Favorite Conan Story
tom...@hkusa.com
the gamut here, but just to start some
chatter here's a point of discussion.
Without doubt my favorite Conan
saga is "Beyond the Black River." The
pacing of the story, in my humble, is
excellent and the depth of the mood
and enviroment set is far superior to
some of the earlier tales. The tension
of the story builds towards it
resolution, but it is not a clear-cut
path. Obstacle arise to taunt Conan
as he attemps to protect the people of
the fort/ frontier people.
While the weird element is lesser
in extent than many stories, there is
still enough there to add mystery,
intrigue and bit of darkness.
Viewed in perspective of Howard's
and his career, I feel that "Beyond the
Black RIver" is the most artistically
mature tale of theCimmerian that REH
penned.
Now it does not have the most
action, most bloodshed or mysticism. I
would reserve those distinctions for
other tales. But in looking at this tale
compared to other "literary" writings, I
believe it to be the most complete
story in terms of mood, enviroment,
pacing and character development.
All the elements needed to create
good, lasting, timeless fiction
Other have compared this to the
writings of American writer Robert W,
Chambers. I cannot truly comment on
this, having read none of the writings
of Chambers, so perhaps other can
interject something here about that.
Other stories I would have to
include on a list of my top five favorites
for pure enjoyability would include:
"Red Nails," "The Scarlet Citadel,"
"The Phoenix on the Sword," "Quenn
of the Black Coast," and "Pool of the
the Black One."
Thoughts from anyone else?
Bestest,
Tom Roberts
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
ben
best. It just captured my imagination best, what with a female mercenary
sidekick/love interest and Conan being chased by a dinosaur into a lost
city built under one roof with a decadent civilization in the throes of
decay, only to confront a mad, dominatrix queen and an insane lost king
who lives off dead things in the catacombs.
Yep, Red Nails is the best in my book. Guess I'm a sucker for exotic
location. "A Witch Shall Be Born" follows it because of the cool Conan
crucifiction scene. Bites the head off a vulture. Neato.
Ben
t Without doubt my favorite Conan
Lockjaww
Well...I'll play the devil's advocate , and name a non-Howard story as my
favorite. I think Conan of the Isles has to be my favorite. The whole idea of
Conan growing old and bored and seeking one last great adventure made his
character seem more real to me. Even though I read this story for the first
time over 20 years ago , as I aproach 40 in a few weeks I can really appreciate
it. It was a hard call....but that's my pick........
MagnumRex
I'll throw in one my favorite Conan stories. Off hand I don't remeber the title
but it was from Savage Sword of Conan #179. It involved a wizard capturing
Conan and showing him three possible fates in how he would eventually die.
David Gentzel
Well, to each his own, but... *yuck*! Bad as the Carter/de Camp stuff is,
this is bad even for them.
As a youth, Conan would have faced the climb of such a wall
without trepidation. Scaling sheer cliffs was a normal
accomplishment of a Cimmerian clansman. But he had not had
occasion to make such a climb in many years, and his grasp was not
so strong, nor his movements so sure as formerly.
Blah. That ain't Conan. The Lion would never sit on his throne for several
decades getting old and complacent. He'd be looking for battles, wars,
epochs, or else he would just abdicate. Read some of Howard's poems to get
an idea of his attitudes on aging ("The Years Are as a Knife" being a good
choice).
You may enjoy it. Nothing wrong with that. But don't fool yourself into
thinking this is Conan. It bears more resemblence to the TV "Conan" than
Howard's indomitable barbarian.
--
David Gentzel
gen...@pobox.com
http://pobox.com/~gentzel/
DukeRit
I'm a HUGE fan of "The Black Stranger," which I finally tracked down a few
months ago. I know a lot of critics feel this isn't close to Howard's strongest
work, but it just really sings for me. Lots of action, cool mystery as a
sub-plot, and Conan out-fighting -- and out-THINKING -- everyone ... it's
great.
But please don't even mention that abortion known as "The Treasure of Tranicos"
to me. De Camp's obsession with having every little detail of Conan's life fit
into a neat chronological pattern just ruins a good tale. The names are changed
for no good reason. The ending sucks. The fight with the mist-monster is
stupid. No one sucks the life out of a Conan tale quite like ol' Sprague. "The
Black Stranger" didn't need his help in the first place ...
-- The Dukester
Moonblossom
by Queen of the Black Coast. My favorite non-Howard story is Conan the
Rogue, and my favorite comic story was Black Hound of Vengeance(Conan the
Barbarian#20 or 21, I don't remember).
Dale
****************
Knight
liked how he was crucified and later came back to crucify the man who did it
to him. Also killing a vulture with his teeth was impressive. My favorite
passage from it is:
The sun was rising. The ancient caravan road was thronged with
white-robed horsemen, in a wavering line that stretched from the walls of
Khauran to spot far out in the plain. Conan the Cimmerian sat at the head of
that column, near the jagged end of a wooden beam that stuck up from the
ground. Near that stump rose a heavy cross, and on that cross a man hung by
spikes through his hands and feet.
"Seven months ago, Constantius," said Conan, "it was I who hung there,
and you who sat here."
Constantius did not reply; he licked his gray lips and his eyes were
glassy with pain and fear. Muscles writhed like cords along his lean body.
"You are more fit to inflict torture than to endure it," said Conan
tranquilly. "I hug there on a cross as you are hanging, and I lived, thanks
to circumstances and a stamina peculiar to barbarians. But you civilized men
are soft; your lives are not nailed to your spines as are ours. Your
fortitude consists mainly in inflicting torment, not enduring it. You will
be dead before sundown. And so, Falcon of the desert, I leave you to the
companionship of another bird of the desert."
He gestured toward the vultures whose shadows swept across the sands as
they wheeled over heard. From the lips of Constantius came an inhuman cry of
despair and horror.
Conan lifted his reins and rode toward the river that shone like silver
in the morning sun. Behind him the white clad riders struck into a trot; the
gaze of each passed a certain spot, turned impersonally and with the desert
man's lack of compassion,toward the cross and the gaunt figure that hung
there, black against the sunrise.
Hope you like it too.
Wayne Borean
> Perhaps this has previously run
>the gamut here, but just to start some
>chatter here's a point of discussion.
Yes, a reader!
> Without doubt my favorite Conan
>saga is "Beyond the Black River." The
>pacing of the story, in my humble, is
>excellent and the depth of the mood
>and enviroment set is far superior to
>some of the earlier tales. The tension
>of the story builds towards it
>resolution, but it is not a clear-cut
>path. Obstacle arise to taunt Conan
>as he attemps to protect the people of
>the fort/ frontier people.
It is a classic tale. I really wish that all of the "movie fans" would
read it.
> While the weird element is lesser
>in extent than many stories, there is
>still enough there to add mystery,
>intrigue and bit of darkness.
I disagree here - the "wierd" element was just as strong here, as it
was in many other of his stories. Note "Rogues in the House", where
literally everything in the story could be natural.
> Viewed in perspective of Howard's
>and his career, I feel that "Beyond the
>Black RIver" is the most artistically
>mature tale of theCimmerian that REH
>penned.
Here I agree. It's also one of the strongest on an emotional lever,
nearly cried over the dog.
> Now it does not have the most
>action, most bloodshed or mysticism. I
>would reserve those distinctions for
>other tales. But in looking at this tale
>compared to other "literary" writings, I
>believe it to be the most complete
>story in terms of mood, enviroment,
>pacing and character development.
>All the elements needed to create
>good, lasting, timeless fiction
> Other have compared this to the
>writings of American writer Robert W,
>Chambers. I cannot truly comment on
>this, having read none of the writings
>of Chambers, so perhaps other can
>interject something here about that.
Chambers, like Howard was a very spotty writer. His Madamoiselle Dy's
is a beautifull tale. The tale with the surviving great auks (In
search of the Unknown I believe) is a joke.
> Other stories I would have to
>include on a list of my top five favorites
>for pure enjoyability would include:
>"Red Nails," "The Scarlet Citadel,"
>"The Phoenix on the Sword," "Quenn
>of the Black Coast," and "Pool of the
>the Black One."
All sorts of thoughts. Tower of the Elephant, Rogues in the House (one
of my favourites), and a couple of others that I can't remember (I'm
up past my bedtime).
If I can find the lyrics to "Red Nails" I'll post them (the song is
mine, it may not be very good, but it's mine!!!
Wayne
Wayne Borean
In my not so humble opinion, the only Conan stories that count were
the ones written by Howard himself. Anything that DeCamp, Carter,
Jordan, etc. wrote (or finished) isn't the REAL Conan.
Wayne
Joe Marek
>
> In my not so humble opinion, the only Conan stories that count were
> the ones written by Howard himself. Anything that DeCamp, Carter,
> Jordan, etc. wrote (or finished) isn't the REAL Conan.
>
It is so good to meet another Howard purist, have you heard of _The
"New" Howard Reader_?
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/6570/conan.html
My favorite Conan story is "Red Nails" followed closely by "Beyond the
Black Rver".
HOWARD RULES!
-- Joe Marek
Wayne Borean
>Wayne Borean wrote:
>>
>> In my not so humble opinion, the only Conan stories that count were
>> the ones written by Howard himself. Anything that DeCamp, Carter,
>> Jordan, etc. wrote (or finished) isn't the REAL Conan.
>>
>I tried to E-Mail you, Wayne, but the message didn't go through.
Not surprising as do many other people I use a spamm blocker in my
address.
>It is so good to meet another Howard purist, have you heard of _The
>"New" Howard Reader_?
No, but I'm going there right now. The man was a fantastic writer, and
his influence on the writers of today - well it's amazing. He's one of
the kingpins of herios fantasy, predating J. R. R. Tolkien into print
(and as much as I love Tolkien, Howard's characters are more real to
me).
>http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/6570/conan.html
Thanks, I'll check it ou.
>My favorite Conan story is "Red Nails" followed closely by "Beyond the
>Black Rver".
I'll vote for Rogues in the House myself. And I really do have to find
a copy of the song I wrote called "Red Nails".
>HOWARD RULES!
You got that right!
Wayne
LARSKVAL
I can never get over the first Conan story I ever read -- "The People of the
Black Circle." I had never read anything like it, and I felt it was a perfect
thing of its kind. I still get echoes of the original feeling when I read it
over again. The Frazetta cover on the paperback didn't hurt either.
Something in my mind told me even then, "This is a kind of story that would be
worth writing." And eventually I did. I'm not claiming to be in REH's league,
but he certainly gave me a target to shoot for.
Lars Walker
Author of "Erling's Word," published by Baen Books
ben
The man (Howard) was a fantastic writer, and
> his influence on the writers of today - well it's amazing. He's one of
>
> the kingpins of herios fantasy, predating J. R. R. Tolkien into print
> (and as much as I love Tolkien, Howard's characters are more real to
> me).
>
Actually, another writer (as I remember reading) was disparaging Howard
to Tolkien, and the old guy said of Howard: "I rather liked that
fellow." It's likely that Tolkien probably read Howard before anyone
over here did in more recent times because of Howard's popularity in
Britain. British editions of the Conan stories, the ones with the
Frazetta covers, first appeared in England back in the sixties. Before
that, Howard's book "A Gent From Bear Creek" was published in England
to a good reception. I can't remember where I read all this but it must
be those old volumes of Amra essays in "Sword of Conan, Spell of Conan,"
etc.
I guess Conan was a bit more direct and earthy than Frodo.
>
>
> >HOWARD RULES!
>
> You got that right!
>
> Wayne
Ditto, by Crom.
Talen
tom...@hkusa.com wrote:
>
> Perhaps this has previously run
> the gamut here, but just to start some
> chatter here's a point of discussion.
>
> Without doubt my favorite Conan
> saga is "Beyond the Black River." The
> pacing of the story, in my humble, is
> excellent and the depth of the mood
> and enviroment set is far superior to
> some of the earlier tales. The tension
> of the story builds towards it
> resolution, but it is not a clear-cut
> path. Obstacle arise to taunt Conan
> as he attemps to protect the people of
> the fort/ frontier people.
> While the weird element is lesser
> in extent than many stories, there is
> still enough there to add mystery,
> intrigue and bit of darkness.
> Viewed in perspective of Howard's
> and his career, I feel that "Beyond the
> Black RIver" is the most artistically
> mature tale of theCimmerian that REH
> penned.
> Now it does not have the most
> action, most bloodshed or mysticism. I
> would reserve those distinctions for
> other tales. But in looking at this tale
> compared to other "literary" writings, I
> believe it to be the most complete
> story in terms of mood, enviroment,
> pacing and character development.
> All the elements needed to create
> good, lasting, timeless fiction
> Other have compared this to the
> writings of American writer Robert W,
> Chambers. I cannot truly comment on
> this, having read none of the writings
> of Chambers, so perhaps other can
> interject something here about that.
> Other stories I would have to
> include on a list of my top five favorites
> for pure enjoyability would include:
> "Red Nails," "The Scarlet Citadel,"
> "The Phoenix on the Sword," "Quenn
> of the Black Coast," and "Pool of the
> the Black One."
Wayne Borean
I don't know if that's the way I'd describe the difference, it is
there, but I can't think of a way to explain it (my leg's killing me
and I'm on some really nasty pain killers right now).
I don't think earthy is the word though. Conan was a lower class style
of guy. You used to see people like him in warehouses all over the
world, before fork lift trucks became so common.
Frodo was born to wealth, as was his uncle Bilbo. Not great wealth
maybe, but well above average.
Lower class people tend to be direct - they can't afford the time to
be otherwise. Upper class (like Frodo) don't need to be direct, and
they tend to be insulated from things like digging out the outhouse
pit, or slaughtering a hog for dinner.
As I said, I don't think earthy is the right word - but I don't think
my explanation is any good either, though it applys.
Comments anyone?
>> >HOWARD RULES!
>>
>> You got that right!
>>
>> Wayne
>
> Ditto, by Crom.
I didn't know that Crom invented Ditto.
Wayne
LARSKVAL
I'm not going to look it up, but I remember reading in the introduction to one
of the Conan books that Howard based the character of Conan on cowboys, oil
wildcatters and bootleggers he knew in Texas.
Lars
zbi...@ibm.net
cover, and I agree, "Beyond the Black River" was and still is my favorite
Conan story.
Great plot, well developed suspense and story line..I remember reading it in
bed as a ten or eleven year old and being totally engrossed by it. will
have to read it again one of these days!
Richard Pace
Richard Pace, the Nomad -- no, wait, the Wander- Freboot - eh - the
Illustrator! Yeah, that's the ticket!!
Wayne Borean wrote in message <3606fa44...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>...
Reed Andrus
>
> Red nails... it would have to be Red Nails...
I'm sorta surprised no one has mentioned "Tower of the Elephant."
... Reed
Lockjaww
Howard vs Tolkien ? Not even a good apples and oranges comparison can be
made. Much different styles , and FAR different character types. Maybe
compare Howard to Lovecraft , they both seemed to borrow from the others style.
Howard was a master of that there is no doubt. Howard's Conan was ruthless
and cunning...the perfect barbarian. The only author who I think a fair
comparison can be made to Howard is Karl Edward Wagner, who obviously was a
student and fan of Howard. Wagners Kane character ( in my humble opinion ) is
as good a character as any Howard ever conjured. Kane combined the best
characteristics of all of Howards characters , and on an individual basis ,
surpassed most hands down. I'll close for now as I've a hurricane knocking on
my backdoor. Skoal .........
Horned...@rocketmail.com
whborean@killl_the_spammers_sympatico.ca (Wayne Borean) wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:35:50 -0400, ben <drfate...@raex.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >The man (Howard) was a fantastic writer, and
> >
> >> his influence on the writers of today - well it's amazing. He's one of
> >>
> >> the kingpins of herios fantasy, predating J. R. R. Tolkien into print
> >> (and as much as I love Tolkien, Howard's characters are more real to
> >> me).
> >>
> >
> >Actually, another writer (as I remember reading) was disparaging Howard
> >to Tolkien, and the old guy said of Howard: "I rather liked that
> >fellow." It's likely that Tolkien probably read Howard before anyone
> >over here did in more recent times because of Howard's popularity in
> >Britain. British editions of the Conan stories, the ones with the
> >Frazetta covers, first appeared in England back in the sixties. Before
> >that, Howard's book "A Gent From Bear Creek" was published in England
> >to a good reception. I can't remember where I read all this but it must
> >be those old volumes of Amra essays in "Sword of Conan, Spell of Conan,"
> >etc.
> >
>
> I don't know if that's the way I'd describe the difference, it is
> there, but I can't think of a way to explain it (my leg's killing me
> and I'm on some really nasty pain killers right now).
>
> I don't think earthy is the word though. Conan was a lower class style
> of guy. You used to see people like him in warehouses all over the
> world, before fork lift trucks became so common.
>
> Frodo was born to wealth, as was his uncle Bilbo. Not great wealth
> maybe, but well above average.
>
> Lower class people tend to be direct - they can't afford the time to
> be otherwise. Upper class (like Frodo) don't need to be direct, and
> they tend to be insulated from things like digging out the outhouse
> pit, or slaughtering a hog for dinner.
>
> As I said, I don't think earthy is the right word - but I don't think
> my explanation is any good either, though it applys.
>
> Comments anyone?
Howard is pulp fiction, Tolkien is literature. Tolkein was an Oxford English
Prof. who helped edit/write the first editions Oxford English Dictionary & it
shows.
This isn't exactly a put down of Howard, but his writing was much more
simple(and fast paced) then Tolkein's. Of course this was in part because of
the medium he was writing for. Had he the chance to write full length novels,
rather then short stories for pulp magazines, I suspect his style would be
mcuh differant over time.
Another differance is that Tolkien set out with the purpose of writing
an Epic on the scale of the Old Norse Sagas, while Howard simply wrote to
tell a good adventure modeled more on the writings of the likes of Edgar Rice
Burroughs, Arthur Conan Doyle, or Alexander Dumas if one wishes to
go a little further back.
Personally I find a combition of Tolkien's Epic-style, mixed with Howard's
adventure-style the best type of stories. Although a bit of added humour which
both lack is also good.
---Oscar Schlaf---
Horned...@rocketmail.com
magn...@aol.com (MagnumRex) wrote:
>
> I'll throw in one my favorite Conan stories. Off hand I don't remeber the
title
> but it was from Savage Sword of Conan #179. It involved a wizard capturing
> Conan and showing him three possible fates in how he would eventually die.
Not sure, but I think that was adapted from the 1970s weekly comic strip,
written & drawn by the same people who were doing Savage Sword/ Conan The
Barbarian at the time.
If it was the wizard's name was "Hissar Zule", which I take it was added to
the bad Conan tv series, which I didn't happen to watch after the first ep....
ben
In terms of writing style, you are very much on the money. Howard wrote
hard and fast. He didn't write so much to be good, he wrote it for
Wednesday. Stephen King said that Howard wrote from raw imagination:
"Howard overcame the limitations of his purile material from the force
and fury of his writing and by his imagination, which was powerful
beyond his hero Conan's wildest dreams of power. In his best work,
Howard's writing seems so highly charged with energy that it nearly
gives off sparks. Stories such as "People of the Black Circle" glow with
the fierce and eldritch light of his frenzied intensity."
---from Danse Macabre
Purile, huh? And vampires are SOOOO sophisticated.
King also goes on to call some of Howard's writing "abysmal" in lesser
stories. If Howard were alive I bet he'd agree in some cases. In another
essay ( I can't remember where), King suggests that talent is like a
knife, and that if one hones one's writing day after day, one sharpens
the knife. He said that Howard had a dull knife that was wielded with
great force, so it still cut, until one day Howard's blade broke.
Perhaps not a bad-sounding analogy, but I'd suggest his suicide was a
little more complicated than that.
> Howard is pulp fiction, Tolkien is literature. Tolkein was an Oxford
> English
> Prof. who helped edit/write the first editions Oxford English
> Dictionary & it
> shows.
>
The OED? Wow, that explains a lot. Volumes, in fact.
tac...@my-dejanews.com
ben <drf...@raex.com> wrote:
> Hey, Oscar
>
> In terms of writing style, you are very much on the money. Howard wrote
> hard and fast. He didn't write so much to be good, he wrote it for
> Wednesday. Stephen King said that Howard wrote from raw imagination:
>
> "Howard overcame the limitations of his purile material from the force
> and fury of his writing and by his imagination, which was powerful
> beyond his hero Conan's wildest dreams of power. In his best work,
> Howard's writing seems so highly charged with energy that it nearly
> gives off sparks. Stories such as "People of the Black Circle" glow with
> the fierce and eldritch light of his frenzied intensity."
> ---from Danse Macabre
>
> Purile, huh? And vampires are SOOOO sophisticated.
>
> King also goes on to call some of Howard's writing "abysmal" in lesser
> stories. If Howard were alive I bet he'd agree in some cases. In another
> essay ( I can't remember where), King suggests that talent is like a
> knife, and that if one hones one's writing day after day, one sharpens
> the knife. He said that Howard had a dull knife that was wielded with
> great force, so it still cut, until one day Howard's blade broke.
> Perhaps not a bad-sounding analogy, but I'd suggest his suicide was a
> little more complicated than that.
>
I'm not sure I would take King's word for it. I'd agree that Howard's writing
was bad in certain places, but King has no place to criticize.
Talent has its place, but it needs to be tempered by instruction (e.g.
Tolkien)... that's why we have so many bad books out there. Talent has been
held high, while High Quality in writing has been overlooked.
On the other hand, some of Howard's poetry is so visual, so enchanting that it
almost beats his prose.
Travis
Dumnorix
tac...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
One bad writer criticizing another bad writer. Hmm.....
Kind of like the Nazgul calling the Balrog black, eh?
KS
LARSKVAL
Ah ha! Somebody else likes "The People of the Black Circle" too!
I hope that means I'll be as successful a writer as Stephen King.
Lars Walker
Author of "Erling's Word," published by Baen Books.
dmch...@earthlink.net
>Hey, Oscar
>
>In terms of writing style, you are very much on the money. Howard wrote
>hard and fast. He didn't write so much to be good, he wrote it for
>Wednesday. Stephen King said that Howard wrote from raw imagination:
>
>"Howard overcame the limitations of his purile material from the force
>and fury of his writing and by his imagination, which was powerful
>beyond his hero Conan's wildest dreams of power. In his best work,
>Howard's writing seems so highly charged with energy that it nearly
>gives off sparks. Stories such as "People of the Black Circle" glow with
>the fierce and eldritch light of his frenzied intensity."
>---from Danse Macabre
>
>Purile, huh? And vampires are SOOOO sophisticated.
>
>King also goes on to call some of Howard's writing "abysmal" in lesser
>stories. If Howard were alive I bet he'd agree in some cases. In another
>essay ( I can't remember where), King suggests that talent is like a
>knife, and that if one hones one's writing day after day, one sharpens
>the knife. He said that Howard had a dull knife that was wielded with
>great force, so it still cut, until one day Howard's blade broke.
>Perhaps not a bad-sounding analogy, but I'd suggest his suicide was a
>little more complicated than that.
>
>> Howard is pulp fiction, Tolkien is literature. Tolkein was an Oxford
>> English
>> Prof. who helped edit/write the first editions Oxford English
>> Dictionary & it
>> shows.
>>
>
>The OED? Wow, that explains a lot. Volumes, in fact.
>
>> This isn't exactly a put down of Howard, but his writing was much
>> more
>> simple(and fast paced) then Tolkein's. Of course this was in part
>> because of
>> the medium he was writing for. Had he the chance to write full length
>> novels,
>> rather then short stories for pulp magazines, I suspect his style
>> would be
>> mcuh differant over time.
>
>
>
Howard was a genius. Compared to Howard, Tolkien was a boring.
"Calling something "literature" is bullshit. Howard was literature,
but he was also ART. He was the extreme, the EXCESS of his art form.
It shows that Tolkien contributed to that dictionary? Why? Do you
have to be pompous to write literature? Unbelievable!
Excuse me, but pulp fiction has proven itself. and is above thiis
snobbish, inbred criticism. Who is most loved? Frodo Baggins, or
TARZAN OF THE APES? Crawl back into your "literature", little bug!
Tennessee Williams started in WEIRD TALES. Do you dare not call
H. P. Lovecraft literature?
dmch...@earthlink.net
> Howard is pulp fiction, Tolkien is literature. Tolkein was an Oxford English
>Prof. who helped edit/write the first editions Oxford English Dictionary & it
>shows.
>
> This isn't exactly a put down of Howard, but his writing was much more
>simple(and fast paced) then Tolkein's. Of course this was in part because of
>the medium he was writing for. Had he the chance to write full length novels,
>rather then short stories for pulp magazines, I suspect his style would be
>mcuh differant over time.
>
> Another differance is that Tolkien set out with the purpose of writing
>an Epic on the scale of the Old Norse Sagas, while Howard simply wrote to
>tell a good adventure modeled more on the writings of the likes of Edgar Rice
>Burroughs, Arthur Conan Doyle, or Alexander Dumas if one wishes to
>go a little further back.
>
> Personally I find a combition of Tolkien's Epic-style, mixed with Howard's
>adventure-style the best type of stories. Although a bit of added humour which
>both lack is also good.
>
>
> ---Oscar Schlaf---
>
>
>
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Hey, nothng personal, Oscar, but you are an idiot!
Blufftown Barbarian
Richard Pace
dmch...@earthlink.net wrote in message
<360b2e8c...@news.earthlink.net>...
>Howard was a genius. Compared to Howard, Tolkien was a boring.
>"Calling something "literature" is bullshit. Howard was literature,
>but he was also ART. He was the extreme, the EXCESS of his art form.
>
No, Pynchon is a genius. Howard was a great teller of tales, yarns if you
will. Compared to Howard, or any of the pulpy writers, most fiction would
seem boring - especially when compared to the shudder pulps. Calling
something literature isn't 'bullshit', it's quantifying the intent. Howard
wasn't literature, he didn't aim for literature, and ultimately he didn't
have the mental tools or interest in creating literature. I will say he was
occasionally very close to ART, but you could also argue that everything is
ART. I don't think he was extreme, he was actually quite, ordinary. He
did have a great run with a few great characters, though.
>
>It shows that Tolkien contributed to that dictionary? Why? Do you
>have to be pompous to write literature? Unbelievable!
I assume contributing to the dictionary was his job at the time. No, just
well read, talented and arrogant enough to label what you write as
literature.
>
>Excuse me, but pulp fiction has proven itself. and is above thiis
>snobbish, inbred criticism. Who is most loved? Frodo Baggins, or
>TARZAN OF THE APES? Crawl back into your "literature", little bug!
Proven itself? To who, or what? Tarzan wasn't written by REH - Burroughs
was a better read and arguably better author. Alright, who's more loved,
Kull or Bilbo, Solomon Kane or Galadriel. Moot point.
>
>Tennessee Williams started in WEIRD TALES. Do you dare not call
>H. P. Lovecraft literature?
A large portion of Lovecraft's work was derivative and poorly executed - I
dare to not call that literature. His work, at its height would be easily
classified as literature - as opposed to the man himself being classified as
literature.
Quality by association? Many lawyers have written best selling books, does
that mean all lawyers are best selling authors?
Take care,
Richard Pace
Horned...@rocketmail.com
dmch...@earthlink.net wrote:
(snip)
> Howard was a genius.
Good story telling does take talent, but I wouldn't equate it with
genius.
> Compared to Howard, Tolkien was a boring.
If you read something like "Red Nails" and then read "The Smiliarion"
I'd tend to agree. But both writers wrote much more then just those
two pieces.
> "Calling something "literature" is bullshit. Howard was literature,
> but he was also ART. He was the extreme, the EXCESS of his art form.
Tand bit sensitive are we? Too much Hero worship I think. :)
> It shows that Tolkien contributed to that dictionary? Why? Do you
> have to be pompous to write literature? Unbelievable!
His use of a wide diversity of words & his prose, it doesn't have anything
to do with being pompous.
> Excuse me, but pulp fiction has proven itself. and is above thiis
> snobbish, inbred criticism
Geez..Even the best admirers of Howard point out his flaws. Go read what
Karl Edward Wagner of Andy Offut say of Howard's writing style..
You can like a thing & still be critical of it, like the US form of
government for example....
> Who is most loved? Frodo Baggins, or
> TARZAN OF THE APES?
It isn't a question of popularity. If it were then Crappy Harlequin(sp?)
Romance novels & Steven King would beat out Burroughs, Howard, & Tolkien.
> Crawl back into your "literature", little bug!
Try expanding your horizons.
> Tennessee Williams started in WEIRD TALES. Do you dare not call
> H. P. Lovecraft literature?
Not everything published in the Pulp magazines was/is of the same quality.
Some of it is literature, some of it isn't.
I read Tolkien & Howard both and like them both. That doesn't mean I wont
be critical of certain aspects of thier work however. If you read de Camp's
biograhy he says much the same things I've said, as did Lin Carter and many
other fantasy authors who while still admiring Howard, do point out his
flaws too.
Hope your not one of those "like it or leave it" folk....
--Oscar Schlaf--
Jim Hetley
Forgive me for sticking my nose into somebody else's argument, but stirring
up trouble is so much fun.
Literature, shmiterature. What ever happened to the concept of a whopping
good read? Howard, ERB, Tolkien, Heinlein, Kipling and Hermann Hesse,
sometimes even Faulkner and Steinbeck and Melville understood that most
people read to be entertained. Enlightenment is just gravy.
Jim
"If it works, don't fuck with it."
Adam Barnard
> Howard was a genius. Compared to Howard, Tolkien was a boring.
> "Calling something "literature" is bullshit. Howard was literature,
> but he was also ART. He was the extreme, the EXCESS of his art form.
>
> It shows that Tolkien contributed to that dictionary? Why? Do you
> have to be pompous to write literature? Unbelievable!
>
> Excuse me, but pulp fiction has proven itself. and is above thiis
> snobbish, inbred criticism. Who is most loved? Frodo Baggins, or
> TARZAN OF THE APES? Crawl back into your "literature", little bug!
>
> Tennessee Williams started in WEIRD TALES. Do you dare not call
> H. P. Lovecraft literature?
You're not a big Tolkien fan are you?? I'm sorry, but Conan in no
way compares to Tolkien. If you mention the name Conan to the average
person, they'll think it was a pathetic tale, while when mention
Tolkien, they'll tell you the fnd mempories they had of reading The
hobbit as a child. As far as Tolkien helping to write the OED, it shows
because he had a great mastery of the english language. I have YET to
read a contemporary of his or of many other times that has that same
mastery. Trust me, there are very few.
gunhou
>> Personally I find a combition of Tolkien's Epic-style, mixed with Howard's
>> adventure-style the best type of stories. Although a bit of added
humour which
>> both lack is also good.
--------------------
It sounds like you're talking about Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. Fritz
Leiber's tales of the adventures of the scalawag rogues of Lankhmar are my
favorite S&S stories. I wish he had written a million of 'em! (Don't get
me wrong...I have been a fan of both Howard and Tolkein for a very long
time indeed...pushing on to 50 years now.) That's the nice thing about
good writing...whether it's just a ripping tale of Conan, or the epic of
Middle Earth, you can always find something to fill your soul with bliss.
--
To reply, shake out the *peppah*.
tac...@my-dejanews.com
Okay... I personally think Tolkien is the author and originator of the faith
that is modern fantasy. I think that sometimes I'd like to blame him for
that... because too many people decided to copy him, we come up with this
crap that is out today. But his words move me like no other. He loved words,
and it shows in his work. I read The Hobbit and LOR every year. Man, I wish
people would put more out like that today. (And yes I have read Pynchon,
David Foster Wallace and William T. Vollman, but no one seems to love words
the way Tolkien did). On Howard. I love Howard. I collect Howard. I collect
different versions of his work... different publications of his work that is.
The only thing I cannot find is his Bear Creek things. Howard had fun with
his writing. High literature? No. Good story telling? Yes. And the funny
thing is, I'm not a huge fan of his Conan stuff. I like Kull and Solomon Kane
better. I even like the Sword Woman series he did. He does have a lot of
energy in his writing, and is extremely descriptive. On comparing Tolkien and
Howard. One is Epic Fantasy and the other is Heroic Fantasy. It's like
comparing High Fantasy and Low Fantasy. Ya can't. Two different animals.
Heroic Fantasy deals with the heroes, while Epic Fantasy deals with the
quest. Which one is a better writer? Tolkien. Which one is the better story
teller? I'm not sure, but I do lean towards old John. Of course that's my
opinion and I could be wrong.
Travis Clark
P.S. Don't get me started with Lovecraft. I love him, but...
Hoping the problem magically goes away by ignoring it is the "microsoft
approach to programming" and should never be allowed.
(Linus Torvalds)
David Gentzel
> You're not a big Tolkien fan are you?? I'm sorry, but Conan in no
> way compares to Tolkien. If you mention the name Conan to the average
> person, they'll think it was a pathetic tale, while when mention
> Tolkien, they'll tell you the fnd mempories they had of reading The
> hobbit as a child.
And you're point is? How many of these people have *read* a Howard Conan
tale? They judge Conan by bad movies, bad comics, and bad TV shows. Very
similar to Tarzan. We weren't comparing Conan to Frodo, but Howard to
Tolkein.
See how Tolkien's reputation holds up if you try to judge him by Ralph
Bakshi's LoTR...
--
David Gentzel
gen...@pobox.com
http://pobox.com/~gentzel/
Adam Barnard
Touché! :)
Graham Lockwood
>I read The Hobbit and LOR every year.
I really wish I had time for that!!
||// // - ------===**O**===------- - || //
|// // Graham Lockwood ||//
(/ // gsl...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu |//
||// (/)
|// Quantum Mechanics //|
(/ The dreams stuff is made of //||
|| - -------====**O**====------- - // ||
dmch...@earthlink.net
> Geez..Even the best admirers of Howard point out his flaws. Go read what
>Karl Edward Wagner of Andy Offut say of Howard's writing style..
> You can like a thing & still be critical of it, like the US form of
>government for example....
>
Mentioning Offutt and Wagner in the same sentence is immediate proof
that you are a complete amateur in the studies of Robert E. Howard.
Offutt was a no-talent pasticher bumpkin whore - Wagner was a talented
writer.
>
ome of it isn't.
>
> I read Tolkien & Howard both and like them both. That doesn't mean I wont
>be critical of certain aspects of thier work however. If you read de Camp's
>biograhy he says much the same things I've said, as did Lin Carter and many
>other fantasy authors who while still admiring Howard, do point out his
>flaws too.
> Hope your not one of those "like it or leave it" folk....
>
>
> --Oscar Schlaf--
>
De Camp's biography pf Howard has been totally dismissed as bullshit
by the Howard community, as was his pathetic and poorly executed
hack-job biography of Lovecraft in the seventies.
If you are echoing de Camp's opinion's you will possibly never be
capable of grasping an understanding of REH. Lin Carter is considered
the worst writer of fantasy in history. Quoting opinions by or
agreeing with Lin Carter or L. Sprague de Camp is the heigth of
ignorance in Robert E. Howard studies. The Robert E. Howard e mail
group would tear you limb from limb. You need to do a great deal more
research on the subject of Robert E. Howard before you again mention
the name of de Camp or Carter in relationship to Howad studies.
If you wish to EXPAND YOUR HORIZONS, I offer my help to point you in
the right direction, since you seem to be a genuine novice in the
realm of Howard studies. I'll be happy to point you in the right
direction to learn the truth about Robert E. Howard. You won't find
it in the pages of a piece of crap like Dark Valley Destiny, or
anything with the name Lin Carter on it. You might be further
educated in other fields, if you care to learn how to get your facts
straight.
McHaney
dmch...@earthlink.net
wrote:
>--
>David Gentzel
>gen...@pobox.com
>http://pobox.com/~gentzel/
David, this guy has not read enough Howard to be qualified to give an
opinion. Howard is light years superior to Tolkien as a figure in
fantastic literature. Most of the people submitting messages to this
group are seriously under-equipped to give a relevent opinion on
Howard because of their minimal exposure to the real body of his work.
They are babes in the woods who need some serious re-educating.
Should we lead them unto the path of the righteous? By the way, isn't
this a Conan group, and not a Tolkien group? Did you know, David,
that the average Conan fan can crush twenty average Tolkien fans by
merely walking into the room?
Blufftown Barbarian
dmch...@earthlink.net
wrote:
You got the right attitude.
McHaney
Edward Waterman
says...
>
>
>I'm a HUGE fan of "The Black Stranger," which I finally tracked down a few
>months ago. I know a lot of critics feel this isn't close to Howard's
strongest
>work, but it just really sings for me. Lots of action, cool mystery as a
>sub-plot, and Conan out-fighting -- and out-THINKING -- everyone ... it's
>great.
>But please don't even mention that abortion known as "The Treasure of
Tranicos"
>to me. De Camp's obsession with having every little detail of Conan's life
fit
>into a neat chronological pattern just ruins a good tale. The names are
changed
>for no good reason. The ending sucks. The fight with the mist-monster is
>stupid. No one sucks the life out of a Conan tale quite like ol' Sprague.
"The
>Black Stranger" didn't need his help in the first place ...
>
>-- The Dukester
Can't help but agree with you, Dukester! BTW, the ONLY critic that didn't
think "The Black Stranger" is one of Howard's best stories was Spraguey.
For the record my four favorite Conan yarns:
The Black Stranger
The Frost Giant's Daughter
Queen of the Black Coast
Beyond the Black River
-Ed
Edward Waterman
whborean@killl_the_spammers_sympatico.ca says...
>
>On 18 Sep 1998 05:09:35 GMT, magn...@aol.com (MagnumRex) wrote:
>
>>
>>I'll throw in one my favorite Conan stories. Off hand I don't remeber the
title
>>but it was from Savage Sword of Conan #179. It involved a wizard capturing
>>Conan and showing him three possible fates in how he would eventually die.
>
>the ones written by Howard himself. Anything that DeCamp, Carter,
>Jordan, etc. wrote (or finished) isn't the REAL Conan.
>
>Wayne
Aaahhhh! Finally, a voice of reason! Yes! The "corporate Conan" is far
different than the Conan that Robert E. Howard wrote about. It is so nice to
hear someone I don't know say this! The only true Conan is Howard's Conan!
Way to go, Wayne!
Edward Waterman
says...
>
>
>I'm not going to look it up, but I remember reading in the introduction to
one
>of the Conan books that Howard based the character of Conan on cowboys, oil
>wildcatters and bootleggers he knew in Texas.
>
>Lars
Yes, but as usual I believe the truth to be a bit more revealing. Howard
probably did base his Conan character on a mixture of people "he knew", I
think was the phrase. But what I have come to believe is that Howard not only
based his Conan character on people he actually met in person but also on
people he "met" by reading about them. In particular, old west pioneers and
settlers. Most of Conan's "morals" can be traced back to REH's idea of the way
that these pioneers treated each other... Check out REH Selected Letters
Volume 2, one of the letter to HP Lovecract, November 1932 I think but don't
quote me...
Edward Waterman
>
> Howard is pulp fiction, Tolkien is literature. Tolkein was an Oxford
English
>Prof. who helped edit/write the first editions Oxford English Dictionary & it
>shows.
There is no doubt in my mind that in a few more years HOward would have broken
into the "literature" market. Unlike other famous and respected authors such
as Mark Twain, Howard did not live long enough to move from pulps to
mainstream books. But that doesn't mean his writing isn't up to the quality of
the "literary masters." I believe Howard's later stories were indeed
literary masterpieces, certainly great works of art.
> This isn't exactly a put down of Howard, but his writing was much more
>simple(and fast paced) then Tolkein's.
A VERY common misconception. Howard's writing is dynamically complex... not
simple. Howard wrote with a subtlty that is almost indiscernable unless you
actually LOOK and study his literature. A brief read reveals only the primary
ACTION of the stories, the plot, the adventure. And that's how Howard meant to
write them. He knew he was writing for a pulp market who wanted to live an
adventure, but he also wrote for himself. Embedded in each Conan story is a
complex set of beliefs, views, opinions, values, and perceptions of the
world... but these are almost never written in a way as to interfere with the
movement and action of the story. Howard almost never tells the reader what
his characters are thinking, but rather lets their personalities show through
the character's actions and reactions to situations. The only Conan story that
I know of where Howard actually shoved a belief in the reader's face is at the
end of "Beyond the Black River", where he states outright and clearly,
"Barbarism is the natural state of mankind, civilization is just a whim of
circumstance."
The fact that there is so much depth behind each of the Conan stories is what
makes them seem so real when we read them. Everything makes sense, but we
don't know why. Howard didn't want you to _think_ when you read one of his
stories, he wanted you to _feel_. Feel the cold sea breeze on your face, the
burn of the sword as it sliced through your thigh, the pounding of your heart
as Conan raced from a pack of enraged savages. But Howard was such an
intellectual himself, and so much a part of his stories, that he could not
resist making a point with them or expressing his view of the world. In many
ways too, Howard was a trickster. He knew many of the things he wanted to
write about would not be accepted by the censors/editors of the day, so he
snuck these things into his stories in a way to squeeze them past the censors.
Subtlty was his art. Action his calling.
>Of course this was in part because of
>the medium he was writing for. Had he the chance to write full length
novels,
>rather then short stories for pulp magazines, I suspect his style would be
>mcuh differant over time.
>
> Another differance is that Tolkien set out with the purpose of writing
>an Epic on the scale of the Old Norse Sagas, while Howard simply wrote to
>tell a good adventure modeled more on the writings of the likes of Edgar Rice
>Burroughs, Arthur Conan Doyle, or Alexander Dumas if one wishes to
>go a little further back.
A better and more relevant example would be Jack London... But you're
absolutely right! Howard wrote mainly short stories. A couple novellas, and a
couple novels (but 2 of the 3 were serialized in magazines). Howard was
certainly on his way to breaking into the novel market when he passed away.
> Personally I find a combition of Tolkien's Epic-style, mixed with Howard's
>adventure-style the best type of stories. Although a bit of added humour
which
>both lack is also good.
At least Conan has a good time drinking, carousing, and wenching! More than
Frodo could even think of doing!
Edward Waterman
>>
>
>>Howard was a genius. Compared to Howard, Tolkien was a boring.
>>"Calling something "literature" is bullshit. Howard was literature,
>>but he was also ART. He was the extreme, the EXCESS of his art form.
>>
>will. Compared to Howard, or any of the pulpy writers, most fiction would
>seem boring - especially when compared to the shudder pulps. Calling
>something literature isn't 'bullshit', it's quantifying the intent. Howard
>wasn't literature, he didn't aim for literature, and ultimately he didn't
>have the mental tools or interest in creating literature. I will say he was
>occasionally very close to ART, but you could also argue that everything is
>ART. I don't think he was extreme, he was actually quite, ordinary. He
>did have a great run with a few great characters, though.
>
>>
>>have to be pompous to write literature? Unbelievable!
>
>well read, talented and arrogant enough to label what you write as
>literature.
>
>>
>>snobbish, inbred criticism. Who is most loved? Frodo Baggins, or
>>TARZAN OF THE APES? Crawl back into your "literature", little bug!
>
>was a better read and arguably better author. Alright, who's more loved,
>Kull or Bilbo, Solomon Kane or Galadriel. Moot point.
>>
>>H. P. Lovecraft literature?
>
>dare to not call that literature. His work, at its height would be easily
>classified as literature - as opposed to the man himself being classified as
>literature.
>
>Quality by association? Many lawyers have written best selling books, does
>that mean all lawyers are best selling authors?
>
>Take care,
>
>Richard Pace
>
>
I have a quick question that may not be so quickly answered...
What is "literature?" If it is a term that is meant to quantify the intent,
what is a work called that lives up to whatever the qulaity of "literature"
is, and yet wasn't intended to be read by the general literary market?
Howard's work was certainly art. And some of the best ever seen in adventure
literature! Does the fact the Robert E. Howard single-handedly brought
together a particular mix of existing literary elements and created a never
before known literary genre called Heroic Fantasy or Sword and Sorcery count
as a literary genious?
Here are a few comments on and about art. I leave you to decide the status of
Howard's work on your own...
"Every great work of art has two faces, one toward its own time and one toward
the
future, toward eternity."
Daniel Barenboim (b. 1942), Argentinian-born Israeli pianist, conductor.
International Herald
Tribune (Paris, 20 Jan. 1989).
In order for the artist to have a world to express he must first be situated
in this world,
oppressed or oppressing, resigned or rebellious, a man among men."
Simone de Beauvoir (1908-86), French novelist, essayist. The Ethics of
Ambiguity, ch. 1
(1948).
"Perpetual modernness is the measure of merit in every work of art."
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-82), U.S. essayist, poet, philosopher.
Representative Men,
"Plato" (1850).
"Art is on the side of the oppressed. Think before you shudder at the
simplistic dictum and
its heretical definition of the freedom of art. For if art is freedom of the
spirit, how can it
exist within the oppressors?"
Nadine Gordimer (b. 1923), South African author. "The Essential Gesture,"
lecture, 12 Oct.
1984, University of Michigan (published in The Tanner Lectures on Human
Values, ed. by
Sterling M. McMurrin, 1985; repr. in The Essential Gesture, ed. by Stephen
Clingman, 1988).
"The artist is the opposite of the politically minded individual, the opposite
of the
reformer, the opposite of the idealist. The artist does not tinker with the
universe; he
recreates it out of his own experience and understanding of life."
Henry Miller (1891-1980), U.S. author. The Cosmological Eye, "An Open Letter
to Surrealists
Everywhere" (1939).
"Were I called on to define, very briefly, the term Art, I should call it "the
reproduction of
what the Senses perceive in Nature through the veil of the soul." The mere
imitation,
however accurate, of what is in Nature, entitles no man to the sacred name of
"Artist.""
Edgar Allan Poe (1809-45), U.S. poet, critic, short-story writer.
"Marginalia," in Southern
Literary Messenger (Richmond, Va., June 1849; repr. in Essays and Reviews,
1984).
Edward Waterman
> I read Tolkien & Howard both and like them both. That doesn't mean I wont
>be critical of certain aspects of thier work however. If you read de Camp's
>biograhy he says much the same things I've said, as did Lin Carter and many
>other fantasy authors who while still admiring Howard, do point out his
>flaws too.
> Hope your not one of those "like it or leave it" folk....
Citing de Camp and Carter is a good way to to make mistakes. Their ability to
discern the finer elements in literature is severely lacking. BTW, De Camp's
bio of Howard is one of the worst pieces of research and one of the most
yellow journalistic biographies I've ever read! The guy fills almost 90% of
the book with opinion, conjecture, and specualtation and has that gall to
phrase it as fact! De Camp was either an incompetent boob or a greedy,
slandering cheat. His bio, Dark Valley Destiny, is currently being discredited
as we speak by true researchers who pay attention to detail. I'm sure you'll
find some very interesting revelations in the upcoming Dark Man magazine
edited by Rusty Burke and published by Necronomicon Press (whenever it is
finally published).
Dark Valley Destiny is the WORST REH bio ever written, and contains the most
uniformed opinion on Howard's work this side of Darrel Schwitzer. I'd
recommend you throw that book away. On the other hand, find One Who Walked
Alone by Novalyne Price Ellis. That is a true biography (well, a memoir
actually) written by someone who actually knew Howard. No conjecture, no
flimsy psycho-babble theories, no speculation, no derrogatory slander. But if
you really want to know Howard, read his letters published by Necronomicon
Press. Revelations I tell ya!
Horned...@rocketmail.com
dmch...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > Geez..Even the best admirers of Howard point out his flaws. Go read what
> >Karl Edward Wagner of Andy Offut say of Howard's writing style..
> > You can like a thing & still be critical of it, like the US form of
> >government for example....
> >
>
> Mentioning Offutt and Wagner in the same sentence is immediate proof
> that you are a complete amateur in the studies of Robert E. Howard.
> Offutt was a no-talent pasticher bumpkin whore - Wagner was a talented
> writer.
Offutt is a published fantasy writer. Are you?
> >
>
> ome of it isn't.
> >
> > I read Tolkien & Howard both and like them both. That doesn't mean I wont
> >be critical of certain aspects of thier work however. If you read de Camp's
> >biograhy he says much the same things I've said, as did Lin Carter and many
> >other fantasy authors who while still admiring Howard, do point out his
> >flaws too.
> > Hope your not one of those "like it or leave it" folk....
> >
> >
> > --Oscar Schlaf--
> >
> De Camp's biography pf Howard has been totally dismissed as bullshit
> by the Howard community,
Who exactly is the "Howard community". Glenn Lord, the head of the Howard
state certainly didn't think so. Since it was him in part that wanted
de Camp to write it.
as was his pathetic and poorly executed
> hack-job biography of Lovecraft in the seventies.
> If you are echoing de Camp's opinion's you will possibly never be
> capable of grasping an understanding of REH. Lin Carter is considered
> the worst writer of fantasy in history. Quoting opinions by or
> agreeing with Lin Carter or L. Sprague de Camp is the heigth of
> ignorance in Robert E. Howard studies.
Say who? You? And who are you that your opinion should matter over people
like de Camp that have been writing for over fourty years & winning countless
awards from fans and fellow writers as well as the usual Professional awards.
> I offer my help to point you in
> the right direction, since you seem to be a genuine novice in the
> realm of Howard studies.
From a person who thinks the term literature denotes snobbery? No thanks.
If there is any snobbery and attempts at oneupmanship here it seems
it is you.
---Oscar Schlaf---
dmch...@earthlink.net
>> You're not a big Tolkien fan are you?? I'm sorry, but Conan in no
>> way compares to Tolkien. If you mention the name Conan to the average
>> person, they'll think it was a pathetic tale, while when mention
>> Tolkien, they'll tell you the fnd mempories they had of reading The
>> hobbit as a child.
Absolutely wrong. The "average person" will remember Conan as
Swarzennegger, and Tolkein as th guy who wrote about those little
elves. Conan is nat my favorite Howard character.
Howard is basically, the father of sword and sorcery. He excelled in
other areas of literature, as well. To compare him to Tolkein is
like comparing Edgar Rice Burroughs to Dr. Seuss.
>>
>
>Okay... I personally think Tolkien is the author and originator of the faith
>that is modern fantasy. I think that sometimes I'd like to blame him for
>that... because too many people decided to copy him, we come up with this
>crap that is out today. But his words move me like no other. He loved words,
>and it shows in his work. I read The Hobbit and LOR every year. Man, I wish
>people would put more out like that today. (And yes I have read Pynchon,
>David Foster Wallace and William T. Vollman, but no one seems to love words
>the way Tolkien did). On Howard. I love Howard. I collect Howard. I collect
>different versions of his work... different publications of his work that is.
>The only thing I cannot find is his Bear Creek things. Howard had fun with
>his writing. High literature? No. Good story telling? Yes. And the funny
>thing is, I'm not a huge fan of his Conan stuff. I like Kull and Solomon Kane
>better. I even like the Sword Woman series he did. He does have a lot of
>energy in his writing, and is extremely descriptive. On comparing Tolkien and
>Howard. One is Epic Fantasy and the other is Heroic Fantasy. It's like
>comparing High Fantasy and Low Fantasy. Ya can't. Two different animals.
>Heroic Fantasy deals with the heroes, while Epic Fantasy deals with the
>quest. Which one is a better writer? Tolkien. Which one is the better story
>teller? I'm not sure, but I do lean towards old John. Of course that's my
>opinion and I could be wrong.
You need to read a lot more Robert E. Howard before you make such a
ridiculous statement. Tolkien wrote a fraction of what Howard turned
out that is considered legendary in fantastic literature, and lived a
lot longer.Tolkien could never have survived in the pulps. He created
a handfull of memorable characters that lived in one confined middle
earth. Robert E. Howard created characters which spanned time and
space . You have stated that you've never seen the Bear Creek books.
These are considered primary school level material to be qualified to
offer an opinion on Howard. I have no idea how much you know about
Tolkien, but it is obvious you are not qualified to discuss Robert E.
Howard. If you care to compare credentials to qualify you and I to
discuss Robert E. Howard, I am afraid you might come up somewhat
embarrassed. And, by the way, isn't this a group devoted to Conan and
not Tolkien? You aren't even in the right forum.
Try to EXPAND your horizons. Learn more about a writer and his work
before you toss out a casual opinion.
Dennis McHaney
Editor and Publisher of
The Howard Review
The Robert E.Howard Newsletter
dmch...@earthlink.net
>
> Geez..Even the best admirers of Howard point out his flaws. Go read what
>Karl Edward Wagner of Andy Offut say of Howard's writing style..
> You can like a thing & still be critical of it, like the US form of
>government for example....
To equate opinions of Andy Offutt and Karl Wagner in the same sentence
shows that you ar not expert enough in Howard studies to really get
into this. It would take me months to teach you enough about Robert
E. Howard and the difference between a pastiching bufoon like Offutt
and genuine writing talent like Wagner for you to be qualified to
argue about it.
> I read Tolkien & Howard both and like them both. That doesn't mean I wont
>be critical of certain aspects of thier work however. If you read de Camp's
>biograhy he says much the same things I've said, as did Lin Carter and many
>other fantasy authors who while still admiring Howard, do point out his
>flaws too.
> Hope your not one of those "like it or leave it" folk....
>
>
> --Oscar Schlaf--
>
De Camp's biography is absolute bullshit hogwash, and is considered a
work of complete trash by practically every recognized Howard
authority. Lin Carter is almost unanimously considered the worst
writer in the entire field of fantasy fiction. If you are echoing de
Camp's opinions of Howard, no respected authority on Robert E. Howard
on this planet will consider your opinion to have any validity. Try
expanding YOUR horizons. Learn you facts about Howard from more
reliable sources than the overwhelmingly dis-credited work of trash by
de Camp. You can consider his earlier biography on Lovecraft equally
worthless.
McHaney
softrat
> And, by the way, isn't this a group devoted to Conan and
>not Tolkien? You aren't even in the right forum.
>
>Try to EXPAND your horizons. Learn more about a writer and his work
>before you toss out a casual opinion.
>
>Dennis McHaney
>
>Editor and Publisher of
>
>The Howard Review
>The Robert E.Howard Newsletter
McHaney, please check your address list. You are posting your drivel
to the Tolkien list as well as the fantasy amd conan lists.
the softrat
Claudia
Horned...@rocketmail.com wrote in message
<6ufqfd$jdb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
snip
>
> It isn't a question of popularity. If it were then Crappy Harlequin(sp?)
>Romance novels & Steven King would beat out Burroughs, Howard, & Tolkien.
> --Oscar Schlaf--
snip
I think it's doesn't make any sense to put S.King in the same league
like stereotype Harlequin writing. He may not be *The* Great Author,
but he's a damn good storyteller who certainly has diversity -compare
Carrie or Christine to Apt Pupil, Rita Hayworth & the Shawshank
Redemption or Dolores Claiborne. Or is it a problem he sells so well?
Have you read any- might be a chance to expand *your* horizons ;-)
Howard IMO was a writer with a brilliant fantasy, whose
world and creature creation was an immense tour-de-force
of the mind - and all of it *brand new and original*, written way
back before the creation of fantasy stereotypes!
There wasn't much depth or character development in his stories,
nor did the heroes vary much, but who cares? Shame that he
died so early, when he could have written so much more
for us to enjoy.
cheers
Claudia
Claudia
Jim Hetley wrote in message <6ug02j$d25$1...@garnet.mint.net>...
>
>Forgive me for sticking my nose into somebody else's argument, but stirring
>up trouble is so much fun.
>
>Literature, shmiterature. What ever happened to the concept of a whopping
>good read? Howard, ERB, Tolkien, Heinlein, Kipling and Hermann Hesse,
>sometimes even Faulkner and Steinbeck and Melville understood that most
>people read to be entertained. Enlightenment is just gravy.
Ehm, I think good lit is when you're being enlightened without
you noticing it, cause you're too busy being entertained.
cheers
Claudia
Adam Barnard
>
> David, this guy has not read enough Howard to be qualified to give an
> opinion. Howard is light years superior to Tolkien as a figure in
> fantastic literature. Most of the people submitting messages to this
> group are seriously under-equipped to give a relevent opinion on
> Howard because of their minimal exposure to the real body of his work.
> They are babes in the woods who need some serious re-educating.
> Should we lead them unto the path of the righteous? By the way, isn't
> this a Conan group, and not a Tolkien group? Did you know, David,
> that the average Conan fan can crush twenty average Tolkien fans by
> merely walking into the room?
>
Try reading your own message headers... You poseted to both a conan group and
a Tolkien group. To suggest that Tolkien is light years behind anyone is mere
ignorance. As many fantasy buffs will tell you that Tolkien is the father of
modern fantasy. It's seems fairly obvious to me that you've not read much
Tolkien, because other wise you would not know this. You're knowledge of
Tolkien is obviously not adequate for you to be posting in his group. I also
take it that you don't know many Tolkien fans, I'm sure if you got in an
argument with half the people in the Tolkien group they would rip you to
shreds, as a Tolkienite I would LOVE to see an argument between you and
Michael Martinez. :) Yet, don't expect me to stoop to your level of flaming,
because I'm not that type of guy. My advice though is try reading some tolkien
and until then don't cross-post to the Tolkien group because you obviously
don't know enough about him to make a relevant argument.
softrat
<bee...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
<snip>
>Try reading your own message headers... You poseted to both a conan group and
>a Tolkien group. To suggest that Tolkien is light years behind anyone is mere
>ignorance. As many fantasy buffs will tell you that Tolkien is the father of
>modern fantasy.
If they do, they're missinformed. The father of modern fantasy is
William Morris.
(Hey, buddy, wanna fight?)
the softrat
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
---
"The beatings will cease when morale improves!"
Mike Kew
>On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 14:51:26 -0500, Adam Barnard
><bee...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
><snip>
>>Try reading your own message headers... You poseted to both a conan group and
>>a Tolkien group. To suggest that Tolkien is light years behind anyone is mere
>>ignorance. As many fantasy buffs will tell you that Tolkien is the father of
>>modern fantasy.
><snip>
>If they do, they're missinformed. The father of modern fantasy is
>William Morris.
Robert Louis Stevenson. Well, mebbe not, but he's got at least as good
a claim as *that* nutter.
>(Hey, buddy, wanna fight?)
Conan vs Gandalf? Now *that* would be worth seeing...
--
Mike Kew
Cuteboy UK
dmch...@earthlink.net wrote in message
<360c9712...@news.earthlink.net>...
>Howard is basically, the father of sword and sorcery.
That's complete nonsense. You need to read a bit more.
>You need to read a lot more Robert E. Howard before you make such a
>ridiculous statement.
You need to read more.
Tolkien wrote a fraction of what Howard turned
>out that is considered legendary in fantastic literature, and lived a
>lot longer.Tolkien could never have survived in the pulps.
Of course not, neither could Nabokov or Proust. What's your point, lad?
<SNIP>. And, by the way, isn't this a group devoted to Conan and
>not Tolkien? You aren't even in the right forum.
No, the messages are cross-posted.
<SNIP spurious credentials>
Lee
Cuteboy UK
dmch...@earthlink.net wrote in message
<360c9151...@news.earthlink.net>...
>On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:15:10 GMT, Horned...@rocketmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Geez..Even the best admirers of Howard point out his flaws. Go read what
>>Karl Edward Wagner of Andy Offut say of Howard's writing style..
>> You can like a thing & still be critical of it, like the US form of
>>government for example....
>
>
>To equate opinions of Andy Offutt and Karl Wagner in the same sentence
>shows that you ar not expert enough in Howard studies
'Howard studies', that so sweet.
>De Camp's biography is absolute bullshit hogwash,
Well, there we have it. The voice of rational and considered literary
criticism.
<SNIP>
Lee
Chris McClinch
I'm an English major), I think that enlightenment is a requisite for something
to be called literature. Good literature must also be a whopping good read,
however. As such, Stephen King, for example, while he is an excellent writer
and an awful lot of fun, is hardly literature because he does not enlighten
(and I have read his entire body of work, with the exception of the novel he
has just published), whereas Umberto Eco's work is literature because it
actually carries a point along with its story.
Claudia
Chris McClinch wrote in message <6ujoj3$h4s$2...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>...
>>
>>
>>Ehm, I think good lit is when you're being enlightened without
>>you noticing it, cause you're too busy being entertained.
>>
>>
>>cheers
>>Claudia
>>
>>
>At the risk of adding some snobbishness to this discussion (what do you
expect;
>I'm an English major), I think that enlightenment is a requisite for
something
>to be called literature. Good literature must also be a whopping good
read,
>however. As such, Stephen King, for example, while he is an excellent
writer
>and an awful lot of fun, is hardly literature because he does not enlighten
>(and I have read his entire body of work, with the exception of the novel
he
>has just published), whereas Umberto Eco's work is literature because it
>actually carries a point along with its story.
You, as an English major, wouldn't be caught reading nearly the entire
production of a *pointless* author, would you?
cheers
Claudia
King versus Eco? LOL!!! Comparing pizza to French cuisine, are we? By the
way, which book would you want to read on a rainy night? Foucault's Pendulum
or Bag of Bones? Honest ;-)
David Gentzel
> > De Camp's biography pf Howard has been totally dismissed as bullshit
> > by the Howard community,
>
> Who exactly is the "Howard community". Glenn Lord, the head of the Howard
> state certainly didn't think so. Since it was him in part that wanted
> de Camp to write it.
Do you know Glenn? Have you spoken to him? Dennis has. I have.
Trust me, his opinions of de Camp are not something you would want to read
do your children...
> Say who? You? And who are you that your opinion should matter over people
> like de Camp that have been writing for over fourty years & winning countless
> awards from fans and fellow writers as well as the usual Professional awards.
How does that make his opinion of Howard relevant? Or accurate?
HwyChilde
Well David ( and others )...as I recall the question being written , it asked
which story was your personal FAVORITE. Not which story that you thought was
the best written. Not which story showed Howard at his purest form, but which
was a personal favorite. I'll also choose Conan of the Isles. The concept
of an aging Conan hellbent on one last adventure makes a tale of good telling.
When he looks at the bully he just decked in the tavern , and shakes his head
in discust saying that 10 years ago when he hit a man like that , he broke
their neck...c'mon guys...thats a Conan classic ! Yes , even if Howard didnt
write the finished product. I've been a Howard reader and collecter for nearly
30 years. I'm glad to find a forum where his writing is discussed. However ,
to compare Howard to Tolkien , and Steven King ?.......isnt that a far stretch
?
jhe...@my-dejanews.com
"Claudia" <nospamp...@otenet.gr> wrote:
<deletions>
> Ehm, I think good lit is when you're being enlightened without
> you noticing it, cause you're too busy being entertained.
>
> cheers
> Claudia
Got to kick this can, keep it moving. Literature is what the literati say it
is. One of the things I've noticed, over a long and misspent life, is that
an awful lot of the stuff we have foisted off on us and called "Literature"
is good only for building character (in the sense that adversity builds
character.)
How many people do you know who read Tolstoy, or James Joyce, or Proust, for
entertainment? How many do you know who read them for enlightenment? Most of
the few who read them voluntarily, do so because they are told that this is
"Literature."
Shakespeare, on the other hand, is both entertaining and enlightening, because
he had to keep the peasants in the pit from throwing old vegetables at the
actors. He made money in the process.
I'm inclined to apply Sturgeon's Law to this, and say that 95% of "Literature"
is crap.
Jim
"Revolution is always justified. Whether or not it succeeds depends on how
strong that justification may be."
David Gentzel
> When he looks at the bully he just decked in the tavern, and shakes his head
> in discust saying that 10 years ago when he hit a man like that, he broke
> their neck...c'mon guys...thats a Conan classic !
Sigh... as Gary Larsen would say, "Same planet, different worlds."
It may be a good tale. I don't think so, but that's pure opinion and to
each his own. But it sure ain't Conan! Did you know that much of the
Carter/de Camp "Conan" tales were unpublished Thongor tales which Carter
reworked? It shows.
Horned...@rocketmail.com
"Claudia" <nospamp...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
> Horned...@rocketmail.com wrote in message
> <6ufqfd$jdb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> snip
> >
> > It isn't a question of popularity. If it were then Crappy Harlequin(sp?)
> >Romance novels & Steven King would beat out Burroughs, Howard, & Tolkien.
>
> > --Oscar Schlaf--
>
> snip
>
> I think it's doesn't make any sense to put S.King in the same league
> like stereotype Harlequin writing. He may not be *The* Great Author,
> but he's a damn good storyteller who certainly has diversity -compare
> Carrie or Christine to Apt Pupil, Rita Hayworth & the Shawshank
> Redemption or Dolores Claiborne. Or is it a problem he sells so well?
> Have you read any- might be a chance to expand *your* horizons ;-)
I mainly added him name because his name was in the subject line of the
thread. Yes I have read some of his work. And perhaps he has much in common
with Howard in that he tells a good story and often deals with super-natural
themes, which many, including myself, enjoy. That said however, he does have
the same problem of Howard, of getting somewhat formulatic and having so
unlikly events that it's silly(yes I know it's fiction & horror/fantasy but
suspension of disbelief only goes so far. :)
> Howard IMO was a writer with a brilliant fantasy, whose
> world and creature creation was an immense tour-de-force
> of the mind - and all of it *brand new and original*, written way
> back before the creation of fantasy stereotypes!
But Howard ends up stereo-typing himself by making a slew of characters
virtually indentical to his previous ones. Tall, Dark-Mained, Barbaric of
Irish background. Which is Kull, Conan, Cormac mac Art, Vulmea, Turlogh
O'Brien Esau Cairn, Cormac Fitzgeoffry, Brenckinridge Elkins, ect. ect.
> There wasn't much depth or character development in his stories,
> nor did the heroes vary much, but who cares?
Well if he did have more depth or character develeopment, it would have
made a great writer, even better. :)
---Oscar Schlaf---
Cuteboy UK
jhe...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6ukapc$fvi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>How many people do you know who read Tolstoy, or James Joyce, or Proust,
for
>entertainment?
Me, particularly Joyce, he's one of the funniest writers that I know.
How many do you know who read them for enlightenment? Most of
>the few who read them voluntarily, do so because they are told that this is
>"Literature."
>
>Shakespeare, on the other hand, is both entertaining and enlightening,
because
>he had to keep the peasants in the pit from throwing old vegetables at the
>actors.
This is not true, but I agree with your point.
>
>I'm inclined to apply Sturgeon's Law to this, and say that 95% of
"Literature"
>is crap.
Have you read Larkin's poem on a similar theme?
Lee
Cuteboy UK
softrat wrote in message <36134c26...@news.supernews.com>...
>On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 14:51:26 -0500, Adam Barnard
><bee...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
><snip>
>>Try reading your own message headers... You poseted to both a conan group
and
>>a Tolkien group. To suggest that Tolkien is light years behind anyone is
mere
>>ignorance. As many fantasy buffs will tell you that Tolkien is the father
of
>>modern fantasy.
><snip>
>If they do, they're missinformed. The father of modern fantasy is
>William Morris.
Well, Morris is a wonderful writer and had a major influence on Tolkien, but
I think that it is an exaggeration to say that he is the father of modern
fantasy.
Lee
Cuteboy UK
Adam Barnard wrote in message <360D45BE...@mail.utexas.edu>...
>dmch...@earthlink.net wrote:
>Try reading your own message headers... You poseted to both a conan group
and
>a Tolkien group. To suggest that Tolkien is light years behind anyone is
mere
>ignorance. As many fantasy buffs will tell you that Tolkien is the father
of
>Tolkien, because other wise you would not know this. You're knowledge of
>Tolkien is obviously not adequate for you to be posting in his group. I
also
>take it that you don't know many Tolkien fans, I'm sure if you got in an
>argument with half the people in the Tolkien group they would rip you to
>shreds, as a Tolkienite I would LOVE to see an argument between you and
>Michael Martinez. :) Yet, don't expect me to stoop to your level of
flaming,
>because I'm not that type of guy. My advice though is try reading some
tolkien
>and until then don't cross-post to the Tolkien group because you obviously
>don't know enough about him to make a relevant argument.
I'm glad that we can agree about something, Adam!!
Lee
LARSKVAL
OK, I'm goint to take a deep breath and weigh in with a Humble Opinion of my
own.
In reference to Howard and Tolkien, I think it's pointless to talk about what
an author might have accomplished if he'd lived. Writers of great talent who
die before they achieve their potential remain minor writers. Tough cookies,
but that's the way it is. Especially, as in the case of Howard, when they check
out voluntarily. Prof. Tolkien had the stamina (or the faith) to slog along in
this "vale of tears" long enough to produce a masterpiece. Howard didn't, so he
never crossed the finish line and never got his t-shirt.
I love Howard's stuff, but it's not in Tolkien's league. The fact that we're
still fascinated with, and delighted by, the body of work he did leave behind
shows what great things he might have done.
Lars Walker
Chris McClinch
>
>
>Chris McClinch wrote in message <6ujoj3$h4s$2...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>...
>>In article <6ujea6$8id$6...@ns1.otenet.gr>, nospamp...@otenet.gr says...
>
>>>
>>>
>>>you noticing it, cause you're too busy being entertained.
>>>
>>>
>>>cheers
>>>Claudia
>>>
>>>
>expect;
>>I'm an English major), I think that enlightenment is a requisite for
>something
>>to be called literature. Good literature must also be a whopping good
>read,
>>however. As such, Stephen King, for example, while he is an excellent
>writer
>>and an awful lot of fun, is hardly literature because he does not enlighten
>>(and I have read his entire body of work, with the exception of the novel
>he
>>has just published), whereas Umberto Eco's work is literature because it
>>actually carries a point along with its story.
>
>
>You, as an English major, wouldn't be caught reading nearly the entire
>production of a *pointless* author, would you?
>
>cheers
>Claudia
>King versus Eco? LOL!!! Comparing pizza to French cuisine, are we? By the
>way, which book would you want to read on a rainy night? Foucault's Pendulum
>or Bag of Bones? Honest ;-)
>
>
hands down. Eco's only great book was The Name of the Rose, anyway. After
that, he got into obscurity over plot and structure. 90% of the stuff I read
for my own personal enjoyment is not literature, and I freely admit it. I just
get peeved when people try to turn writers who were never intended to be
literary into undying lit. King is a hell of a lot of fun, but he's
mass-market and should be appreciated as such.
Wayne Borean
>
>>> You're not a big Tolkien fan are you?? I'm sorry, but Conan in no
>>> way compares to Tolkien. If you mention the name Conan to the average
>>> person, they'll think it was a pathetic tale, while when mention
>>> Tolkien, they'll tell you the fnd mempories they had of reading The
>>> hobbit as a child.
>
>Absolutely wrong. The "average person" will remember Conan as
>Swarzennegger, and Tolkein as th guy who wrote about those little
>elves. Conan is nat my favorite Howard character.
Ah, falme wars. You've got to love them.
While the average geek may think of Arnold as Conan, that's their
problem. It's also Arnold.s problem however, and one he'll never live
down. It's too bad that he didn't then have the muscle with the
studios that he has now. You may or may not like Arnold, but the man
has high standards, and the Conan movies were far below what he would
have liked.
As to Tolkien/Wagner/Howard/Dunsany etc., there have been a lot of
great fantasy writers. I'm the one who made the original comparison of
Howard with Tolkien, which was a mistake.
What I was talking about was personal preferrance. All of the above
authors (along with C. L. Moore, Hodgson, Zelazney and many others)
have extended the borders of fantasy.
Even some of the poorer writers have done good things.
And then there's the hacks. Take John Jakes for example. PLEASE take
him. Or Lin Carter.
>Howard is basically, the father of sword and sorcery. He excelled in
>other areas of literature, as well. To compare him to Tolkein is
>like comparing Edgar Rice Burroughs to Dr. Seuss.
I suspect that Chambers might argue with you here, as would William of
Malmsbury (LMorte D'Arthur).
>>Okay... I personally think Tolkien is the author and originator of the faith
>>that is modern fantasy. I think that sometimes I'd like to blame him for
>>that... because too many people decided to copy him, we come up with this
>>crap that is out today.
It's like trying to assign the blame for inventing the personal
computer. It's impossible... Too many people where involved.
>>But his words move me like no other. He loved words,
>>and it shows in his work. I read The Hobbit and LOR every year.
So do I. Have you tried Elizabeth Moon?
>>Man, I wish
>>people would put more out like that today. (And yes I have read Pynchon,
>>David Foster Wallace and William T. Vollman, but no one seems to love words
>>the way Tolkien did).
Word Processor ittus. It used to be work to write, and revise.
Computers are great things, but the quality of writing isn't what it
used to be in the pre-word processor days.
>> On Howard. I love Howard. I collect Howard. I collect
>>different versions of his work... different publications of his work that is.
>>The only thing I cannot find is his Bear Creek things. Howard had fun with
>>his writing. High literature? No. Good story telling? Yes. And the funny
>>thing is, I'm not a huge fan of his Conan stuff. I like Kull and Solomon Kane
>>better. I even like the Sword Woman series he did. He does have a lot of
>>energy in his writing, and is extremely descriptive. On comparing Tolkien and
>>Howard. One is Epic Fantasy and the other is Heroic Fantasy. It's like
>>comparing High Fantasy and Low Fantasy. Ya can't. Two different animals.
>>Heroic Fantasy deals with the heroes, while Epic Fantasy deals with the
>>quest. Which one is a better writer? Tolkien. Which one is the better story
>>teller? I'm not sure, but I do lean towards old John. Of course that's my
>>opinion and I could be wrong.
Since to me high fantasy/low hantasy/epic fantasy/herioc fantasy are
all the same thing...
I really hate attempts to "genre" a field. Self limiting, and to my
mind, a waste of time.
Each of those authors have their own style, and prefer telling stories
different ways. Slight modifications to things (Take Conan, introduce
Juma eariler, publish all the stories in one huge volume with Juma
becoming King Conan's chief General, and Howard is now Epic Fantasy.
Or remove the younger hobbits and make the bigger folk from Lord of
the Rings mere travelling companions and it becomes herioc fantasy. In
both cases the changes wouldn't be that major).
So yes, you can compare them, but it's a mugs game. I really shouldn't
have made the Howard/Tolkien comparison, it's a red herring.
Wayne
ben
committed suicide. And yes, for someone like you (you've just published
with Baen, right? I'm remembering an earlier thread), it does make one
resentful to see a guy like Howard, who had apparently all the talent
anybody needed, to off himself.
But I find it difficult to be hard on the guy. Suicide is a complicated
thing, and I am in no place to judge what the burden of circumstance
that Howard might have shrugged off unless I carried it myself.
> In reference to Howard and Tolkien, I think it's pointless to talk
> about what
> an author might have accomplished if he'd lived. Writers of great
> talent who
> die before they achieve their potential remain minor writers. Tough
> cookies,
> but that's the way it is. Especially, as in the case of Howard, when
> they check
> out voluntarily.
Partially, you are right. Dead is dead. But I doubt seriously that
Howard is a "minor" writer. C'mon. Don't you hope your sales are a tenth
of what he's gotten, even though he's DEAD? I don't want to be unfair to
you, either. These are different times and selling is different. But I
hope I'm someday lucky enough to evoke an archtype of the stature of
Conan, or for that matter, even pull off a nice Kane or Kull. (all those
hard K sounds. Hmmm.)
> Prof. Tolkien had the stamina (or the faith) to slog along in
> this "vale of tears" long enough to produce a masterpiece. Howard
> didn't, so he
> never crossed the finish line and never got his t-shirt.
I'd say Howard did get is T-Shirt, but it wasn't enough to keep him
going. As for Tolkien, you are right, although he only wrote one story,
AGAIN and AGAIN, and AGAIN. It seems to me that The Hobbit was the seed
that grew into Lord of the Rings. Silmarillion was a lot of boring
backstory, to me. Didn't it take him a couple of decades to produce LOR?
If Howard had spent that much time on Conan, it might have read like
Hamlet. Or not. Perhaps Conan was the kind of work that could only be
rung out on the fast pulp fiction forge.
In any case, as far as modern SF/Fantasy is concerned for me, Tolkien's
work is the shining city on the hill, but the path was blazed there to a
great degree by Howard. And a few other very good ones.
> I love Howard's stuff, but it's not in Tolkien's league. The fact that
> we're
> still fascinated with, and delighted by, the body of work he did leave
> behind
> shows what great things he might have done.
I thought you said thinking that way is pointless. Maybe not, huh? ; )
Ben
Claudia
Horned...@rocketmail.com wrote in message
<6ul23t$7at$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> I mainly added him name because his name was in the subject line of the
>thread. Yes I have read some of his work. And perhaps he has much in common
>with Howard in that he tells a good story and often deals with
super-natural
>themes, which many, including myself, enjoy. That said however, he does
have
>the same problem of Howard, of getting somewhat formulatic and having so
>unlikly events that it's silly(yes I know it's fiction & horror/fantasy but
>suspension of disbelief only goes so far. :)
Well, a fantasy fan certainly shouldn't object to unlikely events-
in fact, it would make things difficult for *any* author. But how
about the *great* works of literature: Homers epics, Shakespeares
use of the supernatural or Goethe's Faust, just to name a few?
As for getting formulaic, it's true that Kings "constant reader"
knows what to expect from a new King book: entertainment.
But there is the occasional unexpected Jack-in-the-Box, and
quite often his subject and insight are surprising. Despite
being an incredibly prolific writer, the old fox still has a few
tricks up his sleeve.
Let me add that my fav King stories are those which have
nothing supernatural to them- also the scariest of all
IMHO.
>> Howard IMO was a writer with a brilliant fantasy, whose
>> world and creature creation was an immense tour-de-force
>> of the mind - and all of it *brand new and original*, written way
>> back before the creation of fantasy stereotypes!
>
> But Howard ends up stereo-typing himself by making a slew of characters
>virtually indentical to his previous ones. Tall, Dark-Mained, Barbaric of
>Irish background. Which is Kull, Conan, Cormac mac Art, Vulmea, Turlogh
>O'Brien Esau Cairn, Cormac Fitzgeoffry, Brenckinridge Elkins, ect. ect.
>
>> There wasn't much depth or character development in his stories,
>> nor did the heroes vary much, but who cares?
>
> Well if he did have more depth or character develeopment, it would have
>made a great writer, even better. :)
>
Very true. I'm still waiting for Kings' masterpiece too ;-)
cheers
Claudia
I apologise for not taking this OT post from the Tolkien ng,
but I didn't know which ng you were posting from.
William Galen Gray
The reason people might not get the correct picture of Conan isn't Howard's
fault, it's the fault of pastiche (and this from a would-be
pastiche-writer!). Too many people are familiar with the awful "Conan The
Destroyer", and all the Tor books that have serialized the character with
what, at times, seem like your typical television plot fall-backs (example:
Steve Perry using the old "travelling circus" formula for Conan to fall
into).
Outside of the movies, nobody ever made a cartoon or long-running pastiche
series of Tolkien's works. Howard's Conan was interesting and popular enough
that it found an audience, even when the pastiche sucked rotten eggs.
And, not to offend anyone overmuch, but "The Silmarillion" has got to be one
of the most boring, pointless reads in fantasy literature.
--Will
x
tried to create a sort of "folklore" or "mythology" that would fit England.
By calling that fantasy, you say he failed. Is that your intention?
LARSKVAL
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
In saying it's pointless to compare the two, I meant in the sense of trying to
compare books which exist to books we can only imagine. I certainly feel sorry
for anyone who sinks deep enough into despair to end his life, but I still
feel, unless he's actually insane, he is responsible for the consequences. One
consequence is the pain caused to friends and family. Another is the waste of
human potential -- a crime against the Universe, if you will.
As for my own writing, I know what I am. I'm a minor writer, and will remain so
until a) I produce great work, or b) I die. And if I should ever choose to put
my head in an oven, you will be justified in criticizing me for it.
Lars Walker
x
Does that sound like a Conan-group??
By the way: posting a message in a TOLKIEN group claiming that Howard is
that extremely superior to The Great One is rather stupid. I should believe
most people at this group are Tolkien fans. And your "I'm right and thus
no-one else are allowed an oppinion" attitude is rude and makes your
arguments stand to an even lesser degree.
And your argument that "A Conan fan could crush 20 Tolkien fans by walking
into the room?" is rather childish. This is a Tolkien chat room, not a
Conan-Kindergarten.
By the way; My favourite writer's fans are VASTLY superiour to your
favourite writers fans!!!
Blufftown, your last name suits your intelect!!
(By the way, I know Conan was portrayed intelligent in the books, that's
not what I ment)
LARSKVAL
Well, a fantasy fan certainly shouldn't object to unlikely events-
in fact, it would make things difficult for *any* author. But how
about the *great* works of literature: Homers epics, Shakespeares
use of the supernatural or Goethe's Faust, just to name a few?
Very good point. I wish I could educate the literati to understand that Fantasy
is the original great literary form. Throughout the hundreds of thousand years
of human civilization, most of the greatest works have been fantasy. Homer,
Virgil, Mallory, de Troyes, von Eschenbach, Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, Bunyan
(I'm just listing off the top of my head, I'm sure I've missed plenty) -- they
all wrote fantasy. Only since the Enlightenment has fantasy been relegated to
the children's room, like an article of worn-out furniture.
Lars Walker
Adam Barnard
>
> And, not to offend anyone overmuch, but "The Silmarillion" has got to be one
> of the most boring, pointless reads in fantasy literature.
>
No offense taken, and don't take offense when I say I disagree wholeheartedly.
I consider The Silmarillion to be one of the most beautiful fantasy books ever
written. It is BY FAR my favorite of the Tolkien works, and I consider it
light-years beyond any other fantasy I've read, especially when you consider the
amount of wokr that went into making the book. And the fact that the published
version wans't even technically complete. I would have loved to see what
Tolkien would have done with it, especially if he had put a more narrative than
historical spin on as was originally intended.
dmch...@earthlink.net
>
>Try reading your own message headers... You poseted to both a conan group and
>a Tolkien group. To suggest that Tolkien is light years behind anyone is mere
>ignorance. As many fantasy buffs will tell you that Tolkien is the father of
>modern fantasy. It's seems fairly obvious to me that you've not read much
>Tolkien, because other wise you would not know this. You're knowledge of
>Tolkien is obviously not adequate for you to be posting in his group. I also
>take it that you don't know many Tolkien fans, I'm sure if you got in an
>argument with half the people in the Tolkien group they would rip you to
>shreds, as a Tolkienite I would LOVE to see an argument between you and
>Michael Martinez. :) Yet, don't expect me to stoop to your level of flaming,
>because I'm not that type of guy. My advice though is try reading some tolkien
>and until then don't cross-post to the Tolkien group because you obviously
>don't know enough about him to make a relevant argument.
>
>
If I had known I was posting to both groups I probably wouldn't have
even gotten involved. I'm not used to having to worry about such
things, so frankly, I didn't pay attention. Sorry I intruded on
Tolkein fandom, and I am only making this one last statement to clear
up a couple of points. First, you can't mix up two groups of fandom
and start a comparison and have any kind of logical conclusions. Both
sides think they are right, and it is doubtful that any arguements
will convince them oherwise. By not paying attention, it looked to me
like a bunch of people in the Conan news group were attacking Howard
as a writer. Again, I have had no experience with cross/group posting
- I don't spend a great deal of time here. I wasn't really trying to
"FLAME" anyone as much as I was trying to defend Howard. By the way,
someone was trying to state the opinions of Glenn Lord and L. Sprague
de Camp earlier. I have to say I don't think they fully know what
they were talking about. I have known both Glenn and de Camp for over
25 years. I believe either of them would be willing to vouch fo my
qualifications to discuss Robert E. Howard on any level. I personally
vouch for my inability to debate Tolkein. I read the Hobbit and Lord
of the Rings over 30 years ago, when they first appeared in paperback.
A virtual landslide of fantasy came out in that decade - a real
renaiisance, and although Tolkein was near the top of the heap, there
were many other fine writers I remember more fondly...
I might also so to share the knowledge with you that many, many people
have been trying to tear me to shreds for decades. I am still here,
but many of them are not. And Michael and I get along just fine,
Thank you. I have never had problems with anyone being a fan of
Tolkein or anyone else. I live in Memphis, TN, where the absolute
ultimate extreme case of fan over-worship occurs, and it is not a
pretty sight. Compared to the gibbering idiots that gather in Memphis
in the unbearable August heat, no one on the Conan or Tolkein group
seems extreme. Good luck to you Tolkein fans, and may Crom ignore
you.
McHaney
Dumnorix
start a flame war. Say something bad about Tolkien or Howard, then post it in
all these groups and spur on the argument. Everybody try this: Ignore Thread.
At least don't start throwing the insults around, that will only make the
Trollers happy.
HwyChilde
Aw c'mon guys....lighten up ! Cease with all this talk of " flaming ". This
is just healthy debate. I'm sure if either Howard or Tolkien were here to read
,neither of them would be offended. Should their fans be any less secure ?
Both left us a lasting legacy which seems to be showing no sign of waning
anytme soon. I can remember back as a boy when Marvel started producing the
Conan series comic . Years later , the first Conan movie hit the big screen.
Today we have ( albeit far from as many of us would have it ) a Conan series on
tv. Now the stories which I so treasured as a teen are discussed globably on
something called a wordlwide web...Crom and Mitra ! I pause to wonder what
the next 30 years might bring.........Conan and Bilbo have proven thus far to
be imortal. What finer tribute to two great authors could be imagined ?
ben
kicking butt with each other over these words and works. Look at how
much all these people really care about what these guys wrote. That's
the point of the whole business of writing, and of Conan. And Frodo.
Graham Lockwood
Mike Kew wrote in message <5SX7eTAC...@kew1.demon.co.uk>...
>On Sat, 26 Sep 1998, softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote
>>(Hey, buddy, wanna fight?)
>
>Conan vs Gandalf? Now *that* would be worth seeing...
One sided fights are usually boring and I'd hate to see Conan get his butt
wupped by an old man. :-o
||// // - ------===**O**===------- - || //
|// // Graham Lockwood ||//
(/ // gsl...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu |//
||// (/)
|// Quantum Mechanics //|
(/ The dreams stuff is made of //||
|| - -------====**O**====------- - // ||
Cuteboy UK
x wrote in message <01bdea42$d3851fa0$5b504382@akvbynsy>...
>This is ALT.FAN.TOLKIEN!!!!!!
>
>Does that sound like a Conan-group??
>
>By the way: posting a message in a TOLKIEN group claiming that Howard is
>that extremely superior to The Great One is rather stupid. I should believe
>most people at this group are Tolkien fans. And your "I'm right and thus
>no-one else are allowed an oppinion" attitude is rude and makes your
>arguments stand to an even lesser degree.
>And your argument that "A Conan fan could crush 20 Tolkien fans by walking
>into the room?" is rather childish. This is a Tolkien chat room, not a
>Conan-Kindergarten.
>
>By the way; My favourite writer's fans are VASTLY superiour to your
>favourite writers fans!!!
>
>Blufftown, your last name suits your intelect!!
>
>(By the way, I know Conan was portrayed intelligent in the books, that's
>not what I ment)
Who on earth are you responding to?
Lee
>
MN1st
Horned...@rocketmail.com wrote
>In article <360c93da...@news.earthlink.net>,
> dmch...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> If you are echoing de Camp's opinion's you will possibly never be
>> capable of grasping an understanding of REH. Lin Carter is considered
>> the worst writer of fantasy in history. Quoting opinions by or
>> agreeing with Lin Carter or L. Sprague de Camp is the heigth of
>> ignorance in Robert E. Howard studies.
> Say who? You? And who are you that your opinion should matter over people
>like de Camp that have been writing for over fourty years & winning countless
>awards from fans and fellow writers as well as the usual Professional awards.
You have to admit he's right about Lin Carter, though. He was pretty much a
hack. Though I do like his Jandar of Callisto series. He wasn't in Howard's
league, by any means. I haven't read any negative criticism off Dark Valley
Destiny. Who are these experts who are discrediting it? What are their
credentials? I will admit I thought he over-played the mother fixiation thing,
but all in all it seemed like a balanced biography.
MN1st
lee.w...@easynet.spam.co.uk wrote
>het...@my-dejanews.com wrote
>>I'm inclined to apply Sturgeon's Law to this, and say that 95% of
>"Literature"
>>is crap.
>Have you read Larkin's poem on a similar theme?
one.
MN1st
lon...@online.no wrote
>This is ALT.FAN.TOLKIEN!!!!!!
>
>Does that sound like a Conan-group??
personally perfer Howard to Tolkien, but that doesn't necessarily mean Tolkien
is a mug and anyone who likes him is a sap. That's childish.
dmch...@earthlink.net
>This is ALT.FAN.TOLKIEN!!!!!!
>
>Does that sound like a Conan-group??
>
>By the way: posting a message in a TOLKIEN group claiming that Howard is
>that extremely superior to The Great One is rather stupid. I should believe
>most people at this group are Tolkien fans. And your "I'm right and thus
>no-one else are allowed an oppinion" attitude is rude and makes your
>arguments stand to an even lesser degree.
>And your argument that "A Conan fan could crush 20 Tolkien fans by walking
>into the room?" is rather childish. This is a Tolkien chat room, not a
>Conan-Kindergarten.
I never said the above. You have mis-read a post somewhere.
>
>By the way; My favourite writer's fans are VASTLY superiour to your
>favourite writers fans!!!
This is silly and childish.
Horned...@rocketmail.com
David Gentzel <gen...@wssnet.com> wrote:
> Horned...@rocketmail.com writes:
> > > De Camp's biography pf Howard has been totally dismissed as bullshit
> > > by the Howard community,
> >
> > Who exactly is the "Howard community". Glenn Lord, the head of the Howard
> > state certainly didn't think so. Since it was him in part that wanted
> > de Camp to write it.
>
> Do you know Glenn? Have you spoken to him? Dennis has. I have.
> Trust me, his opinions of de Camp are not something you would want to read
> do your children...
If Glenn Lord detests de Camp so, then why did he continue to use him to
edit Howard works? Including the script for the first movie? After all I
would think the least Lord & the Howard estate would do, would be to
tell De Larentis(sp?) to comission someone else to write the screenplay, other
then de Camp.
> > Say who? You? And who are you that your opinion should matter over people
> > like de Camp that have been writing for over fourty years & winning
countless
> > awards from fans and fellow writers as well as the usual Professional
awards.
>
> How does that make his opinion of Howard relevant? Or accurate?
That he's been a sucessful writer in fantasy and elsewhere for so long & won
some awards by it means he knows something of writing. Also that's he's
edited(admitly not always in the best way) more Howard then any other, means
he's quiet familar with Howard. I don't take everything he says about Howard
as if it were the word of God, but I don't think his all his views should
just be dismissed outright.
Horned...@rocketmail.com
ben <drf...@raex.com> wrote:
> > In reference to Howard and Tolkien, I think it's pointless to talk
> > about what
> > an author might have accomplished if he'd lived. Writers of great
> > talent who
> > die before they achieve their potential remain minor writers. Tough
> > cookies,
> > but that's the way it is. Especially, as in the case of Howard, when
> > they check
> > out voluntarily.
>
> Partially, you are right. Dead is dead. But I doubt seriously that
> Howard is a "minor" writer. C'mon. Don't you hope your sales are a tenth
> of what he's gotten, even though he's DEAD?
But if Howard didn't die when he did, would a 10th of his works that have
been published every actually been published, least during his life time?
It's the perhaps tradgic syndrome of artists being only truly famous when
they are dead. Also if his potshumously published Conan stories hadn't been
so commerically sucessful, I doubt much of his other works would have again
seen the light of day.
I don't want to be unfair to
> you, either. These are different times and selling is different. But I
> hope I'm someday lucky enough to evoke an archtype of the stature of
> Conan, or for that matter, even pull off a nice Kane or Kull. (all those
> hard K sounds. Hmmm.)
Given the ever increasing amount of works that are published(and in various
mediums now), it becomes increasingly difficult to come up with something
that isn't labeled merely a copy of something else. "Bad copy of Conan, or
Tolien or Elric" is a phrase I've heard often. :)
> > Prof. Tolkien had the stamina (or the faith) to slog along in
> > this "vale of tears" long enough to produce a masterpiece. Howard
> > didn't, so he
> > never crossed the finish line and never got his t-shirt.
>
> I'd say Howard did get is T-Shirt, but it wasn't enough to keep him
> going.
> As for Tolkien, you are right, although he only wrote one story,
> AGAIN and AGAIN, and AGAIN. It seems to me that The Hobbit was the seed
> that grew into Lord of the Rings.
>Silmarillion was a lot of boring
> backstory, to me.
It was published after his death & many suggest he never meant it for
publication, least in that form. Being a Howard fan, I'm sure your aware
of the quality & style questions of half-finished works, finished by
others....
>Didn't it take him a couple of decades to produce LOR?
Well he published "The Hobbit" in 1936, Tolkien was a bit busy between
'39-'45, and then LOR came out in '54 -'55. So yes it took him awhile. He
had a few other tales also published and was also an English Professor at the
time.
> If Howard had spent that much time on Conan, it might have read like
> Hamlet. Or not. Perhaps Conan was the kind of work that could only be
> rung out on the fast pulp fiction forge.
Well one also has to consider chance. If Howard had been born in the UK to
middle class parents, and went to Oxford, I'm sure he would have turned out
differant.
And if Tolkein had been born & raised in a small Texan town, I'm sure his
writing would be differant too.
Evironment helps make the man(& woman).
> In any case, as far as modern SF/Fantasy is concerned for me, Tolkien's
> work is the shining city on the hill, but the path was blazed there to a
> great degree by Howard. And a few other very good ones.
I would say modern Fantasy owe more to Tolkien, well actually his fans, since
it was in part the sucess of his books that started fantasy off again that led
to the paperback explosion in the 1960s that included much of Howard's works,
that most people hadn't ever read or even heard of.
And the likes of Moorcock & Weis & Hickman would be writing Science Fiction
& Horror , and who knows what Gygax would be doing if Tolkein hadn't come
along. :)
---Oscar Schlaf----
Claudia
jhe...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6ukapc$fvi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6ujea6$8id$6...@ns1.otenet.gr>,
>Got to kick this can, keep it moving. Literature is what the literati say
it
>is. One of the things I've noticed, over a long and misspent life, is that
>an awful lot of the stuff we have foisted off on us and called "Literature"
>is good only for building character (in the sense that adversity builds
>character.)
ROTFLOL!
>How many people do you know who read Tolstoy, or James Joyce, or Proust,
for
>entertainment? How many do you know who read them for enlightenment? Most
of
>the few who read them voluntarily, do so because they are told that this is
>"Literature."
>
>Shakespeare, on the other hand, is both entertaining and enlightening,
because
>he had to keep the peasants in the pit from throwing old vegetables at the
>actors. He made money in the process.
>
>I'm inclined to apply Sturgeon's Law to this, and say that 95% of
"Literature"
>is crap.
>
>
>Jim
95%- isn't that too harsh?
I'm willing to give nearly every book a chance. I have found only
few books of those called "true" lit to be um...crap until now.
Most of the times, there's a good reason they are considered classics .
OK, Proust, for example, was a really bad reading experience -
Just couldn't get into it - and I don't think I'm going to try again
sometime soon. Often I too am inclined to believe the critics'
top 10s often contain books that have the valuable gifts of
incomprehensibility and boringness - sometimes it's either you
believe *that*, or you admit you're an idiot for not getting "it".
(And no cheap fun making here, please ;-))
Not that I'm not going to attempt "Ulysses", mind you. My positive
book reading experiences far outweigh my negative ones up to now,
and I like to have a personal opinion when trashing a book :-)
cheers
Claudia
Jim Hetley
Claudia wrote in message <6unjf2$8n7$1...@ns1.otenet.gr>...
>ROTFLOL!
>
>cheers
>Claudia
>
Claudia, love, I'm not ashamed to bare my ignorance before the world (or the
deviant subset of the population you find in these news groups.)
What the _hell_ does "ROTFLOL!" mean?
Jim
David Gentzel
> If Glenn Lord detests de Camp so, then why did he continue to use him to
> edit Howard works? Including the script for the first movie? After all I
> would think the least Lord & the Howard estate would do, would be to
> tell De Larentis(sp?) to comission someone else to write the screenplay,
> other then de Camp.
Glenn never "used" de Camp to edit Howard works! You really have no idea what
you are talking about! And the de Camp involement in the Conan film was due
to copyright issues and lawsuits that ultimately led to the formation of
Conan Properties, Inc. Please stop guessing and get some facts before you
spread any more of this garbage.
> That he's been a sucessful writer in fantasy and elsewhere for so long & won
> some awards by it means he knows something of writing. Also that's he's
> edited(admitly not always in the best way) more Howard then any other, means
> he's quiet familar with Howard. I don't take everything he says about Howard
> as if it were the word of God, but I don't think his all his views should
> just be dismissed outright.
Just because someone is a competent writer doesn't make him a good biographer.
I have some respect for his analysis of Howard's writing (even though I often
disagree with him). But being a good writer in no way qualifies him to be a
good biographer. And he is not. Let's see, de Camp has written two major
biographies, Lovecraft and Howard, plus his autobiography.
Lovecraft: Detested and debunked by Lovecraft scholars. Long live Mosig!
Ultimately supplanted by Joshi's work.
Howard: Detested and debunked by Howard scholars. Not yet supplanted,
although there is a new one in the works.
de Camp: Ever read his autobiography? He contradicts prior statements
he wrote about himself! Will never be supplanted because no
one cares.
Yep. That's some track record!
--
David Gentzel
gen...@pobox.com
http://pobox.com/~gentzel/
Claudia
Chris McClinch wrote in message <6ulht5$dj3$3...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>...
>Never said King was pointless, just not literature. I would pick Bag of
Bones,
>hands down. Eco's only great book was The Name of the Rose, anyway. After
>that, he got into obscurity over plot and structure. 90% of the stuff I
read
>for my own personal enjoyment is not literature, and I freely admit it. I
just
>get peeved when people try to turn writers who were never intended to be
>literary into undying lit. King is a hell of a lot of fun, but he's
>mass-market and should be appreciated as such.
OK, let's wait forty or fifty years. If we're lucky, we'll see who
survives as literature from the pulp ;-)
cheers
Claudia
Claudia
Jim Hetley wrote in message <6unthd$e42$1...@garnet.mint.net>...
"Rolling On The Floor Laughing Out Loud" of course.
Claudia :-)
Cuteboy UK
Claudia wrote in message <6unjf2$8n7$1...@ns1.otenet.gr>...
>OK, Proust, for example, was a really bad reading experience -
Do try it again when you're older (I don't mean that to be rude!)
Remembrance of Things Past is really a very wonderful work, but it can take
some people a lot of living before they appreciate what Proust is
describing!
>Not that I'm not going to attempt "Ulysses", mind you. My positive
>book reading experiences far outweigh my negative ones up to now,
>and I like to have a personal opinion when trashing a book :-)
Oh, but do try Joyce. Start with Portrait if you don't know that. I still
maintain that 'Ulysses' is one of the funniest reads of the twentieth
century.
Lee
Wayne Borean
>In article <m3af3mx...@collins.wssnet.com>,
> David Gentzel <gen...@wssnet.com> wrote:
>> Horned...@rocketmail.com writes:
>> > > De Camp's biography pf Howard has been totally dismissed as bullshit
>> > > by the Howard community,
>> >
>> > Who exactly is the "Howard community". Glenn Lord, the head of the Howard
>> > state certainly didn't think so. Since it was him in part that wanted
>> > de Camp to write it.
>>
>> Do you know Glenn? Have you spoken to him? Dennis has. I have.
>> Trust me, his opinions of de Camp are not something you would want to read
>> do your children...
>
> If Glenn Lord detests de Camp so, then why did he continue to use him to
>edit Howard works? Including the script for the first movie? After all I
>would think the least Lord & the Howard estate would do, would be to
>tell De Larentis(sp?) to comission someone else to write the screenplay, other
>then de Camp.
I suspect that the Howard estate didn't have the muscle to get a
"control" deal from De Larentis.
Proof is that De Larentis got the property. Let's face it, the guy's
hopeless,
However Hollywood have never been about quality, it's about money.
Wayne
Wayne Borean
>This is ALT.FAN.TOLKIEN!!!!!!
>
>Does that sound like a Conan-group??
>
>By the way: posting a message in a TOLKIEN group claiming that Howard is
>that extremely superior to The Great One is rather stupid. I should believe
>most people at this group are Tolkien fans. And your "I'm right and thus
>no-one else are allowed an oppinion" attitude is rude and makes your
>arguments stand to an even lesser degree.
>And your argument that "A Conan fan could crush 20 Tolkien fans by walking
>into the room?" is rather childish. This is a Tolkien chat room, not a
>Conan-Kindergarten.
Again my apolgies for starting this. The original post was made to
ALT.FANTASY.CONAN - the reply (and I don't know who made it now, my
reader dumps messages after 5 days) was made to:
ALT. FANTASY
&
ALT.FAN.TOLKIEN
as well with the obvious results.
The person who did this is a troll.
I'm going to hit Dejanews tonight and find out who it was.
Wayne