Conan vs Lord of the Rings

[barsoomcore]

Conan and the other Novels Of REH i read evil, especially the cthulesque kind of evil could be banished with a sword and skill, if the character has the valour to fight it.

If you can banish it with a sword and skill, it's not cthulesque kind of evil.

I mean, let's at least be correct in our usage of terms.

The whole point of "cthulhu"-esque horror is that you CAN'T fight it. That's pretty much what "cthulhu"-esque horror means. You always lose when you go up against Great Cthulhu. If you win, you're not in a Cthulhu horror story.

Horror based on the idea of slimy creatures from nameless places -- this is no different from, say, Beowulf.

POP QUIZ: Is Beowulf pulp writing?

Mog: I agree that arguments taking a form like, "I like this," vs, "I don't like this" aren't very interesting. I think it IS interesting to discuss the objective differences between works -- but that requires a dialogue different from people simply stating their preferences. Which sadly, seems to be what we're getting here.

 

[Tonguez]

Okay

The essential nature of 'Pulp' is its focus on Adventure for the sake of Adventure (as opposed to other forms of literature which have more than mere entertainment in mind - eg LotR imagined history, and Narnia Allegory) and Robert E. Howard was the master of this genre. REH had a innate gift for telling a compelling story that is hard to put down. His descriptions of settings and people are vivid and give you a sense of being there embroiled in the wild action.
Conan is the embodiment of this vivid and often lurid action - he is the archetypal barbarian devoid of any kind of social restraint or civilized respectability. He is the ultimate mercenary who acts from self-interest, trusting in his own prowess, doing as he chooses and everyone else be damned.
REH was producing pure entertainment (just like TV and Hollywood which replaced the old Pulps) and was truly successful in this regard bringing emotional power,wit and energy to his tales.

I agree that to compare Conan and LotR is futile - one that looks at pure entertainment value and vivid action will embrace Conan and the style of REH since LotR has only momentary snippets of such things.
On the other hand one that looks at depth of characterisation, philosophical insight, and intelligent commentary will find only momentary glimpses of such in the Conan stories (they are there) but much to satisfy them in LotR

Personally I love REH pulps (and I would argue that Solomon Kane is a much more complex character and equal to any in LotR if that had been the question) and find LotR hard reading (usually sleeping before I can finish) strangely enough I loved the Silmalarion (which I know I've just mispelt oh well).

 

[Dark Jezter]

Conan is the embodiment of this vivid and often lurid action - he is the archetypal barbarian devoid of any kind of social restraint or civilized respectability. He is the ultimate mercenary who acts from self-interest, trusting in his own prowess, doing as he chooses and everyone else be damned.

And yet, he also has a savage code of chivalry by which he abides. He is repulsed by the idea of drawing his sword on a woman, even if she is directly threatening him. He keeps his promises, even if he could profit by not doing so. And he would never betray a friend.

 

[Mog Elffoe]

If you can banish it with a sword and skill, it's not cthulesque kind of evil.

I mean, let's at least be correct in our usage of terms.

The whole point of "cthulhu"-esque horror is that you CAN'T fight it. That's pretty much what "cthulhu"-esque horror means. You always lose when you go up against Great Cthulhu. If you win, you're not in a Cthulhu horror story.

Whenever Conan encountered stuff that was 'Lovecraftian' it was generally all he could do to survive, both mentally and physically. Conan's a fight or flight kind of guy, and flight always suited him better in these situations.

Mog: I agree that arguments taking a form like, "I like this," vs, "I don't like this" aren't very interesting. I think it IS interesting to discuss the objective differences between works -- but that requires a dialogue different from people simply stating their preferences. Which sadly, seems to be what we're getting here.

Yeah, but what's to compare in these cases, really? Both are shining examples of their relative styles. So now it's Pulp style vs Epic style? Okay... Comparing the two directly is apples and oranges. I don't see the point. Tonguez sums up the differences pretty nicely in his post, I think.

Now if you want to compare the Tolkien's Middle-Earth setting to Howard's Hyboria setting with actual gaming in mind that's a whole different thing. We've had a couple of posts regarding this but that's pretty much it.

Personally, I'm really looking forward to Mongoose's d20 Conan book. I picked up the GURPS Conan book ages ago, and even ran a couple of games with it set in Hyboria, but my players have all converted over to either d20 or Savage Worlds games nowadays so I think I'll have better luck getting them to play this new version.

One of the big complaints about a low-magic seting has been lack of magical healing and someone mentioned a 'reserve point' system or sometyhing like it. This is new to me. Any details available? Or directions to them at any rate?

 

[sword-dancer]

If you can banish it with a sword and skill, it's not cthulesque kind of evil.

I mean, let's at least be correct in our usage of terms.

The whole point of "cthulhu"-esque horror is that you CAN'T fight it. That's pretty much what "cthulhu"-esque horror means. You always lose when you go up against Great Cthulhu. If you win, you're not in a Cthulhu horror story.
.

Sorry I´ve used Cthulesque in a wrong form.
I meant kind of horror not "meant to know/experienced for man", not like say Bram Stokers Dracula, who is a more understandable evil.

 

[Melan]

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.
...
...
Cowboy movies

Spot on, Emirikol! For this post, you are coming off my Ignore List.
[My campaign - which is not set in Hyboria but has the same feel - is just as you described, and I could list the very same movie influences... Sergio Leone's westerns, in particular, are very fitting in spirit, setting (the arid Spanish landscape) and story to a Howardian campaign.]

 

[Storm Raven]

Sauron/Melkor are not gods demons e´whatsoever not meant for man, they are part of this world, they come not from the abyss, or the space between the stars..

Umm, no. They are demons not meant for man (they can't be gods, Tolkien's cosmology has only one god). They come from outside the world, in point of fact, both Sauron and Melkor existed prior to the creation of the world.

They are a kind of evil, we can understand.

No they aren't. That's why, for example, the One Ring cannot be used by anyone without becoming corrupted and destroyed. Men could understand it, they could master it, and they clearly cannot in Tolkien.

Melkor engineered slave creatures, seth corrupts civilized Nations.

Melkor corrupted entire nations (in some cases entire races of creatures were corrupted). Melkor also corrupted angels, and destroyed the sun/moon equivalents (twice no less). Perhaps you missed that. Sauron corrupted entire nations too, both "uncivilized" nations like those in Harad, and "civilized" nations like the Corsairs of Umbar, and Arnor.

 

[Chacal]

snipped 488 lengthy words

Hey ! Aren't you supposed to put a funny signature at the end of your posts ?


Now I feel cheated



Chacal