97 replies to this topic

[Crom's bells]

During Conan's days as a swashbuckling pirate, he burns and plunders villages, but does he actually slaughter innocents? It's never really narrated in the stories before. Conan is a man with his own moral values, so it'd be strange if he were to take the lives of innocents just for his own benefits. However, who does a pirate plunder, if not innocent traders and merchants? And what does plunder really mean? Is it to use violence as a necessity to one's means, with bloodshed as an end result? Or is it to intimidate and use violence only as a defensive measure if the other party is nigh unwilling to give up his treasure?

On another note, I've read a few issues of the Conan comics, with Roy Thomas behind the stories. In some of the stories where Conan was with Belit, he was like the good conscience of Belit, almost encouraging her to not use bloodshed (the issue with the crab people I think). This leads me to believe that he only plunders perhaps coastal villages, belonging to savage black people. I can't remember clearly, but I think I may have read an issue where Conan approaches the negro villages and asks for a tribute, if they were to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. Plus, I believe he also avoided "plundering" those stricken with poverty. Mayhaps that is what "plundering" means? Or do some of you believe that there's another perspective to see it?

[Ironhand]

I think REH mainly tried to avoid these questions, by never showing Conan plundering innocent people. And yet it must have happened.

I can't remember clearly, but I think I may have read an issue where Conan approaches the negro villages and asks for a tribute, if they were to avoid unnecessary bloodshed.

Who was going to shed whose blood? In modern times, this is called the "protection racket", where a thug offers to " protect" a merchant from retaliation from the thug himself, in return for "protection money". You be the judge.

[Crom's bells]

Ugh I just realised I posted in the wrong forum too. Someone move this for me please

Who was going to shed whose blood? In modern times, this is called the "protection racket", where a thug offers to " protect" a merchant from retaliation from the thug himself, in return for "protection money". You be the judge.

Though Conan would of course emerge the victor, there'd definitely be casualties on both sides. I think it's more of a scenario whereby Conan would just take the money by force if not given willingly, and if violence ensues, he'd just do what was necessary. But would he really kill an innocent sea merchant for money? What do you all think?

Edited by Crom's bells, 22 July 2009 - 07:46 AM.

[amster]

Ugh I just realised I posted in the wrong forum too. Someone move this for me please

Who was going to shed whose blood? In modern times, this is called the "protection racket", where a thug offers to " protect" a merchant from retaliation from the thug himself, in return for "protection money". You be the judge.

Though Conan would of course emerge the victor, there'd definitely be casualties on both sides. I think it's more of a scenario whereby Conan would just take the money by force if not given willingly, and if violence ensues, he'd just do what was necessary. But would he really kill an innocent sea merchant for money? What do you all think?

Yes. That's what pirates do. Before Conan joins up with the crew of the Tigress, Belit and the Black Corsairs slaughtered an entire village, not to to mention the entire crew of the Argus except for Conan himself. Did they suddenly become kinder and gentler pirates after Conan joined up with them? I don't think so.

[Kortoso]

Just because he has some sort of moral values, or rough code of honor, doesn't mean he's a monk or a goody two-shoes.

[deuce]

Ugh I just realised I posted in the wrong forum too. Someone move this for me please

Who was going to shed whose blood? In modern times, this is called the "protection racket", where a thug offers to " protect" a merchant from retaliation from the thug himself, in return for "protection money". You be the judge.

Though Conan would of course emerge the victor, there'd definitely be casualties on both sides. I think it's more of a scenario whereby Conan would just take the money by force if not given willingly, and if violence ensues, he'd just do what was necessary. But would he really kill an innocent sea merchant for money? What do you all think?

Yes. That's what pirates do. Before Conan joins up with the crew of the Tigress, Belit and the Black Corsairs slaughtered an entire village, not to to mention the entire crew of the Argus except for Conan himself. Did they suddenly become kinder and gentler pirates after Conan joined up with them? I don't think so.

I don't think so, either. Judging from any story they're mentioned in, Amra and the Black Corsairs were feared and abhorred by all. Conan MAY have been a little more "ethical" with the Vilayet pirates, the buccaneers and the freebooters, but pirates are simply water-borne bandits and thugs. Harming innocents goes with the territory.

Since some like to "connect" the Conan yarns to the present day, I would suggest to such people to look up all the "kind and gentle" piracy going on now off the Horn and off southeast Asia.

[Quills]

I think it just opens up the larger question, which has no doubt been debated to death: Is Conan a hero or a villain? I think that he has been both at varying times in his adventurous life. In some ways, he is like Magneto or Doctor Doom (or are they like him). They have been portrayed as both villains and heroes rather than simply one dimensional villains in some hero's rogues gallery. Conan is more the "hero" than the villain, but he is hardly always on the right side. In the end, I think Howard simply wrote stories of an adventurer. Not specifically a hero nor villain. A very flawed human capable of great strength (courage, honor, stamina) as well as great weakness (wine, women and greed).
Quills

[Libaax]

Conan had no trouble killing innocents when there was something to gain. As Pirate,bandit etc.

He wasnt always a hero, he was a professional criminal in his times you have to kill when you go on raiding.

It would be unrealistic of REH if he wrote a barbarian that was many kind of criminals and got what he wanted without needing to kill some innocent people.

[Crom's bells]

Just because he has some sort of moral values, or rough code of honor, doesn't mean he's a monk or a goody two-shoes.

But not taking the lives of innocent people doesn't necessarily equate to a goody two shoes either. It just means he deems that sort of action as wrong.

What all of you have mentioned is appropriately relevant to the context of piracy, but I think Roy Thomas has also done a fine job of bringing another plausible explanation of Conan's buccaneer career, where Conan is less vicious than Belit, almost acting like her good conscience. Those of you who've read the comics, what do you all think of his perspective?

I think it just opens up the larger question, which has no doubt been debated to death: Is Conan a hero or a villain? I think that he has been both at varying times in his adventurous life. In some ways, he is like Magneto or Doctor Doom (or are they like him). They have been portrayed as both villains and heroes rather than simply one dimensional villains in some hero's rogues gallery. Conan is more the "hero" than the villain, but he is hardly always on the right side. In the end, I think Howard simply wrote stories of an adventurer. Not specifically a hero nor villain. A very flawed human capable of great strength (courage, honor, stamina) as well as great weakness (wine, women and greed).
Quills

Good observation, but it would make the stories somewhat inconsistent, chronologically speaking. In almost every story, whatever negative qualities Conan has, he makes up for it in a primordial kind of chivalry. Jewels of Gwahlur: he dumps the jewels to save Muriela. The Black Stranger: he gives Belesa the biggest gems he has. Tower of the Elephant describes the more humane aspect of Conan, that despite his greed, there is a softer side of him where compassion lies. Conan's buccaneer life happens to be in the middle of the timeline of these stories. To describe him as a Magneto kind of character would create more questions rather than answers.

In the end, I would think that Conan's "barbaric justice" would override his greed.

Edited by Crom's bells, 22 July 2009 - 08:50 PM.

[deuce]

Just because he has some sort of moral values, or rough code of honor, doesn't mean he's a monk or a goody two-shoes.

But not taking the lives of innocent people doesn't necessarily equate to a goody two shoes either. It just means he deems that sort of action as wrong.

What all of you have mentioned is appropriately relevant to the context of piracy, but I think Roy Thomas has also done a fine job of bringing another plausible explanation of Conan's buccaneer career, where Conan is less vicious than Belit, almost acting like her good conscience. Those of you who've read the comics, what do you all think of his perspective?

Roy was required by the American Comics Code to portray Conan in a "positive/heroic" light. The fact that years later (in the REH yarns), Amra and the Corsairs were still remembered with fear and revulsion by pirates and non-pirates alike, says a lot.

Read Black Colossus. Conan offers to slit someone's throat, sight unseen.

[Malak]

Yes. That's what pirates do. Before Conan joins up with the crew of the Tigress, Belit and the Black Corsairs slaughtered an entire village, not to to mention the entire crew of the Argus except for Conan himself. Did they suddenly become kinder and gentler pirates after Conan joined up with them? I don't think so.

I completely agree. Conan couldn't have gained a reputation as a pirate WITHOUT killing innocents and looting their ships and villages.

The question is, why is Conan hardly ever shown harming innocents, looting villages or raping women?
The most "evil" deed in any REH tale I can think of is the killing of his girl's lover (who's a soldier and not that innocent).
On the other hand, he shows a strong code of honor and even chivalry in many stories, both from before and after his career as a pirate.

To be honest, this (seeming?) inconsistency has sometimes troubled me.
Possibly Howard didn't want to show Conan being cruel because he wanted him to have the moral high ground over his civilized enemies.

[deuce]

Yes. That's what pirates do. Before Conan joins up with the crew of the Tigress, Belit and the Black Corsairs slaughtered an entire village, not to to mention the entire crew of the Argus except for Conan himself. Did they suddenly become kinder and gentler pirates after Conan joined up with them? I don't think so.

I completely agree. Conan couldn't have gained a reputation as a pirate WITHOUT killing innocents and looting their ships and villages.

The question is, why is Conan hardly ever shown harming innocents, looting villages or raping women?
The most "evil" deed in any REH tale I can think of is the killing of his girl's lover (who's a soldier and not that innocent).
On the other hand, he shows a strong code of honor and even chivalry in many stories, both from before and after his career as a pirate.

To be honest, this (seeming?) inconsistency has sometimes troubled me.
Possibly Howard didn't want to show Conan being cruel because he wanted him to have the moral high ground over his civilized enemies.

Hey Malak! I've noted this before. Larry "theGrayMan" Richter did so before me. Search out his posts. He mentions it several times.

Basically, REH was able to confer the cachet upon Conan of being a TOTAL BAD-A$$/stone-cold killer while AT THE SAME TIME the Cimmerian was just a rough n' tough "good ol' boy" by alluding to all those horrific, cold-blooded atrocities OFF-STAGE. It worked very well. Obviously. The best of both worlds.

Conan is a very complex character. Read the Biblical accounts of David, son of Jesse, for something similar. Or, Billy the Kid.

[amster]

Hey Malak! I've noted this before. Larry "theGrayMan" Richter did so before me. Search out his posts. He mentions it several times.

Basically, REH was able to confer the cachet upon Conan of being a TOTAL BAD-A$$/stone-cold killer while AT THE SAME TIME the Cimmerian was just a rough n' tough "good ol' boy" by alluding to all those horrific, cold-blooded atrocities OFF-STAGE. It worked very well. Obviously. The best of both worlds.

Conan is a very complex character. Read the Biblical accounts of David, son of Jesse, for something similar. Or, Billy the Kid.

I agree. Also very telling is the fact that Conan doesn't give the late Tito or the crew of the Argus even a moment's thought after he agrees to join up with Belit. A more principled individual might have chosen to go to the bottom of the ocean with them, just out of loyalty to his companions.

And about the Roy Thomas thing, he actually adapted very few REH Conan stories for the regular comic. Where he really shined was in the Savage Sword adaptations, where both he and the artists were completely free of the comics code. I doubt that Pool of the Black One or Shadows in Zamboula would have had quite the same kick in the regular comic.

[Axerules]

Basically, REH was able to confer the cachet upon Conan of being a TOTAL BAD-A$$/stone-cold killer while AT THE SAME TIME the Cimmerian was just a rough n' tough "good ol' boy" by alluding to all those horrific, cold-blooded atrocities OFF-STAGE. It worked very well. Obviously. The best of both worlds.

QFT.
Exactly!

Khawarizm burned? Plundered settlements on the Black Coast (the sack of Abombi, etc...)? Throats slitted? A Shemite city raided where our barbarian kept himself busy with the appropriation of a sex-slave?
Though we know that the Cimmerian did all those things, his most despisable moments are mostly mentioned in passing and rarely directly shown in the stories, except for a few exceptions like RitH, or TPotBO (he killed Zaporavo only to get his woman and his position).

Indeed, it's a very clever trick: the reader can have the feeling that Conan was a "good ol' boy" (as Deuce put it) and a the same time he was surrounded by a 'menacing' aura. I say: bravo REH!

Edited by Axerules, 23 July 2009 - 01:17 AM.

[Crom's bells]

The fact that years later (in the REH yarns), Amra and the Corsairs were still remembered with fear and revulsion by pirates and non-pirates alike, says a lot.

True, but it doesn't shroud other perspectives on how one might perceive Conan and the Black Corsairs. I am merely offering other ways to look at how REH could have weighed the "good" and "vice" in Conan's character, added on by the fact also that the texts do not narrate the plundering exploits.

It's appropriate what you, Axerules, amsterdamaged and the others on the thread have observed. Yet at the same time, surely REH didn't just leave these tales out of the books, almost like a cliffhanger, to give us only one interpretation. Maybe I've been reading too much into it too, but Conan being the complex character that he is, could possibly have been more than just a vicious, sea-faring pirate in Howard's vision.

[Ironhand]

The fact that years later (in the REH yarns), Amra and the Corsairs were still remembered with fear and revulsion by pirates and non-pirates alike, says a lot.

True, but it doesn't shroud other perspectives on how one might perceive Conan and the Black Corsairs. I am merely offering other ways to look at how REH could have weighed the "good" and "vice" in Conan's character, added on by the fact also that the texts do not narrate the plundering exploits.

It's appropriate what you, Axerules, amsterdamaged and the others on the thread have observed. Yet at the same time, surely REH didn't just leave these tales out of the books, almost like a cliffhanger, to give us only one interpretation. Maybe I've been reading too much into it too, but Conan being the complex character that he is, could possibly have been more than just a vicious, sea-faring pirate in Howard's vision.

IMHO, and that of others, that's exactly what REH did. It's a special ability of REH: to be able to simultaneously entertain two contradictory facts or ideas. For the reasons given by Axerules, Amsterdamaged, etc. This is really hard to do. I attempted it in The Snow Devil with not-quite-satisfactory success.

I have resolved it in my own idiosyncratic individual mind by imagining to myself that King Conan has commissioned a court scribe to chronicle his adventures. Of course the royal biographer cherrypicks the stories to portray his employer in a favorable light. We, however, must "man up" and face the fact that Conan has done some bad things offstage.

Edited by Ironhand, 23 July 2009 - 07:19 AM.

[Malak]

Hey Malak! I've noted this before. Larry "theGrayMan" Richter did so before me. Search out his posts. He mentions it several times.

Basically, REH was able to confer the cachet upon Conan of being a TOTAL BAD-A$$/stone-cold killer while AT THE SAME TIME the Cimmerian was just a rough n' tough "good ol' boy" by alluding to all those horrific, cold-blooded atrocities OFF-STAGE. It worked very well. Obviously. The best of both worlds.

Conan is a very complex character. Read the Biblical accounts of David, son of Jesse, for something similar. Or, Billy the Kid.

Thanks for your reply.
It makes a lot of sense to look at it as a storytelling device, not as an inconsistency in the description of Conan. REH is just too good a writer for that.

[Quills]

Just because he has some sort of moral values, or rough code of honor, doesn't mean he's a monk or a goody two-shoes.

But not taking the lives of innocent people doesn't necessarily equate to a goody two shoes either. It just means he deems that sort of action as wrong.

What all of you have mentioned is appropriately relevant to the context of piracy, but I think Roy Thomas has also done a fine job of bringing another plausible explanation of Conan's buccaneer career, where Conan is less vicious than Belit, almost acting like her good conscience. Those of you who've read the comics, what do you all think of his perspective?

I think it just opens up the larger question, which has no doubt been debated to death: Is Conan a hero or a villain? I think that he has been both at varying times in his adventurous life. In some ways, he is like Magneto or Doctor Doom (or are they like him). They have been portrayed as both villains and heroes rather than simply one dimensional villains in some hero's rogues gallery. Conan is more the "hero" than the villain, but he is hardly always on the right side. In the end, I think Howard simply wrote stories of an adventurer. Not specifically a hero nor villain. A very flawed human capable of great strength (courage, honor, stamina) as well as great weakness (wine, women and greed).
Quills

Good observation, but it would make the stories somewhat inconsistent, chronologically speaking. In almost every story, whatever negative qualities Conan has, he makes up for it in a primordial kind of chivalry. Jewels of Gwahlur: he dumps the jewels to save Muriela. The Black Stranger: he gives Belesa the biggest gems he has. Tower of the Elephant describes the more humane aspect of Conan, that despite his greed, there is a softer side of him where compassion lies. Conan's buccaneer life happens to be in the middle of the timeline of these stories. To describe him as a Magneto kind of character would create more questions rather than answers.

In the end, I would think that Conan's "barbaric justice" would override his greed.

Well, we know that on at least some occassions, his greed has been stronger. I think if you only look at the "here and now" of a Conan story, he is portrayed as a fairly chivalrous figure in a barbarian sort of way. However, if you read some of brief description of the past adventures of Conan, which Howard used to paint various settings, you'll find a line here, a paragraph there, that paints a rather sordid picture of Conan. They almost never go into any great depth, but they often give mention to many slayings and even plundering of cities, which most certainly would lead to loss of life for the soldiery, if not the innocent citizenry. And I won't even get into whether or not Conan would committ rape. Although, there is evidence that he might committ rape or at the very least that he might be guilty of the barbarian equivalent of "no, means yes." I think a lot of us "want" Conan to be a hero, and later non-Howard works have certainly painted the barbarian in a different, and often more heroic light. Sometimes that's a good thing. I can certainly do without the occasional racist Conan.
Quills

Edited by Quills, 24 July 2009 - 02:34 AM.

[Gin-Wulf]

i always considered the people on other ships he was attacking (unless filled with nuns and orphans lol) to be like palace guards .
if the guards king is after conan but guard has no issue with conan does that mean hes an innocent ?
an when burning a village i really cant see him executing women and children men who could fight sure but not everyone

[Fernando]

I always considered the people on other ships he was attacking (unless filled with nuns and orphans lol) to be like palace guards .
If the guards king is after conan but guard has no issue with Conan does that mean hes an innocent ?
an when burning a village I really cant see him executing women and children. Men who could fight, sure, but not everyone

Very well said, Gin-Wulf! I agree with you! He doubtless burned Valadelad, between The Black Stranger and Red Nails, and maybe he had burned Khawarizm after the events of TDiI, but I don't believe he burned inocent people of those cities - and of other cities and villages he attacked.

He indeed killed disarmed people, like Aztrias Petanius (TGitB), Bajujh (TVotLW) and Aram Bakh (TMEoZ), but those men weren't "innocent people".

Plus, in The Valley of the Lost Women, the Cimmerian says to Livia:

"Customs differ in various countries, but if a man is strong enough, he can enforce a few of his native customs anywhere. And no man ever called me a weakling!".

Thus, I'm sure Conan would never allow butchering of innocents, neither rapes, when he was leader of whatever warriors - pirates, Zuagirs, Kozaks or Bamulas.