Conan vs Lord of the Rings

[ruleslawyer]

And again...

 

[ruleslawyer]

Darn boards.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I actually prefer REH's writing style over Tolkien's. REH dosen't make it a point to mention every rock, tree, and stream that his characters encounter as they travel across the country, nor do his characters abruptly burst into song every few pages.

It's also my opinion that REH is better at describing his characters than Tolkien is, and REH is much, much better than Tolkien at describing combat.

Of course, both of them are great authors. I just like REH more.

De gustibus non disputandum. There is a reason why JRRT makes it into lit classes while REH stories are in the category of "pulp," y'know. Most non-genre readers I know can't get through two pages of a Conan story without bursting into laughter at the overexposition and abundance of nubile slave-girls.

Don't get me wrong; I like REH's stories plenty. It's just that I don't consider them products of a particularly great literary technique.

It puzzles me that you bash REH's villains while trumpeting Sauron. Last I checked, Xaltotun, Thoth-Amon, Ascalante, Khemsha, etc. Actually appeared and had speaking roles in the book, rather than appearing only as a scary red eye in the sky.

Pulp villains always get in (usually rather hackneyed) dialogue. JRRT's present villains (Grima, Saruman, Ugluk, Grishnakh) get in much more interesting dialogue. In fact, several of the hostile forces encountered in LotR can't be neatly defined as "villains": Boromir, Denethor, and Gollum are complex, interesting, and tragic literary figures, whereas Howard's villains really ARE eevil. What's particularly interesting or ambiguous about Thoth-Amon? He's a nasty wizard with a nice ring.

The interesting thing about Sauron is that he ISN'T a merely human, present villain. (That's what the orcs, Saruman, Grima, etc. are there for.) He's a Force, a Presence, a Representation of our own failings and darkness. Sauron is a symbol of all of the societal and personal forces that Man must beware. He's a general principle of evil set above mere human villains.

'Yeah, I get it. You're eeevil.'

Vahktang: I'd appreciate it if you'd either fully quote me or not bother quoting me at all, if you're going to make a partial quote completely out of context. T

 

[barsoomcore]

As sources for a D&D campaign -- both are (as others have said) rich sources of material. I'd rather run or play a game in Hyboria than in Middle Earth, frankly. Middle-Earth is for reading about and marvelling at, but I wouldn't be able to play my usual smart-alec rogues there. My characters (both as player and DM) tend much more towards the rough-n-ready style of REH, I guess.

You can play Hyboria with your tongue in your cheek and it's still Hyboria. If you're playing Middle-Earth that way, it's no longer Middle-Earth. At least that's how it feels to me.

But the superior writer is unquestionably Tolkien. REH is a great pleasure to read, don't get me wrong, but that Tolkien is a better writer is just so clear I don't really see how you can make a case otherwise. You may LIKE REH better, that's just fine, I have no complaint with what people like -- but in terms of skill, of literary power and understanding of the human condition, Tolkien has it all over.

 

[francisca]

Bah!!!!

Conan vs. LotR vs. Lankhmar vs. Shannara vs. Wheel of Time vs. Thieve's World vs. Elric vs. blah-blah blah-blah blah-dee-blah-blah!!


It's like asking me to pick between my kids! I like them all. I like reading low and high fantasy. I like reading about gritty dark heroes where there is no definite good and evil. I like reading about great conflicts between good and evil where they are as clearly defined as black and white. I like prosey literature full of songs and straight to the point pulp.

You know, sometimes I like pepperoni on my pizza, sometimes not. Sometime I feel like a nut, sometimes -- well, ok, I'm a nut.

 

[Dark Jezter]

De gustibus non disputandum. There is a reason why JRRT makes it into lit classes while REH stories are in the category of "pulp," y'know.

Frankly, I don't care what the snobs of the literary world think. Howard, Lovecraft, Lieber, and other pulp authors had a major impact on modern fantasy, even though a lot of people like to give credit only to Tolkien.

Most non-genre readers I know can't get through two pages of a Conan story without bursting into laughter at the overexposition and abundance of nubile slave-girls.

Then tell them to put down the Robert Jordan Conan story and pick up a Robert E. Howard one.

Conversely, I have a few friends who were never able to get past the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring because reading about pipe-weed and hobbit geneology bored them half to death.

Don't get me wrong; I like REH's stories plenty. It's just that I don't consider them products of a particularly great literary technique.

I do. I can pick up a REH Conan story and be unable to put it down until I'm finished.

There are parts of the LotR trilogy that are page-turners for me, but other parts (Tom Bombadil, anybody) where I'll find myself skipping entire pages.

Pulp villains always get in (usually rather hackneyed) dialogue. JRRT's present villains (Grima, Saruman, Ugluk, Grishnakh) get in much more interesting dialogue. In fact, several of the hostile forces encountered in LotR can't be neatly defined as "villains": Boromir, Denethor, and Gollum are complex, interesting, and tragic literary figures, whereas Howard's villains really ARE eevil. What's particularly interesting or ambiguous about Thoth-Amon? He's a nasty wizard with a nice ring.

I fail to see what makes Grima Wormtogue, Saruman, Ugluk, and Grishnakh are more interesting than Xaltotun, Khemsha, Tascela, Taramis, or the Master of the Black Circle.

The interesting thing about Sauron is that he ISN'T a merely human, present villain. (That's what the orcs, Saruman, Grima, etc. are there for.) He's a Force, a Presence, a Representation of our own failings and darkness. Sauron is a symbol of all of the societal and personal forces that Man must beware. He's a general principle of evil set above mere human villains.

If that's what you believe. Good for you. Myself, on the other hand, never saw Sauron as anything even remotely resembling that. He's a nonentity. A catalyst for the quest to go forward.

Keep in mind that despite this post. I honestly do love the Lord of the Rings novels. I just don't think that Tolkien and his writings are as perfect as many people make them out to be.

 

[Iron_Chef]

To me, the true value of a tale is whether or not the reader can willingly put it down or not, and if it can ever be truly and completely forgotten once read. A compulsive pulp page-turner, in that regard, is a better book than any of the books force-fed as "classics" in schools around the country. I'd much rather read about The Spider's war on crime than some bitter old sea captain hunting Moby Dick.

 

[Krieg]

De gustibus non disputandum. There is a reason why JRRT makes it into lit classes while REH stories are in the category of "pulp," y'know. [/i]

Let's not forget that's only because they like to use J.R.R. as an example of what NOT to do in modern literature.

Most non-genre readers I know can't get through two pages of a Conan story without bursting into laughter at the overexposition and abundance of nubile slave-girls.

Most non-genre readers I know can't get through two pages of LoTR (not to mention the Silmarillion) period.

For them Harry Potter is the penultimate fantasy novel.

 

[Wombat]

I never was much of a fan of Conan -- he seemed so pointlessly and needlessly (even uncaringly) violent that it was a major turn-off for me. I remember one story when he had gutted a man in a jail break and then, after killing the other guards, came back and stamped the gutted guys' teeth in -- pointless. But, as usual, that is a personal take on matters.

OTOH, I love Fritz Lieber's Fafhrd & Grey Mouser stories -- just as purple panting in the prose, but much more tongue-in-cheek. Lots of violence, but not nearly as graphic. And, unlike Hyperboria, people smiled and laughed (well, they do in Conan stories to, but always Grimly or Sardonically or Humourlessly).

I guess I like a lighter tone in my pulp.

 

[Dark Jezter]

I never was much of a fan of Conan -- he seemed so pointlessly and needlessly (even uncaringly) violent that it was a major turn-off for me. I remember one story when he had gutted a man in a jail break and then, after killing the other guards, came back and stamped the gutted guys' teeth in -- pointless. But, as usual, that is a personal take on matters.

That didn't happen in any of Robert E. Howard's Conan stories, and if it didn't happen in those, I don't consider it Conan canon.