What do you like about OGL, Conan, & REH's writing?

[flatscan]

I have heard it said that he has a lyric quality. Frankly, I have little idea what that means, or if he does. But I notice that Howard, unlike say Maddox, is not afraid of long, rolling, descriptive sentences in action scenes (or in fact anywhere). I think this is possibly a key difference in style between Howard and the pastiche writers. Certainly neither Offut nor Maddox use long sentences much. And they avoid alliteration and other devices that Howard actively embraces. I think that's partly why their pastiches seem to me to lack soul, even though their plots are not as bad as some.

My understanding of the "lyric quality" of REH's is that he would often read the stories aloud to himself to hear how they sounded. Some of my reading on the man suggests he was imagining his "yarns" as if they were being told around a camp-fire. Who knows, perhaps by Conan himself, which would make REH the first Conan role-player. :lol:

 

[Demetrio]

Very possibly that's it.

Mind you, some of his descriptions are dodgy to say the least - 'foamy hair' is a classic... but in general they're very good. Same for dialogue. In general well done but with oddities (like the use of 'morons') that don't quite seem to sit right to me.

 

[flatscan]

Heh, I've re-read Red Nails recently and yeah, there's the occasional bit of language that doesn't seem like it belongs. At one point, Conan tells Valeria, "Come, girl, don't be such a spitfire." But who knows, maybe he was referring to a creature that actually spits fire?

 

[Demetrio]

I think it's that slight lack of refinement that some people pick up on and use 'against' his writing. And, to be fair, it is one of the reasons why I think he's a lesser writer than the likes of Chandler

 

[flatscan]

Meh, that's a pretty small nit to pick. If I were being told the story of Red Nails while sitting at a camp-fire, I wouldn't mind modern vernacular being included on occasion. You have to remember, REH was a very young writer who was trying to sell his stories to pulp magazines. He wasn't going for literary awards. I think he would be floored at the enduring success his Cimmerian has enjoyed and any literary analysis would just be icing on the cake.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

I think it's that slight lack of refinement that some people pick up on and use 'against' his writing. And, to be fair, it is one of the reasons why I think he's a lesser writer than the likes of Chandler

Well, I wouldnt be hypercritical of his use of language. 'Spitfire' seems like a good word to me to describe a troublesome woman! (I'll say that quietly though). I think what the issue is in defending him as a major literary force is his subject matter. I wouldnt say he was a bad writer, per se.

 

[Demetrio]

I've no problem with spitfire.

Or indeed with his theme. The idea of the primitive superman might be unfashionable, and some of the ideas are just plain silly. But there are better reasons to study literature than trying to dig into human nature, I think anyway.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

I've no problem with spitfire.

Or indeed with his theme. The idea of the primitive superman might be unfashionable, and some of the ideas are just plain silly. But there are better reasons to study literature than trying to dig into human nature, I think anyway.

Yeah, I'll accept that. The whole structure of a book or novel or complex story, contains the story 'arc', which, before it was a trope (I hate that word), for rpgs, was a description of the begining, middle and end of any piece of fictional writing. The whole thing mirrors a spiritual journey, from a setting out of the situation, through to the problem(s) that the main charatcer faces, to the end, where he is somehow changed by his experience. Conan does grow, but, slightly, in a one dimensional way, he stomps through a series of life-changing, outlandish events, and comes out the other end unchanged, not having learned anything, not considering any kind of advance, not being self-aware enough to deal with these feelings, or even considered logical reasoning. Conan comes from the womb, fully formed, one dimensional and unable to offer the reader any insight into either his or Conans life and awareness. If youre looking for enlightenment, you wont find it in any story by Howard. Its not that he is a bad writer, its just that he hasnt got a lot of insight to offer.

 

[Demetrio]

Yes, you're right, there's damn little insight, hence I'd describe him as a good storyteller rather than a 'literary' writer. though personally I don't rate literary above storyteller, rather often the reverse.

I'd agree that Conan's 'essence' remains unchanged. But in a way, I think that's kind of the point.

 

[Vortigern]

I think it relates instead to REH's seeming ideal in this series of 'ethical barbarism' if you will. Often Conan is depicted as superior explicitly 'because' of his barbarian nature. Civilization is often described as a contrived thing and a weakening influence.

For Conan to essentially change, rather than simply advance and progress, in the sequence of the tales... would I think inescapably move away from that part of the narrative that REH was trying to give.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

I think it relates instead to REH's seeming ideal in this series of 'ethical barbarism' if you will. Often Conan is depicted as superior explicitly 'because' of his barbarian nature. Civilization is often described as a contrived thing and a weakening influence.

For Conan to essentially change, rather than simply advance and progress, in the sequence of the tales... would I think inescapably move away from that part of the narrative that REH was trying to give.

Thats exactly right, yes, well put. The character of Conan is seen as, somehow, the epitomy of life, like the perfect design, That design still contains the elements of the animal that served humanity well on the rise from pondlife. Conan is characterized as the end result of creation, or evolution. Theres nowhere for him to go, he cant improve himself, he just is.

He is the primal urge. Red Sonja saw her parents brutalised, she lusts for revenge, the revenge eats her up (you would think). Solomon Kane is a puritan avenger, an instrument of God, his journies and deeds make him confront a kind of apothosis, that he has become as the horrors he deals death to (you would expect). All kind of interesting, but Conan, whist he is undoubtedly Howards most successful creation, is probably his most one dimensional. The thing about all his characters though, is that they never come to that point where they understand an immanent change in their makeup. Its as if Howards stories are plot driven, rather than character driven. He sets up some interesting situation, but then he doesnt seem equipped to take the story to resolution and denoument, like as if he doesnt understand the potential of his created situations.

Its as if all of the elements are there to create something as powerful as myth, but he doesnt even address the point of writing these stories (apart from making a bit of money). He just tells us that Conan had a really bad night with some monsters, but that he emerges triumphant in the morning and walks away (well, what else could happen? Conan is invincible).

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Sorry, Im going on...

Like his loss of Belit. How does that change the guy? Does he articulate the loss (Howard, I mean, not Conan)? What does it mean for Conan to have had something, then lost it? Does it mean anything? It could do, and things that arent articulated can be powerful in a good writers hands (like Arwen and Aragorn, and Beren and Luthien), but, WTF? Conan just looks a bit pensive for a while.

The thing about powerful storytelling or myth, the one key, important element of characterisation is the FLAW. The character flaw. Whats Conans? He aint got one. Cu Chulain, Gandalf, Elric, Siddharta, Jean D'Arc, Launcelot, you can name lots more. They are human, not invincible. They have flaws. This is what makes a good writer great. His ability to weave an epic tale of love, loss, accident and fate, weakness, humanity, heroism, etc..

Conan kills stuff, because none can stand against him, the greatest products of civilisation, sorcerors, ancient gods, he cuts a swathe through them all. He doesnt even need to pray to a god greater than himself. He is Superman without the Kryptonite.

So, although Howard wrote some good stories, he's not one of the greats.

 

[Pascalahad]

The comparison with Superman seems approriate enough. Conan has become a myth on its own, well beyond the original intent of its creator.

And you don't build a myth with flaws, you built it on exacerbate qualities. Conan's are strength and willpower, an epitome of freedom. You can't fault Conan, as you can't fault Batman or Sherlock Holmes. It can happen on occasions, but it is more the exception than the rule. Conan fled "The God in the Bowl" in the Howard short story, but he beats the snake to its death in all other adaptations, because it's what the mythological Conan would do, the one that was built after Howard's death.

The fact is, no other hero written by Robert Howard has attained this status. He's still a master storyteller, perhaps not in plot, but in style.

 

[Axerules]

So, although Howard wrote some good stories, he's not one of the greats.

Just a question: how many non-Conan yarns by REH have you actually read?
He wrote serious and humorous westerns, historical fiction, detective, horror, spicies, weird menace, fantasy with other characters than the Cimmerian, poetry, boxing stories...even girls confessions' !

I'm just wondering: is your -pretty definitive- judgment based upon a limited portion of REH's writings (i.e: only the Conan tales) or do you have a broader knowledge of his œuvre?

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

The comparison with Superman seems approriate enough. Conan has become a myth on its own, well beyond the original intent of its creator.

And you don't build a myth with flaws, you built it on exacerbate qualities. Conan's are strength and willpower, an epitome of freedom. You can't fault Conan, as you can't fault Batman or Sherlock Holmes. It can happen on occasions, but it is more the exception than the rule. Conan fled "The God in the Bowl" in the Howard short story, but he beats the snake to its death in all other adaptations, because it's what the mythological Conan would do, the one that was built after Howard's death.

The fact is, no other hero written by Robert Howard has attained this status. He's still a master storyteller, perhaps not in plot, but in style.

I disagree with your citing of Batman and Sherlock Holmes as having no flaws, and that flaws arent an integral part of myth. Sherlock Holmes was insecure about his intellect, had issues with Mycroft and was bested by Moriarty on several occasions, he also had a well-documented drug problem. Batman, well, he had a cocktail of insecurities, obsessions, and an inability to relate to others. In fact, these issues are often the main thrust of the stories, his similarity to the unstable Joker. They were like two sides of the same coin.

So I dont accept your assumption that powerful myth stories are built upon 'exacerbate qualities'. Stan Lee saw that the problem with Superman was that he was mostly invulnerable, which led to poor storytelling. However, the most powerful part of the Superman myth was when he lost his powers for a while, when he was laid low. In those times, Supermans true heroism came through, even though suffering pain and loss, thats when he became more than the sum of his parts.

Youre right, you cant fault Conan. He has no quirks, no flaws, no insecurities. His sex drive is healthy, he has no hangups there, he doesnt even see a day when he will settle down and become content. He is restless, so restless, in fact, that Howard saw him as, once again, setting off into the New World. I would have liked to have seen Conans death scene. It would have made him half way interesting as a charatcer.

To Axerules - Yeah, well, I havent dwelt upon Howards girly fiction, but my grounding is probably at least as good as yours. Ive read two books of his historical fiction (very similar to his fantasy stuff), Kull, Bran Mac Morn, Cormac Mac Art and Skullsplitter, Solomon Kane, his Lovecraftian horror, Red Sonja, and all of the stories of the sullen eyed superman that is Conan. I dont really see what relevance his sports writing has to the discussion, but I can probably guess.

 

[Strom]

So, although Howard wrote some good stories, he's not one of the greats.

Just a question: how many non-Conan yarns by REH have you actually read?
He wrote serious and humorous westerns, historical fiction, detective, horror, spicies, weird menace, fantasy with other characters than the Cimmerian, poetry, boxing stories...even girls confessions' !

I'm just wondering: is your -pretty definitive- judgment based upon a limited portion of REH's writings (i.e: only the Conan tales) or do you have a broader knowledge of his œuvre?

Axerules - how is it going? - Prince Yyrkoon has posted that REH is a hack elsewhere on this forum. "Nuff said. I don't even read his posts as that comment clearly indicates he simply doesn't have the requisite knowledge to be credible on the subject , IMO. Just wanted to save you some time. Peace!

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Axerules - Hows it going?

Just wanted to say that Strom isnt qualified to comment on the subject.

Peace!

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

So, although Howard wrote some good stories, he's not one of the greats.

Just a question: how many non-Conan yarns by REH have you actually read?
He wrote serious and humorous westerns, historical fiction, detective, horror, spicies, weird menace, fantasy with other characters than the Cimmerian, poetry, boxing stories...even girls confessions' !

I'm just wondering: is your -pretty definitive- judgment based upon a limited portion of REH's writings (i.e: only the Conan tales) or do you have a broader knowledge of his œuvre?

Axerules - how is it going? - Prince Yyrkoon has posted that REH is a hack elsewhere on this forum. "Nuff said. I don't even read his posts as that comment clearly indicates he simply doesn't have the requisite knowledge to be credible on the subject , IMO. Just wanted to save you some time. Peace!

I dont have the requisite knowledge on the subject because my opinion differs from you? ! Yeah, great. Keep banging the rocks together.

 

[Demetrio]

Could we maybe just exchange opinions without degenerating into 'I've read more than you, so I win'? Please?

In some senses Howard was a hack. He wrote specifically to be popular rather than 'literary'. His heroes are much of a muchness, Yyrkoon is right, Holmes and Batman are much more complex than Howard's men of action.

Simple heroes and writing to appeal to a mass audience are enough to reduce a writer to hack status in many people's eyes. I don't think he was a hack myself, but it's a matter of opinion, not some objective fact.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Could we maybe just exchange opinions without degenerating into 'I've read more than you, so I win'? Please?

In some senses Howard was a hack. He wrote specifically to be popular rather than 'literary'. His heroes are much of a muchness, Yyrkoon is right, Holmes and Batman are much more complex than Howard's men of action.

Simple heroes and writing to appeal to a mass audience are enough to reduce a writer to hack status in many people's eyes. I don't think he was a hack myself, but it's a matter of opinion, not some objective fact.

Yes, youre right, Demetrio. I have said that maybe 'hack' wasnt exactly the right term, but that may have been after Strom stopped reading my posts. I spent a little time posting what exactly I thought of Howards writing, in a thread about what people thought of Howards writing. Hack is an easy term like geek or nerd or whatever. What Ive written in recent posts is a considered opinion of what I think of his writing. I thought I was being pretty considerate, and trying to point out the strengths of Howard, as much as what I though his weak points to be.

I thought the point someone made about 'high literature' sitting on dusty shelves, whereas pulp literature being popular, was a little wishful. Howard has never been in the best seller list, but maybe thats beside the point. I think, Howard was a pretty good, vicseral story merchant. His wrting certainly entertained me when I was a teen and even when I was older. I cant, though, in any reasonable way, say that he is one of the great literary figures of American literature, in the same league as someone like, I dont know, Salinger, for instance. To hear people talk about him as if he were, I think, tends to demean those writers who were truely great.