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

[TiQuinn]

Hard disagree - he is remembered for what he invented, not for his writing style. No, I should amend that - his writing style is oft-parodied. I'm not sure what you mean by "in a conventional fashion" - great writers do not write "in a conventional fashion." That's why they are great writers. Lovecraft writes like the overheated fanboy he was, but with a singular imagination for cosmic horror.

I'm sure you realize that can just as easily be applied to any writer whose writing style you don't like.

 

[Clint_L]

Yeah, my issue with the movie. He should be an outsider wherever he goes. That's the point. Also connects to Beowulf, which I assume Howard was familiar with.

I think it's safe to take it as read that Tarzan was a major inspiration.

Tarzan, sure. No idea if Howard knew Beowulf. Beowulf is not an outsider in the same sense as Conan, i.e. a barbarian. When he comes to Herot he is an outsider in the sense that he is not one of Hrothgar's people, but he is part of the same North Germanic culture, and he immediately announces his bona fides. He's related to the king of the Geats (my ancestors!), and later becomes king in turn. Beowulf is not from outside the established order of things, at all, which is sort of the opposite of Conan's gig.

Actually, Tarzan is ultimately a member of the establishment, as well, though he does become the epitome of the noble savage trope, in a quite literal fashion.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No idea if Howard knew Beowulf

It seems likely, given the number of similarities. I came across evidence whilst researching another project that Kipling had studied Beowulf at school, and that was a generation earlier.

a barbarian

When it comes down to it, “barbarian” just means “foreigner”. Cimmerian, Geat, they are all foreign to me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Hard disagree - he is remembered for what he invented, not for his writing style. No, I should amend that - his writing style is oft-parodied. I'm not sure what you mean by "in a conventional fashion" - great writers do not write "in a conventional fashion." That's why they are great writers. Lovecraft writes like the overheated fanboy he was, but with a singular imagination for cosmic horror.

I have to agree with @Paul Farquhar. One of the major reasons he is remembered is his prose. I get a lot of people don't like it, I understand why, but he also does things very well as a writer (for example the away he can make breathe life into a landscape really works for me). I think both @Paul Farquhar and I also understand there are received expectations about good writing (and I think what Paul meant by conventional was a style many would regard as well written, whereas Lovecraft's approach is often described by many as purple). I do think this is subjective however. But I also think no one group has a claim on what all the criteria of good writing are. One of the more engaging and fascinating aspects of Lovecraft's writing for me is his prose.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And if that's what people remember and enjoy, it is in no way bad.

This is the heart of it. The question is whether the prose adds to the atmosphere and experience, whether it is effective. And here if people are finding it so, then the writing is working

 

[Bomberooski]

I'm in the middle of a Conan re-read right now. Except for the overt racism, the writing holds up quite well. It's very much page-turning, thrilling, action-adventure, sword & sorcery. Howard was a fantastic writer. He deserves a lot more recognition than he gets.

I need to bite the bullet and just read Conan for once and for all.

GREAT recommendations in here outside of that though.

I just read through the first Drizzt trilogy and it's pretty good. Gave me some fun ideas for situational stuff in my DnD games.

Now I'm on to some Battletech books and can't imagine I'm going to drag much from them into any of my games.

 

[Clint_L]

I'm sure you realize that can just as easily be applied to any writer whose writing style you don't like.

Are we really arguing that Lovecraft was a great literary stylist? He's remembered for his content, not for his innovative mastery of the English language. Same goes for Howard. That's fine; there are plenty of musical artists that I love even though they can hardly play their instrument, and I'm a fan of both Conan and the Lovecraft mythos - huge fan of the latter. But let's not pretend that either of those guys was a literary virtuoso.

Edit: I can see the argument that their crude writing can be considered a strength in the sense that it suits their content - certainly Howard's Conan gets over the Texas frontier vibe that I think made him especially appealing to the young, American pulp magazine fans who were also reading a ton of westerns. And Lovecraft's torrid prose certainly emphasizes his torrid plots. Per my analogy above, there are plenty of contexts in art where a lack of skill is not necessarily a drawback. I don't want Johnny Ramone to play guitar like David Gilmour.

 

[Clint_L]

It seems likely, given the number of similarities. I came across evidence whilst researching another project that Kipling had studied Beowulf at school, and that was a generation earlier.

Kipling was British, his father was a professor, and he was partially educated at British schools. That's just a vastly different educational experience than Howard would have had in rural Texas.

When it comes down to it, “barbarian” just means “foreigner”. Cimmerian, Geat, they are all foreign to me.

No, barbarian does not "just mean 'foreigner'" - that's completely ignoring the intended connotations and origins of the word. Yes, you must be a foreigner to be a barbarian, but that does not mean that all foreigners are barbarians. I mean, "Conan the Foreigner" does not exactly have the same ring to it, does it? We don't have a "foreigner" character class in D&D!

Edit: also, Beowulf is not exactly an exotic foreigner to the Danes. They've heard of him, and definitely know his people. They have no trouble speaking to each other, and Beowulf knows all the etiquette. He is immediately recognized by Hrothgar as a peer and honoured guest, even if Unferth has some jealousy issues.

I'm pretty familiar with Beowulf, both in my super basic Anglo-Saxon but more so in various translations. I usually teach from the Seamus Heaney version; it's not the most literal but I think the most effective in capturing the poetic feel of the original verse. I'm not seeing a ton of similarities to Conan except in a few superficial plot points (big guys who fight monsters). Beowulf is not an outsider who travels to various exotic locales and eventually conquers civilization with his anachronistic American frontier ideals, which is what Conan is. Beowulf is the epitome of Anglo-Saxon heroic culture, drawing on the shared legends of its Northern Germanic roots, with some Christian anachronisms added by the monk who wrote it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Are we really arguing that Lovecraft was a great literary stylist? He's remembered for his content, not for his innovative mastery of the English language. Same goes for Howard. That's fine; there are plenty of musical artists that I love even though they can hardly play their instrument, and I'm a fan of both Conan and the Lovecraft mythos - huge fan of the latter. But let's not pretend that either of those guys was a literary virtuoso.

We are arguing that Hu’s prose was memorable, good and added to his writing

 

[TiQuinn]

Are we really arguing that Lovecraft was a great literary stylist?

We are really arguing that for many people the way he wrote is the a big part of the reason people read Lovecraft, yes.

He's remembered for his content, not for his innovative mastery of the English language.

I don’t agree. Like, you are talking to someone for whom the way he wrote is more interesting than what he wrote. In fact, it’s his content, particularly the racism that is often the reason people reject him.

Same goes for Howard. That's fine; there are plenty of musical artists that I love even though they can hardly play their instrument, and I'm a fan of both Conan and the Lovecraft mythos - huge fan of the latter. But let's not pretend that either of those guys was a literary virtuoso.

I can’t speak to Howard because I’ve never read him but as I’ve said, literary virtuoso is in the eye of the beholder.