Wednesday, January 22, 2025

REPOST: Conan of Cross Plains

Janus must be very fond of writers, for so many were born this month: J.R.R. Tolkien, Clark Ashton Smith, Edgar Allan Poe, Abraham Merritt and, today, Robert Ervin Howard. Of them all, Howard is possibly unique in having created a character – Conan – who is a genuine pop cultural icon, his name recognized even by people with no prior connection to pulp fantasy. The irony is that that recognition often acts as an impediment to appreciating Howard's genius in having created him. Indeed, the popular conception of Conan bears only a passing resemblance to the character who first strode onto the pages of Weird Tales in December 1932.
It may sound fantastic to link the term "realism" with Conan; but as a matter of fact - his supernatural adventures aside - he is the most realistic character I ever evolved. He is simply a combination of a number of men I have known, and I think that's why he seemed to step full-grown into my consciousness when I wrote the first yarn of the series. Some mechanism in my sub-consciousness took the dominant characteristics of various prize-fighters, gunmen, bootleggers, oil field bullies, gamblers, and honest workmen I had come in contact with, and combining them all, produced the amalgamation I call Conan the Cimmerian.

--Robert E. Howard to Clark Ashton Smith (July 23, 1935)
It's a pity that this character, this amalgamation of so many real people Howard met in Depression era Texas, isn't the one with which so many are familiar today. He is, for my money, vastly more interesting than the dim, loincloth-wearing, stuffed mattress to be found in so many popular portrayals of the Cimmerian.

Of course, Howard himself has fared little better in the popular imagination than has his most famous creation. To the extent that anyone even knows any facts about the author's life, they're likely based on distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies, such as those L. Sprague de Camp peddled in Dark Valley Destiny. Fortunately, the last three decades have seen the rise of a critical re-evaluation of both REH and his literary output, finally allowing both to be judged on their own merits rather than through the lenses of men with axes to grind.

This is as it should be. Robert E. Howard was a man like any other. He had his vices as well as his virtues; there is no need more need to reduce discussions of him to mere hagiography than there is to ill-informed criticisms. But men, particularly artists, need to be understood in their proper context, historical as well as cultural. Until comparatively recently, Howard hasn't been given that chance. Like Conan, he's been reduced to a caricature, a laughable shadow of his full depth and complexity that illuminates little about either his life or his legacy.

As the quote above makes clear, Conan may have been a man of the Hyborian Age but he was born in Depression era Texas and, I think, is most fully understood within that context. This is equally true of Howard himself, as Mark Finn noted in Blood and Thunder, a much-needed biographical corrective to De Camp:
One cannot write about Robert E. Howard without writing about Texas. This is inevitable, and particularly so when discussing any aspect of Howard's biography. To ignore the presence of the Lone Star State in Robert E. Howard's life and writing invites, at the very least, a few wrongheaded conclusions, and at worst, abject character assassination. This doesn't keep people from plunging right in and getting it wrong every time.
It's often claimed that Howard led a tragic life but I'm not so sure that's true. If anything, he's had a far more tragic afterlife, for, despite of all the Herculean efforts made to elucidate his life and art, he is still so often remembered as "that writer who killed himself because he was upset about his mother's death." Couple that with the disservice done to his creations and it's a recipe for the frustration of anyone who reveres his memory, warts and all.

Yet, there is reason to hope the tide may eventually turn. Del Rey has done terrific work in bringing Howard's writings – and not just his tales of Conan – back into print. Better still, these are all Howard's writings, not the hackwork pastichery of others. In fact, it's becoming increasingly difficult to find those faux Conan stories on bookstore shelves. It's my hope that, at the very least, this will ensure that future readers will have a better chance to encounter the genuine articles than I did when I first sought out stories of the Cimmerian as a young man. Likewise, the facts of Howard's own life are also becoming more well known, at least among scholars and dedicated enthusiasts of fantasy. It may be some time before past falsehoods are cast aside for good but it's at least possible to imagine that now, whereas it was not even a few years ago.

Like the 119th birthday of Robert E. Howard, that's something worth celebrating.

31 comments:

  1. Any thoughts on the movie, The Whole Wide World? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118163/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I mostly liked it. Use the search box to find my review of it.

      Delete
    2. I liked the movie as well. D'onofrio did an amazing job.

      Delete
  2. I just re-read Phoenix on the Sword last night. Not perfect, but a ripping yarn. At its best Howard's writing carries you along and almost reads itself. It's like literary adrenaline.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Guilty: I didn't care where Conan came from any more than I did Morrowbie Jukes or Tarzan. Of course back then I smoked cigars too fast, and played hustler-chess with erratic results. I was young.

    I think your 4th paragraph captures Howard. Also, Hemingway. I judged Hemingway as brilliant - adventurous! - as a young man because everyone else did. Then I did some reading, and found most of it overrated.

    Then-then I revisited Hemingway again within the context of my own maturity, and in light of his personal environment (call it a "journey" if you are selling weight loss products, whatever) and the societal norms of the days when I was revisiting circa 1993-4.

    I still thought a lot of it was overrated while speckled with unparalleled genius. At least I could digest the works with a better understanding of the man and environment that produced them.

    Howard deserves the same. Thanks for reminding me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jim Hodges---
    Happy birthday to the creator of some of my favorite characters in all of fantasy!

    ReplyDelete
  5. "But men, particularly artists, need to be understood in their proper context, historical as well as cultural."

    100% this. I cannot stand how in the past ten years or so how REH, HPL, and some others have been taking out of their historical context and labeled some "-ist" or "-phobe". It's the reason why I abhor post-modernism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We can recognize the flaws of old writers while respecting the fact that they where products of their time. But you seem to be angry that anyone is acknowledging these flaws at all.

      Delete
    2. Wow textbook concern troll.You going to do the whole check list?

      Delete
    3. Well said, Blackstone. Fortunately, much of this woke nonsense now
      seems to considered risible, a subject is mockery and scorn, and in its well-deserved descendency.

      Delete
    4. "We can recognize the flaws of old writers"

      I am sure there is a Reddit where like-minded individuals can get together to virtue signal. Here it is tacky for what I'd think are obvious reasons.

      Delete
  6. Unfortunately, Conan the Caricature is the price for remembering REH. No matter.
    It's a shame that it took so long for Del Rey to acquire the rights/issue the unaltered REH stories (I presume there must have some rights issue involved, given how long the De Camp versions remained in print). Stephen King, in Danse Macabre, expressed disdain for Howard; I wonder if he has ever read the original stuff since it has been made available.

    De Camp's treatment of REH reminds me of Poe's posthumous treatment by Rufus Griswold. I'm surprised that Howard -- who had colleagues and fans from his Weird Tales days still alive in the 1960s -- didn't have any defenders against De Camp's portrayal and editing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol what was king's issue, Howard didn't do enough Columbian snow blowing? Or maybe stevie was upset over the lack of PDFs in REH's work?

      Delete
    2. Stephen King liked Howard's Conan stories. He just didn't like the sword and sorcery genre. Here are quotes from 1981's Danse Macabre:

      "a peculiar genius who lived and died in rural Texas... Howard overcame the limitations of his puerile material..."

      (i.e. sword and sorcery)

      "... by the force and fury of his writing and by his imagination, which was powerful beyond his hero Conan's wildest dreams of power. In his best work, Howard's writing seems so highly charged with energy that it nearly gives off sparks. Stories such as "The People of the Black Circle" glow with the fierce and eldritch light of his frenzied intensity. "

      Also:

      "...Robert E. Howard's "Pigeons from Hell," one of the finest horror stories of our century..."

      Delete
    3. I stand corrected. Memory does play tricks. I do believe, however, that S.T. Joshi has been more negative about REH's writing.

      Delete
    4. Joshi, I believe, feels that, while some of REH's work is very good, most of it is simply "above average pulp writing."

      Delete
    5. Everybody has an off day. Especially when you consider what the pulp writers were paid per word. But most people's best day doesn't approach Howard's best writing.

      Delete
  7. @BonnieNCylde: there's no reason to point out their flaws because most people don't care.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jim Hodges---
    Rightly or not, I've come to think of Conan (pronounced Co-nun) as REL's complex and authentic creation, and Conan (Cone-ann), as the less loquacious and more sword-happy character Arnold played, and which so many people think of. I enjoy each but in my mind they're not really the same individual.
    Shrug, it's kind of how I kept the peace across decades of talking about Howard with role-playing friends, and role-playing frenemies.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Howard's work was, and is, massively influential. The name Conan is recognizable (perhaps not as REH wrote him, but still) even to those who have never read a word Howard wrote. Would RPGs exist without Howard, and if so, in what form? It is difficult to imagine that our hobby would be anything like it is without him.

    Yet Howard, like us, was a complex and imperfect figure. Neither a saint nor a monster. It is, however, important for us to acknowledge those parts of his character that were, and are, shameful, even abhorrent. This we do not do to diminish the work, or the man. We do it because to recognize evil is to acknowledge that there is a part of us that is capable of recognizing good. There is danger in making the inexcusable somehow banal.

    Whether Howard's racism was typical for his time and place is debatable. I have read that even some of his contemporaries were put off by his racism, yet I have seen no direct evidence to support this. Likewise, I have seen it said that Howard's racism lessened over time, though I have seen nothing to support this, either. But Howard died young, and thus was denied by his own hand the opportunity to learn and grow, as many of us, myself included, have done. Even Lovecraft, if he stopped short of contrition, expressed embarrassment later in life about his own racist writings (not his fiction, but essays and poems that were undeniably and intentionally racist).

    It should also be noted that Howard was an unwell man. This should not be used to cast aspersions on his talent or influence. After all, Hemingway also committed suicide. But any portrait of Howard that does not take his psychology into account is incomplete.

    Howard's racism is an established fact. An archived post on the now-defunct Robert E. Howard United Press Association website (which billed itself as "A website catering to Howard scholars"), contains the following:

    -In a letter to H. P. Lovecraft, Howard talks about a rancher who was investigated for the murder of a Mexican. “[…] just why so much trouble was taken about a Mexican I cannot understand.”

    -In reference to a trial in Honolulu where native Hawaiians were accused of rape, Howard wrote, “I know what would have happened to them in Texas. I don’t know whether an Oriental smells any different than a n****r when he’s roasting, but I’m willing to bet the aroma of scorching hide would have the same chastening effect on his surviving tribesman.”

    https://web.archive.org/web/20090827135105/http://www.rehupa.com/romeo_southern.htm

    Ignoring Howard's racism, which can be seen in some of his stories, is especially dangerous now that Conan is again being presented to the world by a bigot. Alexander Macris has announced an ACKS supplement based on Chuck Dixon's new Conan output, which is itself based on those Conan stories that have entered the public domain. And these stories are published by Castalia House, owned by Macris collaborator and vociferous bigot Vox Day. Day's long history of irrefutably bigoted ideas is self-evident. Even a perfunctory search will yield much of it, and it is nauseating. Those who do not remember the past, well, you know the rest.

    It is possible - even necessary - to celebrate Howard's work without excusing or ignoring his bigotry. That this post attempts to do the latter is shameful, and James, you know better. That you made sure to address De Camp's unfounded allegations of Oedipal complex show that you knew enough to acknowledge the dark side of Howard's persona, and simply chose not to. Do better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Slight clarification to the above: I should have made clear that Chuck Dixon's Conan stories are the ones being published by Castalia House, and not REH's original stories that have passed into the public domain. I apologize for any confusion my wording may have caused.

      Delete
    2. @ jsorryman A few things:

      1. nobody cares.
      2. what a load of pretentious, post-modernists crap.
      3. nobody cares.
      4. to DEMAND that James "do better" is quite frankly, hubris. He's doing just fine. Go to rpg.net for people who think as you do.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. @blackstone You truly are a master of rhetoric. You gave many compelling arguments like “who cares”, and “flinging insults”.

      Delete
    5. @jsorryman
      Thanks for the info. I was undecided about purchasing the new edition of ACKS but now I intended to purchase every single book in the line.

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ Rosa: but coming to James' blog calling his post about REH "Shameful" and demand him to "do better" gets a pass. Why? Because post-modernists love to sh*t upon the past. Yeah, the past wasn't all rosy. It's the past and we've made tremendous progress. It's not going to hurt you, despite jsorryman thinking it might be "harmful" as he put it.

    Yes, REH had his flaws, but we all know this. But here's the thing: most people DO NOT CARE. We like his works despite his flaws and that's enough for most people. But that's not enough for some. They have to have a full blown character assassination. For what? So they can virtue signal to others that they called out the big, bad, scary REH as a bigot and racist.

    REH killed himself almost 100 years ago. He's not going to harm anybody. I promise.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Assuming and insisting it's anyone's obligation to deconstruct the entirety of an artist's life in contrast to simply celebrating an aspect of their art is absurd and offensive, especially on a personal blog that isn't dedicated to that sort of thing nor overtly condones said behavior. While you may have a valid point you felt passionate enough to express, assassinating James M 's character for not participating in a personal witch-hunt against the ills of society is beyond the pale. Whenever I see the oft declared snarky keyboard warrior slogan "do better," it turns my stomach. James is due an apology.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I commend James for publishing my comment. I agree that "shameful" and "do better" were both unnecesary and/or inaccurate, and I should not have written those things So, James, I apologize. I stand by the rest of what I wrote. James opened the door to discussions of Howard's past in this blog entry, so it isn't exactly like I brought it up out of the blue. It was alluded to more than once.

    I find it hyperbolic, however to imply that I said the entirety of Howard's life had to be deconstructed. I said no such thing. But since James had already brought up Howard's reputation, I thought it appropriate and relevant to comment on.

    My remarks were likewise even-handed, praising Howard's work and influence. I pointed out that, in being imperfect in some ways, Howard was not so different from most other people, including myself.

    If you find this to be an attack, or somehow sanctimonious, I would suggest not only that you are mistaken, but that your offense at a balanced criticism of Howard shows the very lack of nuance that you accuse me of.

    Of course, my unnecessarily combative and condemnatory language toward James did little to encourage an open mind towards the rest of my comment, and that's on me.

    ReplyDelete