25 replies to this topic

[jak]

Dude on another board posted it first

WSJ Online

[Rusty Burke]

Dude on another board posted it first

WSJ Online

It's in the print edition on page D16.

Rusty

[PaulMc]

Very good article. Thanks!

[Almuric]

I was gonna post this too . . . Oh well.

Great to see some notice from a prominent media source!

[Strom]

Excellent article! Interesting comment on the "albatross" of the comics and movie projects toward the respectability and publishing progress of Robert E. Howard's work especially in comparison to the immense glut of HP's movies and comic book bastardization Howard Phillips Lovecraft has endured. Yet HP's work has survived the far worst treatment to published in the Penguin Classic series, making the "albatross" reasoning appear as merely a readily accepted and convenient truth for the state of REH's progress. Even the article comments as such with it's reasoning about the successful Dark Horse comic and the "revival movement that's winning a new generation of fans for one of the best-known characters that American literature has produced." As a business person myself, it's hard to argue success not breeding success. But, the article was very encouraging to see in the WSJ.

[Rusty Burke]

Excellent article! Interesting comment on the "albatross" of the comics and movie projects toward the respectability and publishing progress of Robert E. Howard's work especially in comparison to the immense glut of HP's movies and comic book bastardization Howard Phillips Lovecraft has endured.

Name an HPL movie that's as well known as "Conan the Barbarian". Name an actor from an HPL movie who's as well known as Schwarzenegger. Name an HPL comic book that lasted for as many issues and is as well known by comics fans as Marvel's Conan the Barbarian. "Immense glut" of HPL movies and comic book bastardizations? Well, I've been around for a while, and I like comics more than the average person and movies at least as well as the average person, and *I* don't know of any "immense glut" of these things on the market. Yeah, there've been some -- but they *sank like stones* -- NOBODY saw them except the most hardcore diehards. They are NOT part of the popular culture mainstream like that image of a buff Arnie in a fur diaper with a horned hat and a big sword.

For years, Johnny Weismuller was an albatross around the neck of Edgar Rice Burroughs. People thought they "knew" Tarzan even if they'd never seen a movie, because they'd seen the picture in the magazines and read that he was some kind of jungle guy and people went around giving a "Tarzan yell." Same with Conan -- people think they know Conan, but all they know is the fur-jockstrap image of the comics or movies. THAT, my friend, is an albatross when you are trying to get some literary respectability for an author. HPL has NEVER had to deal with that kind of widespread popular misconception. And it helped immensely that, in addition to the small industry of armchair scholars who promoted him, he had an author of the literary stature of Joyce Carol Oates come out of the closet to champion his work, and "literary" authors like Fred Chappell writing homages.

I got introduced to Conan, and thus to REH, through the comics, and I still buy all the Conan comics and will buy anything else REH-related when it comes out. I have never tried to hide my enjoyment of comics, and I do not believe that the comics form itself is any way inferior to any other medium. The "albatross" is the popular misconception of Robert E. Howard's Conan that has been promulgated by the movies and the Marvel comics images that inspired them.

Rusty

[jak]

Not a huge Lovecraft fan, but I found Re-animator a pretty freaky movie way back when: Re-Animator

Good point about Tarzan comics tying into the books, and Conan the same. That's how I first got started in both. Edgar Rice could write some excellent action scenes. Not like REH, but who is ?

Edited by jak, 14 December 2006 - 02:35 AM.

[Strom]

They are NOT part of the popular culture mainstream like that image of a buff Arnie in a fur diaper with a horned hat and a big sword.

So, you want cultural mainstream acceptance yet you dismiss the fans who came from pop cultural mediums like comics and movies? That's crazy! Del Rey sold 200,000 books - think any fans from the comics and movies brought a few? Think they could help you achieve your goals? Does this resurgence of Howard and Conan with the movies and comics still popular support your view?

Same with Conan -- people think they know Conan, but all they know is the fur-jockstrap image of the comics or movies. THAT, my friend, is an albatross when you are trying to get some literary respectability for an author.

So the visual image of Conan is the issue? I would contend the mismanagement of the rights and licenses of Howard and Conan - especially in the 90's prior to the Paradox acquisition harmed the literary respectability more than any image pop culture has of Conan. Literary respectability is not gained in pop culture - people read People magazine in pop culture - in literary circles Howard was praised for creating the genre of sword & sorcery long before the comics and movies. The lack of marketing of Howard in the heyday of the movies and comics was the opportunity purists should examine with the magnifying glass you use on the pop culture Conan phenomena.

It's amazing frustrating to see the hard work you have done along with others to bring Howard to the masses like never before and you dismiss many of the the fans who are buying it. And to see the old crutch of the movies and comics be used to explain why in 70+ years of Howard's work being available, we are where we are with Howard's literary respectability is frustrating to fans. It's simplistic and that is the antithesis of Howard's work.

I just feel there was an opportunity to expand beyond the issue of the comics and movies and Howard respectability as a writer with this article. Especially with the new expanded material coming out that is sure to grow this site and Howard's fandom. This thought process that Howard is ridiculed because of other peoples work with his creations just doesn't hold up in light of the immense success of the Del Rey books and all the pastiche material past and present an future and the examples of ERB and HPL.

Rusty, I'm interested in how you feel the license and rights have been used to further the literary respectability of REH?

How would you grade the management group who held the rights during the late eighties and nineties? Did the movies or comics ever prevent Howard material from being published? Maybe a short lesson on the history of the rights and the legal issues would help me understand.

[Rusty Burke]

Gang, I am NOT dismissing the legions of fans who like the Conan movies and comics. I came to Howard through the comics, and while I didn't care for the movies, I am glad that some of the people who DID like them decided to read REH and became fans. The reason I call the movie/comics image an "albatross" is that I believe a great many people who might actually like REH if they'd give him a try, will dismiss him as "that Conan stuff," when what they have in mind is the character from the comics and movies.

I think people who like barbarian movies, comics and fiction are probably going to find Conan no matter what. I would like to expand Howard's audience to some people who might not think they'd like him. Get 'em to read REH's horror, or westerns, or the straight adventure stuff like El Borak, and by the time they've gotten through those they either don't like REH or they do, and if they do they'll read the Conan stories and realize they aren't at all what they thought. I'd sure like for people to know that there's a lot more to Conan than Arnie killing giant snakes, that stories like "Beyond the Black River" and "Red Nails" have a direct relevance to our own times.

If you want an example of how the comic/movie image is an albatross when it comes to getting literary people to take REH seriously as a writer, look at Michael Dirda's review of the Conan books from The Washington POST, January 22, 2006 (REH's 100th birthday): http://tinyurl.com/y22afq It's nice to have a Pulitzer Prize-winning critic devote an entire page in the Post's Book World Sunday edition to celebrate Howard's centennial, but you can see that we still have a little ways to go to establish real literary "respectability." Though the review is pretty positive, there's still more than a hint that reading Howard is a kind of literary slumming, a "guilty pleasure", not quite worthy of being considered "real" literature.

Now, I know that some of you think that "literary respectability," "critics," etc., are all just a meaningless bunch of bull****, and that's fine. For those of who do think that Howard was an outstanding writer, and deserves to be included in the "canon" of American literature along with guys like Poe, Lovecraft, Hammett, Chandler, etc., the image of the dumb, fur-jockstrap barbarian that has come to permeate popular culture -- the image that Dirda refers to as "a massive half-naked fullback with a broadsword, either in full berserker fury or standing triumphantly upon a mound of dead enemies, his mighty thigh caressed by an adoring Playmate of the Month," has been and still is an "albatross."

Sorry, but I call 'em like I see 'em. I don't insist that you agree with me.

Rusty

[Strom]

Excellent post Rusty and thanks for the link. The description Dirda gives - " "a massive half-naked fullback with a broadsword, either in full berserker fury or standing triumphantly upon a mound of dead enemies, his mighty thigh caressed by an adoring Playmate of the Month," - is him describing the Frank Frazetta covers from the 60's Lancer paperbacks. I think Howard has fought the "guilty pleasure" reference from the beginning in the thirties. The movies and comics are not the origin of the lack of respect Howard has been given however in the article in the WSJ the impression is that the "albatross" of the comics and movies hampered the publication and advancement of Howard as a great American writer. Did the Frank Frazetta covers also contribute? I don't think so because of the immense popularity those covers had in getting people to try Howard's Conan. It's the same with the movies and comics - although not perfect in their interpretation the positives gained in attracting new readers to Howard and Conan - just like Frazetta - are immense. Especially is you see Howard's Conan - as I do - as the gateway to his other writing and poetry. That gateway broadened - as you mentioned in the WSJ - immensely with the successful movies and comics.

Later in the article Dirda critiques Howard's writing with phrases we have all read before by other critics of Howard's writing. That should be the emphasis of the debate - not the pop cultural image people have of his most popular character. But it seems easier to discuss the literary shortfalls of Howard as an image problem instead of tackling the critics on why the work isn't considered in the vein of the great American writers of yesterday. Which I feel it should be. And that's why I was disappointed to read in the WSJ article that the movies and comics are why Howard is behind HPL in respectability. I would rather hear talk of taking on the critics on substance not image.

[Taranaich]

Albatross!



Personally, I would like Howard to be considered among the other great American authors, without the unfortunate stigma pulp fiction has among the literati. Then again, the literati don't really have a great track record for acknowledging great work from "lower" stations - Shakespeare was written for the plebes after all.

As has been said, the popular culture image of Conan being a meatheaded austrian in a fur nappy is as disparate to the original character as the Weissmuller Tarzan or the West Batman. Yet the original work IS out there for people to find, and there are more than enough folk who have discovered the original Bob Kane Batman and the Burroughs Tarzan, regardless of the overpowering presence of the terrible movies and TV shows. Conan is strong enough a character to survive popular misconception, and through the fantastic work in recent years to get Howard's original stories out, I have no doubt that more and more people will discover and appreciate Howard's unadulterated character.

[Carlos]

Great article. IMHO Howard will become the Poe of his generation. Brilliant , flawed and tragically for us short lived. We're standing to close to him to judge him in the context of literary history. Pulp fiction of the 20's and 30's is just now getting it's due as literary force as are comics. Our favorite barbarian's legend is just starting. Perhaps in a 500 to 1000 years, scholars will debate if Conan is mythical or did he really stride forth from the mists of Cimmeria? Do we know if Ulysses, Samson or Heracles really existed but today they are treated as real flesh and blood and humans.

[Almuric]

The future people will be debating Conan's actual existance only if academic standards are even worse than they are now.

[Mikey_C]

I'm in the "bull****" brigade. As far as I'm concerned, "literary respectability" would just mean that REH's books get published in posher covers (probably some classical painting of Hercules or something similar on the front), whereas, quite frankly, I'd still prefer the old pulp-style ones.

Added to which, I'm not entirely convinced that HPL really has "literary respectability". Who says he has, ST Joshi, Penguin Books? I don't see him much in the book pages of the broadsheets much, unless it is a sneering comment. Let them read Salman Rushdie instead, if they want to!

The "respectable" books are the ones you get force-fed at school. I surreptitiously read Isaac Asimov (hadn't discovered REH or HPL in those days) under the desk whilst the teacher droned about Shakespeare and Hardy. I developed an antipathy to both writers it took years to shake off, much as PE lessons put me off of sport, although I have since revised my opinion of all these.

So, do we really want REH in the "canon", to be taken out now and then and pawed around by dusty professors, or do we want him out in the streets to be read for pure enjoyment as he intended?

If anyone feels guilty about it, that's their problem!

[Taranaich]

I'm in the "bull****" brigade. As far as I'm concerned, "literary respectability" would just mean that REH's books get published in posher covers (probably some classical painting of Hercules or something similar on the front), whereas, quite frankly, I'd still prefer the old pulp-style ones.

I don't know, it might be nice to see Howard next to Hardy in the Penguin section...

The "respectable" books are the ones you get force-fed at school. I surreptitiously read Isaac Asimov (hadn't discovered REH or HPL in those days) under the desk whilst the teacher droned about Shakespeare and Hardy. I developed an antipathy to both writers it took years to shake off, much as PE lessons put me off of sport, although I have since revised my opinion of all these.

So, do we really want REH in the "canon", to be taken out now and then and pawed around by dusty professors, or do we want him out in the streets to be read for pure enjoyment as he intended?

Well, that's not the fault of the authors, is it? It's the fault of the education system. I have a great interest in history, yet my history teacher was utterly terrible: she just gave us a list of dates to remember, and made no attempt to make it the least bit interesting. Yet I wouldn't suggest they take WW2 out of the curriculum because of that daft woman, would I?

Besides, as I said earlier, Shakespeare wrote his plays to be performed to the peasantry, not just to torture schoolkids for the next four hundred years.

[Ironhand]

Crom forbid that REH should ever be acknowleged as being as great as George Eliot or Louisa May Alcott, or that Conan be crammed down gagging throats like Silas Marner or Little Women, thus causing generations of high schoolers to flee puking at the sound of his name.

[Mikey_C]

The whole concept of the "canon" pf literature has been under attack for many years anyway. After being force-fed Shakespeare at school (please note, I am not criticising Shakespeare himself, just questioning the "holy cow" status that's been accorded him), the possibility is that our 18-19 yr olds will go to Uni and be told by some trendy post-Modernist that the phone directory is as worthy a "text" to study as Hamlet, and they will spend three drunken years dissecting such "texts" from "feminist", "Marxist", "structuralist", "post-feminist", "post-Marxist", "post-structuralist", "post-post-feminist", etc, etc, (ad nauseam), positions, until they can throw the whole lot in the fire and collect their degree.

Can anyone name, by the way, any academics (apart from S.T.Joshi), who still adhere to the concept of the canon, and rank HP Lovecraft with George Eliot?

From Penguin's perspective, labelling something a "classic" is a marketing decision. They've been criticised by the academic community for prematurely pushing some of their living authors (e.g. Martin Amis) into this bracket in order to shift some more units.

At the end of the day, only time will tell what is or isn't a classic. Personally, I think REH has made it, but I still say keep him out of the classrooms!

I'm being deliberately provocative here, by the way - I'd love some English Lit. academic to come back and assure me its not like that. I'm not anti-education at all really, but my degree subject was Industrial Relations - there was no chance of studying Conan in that, so maybe I'm just envious!

[War Song]

Mr. Miller writes for National Review [...]"

This final line of the article is ironic. The National Review was a right-wing mouthpiece for the John Birch Society, William F. Buckley and Robert Welch. Many of its veteran readers are the old-time "survivalists" who live in remote areas with hunting rifles, collect WW2 paraphernalia and will retreat into underground bunkers if Hillary Clinton is ever elected U.S. President.

I am not trying to start an ideological debate, I'm just not surprised that a mainstream Wall Street Journal article praising Conan the Barbarian is written by a hardcore right-wing writer from the National Review. It's kind of stereotypically fitting.

Edited by War Song, 16 December 2006 - 05:42 PM.