Nowhere in Howard or Lovecraft is there any hint of "mythic Worlds" in the sense of non material "less real" worlds. Lovecraft has other and parallel dimensions, but if anything they are MORE real than this world, not less. The silken garment is a physical, material object. It is evidence that the event physically, really happened. Of course, there is clearly some sort of dimensional wierdness going on because the rescuing Aesir don't find the giants, but that doesn't make the events "less real" or "mythic"
Question about The Gods (or lack thereof)?
- Thread starter Nyarlathotep
- Start date
- Status
Nowhere in Howard or Lovecraft is there any hint of "mythic Worlds" in the sense of non material "less real" worlds. Lovecraft has other and parallel dimensions, but if anything they are MORE real than this world, not less. The silken garment is a physical, material object. It is evidence that the event physically, really happened. Of course, there is clearly some sort of dimensional wierdness going on because the rescuing Aesir don't find the giants, but that doesn't make the events "less real" or "mythic"
VincentDarlage
Mongoose
kintire said:
I would say that the "dreamlands" mentioned in Xuthal of the Dusk (Andarra, Tothra, and Kuth of the star girdle) could constitute a "hint" of less real worlds in Howard.
Lovecraft had his dreamland as well.
He did indeed, and I suspect that the "dreamlands" of Xuthal are the same place. But "less real?" how so? Lovecraft's Dreamlands are no mere products of sleeping fantasy. You can pass between the normal world and the dreamlands, and not just by falling asleep:
Material objects, like books, can be brought between the worlds:
It's strange, protean and decidedly different from the mundane world. But less "real"? I'm not so sure.
Well, it is trivially true that if you define "god" as "transcendent being that exists on a mythic plane and never appears in stories" then none will appear in the stories! But that's just word games. Its Howard's world, and if any definition of "god" is meaningful, then its Howards. He describes both Khosatrel Khel and Ollam Onga as "gods" so gods they are.
And there is also Ymir, and the god that curses the murderers of his son in "Shadows in the Moonlight". Both fond of chariots, interestingly.
The King
Cosmic Mongoose
Do you think we're living in a lay and secular Western civilization because we are tired to search for the existence of God? In the Middle Age they searched for so long without any evidence that they could only resort to artefacts and mere objects like the grail (said cup from te last supper) or pieces of the "holy" cross.kintire said:
I think you are swerving so wildly off topic that even I, a known thread-jacker, am taken aback; and I think your view of middle ages theology is profoundly simplistic. I also think this isn't really the board to discuss this. Go and read Aquinas, and lets get back to Hyborian gods shall we?
VincentDarlage
Mongoose
kintire said:
I guess it depends on your definition of "real." To an economist, "real" means "inflation-adjusted."
The Hyborian age is not real - it is fictional. But it takes on a semblance of reality for me because it is described. The dreamlands Howard hints at are not described - thus they are less real to me.
Reality is rather subject to where one is standing, which makes your argument kind of strange. Essentially, you could argue all things are "real" by postulating that nothing unreal exists. If it exists, it must be real. If it does not exist and has never existed, then it is unreal.
Howard doesn't say if his dreamlands are truly an existing place - or if they are simply drug induced hallucinations. Thus, it is a hint at a potential unreality. You claim Howard did not make such a hint. I say that since he did not state in a clear fashion that these realms truly exist, then they are potentially hallucinatory (therefore non-material) - and a hint at something unreal.
If you argue that materiality is important to call something "real", then what about the spirit of Belit? Did she come from a "real" place? Was she "real"? If she did not come from a physical realm, then maybe that is a hint that someplace non-material exists...
I think there are hints - depending on one's definition. I think your definition is broader than the ones arguing with you. If a common definition cannot be agreed upon, then there is no solution to the debate. You guys are using the same words, but not the same definitions - or at least not to the same degree.
The King
Cosmic Mongoose
Your reply is most hypocritical as it is you in the above post who want to give me the definition of goddom (you define "god" as "transcendent being that exists on a mythic plane and never appears in stories" then none will appear in the stories!).kintire said:
I don't know what you are known as but the middle age begins some centuries before you advocate Aquinas. And I just wonder how you can consider my view simplistic while I only wrote one sentence on it. Your point of view and your approach are probably biased are I should thus understand why you say I'm off topic whereas I just put some examples of the very subject we are talking about.
Indeed You seem to have read some classics but you just throw them as evidence as if this were the roof of your belief. I am then all the more surprised than you just don't seem to understand (or perhaps don't want) my view on this topic. I guess your education is a bit simplistic, especially if you decide to show your a*s instead of developping a mature argumentation. But please go and wash it and let's get back to this topic which is entitled "Question about The Gods (or lack thereof)?" (sorry I supposed you had read the name of the thread).
I think the whole point of reality is that it is NOT subject to where you are standing. Obviously, the whole of the Hyborian age isn't "real", but given suspension of disbelief, and assuming that the Conan books are real for the sake of argument, I think it is possible to say some things are more real than others.
Woah woah woah. I claim that Howard did not hint that the "mythic" or "Other" worlds that the gods or demons come from are less real than our own, and hence that Conan's experience with Atali for example was a legitimate "real" experience. I'm not trying to claim that no one has any experiences in the Hyborian world that aren't real: Shadows in Zamboula is packed with them, and obviously people ingesting hallucinagens will hallucinate. The dreamworld of Xuthal is never said as to whether it is real or not, though it is described in terms which are reminiscent of Lovecraft's usage. But you seemed to use Lovecraft's dreamworld as an example of a less real mythic world, which it isn't.
I am, of course, open to the idea of there being dimensions where what we call matter is irrelevant and the beings interact with each other in some far wierder and more elevated way. Still, if something is material is a pretty good sign that it is real!
The ones arguing with me are claiming that the gods of Hyboria do not exist in the "real" world. In order to do that, they have to explain away the stories where Conan meets them, or where they do otherwise appear. The argument that is being used to do that is:
So what's the difference between a hallucination and reality? I would say that a hallucination "depends on where you are standing" and reality does not. So, for example, when in the temple of Hanuman Zabibi sees the things that are surrounding her and striking at her as venomous snakes, but Conan sees them as spirals of smoke we can say that they are not real: Zabibi is hallucinating due to Totrasmek's mesmerism (we can tell its that way round because when he dies, her perceptions conform with Conan's). On the other hand, when Belit's ghost shows up, all actors present see her. Conan is inspired by her, the ape creature recoils from her attack. She IS real, or at the very least there is something really going on.
The question then is, are the gods more like Belit, or more like the snake? And the answer is Belit every time. Atali's mantle is a real physical object that the Aesir can see as well as Conan. The god that appears in the dream in Shadows in the Moonlight speaks a phrase that is echoed by the real parrots that haunt the island (and the curse is very real, of course!). Ollam Onga is witnessed only by Amalric in the course of the books, but he has been haunting the city and really killing people. Khosatral Khel, of course, is seen by many people, and is about as real as you can get. Yet he comes from the "otherworld" as well.
Conclusion? There are real gods in REH's Hyboria. They exist and act independently of any observer. They are not restricted to any "Mythic realm" that is in any sense less real than the normal world, the realms they are native to, which are different from our normal world, are just as real.
No, its not. First, I don't want you to give the definition of Goddom, I want you to use Howards while talking about Howard's world, and secondly you are off topic not because you are defining goddom but because you are talking about the real Middle Ages and not Hyboria.
Indeed, but if you want an example of the real medieval search for god, Aquinas is an excellent place to start.
The sentence ignored the entirety of medieval philosophy and focussed solely on the relic cult.
This topic? If you mean the medieval search for God, I don't think this is the right forum for it. If you mean gods in the Hyborian world, I both understand and welcome your view. I just disagree with it, thats all.
I believe the tragic irony of this sentence speaks for itself!
I had. I had done more than that too. I had noticed that is was in forum called "Conan", I had spotted that the forum was devoted to the discussion of Conan and his world, and I had read the OP and following discussion which all referenced Hyboria.
VincentDarlage
Mongoose
kintire said:
You will have to define what "more real" means then (and, conversely, "less real"). Either it is real, or it isn't. To me, to say something is more real is like saying a pregnant woman is more pregnant than other pregnant women, or like saying one corpse is more dead than another corpse.
Without a common definition here, your argument becomes meaningless.
Even without understanding what you are talking about, here is a hypothosis:
If you say, "I think it is possible to say some things are more real than others", then does it not stand to reason that there are realms less real than this one, or are you saying this reality is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to reality?
Unless this reality is shown to be the "least real" of all worlds by Howard's words, then any hints of "more real" worlds implies there are "less real worlds."
Personally, I think saying a reality is more or less real is nonsense, but if you want to define it that way, then it works in both directions unless you can show this reality as the "least" real world.
The King
Cosmic Mongoose
This is in total contradiction with what you wrote previously. If Belit is a ghost she can't be physical unless you define a ghost otherwise. Then you said for instance that Khosatral Khel is physical (which I agree with on this one though I don't define him as a god). If Khosatral Khel is more like Belit, then why doesn't she stay all the time after her death?
Don't you think that her ghost comes from some spirit world? And did it never occur to you for example that the Valhalla (which Howard mentioned in some stories) could be a mythic world where it is said that courageous warriors depart to after their death and that Belit's ghost could come back from such a realm?
Is this less or more real or is it just living in another sphere of existence? (or a parallel dimension as you put it)
As to me pointing out religious (Christian) artefacts as an example this is exactly what you are doing with the silken garment of Atali. You used it as an evidence that Atali was on this world as Christians gave some weird powers to simple object used by the Christ to show his divine nature. And if the Christ departed to heavens after his death, please show me where I can see him in the real world, unless you imply that the realms of heavens (paradise) is a mythic world which is not fathomable by mere mortals.
You probably know that Howard lived in a Christian country and thus he was massively influenced by this culture in all his stories be they Conan's or Solomon Kane's.
Thus I still consider that Conan transgressed somehow the frontier of both worlds/spheres (the mortal and the mythic) and enter the mythic world to follow Atali, battled her brothers and came back on his mortal world with the silken garment and not the other way around.
If you'd rather follow your point of view that Atali and her brothers and possibly Ymir were on this mortal world, please give me the physical evidence that 2 frost giant were killed as Howard himself wrote there weren't any spur of it. Instead Conan woke up lying on the snow with a silken garment in his hand.
You even quoted from Conan another point validating my view: "It was all strange and weird by Crom!"
The more independent of the observer it is, the more real it is. Real things exist, and are what they are, and all competent observers will perceive them that way (given the limits of their perceptions). Less real things are more and more dependent on the individual observer so the Totrasmek's snakes are less real because they are dependent on Zabibi's altered perceptions, and a complete halluncination is not real at all because no one else we see anything at all, not even anything that could have formed a base for the vision (like the spirals of smoke).
No. It stands to reason that there MIGHT be, but not that there actually are. Less real things in Howard tend to be isolated phenomena; small scale illusions. Entire realms are a different thing.
I think you have become confused. The King is arguing for a less real "mythic" world in Howard, not me. My reference to less and more real worlds was to Lovecraft, not Howard. One of Lovecraft's basic theses was that the world we live in is a comfortable illusion covering terrifying truths. In other words, the world we perceive is like Zabibi seeing the snakes: there IS something there, but it isn't like we believe it is. How far this idea exists in Howard is a different question. My belief is "Not very far", and even if it is that doesn't make the gods LESS real.
She can't be solid (although eastern ghosts can be) but she can be physical in the sense that she exists in the material world, and reflects physical light so that she can be physically seen by any viewer with retina.
He is more like Belit in that he exists independently of any observer, and less like the snakes, which don't. This doesn't mean they are similar in all ways, or indeed any way other than that.
I think her ghost comes from the afterlife. What that is like, I have no idea.
It is the latter. And if a human can come to the mortal world from such a realm, and really exist here, and do things, I see no reason why gods can't.
It completely isn't. First, because religious artefacts were not used as evidence for Christ or the Saints, rather the connection to Christ and the Saints was used as evidence for the powers of the artefact. And second, because how this sort of thing worked in the real world has little or nothing to do with how it works in Hyboria.
What has any of this got to do with Howard? How does the fate of Christ have anything to do with how the Hyborian world works? This is not a board concerned with real world Christian theology!
I agree that Conan unquestionably world slipped, and I have previously said so. What I am denying is that this makes any of the beings in that world anything other than real.
I have already said that Atali's brothers were not. I don't think Ymir was either. Atali, however, definitly was: Conan sees her well before things start turning wierd, and her veil comes back with him.
Nyarlathotep
Mongoose
"But Cimmerian, these people are some of the wisest men living in the Hyborian Kingdoms! They probe the darkest depths of knowledge and bring forth seeds of wisdom...."
And yet the scholar knew his words were falling on deaf ears. His companion, a barbarian from the northern wilds, only scowled muttering about wasted breathe.
The Cimmerian had squatted for hours in the courtyards of these philosophers, listening to the arguments of theologians and teachers, and come away in a haze bewilderment, sure of only one thing, and that, that they were all touched in the head.
Exasperated, the scholar could only throw his hands up into the air and follow his companion down the road. While he genuinely found the talk of what was "real" and what wasn't to be rather fascinating, he could tell that perhaps the conversation was starting to get out of hand.
And to that, his Cimmerian friend had perhaps the most common sense solution: "Wine and women to clear your over-burdened head of these visions..."
:wink:
And yet the scholar knew his words were falling on deaf ears. His companion, a barbarian from the northern wilds, only scowled muttering about wasted breathe.
The Cimmerian had squatted for hours in the courtyards of these philosophers, listening to the arguments of theologians and teachers, and come away in a haze bewilderment, sure of only one thing, and that, that they were all touched in the head.
Exasperated, the scholar could only throw his hands up into the air and follow his companion down the road. While he genuinely found the talk of what was "real" and what wasn't to be rather fascinating, he could tell that perhaps the conversation was starting to get out of hand.
And to that, his Cimmerian friend had perhaps the most common sense solution: "Wine and women to clear your over-burdened head of these visions..."
:wink:
VincentDarlage
Mongoose
kintire said:
So, according to your theory, the most real thing would be the thing that is so independent of the observer that it cannot be directly observed?
Therefore, it can only have an indirect impact on things (as a direct impact, such as concrete, conclusive divine intervention, would be direct observation, making it less independant).
That is an interesting theory, explaining perhaps why God, gods, the Force (or whatever) cannot be directly observed.
Either that, or I completely missed your point.
I'm not sure I would push it that far. Something can have an effect on something else without becoming dependent on it. I would say that a fully real thing is something which has no property that varies according to the observer; ie any differences in observations are caused solely by the observer. Still, your point is an interesting one, and it is the logical extreme.
Perhaps so, although I wouldn't like to nail my colours to the mast over that interpretation. I don't think I would assign it to Howard either!
I was away a few days and I find a really hot debate here ! I will not discuss about "how to define a god" or "how to define what's real". I just want everybody to know (or remember) what REH really wrote: Conan had not a mundane "silken garnment" in hand. REH wrote:The King said:
Not a mundane piece of clothes.
- IMO, it's very strange to deny every REH evidence about the existence of gods in the Hyborian Age. It is not the real world, and should not be so sensitive. Perhaps this is done to somehow "balance" Sprague De Camp's bigottry and manicheism, which is, IMHO, what Don Herron did: his criticism of Sprague and Carter is far more convincing for me than his "anti-deism" ("gods treated on a conceptual basis"). But a fiction should not be confused with the real world. I'm not particularly religious, but I don't want to let my personal beliefs cloud my understanding of the Hyborian Age and when I read REH before GM'ing I just want to stay true to what he wrote.
- Status
Similar threads
