (tm).

Once again, repat YOUR truth. Your inability to see beyond 'Kintire's interpretation' (let's add a tm) and iron-clad beliefs are tiring. Stay with YOUR truth and keep your blinders.

He is prepared to sacrifice his life (...) And of course he is prepared to sacrifice his life rather than betray his people.

True, true. He had some honor, I said it before. And he was sometimes totally amoral.

But he is certainly not amoral... ever.

Someone willing to burn a town to the ground is not amoral, because those horrible slavers deserved it ?
FYI, Conan himself kept a slave at least once and a majority of the nations of the Hyborian Age do not forbid slavery either.

Let's use your own words: "not amoral...ever" is "obvious rubbish".

Don't bother answering.

 

[Hervé]

This reminds a lot of the "What if Conan leaves d20 for another system" topic. I've met the same difficulties in communicating. Must be because English is not our native language, Axe... :wink:

 

[T.L.]

Hervé, I totally agree with you. I've tried Conan OGL and after a couple of adventures, the game stopped: too many feats, too much tacticts for my taste. I hated the system. On the other hand, the Elric of Melniboné book I've bought a few weeks ago seems pretty good for a gritty world ^_^

That said, happy new year to All

 

[Hervé]

Hi pal, nice to see you here!

 

[kintire]

Because YOU believe that the stories weren't modeled because of some psychologic elements of the author? Don't you think that REH put himself into his yarns (FWIW, that's what HPL said).

Once again, you should first read what Louinet has written. It's far from being simplistic, believe me. You could learn a thing or two.

I haven't read Louinet, so all I can go by is what you say. And as I said, of course any author's work is affected by their psychology, deliberatly or otherwise. But to reduce story creation to JUST psychology is too reductionist. Writing a story is a skilled profession, and one of those skills is developing characters and narratives. Doubtless Valeria was affected strongly by the character of od Novalyne, but she was also strongly influenced by the narrative demands of the plot of Red Nails.

I'm engaged in a special pleading? WTF?

Yes. You are taking one part of REH's writing: his personal letters and exalting them over another part: his published works.

As you (IMO wrongly) reaffirmed it. "Conan does have a consistent character development through the works."
REH knew that Conan would become a king, period.

He knew that Conan began as a barbarian tribesman, and ended as a civilised king. Thus, early in his career he is a rather naive barbarian, in his middle years he is a "red handed plunderer" with occasional flashes of true greatness, and in his later years he becomes more and more like the classic hero. We're not talking deep commentary on the human condition here, but there is a development path.

I merely reacted because YOU pretend that 'Kintire's interpretation' is the Ultimate Truth. Conan was like this, the character was like that.

And you don't pretend that your or Louinets is? Well no, you don't. You have your opinion, which has changed just as much as mine has, and you argue for it. Yours hasn't changed any more than mine: neither of us find the other's arguments convincing.

There was no market for his poetry and his personal correspondance was never meant to be published. Do you think they give us zero informations on his creative process?

Its always black and white with you, isn't it? No, I do not think they give us zero information about his creative process. I do think that the finished works give us much more information about what he intended the finished works to say, precisely because they ARE finished.

"Rubbish" Once again, when cornered, a sarcasm. See what I said above. I'll finish this post, then I'm out of here. Too much for my stomach. I wonder if you would have the guts to talk this way to someone you don't know if you were in front of him.

For your information, yes I would. And I am not cornered. You are moving here into moral philosophy, which is my subject. And just FYI, I tell people they are talking rubbish and am told it in return in the flesh regularly, and no-one gets all peeved about it. I'll avoid the word if it bothers you.

Once again, repat YOUR truth. Your inability to see beyond 'Kintire's interpretation' (let's add a tm) and iron-clad beliefs are tiring. Stay with YOUR truth and keep your blinders.

Well, actually I'm sticking to my guns on this one, since I am talking here about what my own opinion actually is, a subject on which I do consider I am something of an authority! And in anycase, how is me not moving from my opinion the slightest bit different from you not moving from yours?

Someone willing to burn a town to the ground is not amoral, because those horrible slavers deserved it ?
FYI, Conan himself kept a slave at least once and a majority of the nations of the Hyborian Age do not forbid slavery either.

Let's use your own words: "not amoral...ever" is "obvious rubbish".

Someone willing to burn a town to the ground because the people in it had done the same to other people, and thus had no right to complain is not amoral. Amoral means "without any morality" it doesn't mean "morally wrong". Conan is making a moral choice here: he is just getting it wrong. He gets it right later in his career, a point made by Howard himself in Scarlet Citadel.

Who is Novalyne Price?

Howard's Significant Other in the later part of his life.

This reminds a lot of the "What if Conan leaves d20 for another system" topic. I've met the same difficulties in communicating. Must be because English is not our native language, Axe...

So if i disagree with you, it must be because I don't understand you? Your problems in that thread are because you are trying to turn your personal tastes in RPG systems into Revealed Truth, and you have no grounds for it. There's no communication problem. I just don't agree with what you're saying.

 

[Hervé]

You got it wrong again, pal, with your absolute truths... I'm not the one that "trying to turn personal tastes in RPG systems into Revealed Truth". I'm not defending any preferred system. That's what YOU do. I've been trying many game systems for Conan and I find D20 totally inappropriate, that's all.

You're the one narrowing the debate in telling how much right you are and how much people that don't agree with you are wrong. You're among the people that are "blackmailing" Mongoose in saying "if you change anything, I quit". Not me. I'm open minded enough to buy all the books and try the system in a two years campaign (playing twice a month) before telling it's complete crap.

I'm Conan player before being a D20 player. That's where our difference lies...

 

[kintire]

You got it wrong again, pal, with your absolute truths... I'm not the one that "trying to turn personal tastes in RPG systems into Revealed Truth".

right.

While it is generally true that systems and role playing aren’t linked, D&D is somewhat different. There is definitively a “D&D mentality”, and it has been there from the start, more than 30 years ago and it grew stronger with the apparition of the D20 system (For a recent example look at the “get your D&D out of my Conan” thread…). I can tell this by experience, being a gamer for more than 30 years and working in LGS for some 20 years. I’ve been talking with generations of gamers and I can assure that the system has an impact on the players’ perception of the game. I don’t say that the “narratist” approach is better than the “gamist” one and that you can’t roleplay using OGL, but game engines influence the way games are played, want it or not. Tactical systems lead to tactical thinking.

At the point when you are analysing the psychology of the people who like a game, you are over the personal opinion edge.

You're the one narrowing the debate in telling how much right you are and how much people that don't agree with you are wrong.

So wait... I'm "narrowing" a debate by claiming I'm right? How do you have a debate if everyone agrees? And if it comes to that, what else are YOU doing?

You're quite right in one way: I don't think you are right to claim that d20 is an objectivly bad system: its a very tough line to shoot when so many people like it. But I'm not being unreasonable by holding to that opinion. I'm not obliged to agree with you. You have to convince me.

You're among the people that are "blackmailing" Mongoose in saying "if you change anything, I quit".

Oh really? and when did I say that?

I don't think its a good idea to move the Conan license to Runequest, because Runequest is a game that assumes that heroes will gain their advantages through magic, and has a reasonably realistic combat system where even a very skilled warrior will rapidly be brought low by even slightly superior numbers. The kinds of fights Conan gets into where he wades through hordes of faceless minons would be very difficult to do. Take Queen of the Black Coast for example. But if someone can come up with a system that I prefer to d20 then I'll be all for it. And I'll buy the background sourcebooks anyway.

I'm open minded enough to buy all the books and try the system in a two years campaign (playing twice a month) before telling it's complete crap.

That is not openmindedness. Its better than many out there, but openmindedness is playing it for two years and then telling that you don't like it.

I'm Conan player before being a D20 player. That's where our difference lies...

If we're into messageboard psychoanalysis, I'd say the difference between us is that you're still back in the days when systems were like football teams, and AD&D players were writing into magazines demanding that they devote themselves completely to AD&D instead of "wasting time" with "minority systems". Whereas I view a system as a tool to entertain me, and I'll use whichever one I fancy at the time. D20 Conan produces diverse but well balanced characters that can do the things that the characters in the books do, and with which you can tell stories that feel Conan-esq. Thus I judge it a good system.

Of course, if you prefer hyper realistic or extremely slim line systems then you won't like it. But I use those systems too. Just not for Conan.

 

[Style]

I hear that My Little Pony RPGs can get pretty gritty.

 

[thelevitator]

I hear that My Little Pony RPGs can get pretty gritty.

True dat! The witch Hydia from the Volcano of Doom is a true badass! Beware the Smooz!!! :twisted:

Disclaimer: I have a 5 year old daughter, so owning and watching "My Little Pony: the Movie" is compulsory. :wink:

 

[Strom]

Who is Novalyne Price?

As mentioned above, Novalyne Price was Robert E. Howard's one true love and an on again off again girlfriend toward the end of his life. Novalyne wrote a book titled "The One who Walks Alone" about her relationship with Bob and her book was turned into a movie starring Vincent D'Onofrio & Renée Zellweger titled 'Whole Wide World".

I recommend fans of REH and Conan get them both!

Book:
http://www.amazon.com/One-Who-Walked-Alone-Robert/dp/093798678X

Movie:

http://www.amazon.com/Whole-Wide-World-Vincent-DOnofrio/dp/B00009QUH4/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

Back to the debate!

 

[Style]

Disclaimer: I have a 5 year old daughter, so owning and watching "My Little Pony: the Movie" is compulsory. :wink:

A likely story.

 

[Style]

I recommend fans of REH and Conan get them both!

Book:
http://www.amazon.com/One-Who-Walked-Alone-Robert/dp/093798678X

Movie:

http://www.amazon.com/Whole-Wide-World-Vincent-DOnofrio/dp/B00009QUH4/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

The beauty of Novalyne's work is that we get a great idea of how Howard actually spoke to people. She would go home at night after dates and jot down their conversations as best as her memory would allow. His letters are of course a great resource for understanding REH, but Novalyne's book gives us a different insight.

 

[Axerules]

I couldn't help myself, even if I know it's useless to debate with Kintire.

Yes. You are taking one part of REH's writing: his personal letters and exalting them over another part: his published works.

So if I have a different take than Kintire's Interpretation (tm), I'm "engaged in a special pleading" and I diminish the importance of the published works? :roll:
If I do not see exactly the same things in the yarns than you, I'm "exalting" REH's correspondance over the stories?
You're insinuating that if someone has a different interpretation than yours, he ignores or misreads the stories. Okay.
I wonder if it feels good to believe in one's own infallibility.

What I think is that YOU have a narrow vision: you look at an INCOMPLETE picture and then pretend to have a better understanding than the other posters.

And you don't pretend that your or Louinets is? Well no, you don't. You have your opinion, which has changed just as much as mine has, and you argue for it. Yours hasn't changed any more than mine: neither of us find the other's arguments convincing.

The difference being that I do not satisfy myself -as you do- only with MY comprehension of the yarns; I have also read some letters by REH and a certain amount of scholarship written by others.

Its always black and white with you, isn't it? No, I do not think they give us zero information about his creative process. I do think that the finished works give us much more information about what he intended the finished works to say, precisely because they ARE finished.

Ooookay.

Well, since you don't have read what Patrice wrote, I guess you don't own the Wandering Star/Del Rey editions (who contain several of his essays), am I right?

So you're probably unaware that even REH's PUBLISHED WORKS in Weird Tales suffered from censorship.


Patrice Louinet, interviewed by Ed Waterman

When I started working on the Conan texts, one element that came out as a surprise was that the Weird Tales texts, long thought to have been "pure", had also been censored in several instances: lines of dialogues that were too sexually explicit and several of Conan's oaths were systematically toned down or excised. It very much seems that Farnsworth Wright, the editor of Weird Tales, had a somewhat romantic idea of the Cimmerian, and thus censored dialogue and rejected tales that would not conform to his vision. Other editors decided that Howard committed mistakes in his stories and altered them to fit their conception of the stories and their chronology, or that Howard's style was not good enough, so that they rewrote -- paraphrased, rather -- entire paragraphs. It seemed that every editor wanted to impose their conception of Conan onto the reader, and had no scruples about achieving this by manipulating the texts. My work was simply to present the Conan tales as Howard wrote them, and certainly not to alter the stories to make them fit my conception of the character.

If you don't own the texts that REH sent to Farnsworth Wright, that is what was printed in the WS/DR editions, your vision of the character is based on corrupted and toned down stories. Period.

You should buy yourself the three Del Rey's, they're not too pricey.
In those editions the stories are presented in the order REH wrote them. It also helps to get rid of any 'Spraguish/Rippkean' chronological 'conditioning' when you're able to see how the author's conceptions of the Hyborian Age and of his character evolved from yarn to yarn.

For your information, yes I would. And I am not cornered. You are moving here into moral philosophy, which is my subject. And just FYI, I tell people they are talking rubbish and am told it in return in the flesh regularly, and no-one gets all peeved about it. I'll avoid the word if it bothers you.

To unknowns? I seriouly doubt it, but let's move on.

It's nice that you don't feel "cornered".
Aren't REH's own words in contradiction with Kintire's Interpretation (tm)?
What do you say?
Is there a subtle meaning of the words "damnedest bastard" that I'm unable to get because of my limited English skills?

Well, actually I'm sticking to my guns on this one, since I am talking here about what my own opinion actually is, a subject on which I do consider I am something of an authority! And in anycase, how is me not moving from my opinion the slightest bit different from you not moving from yours?

As in other threads, in this one you seldom used words like "I think", "I believe" or the abbreviations IMO/IMHO. Most of the time, strong affirmations and your opinion put forward as some kind of ultimate truth. You do this often to reply to other posters, not only to my messages.
Then, when someone contradicts you with consistent posts, you write a sentence several days later to say it was just an opinion.
How handy. And familiar.

Someone willing to burn a town to the ground because the people in it had done the same to other people, and thus had no right to complain is not amoral. Amoral means "without any morality" it doesn't mean "morally wrong". Conan is making a moral choice here: he is just getting it wrong. He gets it right later in his career, a point made by Howard himself in Scarlet Citadel.

"the people in it"? EVERY SINGLE woman, child, servant, etc... in town deserved Conan's wrath? Really? Because their Hyrkanian husbands/fathers/masters/etc... were -like most of the people of the Hyborian Age- slavers?

And even worse: every settlement populated by Black people in the Hyborian Age deserved to be plundered by Bêlit and Amra because of the piratical ways of some specific Southern Island tribes?
Because they're all Blacks?

This reminds a lot of the "What if Conan leaves d20 for another system" topic. I've met the same difficulties in communicating. Must be because English is not our native language, Axe...

So if i disagree with you, it must be because I don't understand you? Your problems in that thread are because you are trying to turn your personal tastes in RPG systems into Revealed Truth, and you have no grounds for it. There's no communication problem. I just don't agree with what you're saying.

Well, obviously there IS a communication problem in the discussion about Conan's morality. You forgot/ignored/misunderstood (make your choice) REH's own words on his character. Or is my English so poor that I can't figure out what "bastard" means?

 

[Demetrio]

Someone amoral would turn on a companion without a second thought were it to his advantage. He would not burden or endanger himself to save another unless it were to his material advantage. He would not give a fortune in gems to a woman and child so that they could return home. he would instead rape and/or enslave them.

Conan is not amoral because he does all those things. He has his own morality, which is not necessarily one that would meet with universal approval in academic circles.

Being a 'bastard' (in any sense) does not make one amoral.

All authors suffer from editing/censorship. We must sensibly take the tales as written and form our opinion of the characters from what is on the paper. We can argue that the 'unpublished' Conan might be cruder (yet of course still not amoral) than what ended up in print but it would be a peculiar form of literary academic pedantry that insisted that unpublished material was 'more valid' than what in fact ended up in the magazines. Obviously the de Camp wholesale re-writes are of a different order to mere editing yet the original Howard version of the de Camp re-writes does not cast Conan as an amoral man.

 

[Axerules]

All authors suffer from editing/censorship. We must sensibly take the tales as written and form our opinion of the characters from what is on the paper. We can argue that the 'unpublished' Conan might be cruder (yet of course still not amoral) than what ended up in print but it would be a peculiar form of literary academic pedantry that insisted that unpublished material was 'more valid' than what in fact ended up in the magazines.

Except that the 'pure' texts ARE published. They ARE "in print" and "on paper" since a few years.
It took quite a while (decades!) to see unaltered Conan stories in print, but they're slowly replacing the toned down texts.
FYI, the Conan books published by the Del Rey editions are not some kind of obscure academic publications and are widely available today. They're even translated in several langages. So please don't talk of "a peculiar academic pedantry" for what is now the norm.

 

[Demetrio]

Except that the 'pure' texts ARE published. They ARE "in print" and "on paper" since a few years.
It took quite a while (decades!) to see unaltered Conan stories in print, but they're slowly replacing the toned down texts.
FYI, the Conan books published by the Del Rey editions are not some kind of obscure academic publications and are widely available today. They're even translated in several langages. So please don't talk of "a peculiar academic pedantry" for what is now the norm.

Yes, I own them. It is from them that I form the view that Conan is not amoral. But claiming that, for example, because Howard says in a letter that Conan is a 'rapist and bastard' or whatever is to ignore the fact that the stories as written are in fact what matters.

I mean we could go digging in Chandler's letters to gain an insight into Marlowe's character - or we could just read his detective stories and form our opinion from them and treat Chandler's extensive correspondence as an insight into Chandler and not his fictional creation. Why should Howard be treated differently?

 

[kintire]

I couldn't help myself, even if I know it's useless to debate with Kintire.

kintire wrote:
Yes. You are taking one part of REH's writing: his personal letters and exalting them over another part: his published works.

So if I have a different take than Kintire's Interpretation (tm), I'm "engaged in a special pleading" and I diminish the importance of the published works?
If I do not see exactly the same things in the yarns than you, I'm "exalting" REH's correspondance over the stories?
You're insinuating that if someone has a different interpretation than yours, he ignores or misreads the stories. Okay.
I wonder if it feels good to believe in one's own infallibility.

Axrules, the thing in front of you is a MIRROR.

I'm not sure what your complaint is, but it seems to be that I'm not changing my opinion to match yours. Well, you aren't changing your opinion to match mine either. You are then accusing me of believing that what I think is "revealed truth": and the evidence that you are putting forward for that is that I am refusing to agree with you, when what you say is obviously true! The only difference between us is that you are producing extended ad hominems and I'm not!

The difference being that I do not satisfy myself -as you do- only with MY comprehension of the yarns; I have also read some letters by REH and a certain amount of scholarship written by others.

You have read letters by REH. I've read some too. But the letters from REH represent a snapshot of his thinking at one time, and as can be seen from several plot elements that don't make it into the final version, its at an early stage of drafting. I am choosing to take the final stories, which represent months of work and mature consideration, as the basis of understanding what REH meant, and the letters as illuminating how they were written. but not as authority over them.

As for scholarship written by others: I've read some, although not that one. But I am very sceptical of this kind of work. Taking an author's work and deconstructing it is a risky business. C S Lewis has some good stuff on this. He had the advantage of people doing this kind of thing on his own works while he was still alive, and the stuff they came up with was very hit and miss: mostly miss.

If you don't own the texts that REH sent to Farnsworth Wright, that is what was printed in the WS/DR editions, your vision of the character is based on corrupted and toned down stories. Period.

Oh please. He toned down some of the sexy bits for publication, he didn't eviscerate the entire work. Mountain out of molehill.

It also helps to get rid of any 'Spraguish/Rippkean' chronological 'conditioning' when you're able to see how the author's conceptions of the Hyborian Age and of his character evolved from yarn to yarn.

Hah! Spragueish/Rippkean? Have you read any of Rippke's stuff? As far as he's concerned, Sprague de Camp is one garde down from the Antichrist! And who on earth said the author's conception of the character didn't evolve?

It's nice that you don't feel "cornered".
Aren't REH's own words in contradiction with Kintire's Interpretation (tm)?
What do you say?

No, they're not.

Is there a subtle meaning of the words "damnedest bastard" that I'm unable to get because of my limited English skills?

No, but there is a meaning of the word "amoral" that you are not getting, I think. Specifically, it is NOT synonymous with "Immoral" and does NOT mean "wrong".

As in other threads, in this one you seldom used words like "I think", "I believe" or the abbreviations IMO/IMHO. Most of the time, strong affirmations and your opinion put forward as some kind of ultimate truth. You do this often to reply to other posters, not only to my messages.

Hah! So I'm evil because I don't use the codewords? That's called honesty! Let me ask this: all those people who drop these weasel words into their opinions. How often do they actually BEHAVE as if they mean them? Obviously, everything I post is my opinion, and no one else is obliged to agree. I don't feel the need to remind people of that all the time.

Then, when someone contradicts you with consistent posts, you write a sentence several days later to say it was just an opinion.
How handy. And familiar.

Everything I post is an opinion. Everything anyone posts is an opinion. Except, Ironically, the part of my post you chose to quote! Because that was me talking about what I think and do not think, and that's objective fact if anything is. Whether that thought is right or not is another question.

Oh, and by the way, I don't in any way retract that opinion, if that's how you interpreted it.

"the people in it"? EVERY SINGLE woman, child, servant, etc... in town deserved Conan's wrath? Really? Because their Hyrkanian husbands/fathers/masters/etc... were -like most of the people of the Hyborian Age- slavers?

And even worse: every settlement populated by Black people in the Hyborian Age deserved to be plundered by Bêlit and Amra because of the piratical ways of some specific Southern Island tribes?

No they didn't, and I said they didn't. Here:

Someone willing to burn a town to the ground because the people in it had done the same to other people, and thus had no right to complain is not amoral. Amoral means "without any morality" it doesn't mean "morally wrong". Conan is making a moral choice here: he is just getting it wrong. He gets it right later in his career, a point made by Howard himself in Scarlet Citadel.

The problem here is that you don't seem to be capable of accepting any option but the wild extremes. Valeria IS Novalyne Price: Or they have NOTHING to do with each other. Conan is UTTERLY AMORAL: or he is a white hatted saint. REH had NO idea about any structure for Conan's career or development: or he had EVERY part of his character worked out fully in advance. You believe the first of all of these, and because I disagree you seem to be assuming that I belive the opposite.

Well, I don't. I believe that Novalyne Price influenced the character of Valeria, but there is a lot in Valeria that comes from other places too. Most especially, the demands of the story. I believe that Conan has a strong morality, but in early life a limited one and he makes many mistakes, performing many immoral (but not amoral) acts. He is, for much of his career a "red-handed plunderer" (which is the in story way of saying "a bastard") but he is a plunderer with a strong code, that blossoms into full scale heroism later in his career. I think REH had a good idea from the start (well, possibly after Phoenix) of Conan's career and fitted his stories into it, but it was only a general framework, and the character saw considerable development as time went on. IMHO, IMO, I believe, I think, In my opinion, in my HUMBLE opinion, if I may be permitted to express my beliefs, Mr Axerules sir.

Hows that?

Well, obviously there IS a communication problem in the discussion about Conan's morality. You forgot/ignored/misunderstood (make your choice) REH's own words on his character. Or is my English so poor that I can't figure out what "bastard" means?

You can be a bastard without being amoral. It is YOU who are ignoring REH's own words... and in the stories no less. Conan makes decisions to do things because he thinks they are right. That means he is not amoral.

And actually, that's not MHO. That's semantics. Someone who makes moral decisions is, by definition not amoral. Even if he gets several of them very badly wrong.