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

[Micah Sweet]

View attachment 398951
I find it ironic that D&D is called out for kidifying and superhero-fying (or whatever derogatory term you want to use for it's direction) in contrast to many of the tropes of older pulp sword and sorcery when the poster boy for that genre is literally being made into a superhero on a superheroteam in a comic for kids... This is the Conan that is probably most relevant at this point. I believe he is more well known through Marvel than as a creation of REH.

I'm not sure much the comic the above image is taken from is really for kids. Teenagers at best.

 

[SteveC]

I don’t read his stuff because of his politics. I choose not to support hateful, bigoted people. I don’t care how good the read is. I can justify reading the likes of H. P. Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard despite their politics because they’re dead. Me spending money on their works won’t enrich a living bigot who might use that money to pursue hateful ends. That’s clearly not the case here. It’s also why I don’t read J. K. Rowling, Orson Scott Card, and dozens of others. Sorry that’s so hard for you to understand. Though for the life of me I cannot fathom why it’s so hard for you and others to understand.

I actually understand this perfectly. I have the policy of not yucking another person's yum but also not yumming their yuck. You do you. The politics of an author are a real thing that affects whether people are interested in them or not. And that's 100% fine. For me, it largely doesn't (with some caveats that I'm not going into here).

What you've written is really charged here, and you're, of course, free to believe whatever you like about any author, living or dead. It does affect my willingness to engage further, so I guess that's pretty much all I have to say to you.

 

[overgeeked]

I have worked in publishing for 25 years (and now I feel old) and bias has been a constant companion. People and businesses do not always make rational choices. It is not limited to the biases we see every day such as racial, gender, political. We also have institutional, implicit, and assumption biases. I speak on these topics quite a bit and it has taken years to get many folks to even see or acknowledge them.

Yes, humans have biases. But to go from that to "publishers are discriminating against white people because they're publishing more non-white people than they used to" is just nonsense.

Sorry but this is just wrong. Publishers absolutely create discriminatory barriers around what gets published. They're just not directed at white men but at minority groups. Publishers don't just read the market they also, in some small part, dictate it. Publishers decide what gets put to market in the first place and their decisions about what a marketable novel is are as biased as the people and institutions making them.

Yes, that's true. The sub-conversation is about the Sad Puppies, i.e. white men whining about not winning awards they think they deserve, being mad that women and people of color are winning those awards instead, and claiming there's a vast conspiracy in the publishing industry to keep white men out. Read my post in that context. The publishing industry is not discriminatory against white men.

 

[Mannahnin]

One is Howard's framing civilization vs barbarism. While Howard's work does undoubtedly have racism in it, the depiction is more complicated than it might be because it isn't "us = civilized = good; them = barbaric = bad" the way that e.g., some Westerns might portray it. Instead he finds a kind of vitality and life-affirming force in the barbaric, with civilization leading to decadence and decay. It's reminiscent of themes Herbert explores in Dune (hardship forges strength, for the Sardaukar and the Fremen alike). Both of these are hearkening back to Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah, which presents this cycle as the universal historical cycle.

This is a good example of some of the philosophy in his work, although TBF, this trope is ahistorical and seems preserved today primarily in the mythmaking of fascists and other reactionaries. Not that I'm condemning Howard for that, as he was a product of his time in this regard and the limited and often poor historical scholarship available to him. But it gives me a case of the side-eye when folks endorse it.

Another is the kind of universal heroic archetype. What's really interesting in Conan is that he is always an outsider; he is presented as Conan the Cimmerian, but we never see other Cimmerians. This outsider status gives him a new perspective on conflicts and the ability to solve them in a way a local cannot. There are many other heroes of the same type--think Mad Max, think Westerns, think Samurai movies. This allows people to project all sorts of desires, hopes, fears, etc. on him (see, again Red Nails, or Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, where this happens again and again). There's this recurring idea of islands of civilization, with a messianic figure appearing from beyond the wastes who will lead us to the promised land, save us from ourselves (again, Paul Atreides...these are all the same character).

I agree to some extent, although I can't get on board with equating them all so strongly. Herbert would strongly disagree with you about Paul, for example. Paul is supposed to be a warning about and subvert such figures. And Conan usually has a very similar attitude as does Max about being a savior. He does lead, and becomes a king eventually, but most of his stories involve him operating independently and not accepting such mantles, as I recall.

Then, there is the life-affirming vibrancy and vitality, which Howard expresses very well through his prose, and is really all about constructing and finding meaning for oneself. It simply oozes existentialism. Take his famous statement in Queen of the Black Coast:

"Let teachers and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.”

This brings to mind, for me, first Nietzsche's treatment of the collapse of meaning. There's an undercurrent of Conan feeling lost, adrift, unmoored, and responding to that by basically doubling down on physical pursuits, on adventure, on outrunning and outachieving this deep fear of the void that lies in his heart. (It's very easy to see the parallels to Howard's own life). Ultimately he is driven by the desire to do something, to affirm that life is for the living. I think this explains a lot of his appeal to certain readers.

But I'd also put him in conversation with Dostoevsky, especially Ivan Karamazov or the narrator of Notes from the Underground, who suffers from precisely an inability to self-define in this way. There's also a lot to say with respect to Kierkegaard...really any of the existentialists.

I'm pretty much 100% with you on the existentialism. Definitely a big part of Conan.

 

[overgeeked]

I actually understand this perfectly. I have the policy of not yucking another person's yum but also not yumming their yuck.

Except that's exactly what you're doing here. You're recommending, advocating for, making excuses for, defending, and supporting a bigot. You're quite literally yumming a lot of people's yuck. That's the sticking point; that's literally the problem. You saying how awesome a bigot's books are while dismissing his hateful politics and defending him and the Sad Puppies.

What you've written is really charged here, and you're, of course, free to believe whatever you like about any author, living or dead.

Yes, that's intentional. I take people advocating for bigots seriously. I would frame things in much, much stronger terms if there were not rules against it.

 

[Distracted DM]

What does Sword & Sorcery actually mean?

Sword and sorcery (S&S), or heroic fantasy, is a subgenre of fantasy characterized by sword-wielding heroes engaged in exciting and violent adventures. Elements of romance, magic, and the supernatural are also often present. Unlike works of high fantasy, the tales, though dramatic, focus on personal battles rather than world-endangering matters. The genre originated from the early-1930s works of Robert E. Howard. While there is a chance example from 1953,[1] Fritz Leiber re-coined the term "sword and sorcery" in the 6 April 1961 issue of the fantasy fanzine Ancalagon, to describe Howard and the stories that were influenced by his works.[2][3] In parallel with "sword and sorcery", the term "heroic fantasy" is used, although it is a more loosely defined genre.[4]

Sword and sorcery tales eschew overarching themes of "good vs evil" in favor of situational conflicts that often pit morally gray characters against one another to enrich themselves, or to defy tyranny.

Sword and sorcery is grounded in real-world social and societal hierarchies, and is grittier, darker, and more violent, with elements of cosmic, often Lovecraftian creatures that aren't a staple of mainstream fantasy. The main character is often a barbarian with antihero traits.

Sword & Sorcery is about personal stakes. The protagonist isn't going to save the world; at best, maybe they're saving a city, and it's usually unintentional (see: antihero).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sword & Sorcery is about personal stakes. The protagonist isn't going to save the world; at best, maybe they're saving a city, and it's usually unintentional (see: antihero).

Stories about selfish people being selfish? No demand for that in fiction, can just pick up a newspaper.

 

[The Firebird]

Yes, humans have biases. But to go from that to "publishers are discriminating against white people because they're publishing more non-white people than they used to" is just nonsense.

Yes, that's true. The sub-conversation is about the Sad Puppies, i.e. white men whining about not winning awards they think they deserve, being mad that women and people of color are winning those awards instead, and claiming there's a vast conspiracy in the publishing industry to keep white men out. Read my post in that context. The publishing industry is not discriminatory against white men.

I don't think this an accurate description of the claims that have been made here, or at least the strongest version of those claims. I don't think people are jumping from 'the demographics of published authors looks different now, therefore there is discrimination'.

 

[Belen]

Yes, humans have biases. But to go from that to "publishers are discriminating against white people because they're publishing more non-white people than they used to" is just nonsense.

Wow. I never said, or implied, it in any of my statements.

You are making assumptions based on your own biases. I have stated that I find it difficult to find books on shelves that I enjoy. I never assign gender or race to any of my statements.

I never brought up "sad puppies." I knew nothing about them until you and others decided to start talking about it and then used your own bias to make assumptions about what I was saying.

I never even talked about awards before others decided to bring it up so in no way did I ever say or imply that I felt that anyone of any gender, race, or creed should not get awards.

 

[Distracted DM]

No demand for that in fiction, can just pick up a newspaper.

That's pretty dismissive and unfair. I'm not sure what's got your goat here; it's a subgenre of fantasy fiction.