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

[Paul Farquhar]

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

That’s certainly true, but it indicates the possibility that Howard had access to a translation of Beowulf, perhaps via a library rather than school.

Addendum: the 1910 New York published Gummere translation seems the most likely candidate, or possibly the 1922 Boston published Klaeber version. I assume since it was published in Boston it was English Language - Klaeber was German.

No, barbarian does not "just mean 'foreigner'" - that's completely ignoring the intended connotations and origins of the word

“Inferior foreigner” then. But then the word “foreigner” itself has connotations of inferiority.

 

[Kiyal]

View attachment 398969

Ironically most believe this Conan more true to REH'S incarnation but the movie flopped hard.

While I agree it was more true to REH's incarnation, I don't think that's why that movie flopped. The movie flopped because it was simply a terribly written, produced, and directed movie that had very little cohesion to it.

 

[Clint_L]

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

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.

Hmmm...I have trouble with the latter statement.

To me, virtuosity implies skill. I love punk music (note the tattoo on my shoulder), so it's not like I think virtuosity is the be all and end all of what makes art good, but I do think that it is objectively measurable. Lovecraft has an extremely limited range, meaning that he has a few very predictable flourishes, he relies way too much on adverbs rather than finding (or knowing) stronger verbs, he's very expository, what dialogue he has seldom, if ever, comes across like actual people speaking, and his characters are barely characters.

But, I mean, I get it - he still works for me. I can be critical of any artist while recognizing that they also have things that make them more interesting than a lot of artists with more conventional skill. IMO, Lovecraft could barely write, which makes the effectiveness of his stories all the more impressive. But no one's going to mistake his prose for F. Scott Fitzgerald's. Qualitatively.

 

[TiQuinn]

Hmmm...I have trouble with the latter statement.

To me, virtuosity implies skill. I love punk music (note the tattoo on my shoulder), so it's not like I think virtuosity is the be all and end all of what makes art good, but I do think that it is objectively measurable. Lovecraft has an extremely limited range, meaning that he has a few very predictable flourishes, he relies way too much on adverbs rather than finding (or knowing) stronger verbs, he's very expository, what dialogue he has seldom, if ever, comes across like actual people speaking, and his characters are barely characters.

But, I mean, I get it - he still works for me. I can be critical of any artist while recognizing that they also have things that make them more interesting than a lot of artists with more conventional skill. IMO, Lovecraft could barely write, which makes the effectiveness of his stories all the more impressive. But no one's going to mistake his prose for F. Scott Fitzgerald's. Qualitatively.

Okay, but I've bounced off writers like Dickens. There's a ton of people who no matter how much you try to get them into Shakespeare are simply unwilling or unable to get past the writing style. Ditto James Joyce. I've heard people say they can't get into Herbert because they find his writing style too arch. Heck, there are people who love Gygax's writing style in the 1e books enough to come up with the term "Gygaxian", which depending on who you're talking to is either a compliment or a criticism.

As for skill, I would argue that even if one were to try to imitate Lovecraft, they probably would end up with something that ends up being worse than Lovecraft's writing style.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

There's a ton of people who no matter how much you try to get them into Shakespeare are simply unwilling or unable to get past the writing style.

That, plus Shakes was writing in Early Modern English, which is not mutually intelligible with Modern English.

 

[The Firebird]

That’s certainly true, but it indicates the possibility that Howard had access to a translation of Beowulf, perhaps via a library rather than school.

Addendum: the 1910 New York published Gummere translation seems the most likely candidate, or possibly the 1922 Boston published Klaeber version. I assume since it was published in Boston it was English Language - Klaeber was German.

“Inferior foreigner” then. But then the word “foreigner” itself has connotations of inferiority.

The Robert E Howard Museum has a collection of his books. (I don't think it is online, but I took a picture). Beowulf isn't in that collection, but it's very in line with his interests. For example, he owned a copy of Heimskringla. If it was available to him, he would have read it.

 

[gnarlygninja]

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

I'm not really sold on this. Lovecraft is in the unique position of mostly being known for the things he created, and what other writers did with them. You could be dismissive of a more literary author's writing style but it would be hard to argue that say, McCarthy or Hemmingway or Roth are known more for their inventions than their writing style.

 

[TiQuinn]

I'm not really sold on this. Lovecraft is in the unique position of mostly being known for the things he created, and what other writers did with them. You could be dismissive of a more literary author's writing style but it would be hard to argue that say, McCarthy or Hemmingway or Roth are known more for their inventions than their writing style.

He was an early writer of cosmic horror but he also drew inspiration from folks like Dunsany, Poe, Machen, etc.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

He was an early writer of cosmic horror but he also drew inspiration from folks like Dunsany, Poe, Machen, etc.

Well, yeah, early on he wrote to a friend (from memory) "I have my Dunsany stories and my Poe stories, but where are my Lovecraft stories?".

Then he wrote his Lovecraft stories.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

He was an early writer of cosmic horror but he also drew inspiration from folks like Dunsany, Poe, Machen, etc.

I tend to think the origin of Cosmic Horror was H G Wells War of the Worlds.