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

[The Firebird]

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.

I think it is a bit simplistic to say the trope is entirely ahistorical, although I also wouldn't say Ibn Khaldun had history right. ("War made the state and the state made war" is an appropriate rejoinder. Or any of Fukuyama's stuff). But much more than whether it is right as a universal story of history, I think it is interesting on a personal and societal level in how it relates to what we value and what sorts of lives we want to lead. Is the Good Life one of comfort or of struggle? Not something with a simple or clear answer.

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.

Haha, there is quite a bit to say about Paul and Herbert. In general I believe in the Death of the Author so I'm not particularly concerned with Herbert's opinions. But I think Herbert's statements regarding Paul are often read/interpreted too simply, and if you stick too strongly to that interpretation you end up killing most of what is interesting about Dune (like the recent movie). There's a much broader conversation to be had about interpretation, the 'right' way to enjoy art...I don't think this is the place though.

Agree regarding Max. Paul shows great reluctance as well.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

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

Expand the definition to include sword & planet (Dumarest, etc.) and it's a subgenre of speculative fiction in general.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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

People like different kinds of characters. Anti-heroes are just another flavor people sometimes crave. They can be overdone. We went through a phase on TV after the sopranos, where it got positively annoying that every protagonist was a sociopath. But it gets just as annoying if things go too much in the opposite direction. I like a good hero with no flaws, but I also like complex protagonists and even protagonists who are a**holes or completely in the wrong

 

[overgeeked]

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'.

But that is the Sad Puppies' line of BS. The people you're defending and advocating for.

 

[The Firebird]

But that is the Sad Puppies' line of BS. The people you're defending and advocating for.

I've never read anything by these people, nor was I familiar with them prior to this thread. I don't consider myself to be advocating for their position. I entered this thread just because I saw some statements being made about discrimination in general which I believed to be incorrect.

 

[overgeeked]

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

Respectfully, it seems like you're reading maybe half of the conversation.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

People like different kinds of characters. Anti-heroes are just another flavor people sometimes crave. They can be overdone. We went through a phase on TV after the sopranos, where it got positively annoying that every protagonist was a sociopath. But it gets just as annoying if things go too much in the opposite direction. I like a good hero with no flaws, but I also like complex protagonists and even protagonists who are a**holes or completely in the wrong

It’s hardly Conan though, is it? In Beyond the Black River Conan puts his life on the line to rescue civilians. Not only is there no reward, his sympathies are as much with the natives as the colonialist Aquilonians. The self-serving course of action would have been to do a runner.

And Conan doesn’t have flaws. Even when he does act selfishly, it’s presented as admirable.

Meanwhile, a Song of Ice and fire is full of deeply flawed characters, and no real heroes. Is that Swords and Sorcery?

 

[RhaezDaevan]

Has there ever been a female fantasy author that did their own take on the "rough and rugged" hero/antihero? Does being written by a woman change anything? Does the protagonist succeed more, or do they fail more? Does their rugged looks still make the ladies swoon, or are they regarded more as ugly? I'm curious.

For context, I've only read a few female authors so far, and the only one that had a male protagonist of any type was Ursula K Le Guin.

 

[Belen]

Has there ever been a female fantasy author that did their own take on the "rough and rugged" hero/antihero? Does being written by a woman change anything? Does the protagonist succeed more, or do they fail more? Does their rugged looks still make the ladies swoon, or are they regarded more as ugly? I'm curious.

For context, I've only read a few female authors so far, and the only one that had a male protagonist of any type was Ursula K Le Guin.

Katharine Kerr -Deverry series is a must read.

Anne McCaffrey, Elizabeth Moon, Mercedes Lackey, Mickey Zucker Reichert, Andre Norton, CJ Cherryh, Melanie Rawn, Elizabeth Haydon, Kristin Britain, J.V. Jones

These are some of the giants of the field.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I've only read a few female authors so far

How old are you?!