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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enaknomolos" data-source="post: 9614575" data-attributes="member: 7047434">This is true to a point, but:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It's ten minutes of noodling for an internet forum, not an academic article; and that's why I said things like 'seems to show'. The correlation in pattern between a bunch of REH stories and between his stories and those of other authors is however suggestive that there is increasing literary interest in Conan.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">In the era since 2000, there's plenty of other reasons to think there has been an uptick in literary interest:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">There has been the Del Ray Conan</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Penguin Classics has published a volume of Smith</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A mainstream publisher has for the first-time in decades published an expressly S&S series (Howard Andrew Jones's Hannuvar)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">For the first time in decades, S&S magazines have been self-sustaining (Tales from the Magician's Skull, New Edge, Old Moon).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">There have been at least two literary movements - Sword & Soul and New Edge - that expressly draw on RE Howard while seeking to move on from his racism and other problematic elements.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Etc</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Despite all that, this thread is titled 'No-one Reads Conan Now'; and, based on nothing more than anecdotes and vibes, people on almost every page declare the stories are 'irrelevant' or 'dated'. Obviously, a small dedicated literary scene is not 'no-one'. It's all that written S&S literature has ever really had behind it. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I suspect that what people actually mean by claims about 'relevancy' (it's never explained what 'relevant' means) is either 'I don't care for Conan' or 'I find aspect's of Howard's writing problematic enough that I don't even want to properly engage with his significance'. Both of these things, especially the latter given that Howard was extremely racist and that his racism is very present in his stories, are perfectly justifiable. Neither, however, is in any way the same thing as Howard being less relevant or popular than he was previously.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">There is a 'living in a bubble' aspect to much of the discussion in this thread, on both sides. On one side there have been claims that Howard's racism isn't so striking (I think he's a great writer, but really?); but on the other side his racism is presented as though it is an insurmountable obstacle to his significance, as though brilliant black writers haven't been inspired by him while challenging his racism for decades at this point (no mention of Charles R Saunders or Milton Davis, really?).  The graphs were intended as pinpricks for this bubble, not as formal proof of popularity.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Admittedly the pinprick is directed at the 'not relevant' side of that debate. That's because I have very little to say to the idea that Howard's racism isn't a huge detriment to his stories. It is.</li> </ol></blockquote>

Verification