While it preceded the Orange one, since 2016, there has been an uptick in the downgrading and de-valuing of expertise and professionalism. Somehow today everyone is an expert and you can become an expert self taught from the internet. So the Conan video exemplifies this for me--though my training as a literary critic has been marginal (thank you Guy Davenport and James Baker Hall and Nicholas Howe for what you did do). Today expertise seems to be defined for me as whomever has a social media following and can babble and be loud.
Ok, I'm ashamed to admit this, but I've yet to read any REH (hangs his Texan head in shame). So, what anthology, or what individual works, would you recommend to the experienced fantasy reader who hasn't read any Conan?
Rather than Conan, I'd recommend reading the Solomon Kane stories. They're uniformly better than the Conan tales. (Some of the individual Conans are better but the worse Kanes are better than the worst Conan plus I think Solomon Kane has aged better)
Del Rey published a volume of Kane stories in their definitive Robert E Howard series.
There are two “Best of” collections, Crimson Shadows and Grim Lands. Both illustrated with introductions. They each contain a Conan story along with many others. They really do showcase the whole of his writing ability. I would try the first one and if you like it pick up the second. They are a great crash course on REH.
I agree with your comments about the REH review. When contemporary reviewers cover older works (especially seminal ones), they should understand the history of the work. It's ok if you don't like the work but respect their importance. Obviously this guy doesn't know that without REH there is no Sanderson. REH->Poul Anderson->Moorcock->Sanderson. I've dissed the writing of many seminal writers (most notably Lovecraft and Tolkien) but never denied their impact on contemporary works. It's similar to when John Carter came out and reviewers complained that it ripped off Star Wars. With a little research, they would have realized what most pop culture historians know. The truth is actually the inverse. Plus the fact that Star Wars has nary an original concept in its pretty little head. (I say this is as someone who likes the original film)
Glad to hear that Kingdom is better than War, which was the weakest of the latest POTA trilogy. In my rankings of Ape films, I put it after Escape. Both Rise (which is second only to the original) and Dawn were better than Escape. I'm seeing Kingdom tomorrow.
I'm sure, as we have for much of the past 4 decades, we'll be discussing both of these subjects again.
He tries to allow for the age of the material as if he expected the pushback, but then he keeps going back to that previous stance. It was frustrating but not unexpected.
Yeah, that's something, at least. But if you're not going to read the intro and the afterword which explains a lot about what's in the book, then he's starting out with a strike against him.
I get that REH isn't for everyone. I really do. Lord knows there are authors I detest that other people just adore. But the difference is, 98% of the time, I don't write reviews based on my reading of someone I can't stand in print. When I do go negative on an author, I never come from a place of authority; only my own tastes and predilections.
The last time I threw shade at an author, it was Cormac McCarthy. And even as his fans were piling into the comments to chide me, they were agreeing with everything I'd said about his work.
No one thought this guy had the right idea about REH. I do think he was being sincere, though, and not trying to score points by counting digital coup against Howard. Some folks over the years have tried to make themselves seem clever at the Howard's expense. Jan Strnad once called Conan a "crypto-homosexual." No idea what that means. That's the kind of high weirdness that Howard's detractors usually bring to the party.
From what I understand of the words "crypto" and "homosexual", crypto-homosexual is not a bad thing. If the works can be read with homosexual overtones, who cares? Doesn't change anything. Shouldn't we be well beyond those concerns? Doesn't change the quality or importance of the work. If you don't like the work, fine, but no reason to attach your small-minded bigotries.
I think Strnad was writing from a place of jealousy. The quote was for Harrison’s flawed “Great Balls of Fire.” And it spawned a rebuke from Fred Wertham. How far off the mark do you have to be to earn a rebuke from Fred Wertham?
While it preceded the Orange one, since 2016, there has been an uptick in the downgrading and de-valuing of expertise and professionalism. Somehow today everyone is an expert and you can become an expert self taught from the internet. So the Conan video exemplifies this for me--though my training as a literary critic has been marginal (thank you Guy Davenport and James Baker Hall and Nicholas Howe for what you did do). Today expertise seems to be defined for me as whomever has a social media following and can babble and be loud.
Ok, I'm ashamed to admit this, but I've yet to read any REH (hangs his Texan head in shame). So, what anthology, or what individual works, would you recommend to the experienced fantasy reader who hasn't read any Conan?
Troyce,
The 1st step is admitimg you have a problem. :)
Rather than Conan, I'd recommend reading the Solomon Kane stories. They're uniformly better than the Conan tales. (Some of the individual Conans are better but the worse Kanes are better than the worst Conan plus I think Solomon Kane has aged better)
Del Rey published a volume of Kane stories in their definitive Robert E Howard series.
There are two “Best of” collections, Crimson Shadows and Grim Lands. Both illustrated with introductions. They each contain a Conan story along with many others. They really do showcase the whole of his writing ability. I would try the first one and if you like it pick up the second. They are a great crash course on REH.
I agree with your comments about the REH review. When contemporary reviewers cover older works (especially seminal ones), they should understand the history of the work. It's ok if you don't like the work but respect their importance. Obviously this guy doesn't know that without REH there is no Sanderson. REH->Poul Anderson->Moorcock->Sanderson. I've dissed the writing of many seminal writers (most notably Lovecraft and Tolkien) but never denied their impact on contemporary works. It's similar to when John Carter came out and reviewers complained that it ripped off Star Wars. With a little research, they would have realized what most pop culture historians know. The truth is actually the inverse. Plus the fact that Star Wars has nary an original concept in its pretty little head. (I say this is as someone who likes the original film)
Glad to hear that Kingdom is better than War, which was the weakest of the latest POTA trilogy. In my rankings of Ape films, I put it after Escape. Both Rise (which is second only to the original) and Dawn were better than Escape. I'm seeing Kingdom tomorrow.
I'm sure, as we have for much of the past 4 decades, we'll be discussing both of these subjects again.
He tries to allow for the age of the material as if he expected the pushback, but then he keeps going back to that previous stance. It was frustrating but not unexpected.
He at least checked the right Conan volume- those Del Rey/Ballantines are the editions I first read Howard in, and now own.
Yeah, that's something, at least. But if you're not going to read the intro and the afterword which explains a lot about what's in the book, then he's starting out with a strike against him.
I get that REH isn't for everyone. I really do. Lord knows there are authors I detest that other people just adore. But the difference is, 98% of the time, I don't write reviews based on my reading of someone I can't stand in print. When I do go negative on an author, I never come from a place of authority; only my own tastes and predilections.
The last time I threw shade at an author, it was Cormac McCarthy. And even as his fans were piling into the comments to chide me, they were agreeing with everything I'd said about his work.
No one thought this guy had the right idea about REH. I do think he was being sincere, though, and not trying to score points by counting digital coup against Howard. Some folks over the years have tried to make themselves seem clever at the Howard's expense. Jan Strnad once called Conan a "crypto-homosexual." No idea what that means. That's the kind of high weirdness that Howard's detractors usually bring to the party.
From what I understand of the words "crypto" and "homosexual", crypto-homosexual is not a bad thing. If the works can be read with homosexual overtones, who cares? Doesn't change anything. Shouldn't we be well beyond those concerns? Doesn't change the quality or importance of the work. If you don't like the work, fine, but no reason to attach your small-minded bigotries.
I think Strnad was writing from a place of jealousy. The quote was for Harrison’s flawed “Great Balls of Fire.” And it spawned a rebuke from Fred Wertham. How far off the mark do you have to be to earn a rebuke from Fred Wertham?