Conan vs Lord of the Rings

[Dark Jezter]

Dark Jetzer: I would greatly appreciate a list of REH Conan publications -- I want to buy and read these stories, but I've always been concerned as to how to know if I'm getting the "real deal", so to speak. If you have a list of books that feature REH's Conan writings as they were originally published, I'd be very grateful.

Thanks!

Robert E. Howard's Conan stories haven't been in print in the United States for many years now (the reason being that the rights to publish REH's Conan in the US are owned by people who are no longer speaking to each other, or so I've heard), and even the paperback versions that came out years ago were messed around with by L. Sprague De Camp (he would do things like edit paragraphs for no reason, or even alter events in REH's Conan stories to make them more compatable with his Conan stories).

Luckily, there is still a way to get these stories. The stories are still in print in the United Kingdom, and can be obtained through amazon.co.uk. Here are the links here...

The Conan Chronicles Volume 1: The People of the Black Circle
The Conan Chronicles Volume 2: The Hour of the Dragon

These two volumes contain every Conan story written by REH, complete and unedited (even the original typoes are there). The volumes also include drafts of incomplete Conan stories, REH's essay The Hyborean Age (which details the history of the world Conan lives in), and a mini-biography of Robert E. Howard.

I highly recommend these two volumes. I have my own copies of them, and they get read on a yearly basis.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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.

You didn't read my original post, did you? I don't dispute that REH is as much a part of the fantasy landscape as JRRT; I'm just talking about the difference between pulp writing and good writing. Penny dreadfuls are as much a part of the Victorian experience as Dickens, but there's a quality difference.

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

Please. I've never read the Conan pastiches, let alone the no-doubt-awful derivative fiction, and I'd never pass off anything other than original Howard onto my friends and family. Don't get me wrong; I like the Conan stories. But I do recognize, even while reading them (and recognized this when I first read them at the age of eleven), that they're formulaic, full of lurid overexposition, and sometimes rather silly.

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.

I've got more than a few of these, too! Not disputing that LotR's not for everyone...

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.

Fine. Forget about the minor villains. Do you really believe that Gollum's welter of conflicting personalities, torment, bitterness, greed, and struggle with humanity and kindness are even vaguely echoed by any of the Conan villains you listed? All of whom (with the exception of Khemsa) are motivated by exactly the same things: The desire for eternal life, power, and sex. (Actually, scratch even the sex, in the case of Xaltotun, and the eternal life, in the case of Taramis.) Nor are they once-great individuals who have fallen, like Saruman, or nearly so powerful and persuasive in their dialogue. Merely in the course of the books, Saruman goes from a wise, great, majestic figure to a vain individualist, then a servant of darkness, then a vicious, malignant "poor loser," then a shattered, helpless old man, then a sneering petty villain. All of the villains you listed have always been evil, in the cosmos of their individual stories, and their motives are barely even characterized.

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.

You're not reading the same books I am, then. Sauron is the reason FOR villainy, its empowering principle. He's not a nonentity, but merely a non-person, as is appropriate for something that's far beyond the human and far closer to the divine (or diabolic). The trilogy is named for him for a reason. And, if you actually care to read any of Tolkien's background material, Sauron is a heck of a Personage.

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.

Perfect I did NOT say. Better writing is what I said.

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.

I know very few non-genre readers who haven't read and respected (if not loved!) LotR, and few who liked Harry Potter. I have very few fantasy fans among my friends; those who aren't tend to be very appreciative of LotR, and too old and critical for Rowling.

There are a lot of helpless women in REH's stories, but there are also some very intelligent and strong ones, such as Yasmina, Belit, Zenobia, and the aforementioned Valeria.

All of whom just happen to get naked a lot for no particularly well-justified reason at all, and all of whom nicely fall into line and ask to be ravished by story's end. Welcome to pulp formula.

Dark Jetzer: I would greatly appreciate a list of REH Conan publications -- I want to buy and read these stories, but I've always been concerned as to how to know if I'm getting the "real deal", so to speak. If you have a list of books that feature REH's Conan writings as they were originally published, I'd be very grateful.

IANDJ, but there are some good places to start with this. Since most Conan stories were originally published in Weird Tales, finding good reprintings tends to get difficult between rare spurts of archived republishing, but you can start with
The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...102-0751645-9465748?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

There are also the Ace books early-1990s reissues, but those constitute a mix of original REH stories, De Camp/Carter pastiches, stories featuring other Howard characters "morphed" into Conan by De Camp, and stories (and even two entire novels!) by other authors. For the real deal, The Coming (and its forthcoming sequels) are the way to go.

 

[A'koss]

Now while I'm sure it's probably heresey to even think this on these boards I just wanted to saythat I've read the LotR trilogy twice and found it... well, pretty dull in many respects, especially so with the Two Towers... I liked The Hobbit far, far more than LotR series. And if I'm going to be burned at the stake anyway, I might as well point out that I've actually enjoyed the movies a fair sight more than the books as well, which is very rarely the case with me.

Just my 2 cp...

A'koss.

 

[barsoomcore]

DJ, ruleslawyer: Thanks so much. I will order both as soon as my credit card recovers from Christmas.

ruleslawyer: like you need a justification for nekkid ladies. seriously.

 

[Dark Jezter]

You didn't read my original post, did you? I don't dispute that REH is as much a part of the fantasy landscape as JRRT; I'm just talking about the difference between pulp writing and good writing. Penny dreadfuls are as much a part of the Victorian experience as Dickens, but there's a quality difference.

Then we must have different opinions of what good writing is. Because I define good writing as being enjoyable to read. And I would definately classify Howard and Tolkien both as good writing.

Please. I've never read the Conan pastiches, let alone the no-doubt-awful derivative fiction, and I'd never pass off anything other than original Howard onto my friends and family. Don't get me wrong; I like the Conan stories. But I do recognize, even while reading them (and recognized this when I first read them at the age of eleven), that they're formulaic, full of lurid overexposition, and sometimes rather silly.

And Tolkien's books are full of bad poetry, long discourses on events that happened years before events in the books and have little to no impact on the main plotline, and inconsistant pacing.

Personally, I'd rather read a paragraph-long description of a "nubile slave girl" than a long poem about an elven king that died ages ago.

Fine. Forget about the minor villains. Do you really believe that Gollum's welter of conflicting personalities, torment, bitterness, greed, and struggle with humanity and kindness are even vaguely echoed by any of the Conan villains you listed? All of whom (with the exception of Khemsa) are motivated by exactly the same things: The desire for eternal life, power, and sex. (Actually, scratch even the sex, in the case of Xaltotun, and the eternal life, in the case of Taramis.) Nor are they once-great individuals who have fallen, like Saruman, or nearly so powerful and persuasive in their dialogue. Merely in the course of the books, Saruman goes from a wise, great, majestic figure to a vain individualist, then a servant of darkness, then a vicious, malignant "poor loser," then a shattered, helpless old man, then a sneering petty villain. All of the villains you listed have always been evil, in the cosmos of their individual stories, and their motives are barely even characterized.

Oh, I don't deny that characters like Gollum and Sauruman change a lot over the course of the book. Things like that happen when you have a 1000+ page story comapared to a 50-page short story.

Villains don't have to be full of conflict and turmoil for me to like them.

You're not reading the same books I am, then. Sauron is the reason FOR villainy, its empowering principle. He's not a nonentity, but merely a non-person, as is appropriate for something that's far beyond the human and far closer to the divine (or diabolic). The trilogy is named for him for a reason.

I'm pretty sure I am reading the same books you are. I just never saw Sauron as a particularly memorable villain. The aforementioned Gollum and Sauruman stick out much more vividly in my memory.

And, if you actually care to read any of Tolkien's background material, Sauron is a heck of a Personage.

I don't care to. I've tried on three seperate occasions to trudge my way through the Silmarillion, and every time I was never able to finish it.

IANDJ, but there are some good places to start with this. Since most Conan stories were originally published in Weird Tales, finding good reprintings tends to get difficult between rare spurts of archived republishing, but you can start with
The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...102-0751645-9465748?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

There are also the Ace books early-1990s reissues, but those constitute a mix of original REH stories, De Camp/Carter pastiches, stories featuring other Howard characters "morphed" into Conan by De Camp, and stories (and even two entire novels!) by other authors. For the real deal, The Coming (and its forthcoming sequels) are the way to go.

Cool! I didn't know that the Conan stories were finally being reprinted in America. Sounds like I'll have to order myself some copies.

 

[barsoomcore]

Then we must have different opinions of what good writing is. Because I define good writing as being enjoyable to read.

Yep, I would say you definitely define good writing differently. "Enjoyable to read" is one way to define good writing.

The problem with "enjoyable to read" as your definition of good writing is that it doesn't admit to comparative analysis. There's no point in discussing the whys and wherefores of writing if that's how we define good writing -- because everybody can just say, "This is what I find enjoyable," and how can you argue with that?

If you're interested in discussion the RELATIVE merits of literary works, as I suspect ruleslawyer is, and I know I am, such a definition is useless. For our purposes, we need a definition that offers a more objective basis of discussion -- even if such a definition excludes works we enjoy reading.

Such a definition might include such things as appropriate vocabulary, philosophical insight, wit, emotional power, mature observation, intelligent commentary, beauty of language and energy of story.

Now of course we can debate endlessly as to what such a definition ought to properly include, even while we debate to what degree our favourite authors demonstrate such qualities.

So if you have an objective definition of "good writing" by which you think REH displays superior skill to Tolkien, then I at least would love to hear it and use it as a basis for discussion. But if all you can say is "I find this more enjoyable" then our conversation is, sadly, pretty much over.

Oh, I don't deny that characters like Gollum and Sauruman change a lot over the course of the book. Things like that happen when you have a 1000+ page story comapared to a 50-page short story.

The great short story writers -- Hemingway, Alice Munro, Eudora Welty -- show us just what good writing can accomplish in very few pages. There's no need to accept lesser artistic power just because the length is shorter.

Great stories, practically by definition, are about transformation. A character that doesn't change -- in a 5-page story or in a 3,000 page epic -- is a plot point, not a character.

Villains don't have to be full of conflict and turmoil for me to like them.

Right, but as I pointed out above, if there's no difference between "stuff I like" and "stuff that's good" then it's impossible to have meaningful, objective discussions about what's good or not.

 

[kirinke]

personally....

personally, i loved both the lotr and the hobbit. when i was younger though, i enjoyed the hobbit more. that was pure action.

(i hated book reports, so if this sounds cheesy, forgive me).
Ok. For one, Tolkien was primarily a linguist and historian. This is strongly represented in Lotr. That is why you have a lot of back-history thrown in as he's trying to show us why everyone in middle earth is in the situation it is.

The moral of his story is, if Isildor dropped the bloody ring into the molten lava, they wouldn't have their problems now.

okaaaa.... now i've totally confused everyone. on with the Silmarillion (which i've never read). I like the fanfic better. lol. Or rather some of it.

 

[Mog Elffoe]

What a pointless thread.
Why not name it Black vs White? Or Jelly vs Peanut Butter?

Why do we need a thread that pits the Conan books vs the Lord of the Rings books? I don't get it. Read both. Enjoy both. Or don't.

Now if you wanted to ask who would win in a fight between Aragorn and Conan, well that's a different story...

 

[DaveStebbins]

I would greatly appreciate a list of REH Conan publications -- I want to buy and read these stories, but I've always been concerned as to how to know if I'm getting the "real deal", so to speak. If you have a list of books that feature REH's Conan writings as they were originally published, I'd be very grateful.Thanks!

Just released last month. The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian, a collection of Howard Conan stories in their original form. Many of the books which were originally published were edited and minorly to largely rewritten by DeCamp and perhaps even Carter (though I am not sure about the latter).

 

[Emirikol]

Actual Gaming In Hyboria

Yes, all of the conan stories are back in print.

As for GAMING in Hyboria, I can tell you from 20 years of gaming and the past 5 years in Hyboria that it is a grand change from typical D&D.

Typical D&D is Tolkien's stuff in the newer likes of Greyhawk, FR, and upcoming Eberron. It focuses on a kind of softer, more politically-correct form of european-centered fantasy.

Hyboria is vastly different in that isn't midieval. It's not dark-age. It's ancient. With gods like Baal, Ymir, Crom, Ishtar, Mitra/Mythras, and Yog it represents an age and attitude that is very different from crosses, princesses, unicorns, faeries and elves. I have always run these games more like LotR, Star Wars, Legend, Star Trek, and Princess Bride.

Our games thus have elements of an older world. There are races of enslaved peoples working to build the pyramids in Stygia. There power-hungry priests of all gods and wizards who actually are there to exploit the people and who use magic to do so. The world is dusty and scorched. Man is not superior to nature and he cannot forget where he came from. Healing, both magical and natural exists, as do the pleasures of the body and mind. There are adult bases, as well as comic relief, but most of all the world is brutal and unkind. The modern movies that I think are most like our games are:
Mummy
Mummy returns
Scorpion King
Indiana Jones
Tomb Raider
Conan
Stargate
James Bond
Time Bandits
Heavy Metal
Cowboy movies

You can see our house rules and discuss conan games to your heart's content at: www.yahoogroups.com/group/d20conan

The Conan RPG will be due out soon, however it is an OGL system.

jh

..