D&D General No One Reads Conan Now -- So What Are They Reading?

[Mannahnin]

Wow that's awesome. Thanks for the explanation! I hope my "seriously?" didn't convey the wrong tone I just couldn't believe it based on what I've seen of FR over the many years.

It's understandable. If you didn't already know the history, the vast distance between how the FR "was designed from the start" and how it looks now wouldn't be obvious.

Whether we're talking about the very beginning, when it was a playground for Ed's childhood stories and then for his D&D game once he discovered D&D, and even how it was first published as a 1E campaign setting to take pride of place over Greyhawk once Gary was pushed out of TSR.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well I think my author insert character should be played by Sean Connery too! Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

What was very funny was seeing Elminster in art from that period go from being "Basically Gandalf" (an appearance Greenwood seems to also aspire to) to suddenly this Connery-esque deal.

Like, 1E/2E Elminster:

3E Elminster (and this isn't even the sexiest one):

But we're now in 5E back to, mostly Gandalf/Actual Greenwood:

Though there are also 5E "Steroid Santa" depictions, disturbingly:

 

[Bedrockgames]

I dont find REH's writing any more racist than that of Tolkien and yet it seems that people convieniently overlook the depictions in Tolkien, celebrating Middlearth as foundational to the genre, when it is much a stereotypical pastiche as Hyborian Age. Not to forgive REH, he was certainly an Anglo-Supremacist with distasteful views, but they werent unusual for the era and can be found in a whole lot of writing, its just so happens he was writing real world pastiche and so those tropes are a bit more blatantly obvious.

Anyway
1 - 4 "The Tower of the Elephant", "The God in the Bowl" and "Rogues in the House" have practically no racism beyond the standard archaic pastiche setting. "The Frost Giants Daughter" isnt overtly racist either beyond the treatment of frost giants
5 "The People of the Black Circle" (1934) - set in fictional north india. Conan does lead a stereotypical Afghuli tribe and faces treachery and intrigue from many including the Devi Yasmina, who is a strong-willed and capable leader, even if she eventually needs saving. The Black Seers (sorcerers) are depicted as formidable and decadent, but not racially evil.
6. "Beyond the Black River" (1935) - features the picts as brutal savages in a clash of barbarism v civilization
7. "The Queen of the Black Coast" (1934) - the black corsairs who follow Bêlit are fierce and loyal warriors who respect their pirate queen Belit and Conan fights with them as an equal. The depictions of their kushite enemies is a but off at times however.
8. "Red Nails" (1936) - Features a lost city divided between two warring factions (brown coded). The focus is human cruelty rather than race

Again, I think people should read these things for themselves and make their own determinations. This is probably going to be my last point on this line of discussion as I really don't want to engage in other 20 page debate about whether Howard or Lovecraft were racist. My biggest issue here isn't people observing these things in either Lovecraft or Howard. It is that in order to build up either Lovecraft or Howard as evil men with bad ideas, people often underplay just how racist that time period was in general (again these are men writing in the 20s and 30s, at the height of segregation, lynching, as Nazism is rising in Europe, when many progressive people believed in things like racialist science and eugenics, etc). That doesn't make the ideas any better, and there were of course always exceptions (I am reading about John Murray Spear who was a Boston abolitionist and spiritualist from New England who died 7 years after Lovecraft was born, and their views couldn't be more different). but my feeling on this stuff is when you go back and read old books, you are going to encounter old and outdated ideas. Sometimes those old ideas will be so overwhelming, you might want to just jettison the work (I don't think they are in the case of Conan to be clear but there are old outdated ideas in them for sure). At the end of the day, I am in favor of retaining great works and letting readers wrestle with the morality on their own (I just don't like preaching and don't like being preached to on these topics, but that doesn't mean I don't see issues in texts, even if I think folks sometimes exaggerate them or make them the focus to the point that they are reading it when it isn't even present).

Just going bye the stories, especially Conan versus the Mythos, it is much more pronounced in Lovecraft than Howard but still there. I think the Conan stories aren’t as bad as say some of the things you see in his personal letters. He was born in like 1906 in Texas, writing at the height of segregation and in a time when racism was widespread and oppressive in the US. If you read Conan you encounter a lot of outdated language and views on race. Not as much as Lovecraft, but it is there. If you read his letters you will read things that would sound more shocking to a modern reader. When I read older works, I expect to encounter such things (and there are many works from this tone that are far far worse: and Howard does seem to evolve over time). Again, lots have great works have been made by people with views that were not ahead of their time and place. And as much as I would agree that Howard had racist views, when you consider the time and place, there were much worse views on race that had popular traction at that time. And again, the stuff was written in the 20s and 30s, in the US, at a time when this stuff was just a reality of how many people saw the world. I remember seeing that kind of language in Lovecraft when I was in school and reading him for the first time for instance, and being surprised but also understanding the particular flavor of New England racism that was present there (so I wasn't surprised by his attitudes towards groups like Italians and frankly anyone who didn't trace their heritage to the Mayflower). I still loved the stories, and even some of the racism in it that was directed at myself, made me curious and want to understand what one earth made the guy tick.

So it isn't like I read these books and see lines people might have in mind and just ignore them. I just think that is the nature of reading things written in the past. You are going to have to wrestle more with ideas you disagree with, views you find repugnant or outdated. And to be clear, I am not saying anyone should agree with my assessment of their works. If you read Lovecraft or Howard and think they are less racist than I do, that is fine by me, it is your reading, not mine. If you read them and find them more racist than I do, that is fine too, again your reading, not mine. What bothers me in these conversations is we can't have those different readings and talk about it, respecting that people can often come away from a text with wildly different views on things like intent, meaning, significance, etc. The conversations feel like they devolve into a courtroom drama where both sides are prosecuting the other, and any nuance usually gets lost in hyperbole and exaggeration.

 

[Voadam]

As much as I enjoy REH's works, they contain some deeply racist elements, full stop. Far more overtly than Tolkien's writings.


If I recall correctly, he wrote the stories of Mirt the Moneylender and Durnan as his own riff on Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, too.

I could remember the name Mirt the Moneylender but not the barbarian swordsman. I think Mirt was the PoV protagonist while his barbarian companion was the one doing the confrontation as a heavy that would generally be expected to work.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

evil men

And this is where you are getting tied up in knots over a strawman. No one has said “Howard was evil”. The work is undoubtedly racist, but you are taking that as a personal attack on your hero, and therefore an attack on yourself by proxy.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

I'm currently reading through the Complete Compleat Enchanter and enjoying it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And this is where you are getting tied up in knots over a strawman. No one has said “Howard was evil”. The work is undoubtedly racist, but you are taking that as a personal attack on your hero, and therefore an attack on yourself by proxy.

With all due respect, you do not know how I feel and whether I am feeling attacked by proxy (I am not). My frustration in these conversations isn't that I feel attacked by proxy. If someone says "Lovecraft was a racist", I don't take that as an attack on me (and if you read whaat I said, you will see it isn't even a statement I disagree with). My frustration is more that nuance gets lost in these discussions, people tend to attack you if don't agree with them down the line on everything, etc.

I was just being colorful when I said "evil men with bad ideas". I probably should have used different language. But I think if people read my full post they will see I am not doing what you are saying I am doing here. And to be very clear, I like Lovecraft's writing, I like Howards. I don't consider them personal heroes at all (my heroes are all people I have known personally, not distant figures I know they're their writing).

 

[TiQuinn]

I found the change in writing style and characterization of such things fairly significant between even his original Icewind Dale trilogy and the prequel Drizzt trilogy that were written next. With just those six novels I remember at the time thinking that going in chronological order you would get a hard shock coming into Icewind Dale.

While the thread has gotten on the topic of Ed Greenwood, I had bought a few TSR novels a couple of years ago in a used book sale, and read part of Spellfire, and then a later one, Death Masks, and let's just say, Ed is not a writer who got better with age, though I suppose anything would be an improvement on Spellfire. The creep factor is high in that book.

 

[Imaro]

Again, I think people should read these things for themselves and make their own determinations. This is probably going to be my last point on this line of discussion as I really don't want to engage in other 20 page debate about whether Howard or Lovecraft were racist. My biggest issue here isn't people observing these things in either Lovecraft or Howard. It is that in order to build up either Lovecraft or Howard as evil men with bad ideas, people often underplay just how racist that time period was in general (again these are men writing in the 20s and 30s, at the height of segregation, lynching, as Nazism is rising in Europe, when many progressive people believed in things like racialist science and eugenics, etc). That doesn't make the ideas any better, and there were of course always exceptions (I am reading about John Murray Spear who was a Boston abolitionist and spiritualist from New England who died 7 years after Lovecraft was born, and their views couldn't be more different). but my feeling on this stuff is when you go back and read old books, you are going to encounter old and outdated ideas. Sometimes those old ideas will be so overwhelming, you might want to just jettison the work (I don't think they are in the case of Conan to be clear but there are old outdated ideas in them for sure). At the end of the day, I am in favor of retaining great works and letting readers wrestle with the morality on their own (I just don't like preaching and don't like being preached to on these topics, but that doesn't mean I don't see issues in texts, even if I think folks sometimes exaggerate them or make them the focus to the point that they are reading it when it isn't even present).

Just going bye the stories, especially Conan versus the Mythos, it is much more pronounced in Lovecraft than Howard but still there. I think the Conan stories aren’t as bad as say some of the things you see in his personal letters. He was born in like 1906 in Texas, writing at the height of segregation and in a time when racism was widespread and oppressive in the US. If you read Conan you encounter a lot of outdated language and views on race. Not as much as Lovecraft, but it is there. If you read his letters you will read things that would sound more shocking to a modern reader. When I read older works, I expect to encounter such things (and there are many works from this tone that are far far worse: and Howard does seem to evolve over time). Again, lots have great works have been made by people with views that were not ahead of their time and place. And as much as I would agree that Howard had racist views, when you consider the time and place, there were much worse views on race that had popular traction at that time. And again, the stuff was written in the 20s and 30s, in the US, at a time when this stuff was just a reality of how many people saw the world. I remember seeing that kind of language in Lovecraft when I was in school and reading him for the first time for instance, and being surprised but also understanding the particular flavor of New England racism that was present there (so I wasn't surprised by his attitudes towards groups like Italians and frankly anyone who didn't trace their heritage to the Mayflower). I still loved the stories, and even some of the racism in it that was directed at myself, made me curious and want to understand what one earth made the guy tick.

So it isn't like I read these books and see lines people might have in mind and just ignore them. I just think that is the nature of reading things written in the past. You are going to have to wrestle more with ideas you disagree with, views you find repugnant or outdated. And to be clear, I am not saying anyone should agree with my assessment of their works. If you read Lovecraft or Howard and think they are less racist than I do, that is fine by me, it is your reading, not mine. If you read them and find them more racist than I do, that is fine too, again your reading, not mine. What bothers me in these conversations is we can't have those different readings and talk about it, respecting that people can often come away from a text with wildly different views on things like intent, meaning, significance, etc. The conversations feel like they devolve into a courtroom drama where both sides are prosecuting the other, and any nuance usually gets lost in hyperbole and exaggeration.

I'm assuming (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here) you have the privilege to view it at a purely academic level and you relate to Conan vs say the Kushites or Stygiansm...but for someone who is on the other side of that equation... what does Conan offer that other, less racist sword and sorcery , doesn't.

That's the question I at least have to ask if I suggest his literature to my gaming group (an african-american, afro-latino and mixed group of players)... and i don't think, it was all the rage back then, is going to fly when there is so much other fantasy literature to choose from.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is probably going to be my last point on this line of discussion as I really don't want to engage in other 20 page debate about whether Howard or Lovecraft were racist.

I'm genuinely confused as to why you're saying "whether" here - they both were, there's no debate to be had. The only question is surely to what degree they were. With REH I'd say "probably slightly less than most white Americans of his era" and with Lovecraft I'd say "so insanely racist he's literally calling Scottish people subhuman, let alone other non-WASPs"). Sorry not trying to be difficult, it just made ??? appear above my head, as it were!

Just going bye the stories, especially Conan versus the Mythos, it is much more pronounced in Lovecraft than Howard but still there.

Agree. Also agree that REH's letters show more racism (but also weirdly opposition to "too much" racism*, I seem to recall him telling Lovecraft to cool it at one point!) than most of his actual work.

What's funny with Lovecraft's racism for me is that when I read the books at like 13/14 in the 1990s, it was literally incomprehensible. Like I thought he was talking about actual non-human-but-humanlike beings, not just being incredibly, radioactively racist about human beings. It wasn't until I got to the story with an Irish or Scottish guy who was being portrayed as subhuman that I finally got that this was just racism of a type and on a scale I'd never previously encountered. And it remained so bonkers and totally outdated (I think even in his era it was outdated) that it was somehow almost less offensive than some more pernicious/insidious and modern racist ideas in other, much more recent, books.

* = I mean this is a classic genre of letter from the 1930s, Nietzsche's editor, who literally supported a political party called the Anti-Semites (by themselves!) and whose platform was pure anti-Semitism, thought Hitler was a bit too anti-Semitic for her liking.