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

[Desdichado]

Look, Conan hasn't been relevant for over a decade at this pont and while certain trapping of Sword-n-sorcery still exists the genre as a whole is far from any influence these days.

That's a just-so story, and I reject it as a false null hypothesis, and can't be assumed to be true until proven. In my anecdotal experience, its at least as relevant as it was 10-20 years ago, when people were complaining that all the kids did was read D&D fiction instead of "the classics." Conan has been back in print, is easily available on ebook for free, and most of his stories are easily available as audiobooks for free on YouTube and Spotity. A whole ton of omnibus volumes just hit in the last year or two back in print by the REH Foundation Press (to be pedantic, this are other REH stories, not Conan. Because Conan, Kull and Solomon Kane are otherwise still in print.) Howard and Conan is more accessible and more relevant than he was ten years ago, not less.

 

[Imaro]

Well, having caight up on the thread, it seems like it is no longer about the topic. I was hoping to get some book recommendations out of it...

Not sure if you're interested in non-western African-esque fantasy but 2 books I'd suggest are...

Children of Blood & Bone by Tomi Adeyemi
Rage of Dragons by Evan Winter

And for some old school pulp sword and sorcery (again basen in an African-esque fantasy world)... Imaro by Charles Saunders

 

[Bedrockgames]

So we should be careful not to call out things that are objectionable because that might alienate those who like them?

That isn't what I am saying at all. On that front, I think people should feel free to call out what they want, but others should be free to respond. What I am objecting to is being so strident in ones views about what is or is not problematic, that if someone doesn't agree with you about whether a given thing is problematic or not, you put that persons' character into question and even dismiss them completely (not 'you' @Clint_L but general 'you')

Why are their feelings more important than those of the folks who are actually being marginalized? Your post really does read like you are asking that people prejudices should be respected, which I just don't agree with. I think it is better to be direct and plain if I have a problem with something.

If someone comes into a thread and says they don't like black people or hate Italians and Jewish people, or say they think this race or that race is less intelligent or inferior in some way, I don't think that viewpoint needs to be respected. If someone comes in and simply isn't seeing the same thing you are in a media trope, or finds questionable language to be less questionable than you do, I think that is a very different story. I am not going to dismiss a person or endorse cruelty (even if it is just online meanness) to someone simply because they feel differently than another poster about media tropes.

I do agree that we have to be careful not to be self-righteous and judgmental. So I can appreciate Lovecraft's genius, and see that much of his content is woefully bigoted, and also see that he is probably a product of his time, his extreme circumstances, and probably poor mental health. All these things can be true, and don't require ignoring his extreme bigotry.

I am not that far from your position on this issue.

He was also kind of a bad writer, in most technical respects. Yet his contribution to cosmic horror supersedes that, and his invention of marvellously compelling settings..

I do think he was a good writer. I used to have more issues with his writing technically, but the more I read him as I get older, the more I appreciate his style (especially when I read things like the Re-Animator where it becomes clear much of this styling is a choice, and that he could write more like a conventional writer when he chose to). He has a very strange way of writing and I find that it adds a lot to the stories (just for me, I don't get as much out of other writers who have picked up the mythos as much as I do from Lovecraft himself, and it really comes down to the writing).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't think that viewpoint needs to be respected. If someone comes in and simply isn't seeing the same thing you are in a media trope, or finds questionable language to be less questionable than you do, I think that is a very different story.

REH did not think he was racist. He believed the values in his stories where values he and his readers shared. He did not find anything questionable about what he was writing. If someone else does not find anything questionable, it can only mean they share those same values.

 

[Bedrockgames]

REH did not think he was racist. He believed the values in his stories where values he and his readers shared. He did not find anything questionable about what he was writing. If someone else does not find anything questionable, it can only mean they share those same values.

No it doesn't. Someone might read Howard and simply have a more charitable view of the text and of Howard than you, they might read it and think the particular problematic things in Conan you are identifying are not as worth getting worked up about (a lot of which are more to do with crude use of language to describe different racial groups: sometimes obvious, sometimes not), etc. It is entirely possible to read someone like Lovecraft, reject all of the views on race he espoused, and just see it as a product of its time. And there are still ongoing debates about this stuff even now (you can find for example defenses of Lovecraft by S.T. Joshi: and he has written numerous books on Lovecraft and published many of his letters, many of which contain exactly the sorts of things we are discussing). There are all kinds of different possible takes that have nothing to do with agreeing with whatever set of ideas you feel are behind the writing. And this is complicated by the fact that people say things they don't believe all the time. And people use irony, and hyperbole. So even when things seem pretty clear, you can have different interpretation. The letters from Howard, I think those reflect real views he held. However if someone told me they thought Howard was trying to project a certain persona in them or come off as being more tough to whoever he was communicating with, I could at least understand how someone might reach that kind of conclusion, and I wouldn't just assume them reacting differently means they agree with what Howard said. I wouldn't agree with that persons' assessment but I also wouldn't feel the need to dismiss that persons as the things Howard was talking about

 

[cbwjm]

T

Not sure if you're interested in non-western African-esque fantasy but 2 books I'd suggest are...

Children of Blood & Bone by Tomi Adeyemi
Rage of Dragons by Evan Winter

And for some old school pulp sword and sorcery (again basen in an African-esque fantasy world)... Imaro by Charles Saunders

Thanks, I've added these three to my reading list.

I'm trying to get back into reading because I spend too much time on my phone (granted that's how I'll likely be reading these books), in front of my tv, or on my PC.

 

[Tonguez]

See I find Lieber & Moorcock's stories (at least for Elric, Hawkmoon and Corum) better written with more imaginative and intriguing ideas also with the bonus of much less to no racism...I have read Conan and it jysy feels simplistic compared to Moorcock and Liieber... yet I feel there's this weird fascination with Conan by older white men that has allowed him to basically be the face of sword & sorcery... and I'm not sure amongst more modern audiences it does the genre any favors with being more widely read...

Not so much Leiber if you happen to be a Mongol though
Or Tolkiens portrayal of the Haradrim and Easterlings, or CS Lewis portrayal of Tash and the Calormen.

The point being racist attitudes are rife in early 20th century fiction, should we dismiss the whole lot, why do Howard deserve any greater enmity than Lewis or Tolkien or Leiber?

Conan displays a simple, evocative action focussed writing style that sparks the imagination. The simplicity is part of the charm (as opposed to Moorcock for instance)

and for the recorded Im not white ...

 

[TiQuinn]

There were some earlier in this discussion, not giving names, that made it seem like they thought there was something wrong with people wanting to read REH or HPL when there's other options for those genres. It sounded like the thinking that leads to calls for book burning to me. I personally don't see any issue with enjoying works with problematic elements.

There’s a difference between a strong dislike for a book and a non-recommendation versus “No! Don’t read this! And you’re bad if you do!” Also, if someone wants alternatives, saying “read the classics” isn’t going to resonate either.

 

[The Soloist]

The first trilogy of The Black Company by Glen Cook is a must-read if you like gray fantasy.

 

[Imaro]

Not so much Leiber if you happen to be a Mongol though
Or Tolkiens portrayal of the Haradrim and Easterlings, or CS Lewis portrayal of Tash and the Calormen.

The point being racist attitudes a rife in early 20th century fiction, should we dismiss the whole lot, why do Howard deserve any greater enmity than Lewis or Tolkien or Leiber?

Conan displays a simple, evocative action focussed writing style that sparks the imagination. The simplicity is part of the charm (as opposed to Moorcock for instance)

and for the recorded Im not white ...

where did I say other writers shouldn't be called out?

Edit: However to be fair, as the thread title specifically references Howard's work.