Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 8146785" data-attributes="member: 58416">I'm not sure that I agree with the overall premise of the article. (Though, I do agree with what appears to be a push to portray more androgynous and effeminant men.)Older heroes most certainly did have emotions, internal struggles, and etc; however, the authors of then were (imo) better at showing, rather than telling.This is one of the reasons why (again, imo) The Mandalorian is a good show. Despite not being able to see the actor's face, emotion is still portrayed through action, body language, and context. In the Conan novels, one of the primary things explored through the eponymous character is the contrasting struggle of &quot;barbarian&quot; vs &quot;civilization&quot; and the question of whether the guy splitting skulls (but being honest about it) is less &quot;civilized&quot; than the folks using the rule of law (and supposedly civilized society) to screw each other over. It's also worth noting that the story's &quot;hero&quot; prefers fighting, drinking, and womanizing to paladin-esque attitudes. That Conan is mentioned in the original post but not applied to all aspects of the argument is, I think, cherry picking. Side note: Ironically, Howard's writing also tends to portray female &quot;heroes&quot; -like Belit- as being Conan's equal. While she is scantily clad in some stories, I would argue that her choice of clothing is meant to portray her sexuality as powerful (and what we might call body-positive or sex-positive today,) rather than to make her look soft and vulnerable. Further, Howard once commented that -as someone attempting to sell stories to a magazine- editors requested more of the scantily-clad damsel stuff than he might otherwise write.Where would you categorize characters portrayed by Clint Eastwood? The Outlaw Josey Wales? Dirty Harry?Charles Bronson? Steve McQueen?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Argyle King, post: 8146785, member: 58416"] I'm not sure that I agree with the overall premise of the article. (Though, I do agree with what appears to be a push to portray more androgynous and effeminant men.) Older heroes most certainly did have emotions, internal struggles, and etc; however, the authors of then were (imo) better at showing, rather than telling. This is one of the reasons why (again, imo) The Mandalorian is a good show. Despite not being able to see the actor's face, emotion is still portrayed through action, body language, and context. In the Conan novels, one of the primary things explored through the eponymous character is the contrasting struggle of "barbarian" vs "civilization" and the question of whether the guy splitting skulls (but being honest about it) is less "civilized" than the folks using the rule of law (and supposedly civilized society) to screw each other over. It's also worth noting that the story's "hero" prefers fighting, drinking, and womanizing to paladin-esque attitudes. That Conan is mentioned in the original post but not applied to all aspects of the argument is, I think, cherry picking. Side note: Ironically, Howard's writing also tends to portray female "heroes" -like Belit- as being Conan's equal. While she is scantily clad in some stories, I would argue that her choice of clothing is meant to portray her sexuality as powerful (and what we might call body-positive or sex-positive today,) rather than to make her look soft and vulnerable. Further, Howard once commented that -as someone attempting to sell stories to a magazine- editors requested more of the scantily-clad damsel stuff than he might otherwise write. Where would you categorize characters portrayed by Clint Eastwood? The Outlaw Josey Wales? Dirty Harry? Charles Bronson? Steve McQueen? [/QUOTE]

Verification