106 replies to this topic

[ironmammoth]

I saw this question on another forum and thought someone here could possibly answer it!

Why is it that Solomon Kane is always portrayed in the costume of the 1630's rather than the correct Elizabethan one?

Anyone know who came up with the familiar look, was it in the comics, or was it older than that?

[TheLordCrom]

Well, I beleive that REH didn't really go into too much deatil about his clothes aside from things we can piece together. "Dressed all in black", "slouch hat", "puritan garb" , etc...

Bottom line, artistic license counts for a lot here. Different artists have shown Kane in a variety of styles of dress. I suppose as long as they stick to the "guidelines" that REH had in the stories, its all allowable while still reamaining true to the character.

That being said, it just becomes a question for the artist. Why aren't depictions more hitorically accurate? Well, perhaps the clothing chosen projects the image the artist wanted to use for Kane more then the clothing that would be more to the time period. Perhaps the artist didn't know any better and took a guess. For my Kane costume, if you really dissect it, its a mix of mostly modern clothes mixed with other historical touches. My reasons were a matter of budget. However, the costume is still acceptable to the REH descriptions and, I think, makes a very imposing Kane image on screen.

[PainBrush]

You also have to acknowledge the fact that -artistic license aside - sometimes a jot & tittle historically accurate costume to the nth degree might actually undermine the way a character is described by the author . I know if I tried my hand at drawing or painting Kane - I'd try to get a much meaner , sterner face than the one at the top of this page - but the costume looks fine . & I know I would DEFINITELY avoid the historically accurate white lacey-doily looking collars that would be more appropriate for the era - because he'd just plain & simple look like a poofter - not an obsessed religious bad-as5 who hunts monsters in the dark swamps & bogs !! j.m.o.

[ironmammoth]

That being said, it just becomes a question for the artist. Why aren't depictions more hitorically accurate? Well, perhaps the clothing chosen projects the image the artist wanted to use for Kane more then the clothing that would be more to the time period. Perhaps the artist didn't know any better and took a guess. For my Kane costume, if you really dissect it, its a mix of mostly modern clothes mixed with other historical touches. My reasons were a matter of budget. However, the costume is still acceptable to the REH descriptions and, I think, makes a very imposing Kane image on screen.

Is your film available anywhere, I can only find reference to it on one Star Wars forum?

[TheLordCrom]

That being said, it just becomes a question for the artist. Why aren't depictions more hitorically accurate? Well, perhaps the clothing chosen projects the image the artist wanted to use for Kane more then the clothing that would be more to the time period. Perhaps the artist didn't know any better and took a guess. For my Kane costume, if you really dissect it, its a mix of mostly modern clothes mixed with other historical touches. My reasons were a matter of budget. However, the costume is still acceptable to the REH descriptions and, I think, makes a very imposing Kane image on screen.

Is your film available anywhere, I can only find reference to it on one Star Wars forum?

Its not done yet.... still waiting for the music... Check the other thread in this forum about the fan film and its history.

[Bunyonz]

The puritan movement is really a product of the 17th century, so it could be said that Kane is ahead of his time, as long as other characters wear Elizabethan garb, I see no problem...

[jackx]

Meh, clothes... what bothers me is that he is more than just slightly ahead of his time with regard to the firearms he uses... Howard's "flintlock" is ambiguous enough to possibly argue that he's using period-correct weaponry, but the 18th century firearms (mainly the pistols) Kane is commonly depicted with are just... ugh...

[Mikey_C]

I know I would DEFINITELY avoid the historically accurate white lacey-doily looking collars that would be more appropriate for the era - because he'd just plain & simple look like a poofter - not an obsessed religious bad-as5 who hunts monsters in the dark swamps & bogs !! j.m.o.

Could put a new spin on it...

I don't worry too much about historical accuracy as far as SK is concerned. Can you imagine any puritans actually being like him? He's such an individual I don't think he'd worry about whether his threads were in fashion anyway.

[Kortoso]

Meh, clothes... what bothers me is that he is more than just slightly ahead of his time with regard to the firearms he uses... Howard's "flintlock" is ambiguous enough to possibly argue that he's using period-correct weaponry, but the 18th century firearms (mainly the pistols) Kane is commonly depicted with are just... ugh...

The flintlock had a few predecessors, the snaphance and the snaplock, which were invented around 1550 and could be described as flintlock actions, in shorthand.

[jackx]

I'm well-aware of that, hence why I give Howard the benefit of the doubt... my problem here is with most of the Kane illustrations I've seen so far, the only ones where it more or less looks like a snaphance/snaplock that I'm aware of are the illustrations done for the Del Rey book by Gary Gianni...
I think I've seen some wheellock pistols on Kane somewhere as well, and while that is a commendable effort to avoid using an 18th century firearm, it doesn't fit the descryption of "flintlock"...

[Kortoso]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan

I am not a real expert at this era, but it looks like the Puritans were a real political force already by Solomon's time (the end of the 16th century). We have certain assumptions about how Elizabethan people dressed, but there was considerable variation according to class, for instance. We also know that by the way Solomon dressed, it was clear that he was a Puritan. So he did not dress in typical Shakespearean ruffs, pease-cod and slops.

[Mikey_C]

I read somewhere that, contrary to common belief, Puritans did not really dress in black as they thought this was too swanky and ostentatious. Black dye cost money, basically. If this is true, they'd have thought SK was a right dandy!

[Ant]

Not black, but very, very, very, very, very, very, very dark blue.

Only priests wear black.

Cheers,
Ant

[MaxTheSilent]

Not black, but very, very, very, very, very, very, very dark blue.

Only priests wear black.

Genius.

Father Dougal FTW!!

[Kortoso]

Indigo was just becoming more available in that time period. It was probably a fashion item that most serious Puritans would shun.

[Andradir]

As far as I am concerned, I don't see problems with any period representation of SK. Plans for my new SK-costume are just in their very first days - as my SK-page is.
But when I have a look at pics of puritans I don't see any problems why SK should look different (okay, he's wearing all black, but that's no problem) => http://www.hyborianworld.com/kane/

[daniel]

As far as I am concerned, I don't see problems with any period representation of SK. Plans for my new SK-costume are just in their very first days - as my SK-page is.
But when I have a look at pics of puritans I don't see any problems why SK should look different (okay, he's wearing all black, but that's no problem) => http://www.hyborianworld.com/kane/

excellent page! are these late-16th-century clothes? if so, the only difference is that kane wore knee length boots, a wider hat, and a narrower white collar.

otherwise, i think that howard faced the same problem that we do: details are far more abundant about the puritans from 1600 onward, and sk's clothing had to be described broadly rather than accurately.
i find it difficult to believe, however that puritan men would have worn the same clothes such as shakespeare (frilly ruff and all) since that was a part of the fashions they objected to. as for pistols, well, the elisabethan forerunner was a very bulky affair and howard may hae had no choice there.

[Kortoso]

Most illustrations of Kane show a longer cape than was normally worn in this period (though there might be exceptions). I don't know if REH defined the length of his cape anywhere.

[yimsha]

Because if he was wearing doublet, hose and a ruff, he'd look like a total puff.

[ozymandias312]

I'm not an expert on period costume by any means, but I think it's reasonable to suppose that the Puritans of Kane's day (circa 1550 to 1600 or a little beyond) may have been kind of deliberately "anti-fashion." I mean they may have gone out of their way to look different from more fashionably dressed people like Francis Drake and Walter Raleigh and Shakespeare, et al. -- you know, to be more austere or "plain"-looking, like the modern Amish and Mennonites do

I stand to be corrected about this, but I think the Puritans of the 1500s were kind of a mixed, diverse, at most loosely-allied collection of what might be called "Ultra-Protestant" sects. I'm not even sure when the term Puritan came to be commonly used or applied. I get the impression that they were more often refered to as "Dissenters" at the time. Again, I'd need to look it up, but I don't think they had a lot of political power yet then. I think they were kind of marginalized and even actively persecuted, off and on.

I do know there was more than one kind of pistol in common use in Kane's day -- at least two types: the wheellock, which had been around since well before Kane was born, and the snaphance or snaphaunce, which was kind of the forerunner to the true flintlock, which might be called an improvement or refinement of the snaphance/snaphaunce. A flintlock and a snaphance look pretty similar to a casual glance. The difference is subtle. A wheellock looks waay different, and operates on a different mechanical principal entirely.

Many people still wore partial suits of armor (as well as concealed mail shirts) in Kane's day, and in fact that practice continued through the English Civil War and somewhat beyond. There was such a thing as "proof" armor, that is, armor which had been proven to be bullet-proof by shootng it with a pistol or a musket. Of course it had to be thicker and heavier, but it did exist.

Quite a variety of sword types were in use in those days. Kane's (to me, odd) choice, the true rapier was only one. It was a somewhat controversial weapon, at least in England. Kane's contemporary and fellow countryman, swordmaster George Silver denounced the then new-fangled and "foreign" rapier and its technique, and extolled the English "short" sword (which wasn't really short lke a Roman short sword, just shorter than a rapier). As near as I can make out, the type of weapon favored by Silver was some sort of backsword or broadsword with a basket hilt.

Ozy