Raven Crowking
First Post
Removed
Last edited:
Removed
- Thread starter Raven Crowking
- Start date
Raven Crowking
First Post
Removed
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
Removed
Last edited:
Philosopher
First Post
Excellent analysis. (I wanted to give you XP, but I apparently need to spread some around first. I guess this isn't the first time I've appreciated what you've posted.) It's been a while since I've read "The Phoenix on the Sword", and now I may be moved to revisit it.
It would be interesting to see a similar in-depth analysis given to LotR. I'm no expert on Tolkien, so I won't be able to give that analysis myself. What has always struck me (and this is something you've hinted at here, and I believe you may have explicitly stated in the thread this is forked from) is that Tolkien's work seems to have supported the status quo of a classed society. I've heard many people emphasize the close friendship between Sam and Frodo, but it never seemed to me to be a genuine friendship among equals. Sam was always Frodo's servant, and Sam's virtue was always loyalty. And while Aragorn becomes king, he is just as much trapped in this role as Sam is trapped in the role of servant. I find this much more of a bleak world than one in which a barbarian can become king of a civilized nation.
It would be interesting to see a similar in-depth analysis given to LotR. I'm no expert on Tolkien, so I won't be able to give that analysis myself. What has always struck me (and this is something you've hinted at here, and I believe you may have explicitly stated in the thread this is forked from) is that Tolkien's work seems to have supported the status quo of a classed society. I've heard many people emphasize the close friendship between Sam and Frodo, but it never seemed to me to be a genuine friendship among equals. Sam was always Frodo's servant, and Sam's virtue was always loyalty. And while Aragorn becomes king, he is just as much trapped in this role as Sam is trapped in the role of servant. I find this much more of a bleak world than one in which a barbarian can become king of a civilized nation.
Philosopher
First Post
(Bolded for emphasis.) Oh well, no one's perfect.
EDIT: Regarding the "popular portrayal", I've heard that this is largely due to Carter and de Camp's editing/revising. Is that so? I've read Howard's original tales, but I'm not terribly familiar with other writings.
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
Removed
Last edited:
Philosopher
First Post
What I meant is that I'm not terribly familiar with other writings about Conan by other authors. That's why I wasn't sure if de Camp and Carter's portrayal is as I described.
Having said that, it is also nonetheless true that I haven't read any of Howard's non-Conan stories. Instead of picking up the "best of" work, I'm the sort of person who'd rather go for the collected works on one of the characters. So far, I've just got all the Conan tales. If I asked you to recommend just one character to read about next, who would it be?
Raven Crowking
First Post
Removed
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
Removed
Last edited:
Glancing over the quotes... the rest of it is clearly there, but I don't quite see "scholar and statesman".
I see a guy who's bright enough, knows how to write, and has some knowledge - but no sign that this comes from extensive active study to make him "scholar".
I see a man who is king (by right of arms, rather than politicking, correct?), and he's good enough with people. I'm not sure I see "statesman", to which I attach rather high connotation. From the quotes, I get that his office is respected, and his might is respected. Not so much that his wisdom in matters of national policy is respected. He's not manipulating many other heads of state, or getting arguing folks to accept new national policy, or the like.
Maybe that's elsewhere in the story, though, which I've not read.
I think him not being all things is an asset, though. Warrior, and scholar and statesman and all around good guy you'd want to go drinking with and who the women all adore - that starts sounding kinda "Mary Sue". A good hero has some areas in which he lacks, that he has to overcome, no?
I see a guy who's bright enough, knows how to write, and has some knowledge - but no sign that this comes from extensive active study to make him "scholar".
I see a man who is king (by right of arms, rather than politicking, correct?), and he's good enough with people. I'm not sure I see "statesman", to which I attach rather high connotation. From the quotes, I get that his office is respected, and his might is respected. Not so much that his wisdom in matters of national policy is respected. He's not manipulating many other heads of state, or getting arguing folks to accept new national policy, or the like.
Maybe that's elsewhere in the story, though, which I've not read.
I think him not being all things is an asset, though. Warrior, and scholar and statesman and all around good guy you'd want to go drinking with and who the women all adore - that starts sounding kinda "Mary Sue". A good hero has some areas in which he lacks, that he has to overcome, no?
Last edited:
