Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 5516655" data-attributes="member: 463">That's my impression also.On race, well I'd say Howard was much more L Lothrop Stoddard (our civilisation may fall, other races may surpass us, and Nazis suck) than Maddison Grant (yaay Nordics!).  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />  Or to put it another way, his Scots-Irish Texan individualism made him much less conventionally racist than HP Lovecraft, whose New England Yankee Patrician concern with the tide of foreign immigrants replacing his Yankee Protestants in New England strongly coloured his work. On sex, well there are plenty of helpless damsels in Conan, probably more than REH would have liked if left to his own devices rather than the exigencies of writing for the pulps.  But there are also a lot of strong female characters, both physically (eg Belit, Valeria) and emotionally (eg Conan's wife, whose name escapes me).   And he often mentions that groups of eg rogues & thieves include female members.  Howard - and other '30s writers - seem to me far more sexually egalitarian than what you see in the '50s through '70s.  In many ways Howard's writing seems to me less sexist than that of an avowed feminist like Moorcock!</blockquote>