New novels set in the Age of Conan

[Iron Guardian]

I just recently picked up two novels published by Ace/Fantasy called Age of Conan Hyborian Adventures: Legends of Kern Volumes One and Two. Both are by Loren L. Coleman. Volume One is called "Blood of Wolves," the second called "Cimmerian Rage."

The novels seem to be set in Cimmeria during Conan's reign as King of Aquilonia, and feature the adventures of a fellow Cimmerian youth known as Kern "the Wolf-Eye." The first novel deals with Kern's status as an outcast and his fated meeting with the powerful leader of the invading Vanir army into Cimmeria known as Grimnir. The second novel is a continuation of the first as Kern must drive the vengeful Vanir out of Cimmeria once and for all.

I'm hoping to read these soon and was kind of wondering if anyone else had seen or read them yet.

 

[Green Karl]

I am about half-way through the first book... so far I am liking it. It is pretty interesting as Kern is NOT Conan at Conan's young age (he kind of sucks as a fighter ) but it is pretty good. I bit more detailed then REH but still good

 

[VincentDarlage]

I rather disliked them. Most of the characters were just names with nothing else distinctive about them. However, the worst thing about the book was the writing. I found the writing style to be jarring. A good portion of the sentences are just sentence fragments. That works fine in dialogue - people do speak in fragments - but it does not work so well in narrative. Here is a sample sentence from page 70: "And its stores."

Just like how Roland Green continually uses and over-uses words such as "wit", "witling," "witless" and other forms of the word "wit," Coleman over-uses the sentence fragment until the story just becomes jarring to read. Open it to almost any page and one or two sentence fragments can be found, or so it seemed to me.

Well, the Coleman novels have driven me to distraction with the over-use of sentence fragments. He often just uses a name as an entire sentence, like on page 110: Brig Tall-Wood. That was a sentence for Coleman. On page 13 he uses this as a sentence: Sharp and direct. That is not a sentence!

Shoot, on page 5 he makes an entire paragraph out of two fragments:

And the amber yellow eyes so few would look into. Night eyes.

That was a paragraph! The top of page 6 starts out with a fragment: Wolf eyes.

Every page is littered with sentence fragments. Their use actually made for confusing reading. It is an attempt to give the narrator a "voice" but most times it is just confusing.

On page 325 of the 1st book, Coleman writes: "Daol and Hydalla joined him first. Reave and Desa and Ossian. They came limping up singly or in pairs after that, like rogues called back to the pack."

Notice, if you will, the second grouping of words. That is not a sentence; it is a list of three names. Did those three people arrive next? Were they missing in action and not arrive?

When I first read that list, and then read the sentence following the list, I thought those three were limping, then I got confused because of the singly or in pairs comment.

Who does "they" refer to? Who is limping up in pairs and singly? Is he referring to the list of four characters? How hard would it have been to have written, "Reave, Desa and Ossian arrived next, limping from their wounds and sore muscles"?

What does "that" refer to? The others limp after what? Just what is Coleman emphasizing here? I think it is just one of many examples of unclear, confusing writing present in the Coleman works.

All of that, plus most of his characters (and there are a bunch of them) are just names without distinquishing characteristics. Most of his characters are utterly interchangeable.

 

[Thoth Aw C'mon]

I rather disliked them. Most of the characters were just names with nothing else distinctive about them. However, the worst thing about the book was the writing. I found the writing style to be jarring. A good portion of the sentences are just sentence fragments. That works fine in dialogue - people do speak in fragments - but it does not work so well in narrative. Here is a sample sentence from page 70: "And its stores."

Just like how Roland Green continually uses and over-uses words such as "wit", "witling," "witless" and other forms of the word "wit," Coleman over-uses the sentence fragment until the story just becomes jarring to read. Open it to almost any page and one or two sentence fragments can be found, or so it seemed to me.

Well, the Coleman novels have driven me to distraction with the over-use of sentence fragments. He often just uses a name as an entire sentence, like on page 110: Brig Tall-Wood. That was a sentence for Coleman. On page 13 he uses this as a sentence: Sharp and direct. That is not a sentence!

Shoot, on page 5 he makes an entire paragraph out of two fragments:

And the amber yellow eyes so few would look into. Night eyes.

That was a paragraph! The top of page 6 starts out with a fragment: Wolf eyes.

Every page is littered with sentence fragments. Their use actually made for confusing reading. It is an attempt to give the narrator a "voice" but most times it is just confusing.

On page 325 of the 1st book, Coleman writes: "Daol and Hydalla joined him first. Reave and Desa and Ossian. They came limping up singly or in pairs after that, like rogues called back to the pack."

Notice, if you will, the second grouping of words. That is not a sentence; it is a list of three names. Did those three people arrive next? Were they missing in action and not arrive?

When I first read that list, and then read the sentence following the list, I thought those three were limping, then I got confused because of the singly or in pairs comment.

Who does "they" refer to? Who is limping up in pairs and singly? Is he referring to the list of four characters? How hard would it have been to have written, "Reave, Desa and Ossian arrived next, limping from their wounds and sore muscles"?

What does "that" refer to? The others limp after what? Just what is Coleman emphasizing here? I think it is just one of many examples of unclear, confusing writing present in the Coleman works.

All of that, plus most of his characters (and there are a bunch of them) are just names without distinquishing characteristics. Most of his characters are utterly interchangeable.

Vincent, you can count me as a fan of your one man crusade alerting people to Coleman's jarring and, for some, annoying style of writing. Your posts on this thread and others, and the ones on the Conan forum, have cracked me up. It does seem an annoying style of writing. There's too much other good stuff out there to be reading to put up with this. Maybe sometime in the future if I see these in a used bookstore for a reduced price I'll give one a shot. But for now you've helped me be an informed consumer on this. I'll pass for now. But your posts are amusing and well stated. And appreciated.

 

[Wicked Tinker]

Vincent, I think you are being overly critical here. I agree that the style can be jarring, but I think Coleman has a distinct voice and I don't mind it. Of all the game related crap that I've read, and I lump this book into that category, this is by far the most enjoyable and the most interesting. Certain details do not exactly jibe with Howard's vision, like the black Shemite, which really annoys me, but enough details are correct to allow me to enjoy the book for what it is. Hell, this ain't Shakespeare! Relax and enjoy.

 

[Azgulor]

I liked the first book and I'm half-way through the second and liking it as well. Is this fiction on par with REH or G.R.R.M's Game of Thrones - no. But it's interesting swords-n-sorcery.

Vincent's made known his issues with the writing style. As a counterpoint, I'd give the books points for doing the following:

1. We get to see an expanded view of Howard's world without resorting to Conan pastiche. From a Conan RPG perspective, it's a perfect example of how a group-based story could be set in Hyboria without suffering from the "Conan's done everything" effect (which is obviously untrue but others have posted on this forum that their players felt overshadowed by Conan).

2. We get to see an interpretation of the Cimmerian race that is true to Conan's roots while simultaneously depicting how unique Conan was compared to the "typical" Cimmerian.

3. The Vanir and their sorcerous allies are very appropriate to swords-n-sorcery and Hyboria in particular.

All-in-all, I've found them to be money well spent.

Azgulor

 

[VincentDarlage]

Excellent points, Azgular. I really cannot argue with those.

1. I agree 100%. I love the idea of stories about the Hyborian age without Conan. They need to get their research right, though (pseudo-African Shemites?). However, there are authors out there who can write Sword and Sorcery better than Coleman, who has written a lot of Battletech novels and other Sci-Fi.

2. That is also true. I like his depiction of Cimmeria MUCH better than I liked John Maddox Roberts' depiction in Conan the Valorous, although his discription of Cimmerians wearing ponchos seems a bit Mexican for Cimmeria. Overall, though, I dislike Coleman's characters. He has too many of them and few of them are distinct enough to warrant names.

3. I have no real arguments against the overall plot. Then again, I have no real argument about a few of Roland Green's plots - just his writing. My complaint here is the same. If an editor had sent back this novel to Mr. Coleman and asked for complete sentences, I would have little problem with the book. Flat characters I can deal with. Jarring, fragmented writing in Sword and Sorcery is like putting a Hip Hop score to Conan the Barbarian instead of Basil Poledouris' score. It would detract from the film rather than add to it. Coleman's chosen style of writing detracted from this book in the same way.

No, it is not Shakespeare and it is not on par with Howard or many other writers. That is partly my point. It should be on par with the best Sword and Sorcery fiction out there. It sounds to me as if no one even expects an author to write swords & sorcery on that level anymore. Why shouldn't I expect a Hyborian age novel to surpass current industry standards - maybe even become a classic of the genre?

If CPI asked me to write a novel set in Conan's world, I would slave over every word and try to create an enduring classic (I don't know that I would succeed, but that would be my goal). Just because it is a work set in someone else's world is no excuse for less than stellar effort. I don't expect Shakespeare, but I do expect first-rate writing. I feel like Sword-and-Sorcery fans have had to accept second- or third-rate writing for so long no one even tries for a loftier goal.

 

[Bregales]

Another possibility, if you want to read characters that could fit in to the Hyborian Age world, but not necessarily Conan, is to read Fritz Lieber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser series. His writing style is more sparse but his characters are 'interesting' and he doesn't write like an imbecilic moron! :lol: :!:

About 12 years ago I had tried to read Michael Moorcock's Elric books, and couldn't get past the horrid writing, so when I first read Vincent's jarring responses in another thread, I was convinced not to pick them up. Along with your examples of writers you hate, I'll once again add Robert Jordan, I believe his 'justs' will match witless repetitive annoyances with your 'wit-filled' Roland Green experiences.

 

[Finarvyn]

On one hand, I like the concept of non-Conan stories in Hyboria. This is because too many gamers seem to have difficulties trying to decide what to do "in Conan's world, but without Conan." I have seem similar gamer frustratin in other campaigns such as Star Wars, James Bond, and anything else which is an adaptation of a movie or book with a strong group of characters. Everyone wants to play one of the main characters instead one of their own for some reason.

On the other hand, I have a hard time with any other authors trying to copy REH's style. They just can't do it and it always seems strained somehow. The non-REH Conan books were mostly cartoonish and one-dimensional.

I have not yet read these new books, but in thumbing through them in the bookstore they have yet to grab me.

 

[Bregales]

On one hand, I like the concept of non-Conan stories in Hyboria. This is because too many gamers seem to have difficulties trying to decide what to do "in Conan's world, but without Conan." I have seem similar gamer frustratin in other campaigns such as Star Wars, James Bond, and anything else which is an adaptation of a movie or book with a strong group of characters. Everyone wants to play one of the main characters instead one of their own for some reason.

On the other hand, I have a hard time with any other authors trying to copy REH's style. They just can't do it and it always seems strained somehow. The non-REH Conan books were mostly cartoonish and one-dimensional.

I have not yet read these new books, but in thumbing through them in the bookstore they have yet to grab me.

That's a very good point about playing a game in an established universe; I've responded in other threads. Games like Star Wars I tried were always quickly dropped because the players felt like second fiddles, they didn't feel "cool" enough for the James Bond game, and were frustrated in ICE's Middle Earth games because they weren't as destined for greatness as Aragorn (though hoping for best w/ new group if we ever play the new LoTR game drawn from the movies ).

AND I have had similar problems with pastiche writers too, I think I've only picked up 4 or so non-Howard Conan books, and always felt them to be 'different' at best. But, the thing I always felt was that, to me, Howard's writing always inspired me and others to want, or wish, they could write the same styles, plots, characters. So I can hardly blame others for trying and getting published. I just wish that one-trick formulaic writers (who do battletech stories for a living, for example) would stay away from other styles, unless they adapt their writing style to fit the new medium. But, as a couple of my writing teachers had said, "A rule is only a rule until someone who breaks it successfully gets published [and the rule then changes]." Since these new books have come under such heated negative reviews, you might not necessarily call them successful, but I'll leave that up to you. :wink:

 

[René]

Another possibility, if you want to read characters that could fit in to the Hyborian Age world, but not necessarily Conan, is to read Fritz Lieber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser series. His writing style is more sparse but his characters are 'interesting' and he doesn't write like an imbecilic moron! :lol: :!:

Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd & Gray Mouser stories are surely fine and hilarious, but they differ VERY from REH - the stories have a strong grotesque and comedian element. The heroes e.g. encounter Death himself at two times and steal from him. Even the evil boys and girls, who plot to subjugate a whole metropolis under the the rule of rats / rat-hybrids, act in funny and not everytime serious ways.

I don't want to deter you from Leiber, but don't expect a dark and gritty atmosphere.

P.S.: Fafhrd & Gray Mouser are collected in two volumes by Gollancz (Fantasy Masterworks).

 

[Padre]

Am I the only one who does not have the 'in the shadow of Conan' problem? My players don't play 'second class heroes' and they are aware of that. Just let them see Conan's stats and let them discover that he is not immortal. Another way is to lead PCs to a place, where Conan failed at something, missed a hidden chamber or a crucial clue. If they beat Conan in one thing, they will know that overshadowing the mighty barbarian is possible.

 

[Strom]

I can totally appreciate your thoughts on Coleman's writing technique with these new Kern adventures Vincent. But I am not a writer like you - a really good one as everyone here knows! Obviously, Coleman is no hack and is not inept, so he must be utilizing this technique for a reason. Any insight why he would use this style? What literary reason would he have for utilizing this technique?

As a layman I feel he is trying to convey an atmosphere of barbarism. The weather. The speech. The loyalty. The custom. The clan. Etc. This is not civilization and flowering prose could work, but I think Coleman has tried to capture the atmosphere in words and style that can be described as jarring or brutal. A kind of mimicking of the environment he is describing. It’s different than a quest novel or a buddy-buddy adventure. Again, I am just trying to explain this technique and in my mind the style does not detract from the story - which is much better in book 2 Cimmerian Rage. All in all, I like this trip into Hyboria and greatly anticipate the other adventures but completely respect that my opinion is only that - my opinion. But I would be interested in your thoughts of why this technique would be used creatively.

 

[Neeklus]

Personally, as a journalist, sentence fragments can grant a certain pace to a text that reams and reams of words struggle with. REH's old books used to annoy me so much with some of the very, very long and descriptive sentences. It was the rage then, certainly amongst other popular genre novelist's like Poe, Lovecraft etc, who worked the same. Moorcock sort of breeded the two together for a definately more readable style.

Suffice to say the day of overly descriptive and page-long paragraphs are gone, and gone for a reason. They're just not appealing to alot of people (me for one).

Sharp, fast writing is good. It encapsulates action very well (or atleast if it's written well). Theres a few novel writers who swear by having less than seven words to a line. Lee Child, for example.

 

[Iron Guardian]

Hmmm... Well, I guess I'll give them a shot. If I like them, I'll keep buying them, if not...less money will have to be spent. I do remember back in college some years ago, I took a speculative fiction class (calling it Sci-Fi was a definite no-no). I remember my textbook calling REH's works as enjoyable trash (Note: I also remember that supposedly about 80+% of all literature is trash) with touches of the racism and sexism typical of that time period when he wrote. I do enjoy his works - Conan, Solomon Kane, Cormac Mac Art, etc. very much though.

As for games based upon the worlds of famous heroes, that feeling of being in their shadow will always be there. Options around this could be:

- setting the game before or after the heroes era;
- using the setting as is and doing things separate from the heroes adventures, I mean, the hero(es) can't be everywhere at once;
- the heroes never existed at all or had their careers cut short...a what if type of campaign.

 

[VincentDarlage]

Any insight why he would use this style? What literary reason would he have for utilizing this technique?

I haven't a clue. Using the technique sparingly makes sense but using it constantly is irritating. Reading his Hyborian age books (I haven't read his Battletech books, so I don't know how he writes those) is like reading someone's thought processes - and it is an irritating, jumbled, disconnected and frustrating experience.

As a layman I feel he is trying to convey an atmosphere of barbarism.

Possibly, although I hardly think writing confusing fragments conveys that atmosphere. At least it did not for me. The overuse of the technique inhibited my ability to enjoy the novel. Many successful authors convey an atmosphere of barbarism without resorting to strings of fragments to do so.

The weather.

What about the weather? He did describe the weather fairly well, I suppose.

The speech.

Which speech in particular and by which character are you referring to? Using fragments in speech is fine, as that is often how people speak. My problem is with allowing the narrator use fragments constantly and unrelentingly.

The loyalty.

You've lost me. Are you saying that loyalty is barbaric and is best expressed as a sentence fragment?

The custom.

Which custom?

The clan. Etc. This is not civilization and flowering prose could work, but I think Coleman has tried to capture the atmosphere in words and style that can be described as jarring or brutal.

You have forgotten to mention confusing. Many of his sentence fragments left me confused about what he was trying to say about a character or a situation. I can understand using the technique as you describe in a sparing manner, but to use it constantly just irritated me and occasionally confused me.

A period is a complete stop. The sentence following should be a new complete thought. If he wants to put a pause in the sentence, there are punctuations that allow that - but not the period. He is using poor punctuation to accomplish his aim.

Perhaps I should have written that last paragraph this way to be more brutal in my review: A period. A complete stop. A finish. The sentence following. A new complete thought. He is using punctuation. Poorly.

 

[Strom]

Vincent - thanks for the comments. My examples that you list were just an attempt to provide an overview of the atmosphere and environment Coleman is trying to convey. Bad punctuation is another thing. There must be a reason for why he is describing things in the way he is - I was only suggesting he did it as a way to literally mimic the environment he is trying to describe. Also, I am a good way into book #2 and he seems to be dropping the jarring format. Maybe you will enjoy the next set of adventures.

 

[Arkobla Conn]

I've started reading these and didn't have too much problems with the writing...but I'm only a few chapters in and I'm sure I'll notice now.

I wanted to point out two things, however.

To Vincent (especially) - Some authors do try different literary techniques to write. For some, this is brilliance and for others, it ruins the book. In high school, we were tasked to read 'Cry, The Beloved Country'. Supposedly, the book is very good...but I couldn't get past the first chapter because it didn't have any formal punctuation! Quotes by characters were proceded by a dash! You and I look to literary correctness because it's so mind numbingly apparent when its wrong. Other people can suspend that (or aren't really fussed) part and read for the story/plot. Its alot like suspending disbelief for a movie. Did you like Conan the Barbarian more than Conan the Destroyer? Most would say yes because it was bloodier, closer to what folks expected. I would say I disliked it because of the plot/character blunders. (THUSA DOOM?? WHEEL OF PAIN?? GROWING UP IN A PIT???) For Destroyer, it was easier to assume it was just 'one more adventure' mixed in to his career...despite the fact that it didn't have the blood and gore and was a bit goofy at times.

2. What is the criteria for writing an acceptable story in this world? Will any of us ever be content with anyone other than REH?

 

[Neeklus]

It's a question of purism. Everything is always going to be compared to it's original incarnation. Is it possible for someone's story about Conan to be better than REHs? Will their style, their punctuation ever best his? Most would probably say no. And why? Why such high expectations?

Your point on Conan the Destroyer vs Conan the Babarian is an example of this, of a piece of work needing to be like the original in every way. I too am the same, just about other things. Batman for example. I hated so many elements of Batman Begins because "thats not how it happens/happened in the comics".

But restricting ourselves to the same style and content of the original creator is very limiting. Everyone has their own take on things, especially in the literay genre. One sentence written by anyone can be interperated a hundred million different ways by a variety of audiences. Sometimes I feel a new take, a new slant, on old stuff is good. It may be blasphemous in regards to it's original, but so what?

As the old addage goes: Overspecialize and you breed in weakness.

 

[Arkobla Conn]

Well Said Neekus!