De Camp: Any Good or Not?

Scorpion13

Mongoose
I know all about L. Sprague DeCamps nasty shenanigans with the Howard estate, and it sickens me to think that such a thing cold happen to a great writer's work.

That having been said, I was wondering what the consensus was about his Conan stories. I loathe the man, but I gotta say, I like his stories. Unlike Howard, he does occasionally show a force of good in action, but its a pretty rare occurance.

What do you all think?
 
The subject was developed several times on this board.
I generally don't like his novels but his short stories are good. The same applies to Lin Carter.
 
Although some of his short stories are passable, de Camp's Conan is a thinking man, not an instinctive man of action - L. Sprague de Camp and Lin Carter fundamentally changed Conan's basic character.

Don Herron said it best in Conan vs. Conantics.

A few quotes from that article:

"One of the major points of difference between Conan and Conantics is that REH's creation reacts to dangerous situations instinctively, whereas the de Camp-Carter imitation reacts logically. "

"In "The Devil in Iron", Howard writes: "'Conan. .. is as crafty as a mountain lion. 'It is more through wild animal instinct than through intelligence,' answered Ghaznavi (Conan the Wanderer, Lancer, 1968. p90). " It's evident that Howard's Conan was by and large a man of action. But from the first tale in their chronological sequence that de Camp and Carter write, they make Conan a thinking man's barbarian."

"One sequence in particular completely violates the character of Conan. The Conantics barbarian is cuffed by the overseer on the slave-galley he is a prisoner on. Like the genuine Conan he explodes into action, but unlike Conan he "… belatedly controlled his rage (Conan, p206)." Then the overseer whips him. "But Conan did not scream or move a muscle. It was as if he felt nothing, so strong was the iron of his will (Conan, p207)." If anyone thinks REH's Conan would sit still under a beating… well, they'd better stick to reading Carter's Thongor of Lemuria. It is incredible to me that de Camp and Carter have no more grasp of Conan's character - or of his type of character - than to pass such a scene off on readers."

Don Herron goes on to support each of those assertions (and others!) with proofs from the stories (both from Howard and de Camp).
 
I agree with Vincent Darlage, though he doesn't mention the worst from Carter and De Camp (for the novels): silly sentences about what the Conan or someone else is thinking.
In one of the novels (Conan the buccanner I think) L. Carter has Thoth Amon being "offered" one of the 3 books of skelos known to exist. But he is very angered because there was a much more important artefact to his eyes in the same location: the crown of the serpent-man (which has power akin to AD&D magic items) and he would have prefered this gift. Poor Thoth-Amon. Then the sorcerer is acting like a clown at the end with its crown on the head.

Though Conan the Aquilonian consists of 4 short stories (which make up a novel), they are very badly written with poor style.

On another hand, the hand of nergal, the thing in the crypt, the hall of the dead, the curse of the monolith, the lair of the ice worm, the castle of terror, the snout in the dark and black tears are good because they are more linked to horror stories then stories for children.

I forgot to tell that Conan the Cimmerian (follows more or less the plot of the 1st movie) and Conan of the Isles are two novels that are worth reading with interesting plots.
 
The King said:
I agree with Vincent Darlage, though he doesn't mention the worst from Carter and De Camp (for the novels): silly sentences about what the Conan or someone else is thinking.
In one of the novels (Conan the buccanner I think) L. Carter has Thoth Amon being "offered" one of the 3 books of skelos known to exist. But he is very angered because there was a much more important artefact to his eyes in the same location: the crown of the serpent-man (which has power akin to AD&D magic items) and he would have prefered this gift. Poor Thoth-Amon. Then the sorcerer is acting like a clown at the end with its crown on the head.

Though Conan the Aquilonian consists of 4 short stories (which make up a novel), they are very badly written with poor style.

On another hand, the hand of nergal, the thing in the crypt, the hall of the dead, the curse of the monolith, the lair of the ice worm, the castle of terror, the snout in the dark and black tears are good because they are more linked to horror stories then stories for children.

I forgot to tell that Conan the Cimmerian (follows more or less the plot of the 1st movie) and Conan of the Isles are two novels that are worth reading with interesting plots.



I read that one very recently (Conan the Buccaneer),and Amon never really got to do much with the Crown.

He was using it to mentally force a king to crown him as ruler of Kordava, but when he took the Crown off, the treacherous duke who was the one who even got him involved in this in the first place, snatched it up and the two started basically a War of the Souls, when Conan and his pirates appeared.

Cue to bloody battle in the throne room, and Amon finally destroying the Crown before the Duke destroyed him with it.

As I said, I thought it was a pretty decent story.
 
I dislike how L. Sprague de Camp and Lin Carter made Thoth-amon into some sort of nemesis for Conan. In Howard's Phoenix on the Sword, Thoth-amon cares naught for Conan - he just wants revenge on his masters. There is no indication in that story that Thoth-amon ever met Conan or cared who he was.
 
In the books that I read, he really doesnt care much about Conan, outside of known who he is and that his shenanigans often screw up his plans.

But even Conan barely cares who Amon is, outside him being an uber-powerful wizard.
 
VincentDarlage said:
I dislike how L. Sprague de Camp and Lin Carter made Thoth-amon into some sort of nemesis for Conan. In Howard's Phoenix on the Sword, Thoth-amon cares naught for Conan - he just wants revenge on his masters. There is no indication in that story that Thoth-amon ever met Conan or cared who he was.
IIRC Thoth Amon also made an short acquoitance with Conan in the Treasure of Tranicos (modified version of the black stranger).
 
I little while back I dusted off my Ace Conan books and began re-reading them. I read the first few chapters of Conan the Bucaneer and thought, what crap. I skipped it and went straight to Conan the Usurper.
 
The King said:
IIRC Thoth Amon also made an short acquoitance with Conan in the Treasure of Tranicos (modified version of the black stranger).

Thoth-amon did not appear in REH's The Black Stranger. He was added in by L. Sprague de Camp (in the rewrite, Treasure of Tranicos) in order to further establish the nemesis quality - thereby proving my point further.

L. Sprague de Camp made him a nemesis, not REH. He appears in Conan the Buccaneer, Treasure of Tranicos, and, as a definite nemesis, the four short stories in Conan of Aquilonia.

He is not a nemesis (of Conan) in Phoenix on the Sword or The God in the Bowl.
 
VincentDarlage said:
Although some of his short stories are passable, de Camp's Conan is a thinking man, not an instinctive man of action - L. Sprague de Camp and Lin Carter fundamentally changed Conan's basic character.

Don Herron said it best in Conan vs. Conantics.

A few quotes from that article:

"One of the major points of difference between Conan and Conantics is that REH's creation reacts to dangerous situations instinctively, whereas the de Camp-Carter imitation reacts logically. "

"In "The Devil in Iron", Howard writes: "'Conan. .. is as crafty as a mountain lion. 'It is more through wild animal instinct than through intelligence,' answered Ghaznavi (Conan the Wanderer, Lancer, 1968. p90). " It's evident that Howard's Conan was by and large a man of action. But from the first tale in their chronological sequence that de Camp and Carter write, they make Conan a thinking man's barbarian."

"One sequence in particular completely violates the character of Conan. The Conantics barbarian is cuffed by the overseer on the slave-galley he is a prisoner on. Like the genuine Conan he explodes into action, but unlike Conan he "… belatedly controlled his rage (Conan, p206)." Then the overseer whips him. "But Conan did not scream or move a muscle. It was as if he felt nothing, so strong was the iron of his will (Conan, p207)." If anyone thinks REH's Conan would sit still under a beating… well, they'd better stick to reading Carter's Thongor of Lemuria. It is incredible to me that de Camp and Carter have no more grasp of Conan's character - or of his type of character - than to pass such a scene off on readers."

Don Herron goes on to support each of those assertions (and others!) with proofs from the stories (both from Howard and de Camp).

Vincent brings up very good points, the quotes from Don Herron, superb. But to be fair, we need to take a look at the role that de Camp & Co. played in keeping Conan alive. Here's a piece that I posted over on the Age of Conan forums. Keep in mind that I am an avid Howard fan, but to address the question of whether de Camp is "any good" or not:

A little info on L. Sprague de Camp-

L. Sprague de Camp was the fifth winner of the Grand Master award for Science Fiction. This award was given to the likes of Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke, Clifford D. Simak, Fritz Leiber, Andre Norton, and Jack Williamson. Part of the rules for this award were that the winner could be chosen only by the members of the SFWA, not the fans. L. Sprague de Camp was awarded before Fritz Leiber, Andre Norton, Arthur C. Clarke, and Isaac Asimov by professional writers. To have a list of writers of with that status voting for you, well, it speaks for itself.

Now, L. Sprague de Camp was not Robert E. Howard. I have stated before that L. Sprague de Camp could not keep Howard's Conan alive, no one but Howard could. But L. Sprague de Camp helped keep Conan in print, he streamlined the stories, if you will. Again, he kept Conan in print. Just not Howard's Conan.

To say that L. Sprague de Camp was a crappy writer, well again, to each his own. But, to be fair, read the Harold Shea adventures, The Incorporated Knight or Land of Unreason. Read Genus Homo written with P. Schyler Miller and then see if you truly think he is still a "below average" writer.

Now, with that said, I do feel that Howard's works are the only works of canonical status. Again, no one can, could or will keep Howard's Conan alive, it's just not possible, only Howard was capable. However, I can appreciate the sincere efforts of post Howard authors in the fight to keep Conan alive. Without them, we most likely would not be here on this forum discussing this game.

Perhaps DeCamp shouldn't have rewritten the stories, or elaborated on the fragments left by REH, right or wrong in doing so, it's what happened. Again, it kept Conan in print. I usually refrain from commenting on the pastiche/canonical debate, as I believe that Howard's writings of Conan are the only writings that have "canonical" status. All others are simply pastiche, and I am able to enjoy them for what they are. At least, in my opinion anyway.
 
Amra said:
Vincent brings up very good points, the quotes from Don Herron, superb. But to be fair, we need to take a look at the role that de Camp & Co. played in keeping Conan alive.

There is no denying L. Sprague de Camp did a lot to keep Conan alive and well, which earns him a pat on the back from me, but that doesn't mean his stories are all that good. His Conan is out of character with REH's Conan. DeCamp's marketing skills are superior to his pastiching skills, I think.
 
VincentDarlage said:
Amra said:
Vincent brings up very good points, the quotes from Don Herron, superb. But to be fair, we need to take a look at the role that de Camp & Co. played in keeping Conan alive.

There is no denying L. Sprague de Camp did a lot to keep Conan alive and well, which earns him a pat on the back from me, but that doesn't mean his stories are all that good. His Conan is out of character with REH's Conan. DeCamp's marketing skills are superior to his pastiching skills, I think.

That's very true, and I agree hands down that de Camp's Conan is out of character with Howard's Conan. To clarify my stance though, I'm not trying to come off as harsh (if that's how my previous post sounds), I just wanted to throw in a little lesser known info on de Camp.
 
Hi!

i've read nothing von de Camp & Co. so far but i will change that :)

perhaps you can help me and recommend the better books for me ???

thnx in advance
 
This is a real complicated subject when you examine Decamp's editing of Howard's stories and Decamp's pastiche Conan stories and finishing the partial Howard Conan stories but also his role in getting the original Lancer series printed (huge Conan explosion) plus his role in the REH biography "Dark Valley Destiny" (the only biography on Howard for decades and despite the speculative beginning it was throughly researched) plus his invaluable contributions to the REH museum in Cross Plains Texas. Needless to say it is a mouthful.

That said I've read DeCamp's pastiche attempts and don't remember much EXCEPT for the very cool and well described rat swarm attack in Conan of the Isles. Even after all these years I remember that scene in the book and that saids something about the undebatable skill the man had in writing. He just wasn't as good as Bob Howard but when it comes to pastiche or even original stories few are in the S & S genre.

My only recommendation for Decamp would be Conan of the Isles. Nothing great, but the rat attack is classic and fits in the Conan mythos.
 
I find de Camp a very mixed author. I've read Herron's article, and I'm not entirely convinced by his arguments. Or to be more exact, I think he takes them too far. For example he says;

REH's creation reacts to dangerous situations instinctively, whereas the de Camp-Carter imitation reacts logically

And then uses as an example

How can you kill a thing that is already dead? The question echoed madly in Conan's brain…. Now he struck with greater cunning. Reasoning that if it could not walk it could not pursue him…

Which I find very weak. REH's Conan acts, usually immediately, but not mindlessly; and hitting something's leg to slow its movement is hardly machievellian tactics. I think "Thing in the Crypt" is actually an excellent pastiche, and one of deCamp's best.

Also, he takes the anti-deity thing a little far. while certainly the good aligned glowy things in hand of Nergal and Conan of the Isles are very un-Howard, it is very difficult to explain the oracle to Yasmela in Black Colossus as anything other than genuine. The alternative explanation is a coincidence so wild as to be absurd.

However, there is no doubt that when DeCamp is bad, he is terrible
All this nonsense with Thoth Amon as the Big Bad Guy, the random purposeless world tours in the books set after he is king and, worst of all, the execrable Spider God, featuring next to no action and a love affair for Conan that sits next to his affair with Belit like "Noddy Goes to Toytown" sits next to Lord of the Rings. It will be a long time before I forgive DeCamp for that!
 
Strom said:
. . . also his role in getting the original Lancer series printed (huge Conan explosion) plus his role in the REH biography "Dark Valley Destiny" (the only biography on Howard for decades and despite the speculative beginning it was throughly researched) . . .
Dark Valley Destiny is, though, a character assassination.
 
I agree with kintire about "Thoth-Amon as the Big Bad Guy", but I didn't think the love affair between Conan and Rudabeh was "execrable". Conan and the Spider-God happened around a year before the Cimmerian knows Belit, and in the about 20 years between Belit's death and the Conan's decision of change Zenobia in queen of Aquilonia, the barbarian had never a love affair like the Shemite Queen of the Black Coast.

I think Rudabeh and Belit's death bore a great trauma in the Cimmerian about to live a long time in a woman's company, and this trauma was only completely surmounted when Conan was 45 years-old and fell in love with Zenobia, with whom he probably married.

I supposed this was the DeCamp's idea in "The Spider God" :wink: . And I think Roy Thomas complete very well this idea when he did the free adaptation of "The Dark Man", in The Savage Sword of Conan.
 
I had forgotten to mention Conan and the spider god. The plot is good, the end is good but seriously, this novel could have been shorten because nothing truly happens inbetween.

A curious invention of de Camp was his swamp cat which could jump thanks to his massive rabit-like hindlegs.

I agree with Strom with Conan of the Isles which isn't bad at all. There is an excellent monster from the outer world at the end, quite massive and fed with the numerous human sacrifices, but I am surprised Conan didn't try and find a way to fight the thing.
 
Back
Top