Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tonguez" data-source="post: 1302304" data-attributes="member: 1125">OkayThe 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 LotRPersonally 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).</blockquote>

Verification