The Pastiches

[Supplement Four]

I'm finishing CONAN and the Spider God by L. Sprague de Camp, and I'm lovin' every stinkin' little page of it. I haven't read it in years. I like de Camp's version of Conan, and this one is just a damn good book.

This one has real Zamorian "atmosphere" to it. I think it puts some some more "meat" on the kingdom. In this tale, we learn why Conan departs company from his two years service with the Turanian army. He deserts! It's perfect!

And, I like the way the tale is told. It's refreshing in that it's not a "normal" novel. Rather, it feels more like a string of short stories that come full circle with a particular plot line.

I dig it.

What about you? What pastiches have you read and enjoyed?

 

[quigs]

I liked the Robert Jordan ones, Conan Chronicles I think they were.

Sprague De Camp is also very good, I like his writing style.

The last would be Andrew J Offut's novels. Old, but nice work and awesome ink art in them.

 

[Supplement Four]

I liked the Robert Jordan ones, Conan Chronicles I think they were.

Sprague De Camp is also very good, I like his writing style.

The last would be Andrew J Offut's novels. Old, but nice work and awesome ink art in them.

I have to agree. I loved all of Jordan's books, even the novelization of Conan The Defender (though the film is complete crap).

I think I'll re-read Offut's trilogy next.

 

[cbrunish]

I have found most of the DeCamp/Carter stories to be very good. Even when they changed a REH story that was not Conan into a Conan story. The Jordan stories were also pretty good. But unfortunatly I forgot the bad stories (and there a few).

 

[kintire]

I'm finishing CONAN and the Spider God by L. Sprague de Camp, and I'm lovin' every stinkin' little page of it. I haven't read it in years. I like de Camp's version of Conan, and this one is just a damn good book.

This one has real Zamorian "atmosphere" to it. I think it puts some some more "meat" on the kingdom. In this tale, we learn why Conan departs company from his two years service with the Turanian army. He deserts! It's perfect!

And, I like the way the tale is told. It's refreshing in that it's not a "normal" novel. Rather, it feels more like a string of short stories that come full circle with a particular plot line.

I dig it.

I have to say, of all the pastiches I have read, I thought Conan and the Spider God was one of the absolute worst. Conan spends practically the entire novel drooping over some wimpish dancing girl like a lovesick sixteen year old. Actually, Conan probably wasn't this droopy even when he was a sixteen year old! Rudabeh is no Belit. She isn't even a Valeria. There is nothing in her character that would cause Howard's Conan to take a third look (she's attractive enough to warrent a second).

Not to mention the idea of the chief religion of Zamora featuring dancing girls who have to stay virgins. Zamora. Oookaaay...

I also dislike the fact that he can't actually raid the temple without the aid of the Doodad of Whatchamay, or whatever its called. But mostly its the deeply insipid love affair that gets me.

De Camp can do Conan. Thing in The Crypt is excellent. He can also do total pants. Spider God and Conan of the Isles are rubbish. I'm also not enthused by his obsession with Thoth Amon.

Of the others, Jordan is probably the best, although I have the slight feeling that he has only actually written about two stories, and then published them each several times with the names changed. I read Victorious, for example, and thought it was excellent. Unconquered is also excellent, but with a sense of distinct deja vu...

Maddox Roberts is also good. I like Valorous. Nothing that Lin Carter ever touched should be approached.

 

[rabindranath72]

Never liked any of the pastiches I read. They put a biased view of the Hyborian age and the Conan character which I find not nice at all.

 

[The King]

For me the best pastiche I ever read is Jordan's Conan the triumphant because it includes everything Howard did put in his stories: major battles, politics with all the court intrigues, a secret cult, dark magic and a powerful creature.

For the other texts, I tend to say the best pastiches are the shorter ones (short stories) and the rest should only be used as background.

 

[VincentDarlage]

For me, the best pastiche is Conan and the Emerald Lotus by John C. Hocking.

As for de Camp, his short stories are better than his novels. I agree with kintire's assessment of Conan and the Spider God and other de Camp novels (esp. the Thoth-amon obsession) except on one point - I thought Conan the Liberator was worse. I enjoyed Moon of Blood from Conan the Swordsman (and I included some of my favorite elements from that story in Across the Thunder River).

I also liked Sean Hunter's pastiches.

At the other end of the barrel, though - Roland Green. Easily the worst of the worst Conan authors he is.

 

[Supplement Four]

At the other end of the barrel, though - Roland Green. Easily the worst of the worst Conan authors he is.

This thread is about which pastiches people enjoyed, not the ones they disliked (which I knew people would post about anyway...such is life). But, I have to disagree with you here, Vincent.

Roland Green is certainly one of the worst authors ever to pen a Conan story, but I don't think he's as bad as Steve Perry. The four or five books that Perry wrote are just gods-awful. He's trying to convert the Hyborian Age into the Forgotten Realms, and even as Forgotten Realms books, Perry's books stink.

Green, a stinker in his own right, at least tried to keep the universe consistent.

Green reminds me of that horrible, horrible writer Kevin Anderson--a comic book writer who lucked into writing Star Wars and Dune (and several other things). This guys stinks the high heavens! His writing is so bad that you want to do him physical harm if you could. But, he does try hard. In spite of how bad his stuff is, he researches and implants universe-specific details in his books. If he was a good writer, I'd love this. But, he's not, so, he's gets an E for effort in that category while I throw old tomatoes and boo him off the stage.

Roland Green is the same. Tries hard--and is just a bad writer.

I will admit that Perry has written stuff I've enjoyed in the past. I've read some of his short stories, and his Alien trilogy wasn't bad at all. (Nice atmosphere to them.)

But, yeah, Perry's got to be my vote for worst Conan author I've ever read.





LOVE 'EM
Robert E. Howard (of course!)

Sean A. Moore

Andrew J. Offutt

Poul Anderson

Robert Jordan

L. Sprague de Camp

Lin Carter

John Maddox Roberts





LEAVE 'EM
Steve Perry

Roland Green

Leonard Carpenter*





*Leonard Carpenter: This guy is a hard one. I don't "hate" his books, and he certainly is a prolific Conan writer (maybe the most prolific of all Conan writers). He writes a decent tale, and his stuff (like Roland Green's) is certainly well researched.

But, I find his books to just be...well...a chore to finish. I find them uninteresting. He doesn't capture the "magic" like the authors on the LOVE 'EM list.

I hate to put him on the LEAVE 'EM list, because he's not near as bad as either Steve Perry or Roland Green. Carpenter shouldn't even be spoken in the same breath as those two. But..then again, I just don't look forward to reading his books.







ON A RELATED NOTE: The word on the street is that Michael Stackpole has been hired to pen some new Conan stories. Or, maybe it's just new stories set in the Hyborian Age (sans Conan).

I've read a couple of posts about this, and this may just be a rumor. But, what I read was that Stackpole was interested in writing a tale about Belit before Conan met up with her.

That might be interesting.

 

[VincentDarlage]

I have to agree with you about Steve Perry. He loved to populate the Hyborian age with DnD-esque demihuman races, which was weird and not a good way to go, but at least he didn't have writing problems. I could at least finish his books - not the case with Green's writing, whose books I usually had to set aside in frustration.

But Steve Perry was a horrid Conan writer. I completely agree with you there.

As for Leonard Carpenter being "well-reseached," I offer up Conan the Gladiator as a rebuttal, wherein we find Emperor Commodorus ruling Stygia and a Roman gladiator arena located in a strangely cosmopolitan Luxur. I had to laugh when the Corinthian Trade Delegation was described as being comprised of the most cultured citizens of Luxur. He totally failed to capture any atmosphere of Howard's Stygia in that novel.

Sorry about adding a bit about my least favorite. Back to the program, though, I once again heartily endorse Mr. Hocking's Conan and the Emerald Lotus as the best of the pastiches.

 

[Hervé]

I think we can add Roy Thomas to the list of pastiche authors, even if most of his work was done in comics form. I think Roy Thomas has done a lot for the popularity of Howard characters in the past forty years and that he shouldn't be forgotten. Of course, not all his work is top notch quality (that is often the case when you produce too much under tight deadlines) but his knowledge of Howard (and Conan in particular) is obvious.
Quite the contrary of crap like Perry or Green...

 

[VincentDarlage]

Yeah. I wish Roy Thomas had written a Conan novel. I don't count him as a pastiche writer though since he uses a different medium, but that could just be a nitpick.

I prefer Thomas' writing over just about any other pastiche writer for Conan, to be honest. Observant fans may note I have has used a lot of his material in the sourcebooks I wrote.

 

[Supplement Four]

Back to the program, though, I once again heartily endorse Mr. Hocking's Conan and the Emerald Lotus as the best of the pastiches.

But no others?

 

[Hervé]

Vincent Darlage wrote:

Observant fans may note I have has used a lot of his material in the sourcebooks I wrote.

Yes I noticed. :wink:
I even seem to remember Devil Wings Over Shadizar was one of your favourite stories.

 

[Strom]

My vote for the best pastiche is Karl Edward Wagner's The Road of Kings. Emerald Lotus is very well written but starts very slow (Conan knocked out twice in the first 20 pages & doesn't kill anyone until 70+ pages in) and Conan is in the employ of a sorcerer the entire novel - never really shows the individuality so prominent in REH's original stories. Saying all that - Emerald still towers over the majority of the forgettable pastiches.

 

[VincentDarlage]

But no others?

Sure, there were others I liked, but unfortunately the naming structure of the Tor pastiches keep me from actually remembering from title which ones I liked or disliked ("Conan the..."), unlike the names of the short stories. Further, most of them really didn't have a lot going on with them to distinguish them much from the overglutted Conan pastiche field.

As I said earlier, I like de Camp's Moon of Blood. I enjoyed Sean A. Moore's three pastiches. Like Strom, I also liked Conan: The Road of Kings by Wagner.

I recall liking "Conan Lord of the Black River" by Leonard Carpenter (even though the book has nothing to do with the Black River, which was disappointing (I really like Pict stories) - it is actually a neat journey up the Styx - again disproving Carpenter's so-called research into the Hyborian age, but proving that he researched the Nile rather well).

Most of the pastiches I read as a teenager, twenty or more years ago, so some of the following are debatable as I have not re-read them as a more discerning adult: Conan the Unconquered (R. Jordan), Conan and the Sorcerer, Conan the Mercenary, and Conan: the Sword of Skelos (A. Offut). (Again, I read those as a teenager, so their relative merits or demerits escaped me at that time, so don't hold those choices against me should they turn out to be horrid books.)

Although I like John Maddox Roberts' writing style, I am in the minority in that I do not really care for his Conan books. Conan the Valorous has a segment in the Border Kingdom that does nothing to advance the plot or has anything to do with the rest of the book. It was added to increase the page count. This is poor plotting and structure for a novel, ruining what would otherwise be a good short story. His Conan the Bold actually contradicts Robert E. Howard on Conan's origins, so that frustrates me.

 

[VincentDarlage]

I even seem to remember Devil Wings Over Shadizar was one of your favourite stories.

You have a good memory. Yes, that is one of my favourites!

 

[Supplement Four]

- again disproving Carpenter's so-called research into the Hyborian age, but proving that he researched the Nile rather well).

Well, I haven't read Carpenter in a long while (although I still have several of his to read), so my memory of him is hazy. I used to think he knew his stuff, but that may be because I read him after Perry and was so pissed off at Perry trying to make the Hyborian Age into D&D Land.

Conan the Unconquered (R. Jordan), Conan and the Sorcerer, Conan the Mercenary, and Conan: the Sword of Skelos (A. Offut). (Again, I read those as a teenager, so their relative merits or demerits escaped me at that time, so don't hold those choices against me should they turn out to be horrid books.)

I love Jordan's. His tales aren't as "dark" as Howards, and Conan does seem a bit "too sure" of himself, but the writing is fantastic. They're just damn good, easy, economical reads.

I really like them.

I think Offutt's stuff reads like de Camp's, which I like. And, I especially like the end of one of those books (can't remember which--Mercenary or Sword of Skelos) where Conan is a reaver, moving through a castle, killing everything in his sight. I remember it as "very" Conan feeling.

I plan on re-reading those soon--it's been a while for me, too.

Although I like John Maddox Roberts' writing style, I am in the minority in that I do not really care for his Conan books. Conan the Valorous has a segment in the Border Kingdom that does nothing to advance the plot or has anything to do with the rest of the book. It was added to increase the page count. This is poor plotting and structure for a novel, ruining what would otherwise be a good short story. His Conan the Bold actually contradicts Robert E. Howard on Conan's origins, so that frustrates me.

Wow. I do understand all the contradictory elements of Conan The Bold, but I just think its a fantastic book.

I used to be as you are now. I wouldn't allow myself to enjoy a Conan read, even it it were "good", if the book (A) didn't "feel" like a Howard story and (B) had contradictory elements with the established Conan pathos (within reason--we're not talking about Perry's books here) and timeline.

Then, I just accepted that different authors will have different takes on the character and the stories will have different "feels". I like Conan so much that I don't want to rob myself of those good stories.

I can read Conan The Bold, enjoy the hell out of it (it is one of my favorites), and realize that it shouldn't be a part of the Conan canon.

If you want a logical "in universe" reason, I read something in de Camp's chronology that I liked. He talked about finding an ancient parchment with a record of Conan's deeds that conflicted with the currently held version of Conan's life.

I liked that. As we are studying a real hero who is more myth and legend than flesh and blood, we find stories that can't possibly be true.

I consider Conan The Bold (and even the Conan The Barbarian novelization, because it's a good book) and others to be retelling more of the myth of Conan rather than the real story.

If you think of them this way--and try not to force them into a chronology--maybe you'll enjoy them too?

 

[VincentDarlage]

If you think of them this way--and try not to force them into a chronology--maybe you'll enjoy them too?

I am just saying that the little flaws (inconsequential sequences, failed research) flaw his otherwise superior writing skills. It has actually been so long since I have read Conan the Bold that I only vaguely recall the plot.

I have no problem with apocryphal stories (like you, I also consider the novelisation of Conan the Barbarian to be a good read), though. It just irritates me when just a modicum of research could eliminate a lot of silly errors (such as confusing the River Styx with the Black River in the title of a book, or misrepresenting Conan's youth).

I actually consider any pastiche to be apocryphal and really don't try to force them into Conan's "real" chronology anyway, so that doesn't ever bother me.

 

[kintire]

I actually consider any pastiche to be apocryphal and really don't try to force them into Conan's "real" chronology anyway, so that doesn't ever bother me.

I have a get out clause for that: Conan is not a rare name among Cimmerians. If you approach these "contradictory" books... and movies... without the preconception that the Conan in them is Conan the Great, they work pretty well. I can even fit the movies into Howard's world, seamlessly! (although much much later than Conan the Great).

Conan the Valorous is, of course, three short stories. Its none the worse for that in my opinion. Perhaps it would have been better if he had included the title headings and made it clearer, but if you bear that in mind it's great fun. The thing I really like about him is that he manages what no other author bar Howard ever manages: interesting villains. The villains in Valorous and Bold are superb: up to Howard at his best.