I read Conan, and John Carter, and Elric, I could go on.
And I enjoy how dated it is, how unwoke it is; it's nice to see how much fantasy literature has grown but I can still enjoy these amazing books without having to compare and contrast them.
I could see an argument that in some ways they were "woke" for their time and context. Even the most racist Howard stories I've read, in his Solomon Kane tales, still have him allying with and respecting the shaman N'Longa, and Howard writes about them sharing a bond of human dignity and mutual respect. Maybe this is just an example of the "you're one of the good ones" racist trope, but when I encountered it, it read to me like Howard's mind contradicting his prejudices and that getting onto the page.
In the timeline of Dune they were living, I guess, ok lives on Arrakis. But I think the later books are clear that without Paul's actions, humanity would stagnate and become extinct due to a lack of development. The destruction and danger are simultaneously horrible and necessary to ensure vitality. Do you think that is inaccurate?
I think that the lives they were living on Arrakis were more in keeping with Howard's values a la the Conan stories.
As for Paul's vision of humanity's extinction, I think that raises a bigger philosophical quandary about just how much evil can be justified in the name of survival. If one has godlike power, the temptation is always there to commit atrocities for "the greater good". And I don't think Herbert's intent was for us to comfortably conclude that Paul was right.
Yeah! I love the dualism you can see in these archetypal characters. To go back to Mad Max, Immortan Joe also fulfills a sort of 'messianic' role, right? Anointed by God, bringing law and order and justice and meaning to society. He's a dark mirror of Max.
I don't really see that dark mirror at all. Max actively rejects rulership and authority and dominance over others, which are all Joe wants. If given Joe's ability to control the water supply, to torment his people by withholding it and enforce their groveling submission in releasing it, Max would reject the authority to control it entirely. I don't think he'd even accept the power and try to wield it responsibly.
I'd argue that the decline of Conan's relevancy is related not just to his age, or the degree to which he is or isn't read, but to the degree that the "barbarian" figure--the figure free from the constraints of civilization, who relies on extreme athleticism, cunning/craftiness, and wild daring to overcome problems soft civilized folk cannot--isn't a very strong heroic fantasy anymore. That's not to say that this figure is entirely gone from pop culture (I mean, isn't Jack Reacher basically Conan?), but the fantasy just doesn't hold the power it used to.
When I was growing up in the 80s, my fantasies of heroism encompassed figures like Robin Hood, Luke Skywalker, D'Artagnan, and Aragorn. As I became a teenager, with a teenager's desire for things that are edgy and bada**, it shifted to include figures like Blade and Sanjuro. On that list, only Sanjuro comes close to being a "barbarian," but he's not really uncivilized, just disreputable. His heroic value isn't that he rejects the skills of civilization for something wild and elemental, but that he's even better at them then reputable samurai. I could understand the appeal of Conan, but he never really spoke to me at all personally. My daughter, on the other hand, just finds him baffling. They can't even see what the appeal is in the first place.
To me, this seems to be to be related to the way the world has changed in the last hundred years. When REH was writing Conan stories, he was reacting against the interconnectedness of the world--already in full swing both politically and technologically--and his fantasy was a rejection of that "civilizing" interconnectedness. But we've taken that interconnectedness far beyond anything REH could possibly have imagined, and created a civilization that is fundamentally antithetical to the entire concept of Conan. If you've grown up with the internet, Conan's just hard to get.
The way REH has continued to influence the world of fantasy fiction has, I think, less to do with the Conan stories themselves then with the history of "weird fiction." I'm kind of surprised nobody's brought up China Miéville or other "New Weird" authors as the descendants of REH. Where Gygax had REH and Jack Vance, I have Tamsyn Muir and Max Gladstone. Conan may be a shadow of his former self, but things are just as Weird up in here as they ever were.
Great post. I agree that as humanity has shifted to the vast majority of us living in urban centers, the barbarian outsider becomes less relatable, though I can see how it has romantic appeal for some. Heck, Khal Drogo on the GoT TV show is this to some extent, is he not? He's a fantasy barbarian who mocks civilization, can be brutal still maintains some honor and gentleness with people he cares about.
I'm not sure interconnectedness was exactly what Howard was unhappy with. To my recollection it had more to do with alcohol and crime and physical abuse which he saw sweep into Texas towns during oil booms. Civilization, to him, also represented rapacious business interests and the human casualties thereof.
The “might makes right” philosophy that Conan embodies? The idea that there isn’t a problem that can’t be solved with a big enough weapon? The idea that individuals are more important than the common good? Definitely the main cause of our problems. But that’s getting too political for this forum. If you don’t get it, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Er... at least four of those characters explicitly morally oppose "might makes right".
Indeed. Conan doesn't embody Might Makes Right either. A lot of his problems are solved by being braver, or more decisive than the people around him. And there are dangers he runs from and protects others from when he can. He happens to be bigger and stronger than most people around him (the comparison to Reacher which Voranzovin made earlier is apropos here), but the stories don't argue that he has the right to do whatever he wants or to hurt innocents. They do glorify the ability to assert your will on the environment, but Conan doesn't, as a rule, exercise his power cruelly or harm innocents.
In REH's conception Civilisation is decadent, treacherous and corrupt, whereas Conan as Barbarian is Honest, Direct and self reliant. Conan in the books uses Wit and Determination as much as Physique to overcome challenges and survive against overwhelming odds - remember he started life as a thief before rising to become a Warrior and then King by his own hand ie not relying on institutional status or gods. Conan is not about might makes right at all - he's about determination and fearlessness to overcome the corruption of civilisation and to thus claim freedom or to choose the crown and have it weigh heavy on his brow - is that Batman?
I have been repeatedly stumped by your references. I have read a number of Howard Conan and Bran Mak Morn and Solomon Kane and Kull the Conqueror stories but not all and the most recent was over two decades ago.
Conan’s stance on taxes is not something I remember. Was this in the phoenix story?
Yes, it's in the Phoenix on the Sword. One of his reforms as a ruler which is referenced is relieving oppressive tax burdens. Which we could read through a modern lens if we want, but I read more like a Robin Hood reference.
