the archives
dusted off in read-only
dusted off in read-only
Wondering if anyone had read of Howard's work especially his "Conan" stories? Thanks! view post
[quote="BankytheHack":1vbd949u]Wondering if anyone had read of Howard's work especially his "Conan" stories? Thanks![/quote:1vbd949u] I haven't read anything other than the 'Conan' stories...but they are stunning on their own. Truly, Howard's Hyperborian age is strikingly realistic, and under-rated due to the 'Conan' being tarred with the 'brainless dolt' brush. view post
[quote="sunnKHANN":9r8q944y][quote="BankytheHack":9r8q944y]Wondering if anyone had read of Howard's work especially his "Conan" stories? Thanks![/quote:9r8q944y] I haven't read anything other than the 'Conan' stories...but they are stunning on their own. Truly, Howard's Hyperborian age is strikingly realistic, and under-rated due to the 'Conan' being tarred with the 'brainless dolt' brush.[/quote:9r8q944y] Quite right, although in the books Conan is actually a very intelligent man, not like he was later portrayed at all. view post
Thanks for the opinions. I'd recently become quite fascinated with Howard and his work simply because of the life the man led. He truely was one of those "weird" eccentric writers everyone dreams up with thinking of pulp horror/fantasy writers. As stated above, it is striking to see Conan's portrayl from the original Howard stories to the way Arnold brought him to life. Arnold's Conan certainly wasn't an idiot, but nor was he totally believeable as a man who would some day be a great king. I guess that was more Milius' fault than Arnold's although I do enjoy the first "Conan" movie quite a bit. view post
[quote="BankytheHack":21c9vpvm]Thanks for the opinions. I'd recently become quite fascinated with Howard and his work simply because of the life the man led. He truely was one of those "weird" eccentric writers everyone dreams up with thinking of pulp horror/fantasy writers. As stated above, it is striking to see Conan's portrayl from the original Howard stories to the way Arnold brought him to life. Arnold's Conan certainly wasn't an idiot, but nor was he totally believeable as a man who would some day be a great king. I guess that was more Milius' fault than Arnold's although I do enjoy the first "Conan" movie quite a bit.[/quote:21c9vpvm] 1st 'Conan' film is always great for a laugh, I just love it! R.E.H- a great loss. His life is very interesting, as you say. Too bad he went as he did. view post
Yuh, Howard's Conan was indeed a rockmiester. I have also read some of his Soloman Kane stories which were quite good too. view post
[quote="Curethan":1nc8bfq7]Yuh, Howard's Conan was indeed a rockmiester. I have also read some of his Soloman Kane stories which were quite good too.[/quote:1nc8bfq7] I inted at some point to get his, 'Bran mac Morn' stories. view post
I've read his Conan stories, and while Howard was a skilful writer, I didn't think they were that great, and I got really put off by the overt racism and misogyny in them. I prefer his contemporaries, but Howard's certainly preferable to most modern heroic fantasy like Gemmell. view post
[quote="Brys":3v78ri1e]I've read his Conan stories, and while Howard was a skilful writer, I didn't think they were that great, and I got really put off by the overt racism and misogyny in them. I prefer his contemporaries, but Howard's certainly preferable to most modern heroic fantasy like Gemmell.[/quote:3v78ri1e]
I have to own to having been a fan of Gemmell, though the last time I tried to read one of his books, it felt stale and boring, so I'm past that phase I guess...
view post
I think Gemmell's written some novels that were entertaining and not badly written, but after a while they get repetitive and while he may at his best be competent, he isn't spectacular, while the earlier sword+sorcery authors tended to be excellent. Howard might some times have objectionable content in his writing, but the writing itself is of a high quality. view post
[quote="Brys":1gun9aui]I think Gemmell's written some novels that were entertaining and not badly written, but after a while they get repetitive and while he may at his best be competent, he isn't spectacular, while the earlier sword+sorcery authors tended to be excellent. Howard might some times have objectionable content in his writing, but the writing itself is of a high quality.[/quote:1gun9aui] 'Legend' I can still read, it was a brilliant book, in my humble opinion, but the others were very repetitive, barring the other series he did which I still love, Jon Shannow (though even it bows toward the end). view post
Conan is one of the greatest characters ever, although I don't like him much as a king even in Howard's stories. Solomon Kane rocks too. As far as the racism and misogynism, I wouldn't consider it overt or unrealistic. I mean, I'm sure racism and misogynism were huge in the Conan and Kane days. Also, Solomon Kane has no problem hanging out with his african shaman buddy N'Longa, even though he considers the man damned. Yet Howard seems to show more proof towards the africans' spirituality than Kane's own christianity. That just doesn't seem like racism to me. And hell, Conan fights along side and saves women all the time. I'd take the Conan movies over the long LOTR movies any day. view post
Conan is like James Bond. By the end of the Story he's kicked the evil wizard or monster's ass and Done it with the sexy babe.
The new compendiums of Howards originals are cool, as are the 2 volumes Robert Jordan did.
view post