I am old. Old enough to remember those dark days when Lancer and Ace paperbacks were all we could cling to, until Wagner and Berkley gave us a taste of the real Conan, unsullied by deCamp's edits. We live in far better times now and I am warmed by the knowledge that we are kindred spirits in this.
02:50 Oh man, your facial expression here is priceless! About Conan, Sherlock, Tarzan (and the Cthulhu Mythos as well, in my opinion), I couldn't agree more. There's nothing like the real deal! Thank you for all the great videos, you're really inspiring.
Hi Michael, Your discussion of the original vs derivative versions of Conan was insightful, informative and fun. I did a video a month ago trying to recapture the "Weird Tales" experience of the 1930s and include a discussion of Howard and quite a bit on the edgy and astonishing Brundage Conan covers. It's called "Margaret Brundage & Weird Tales: Conan, Bat Woman and Edgy and Erotic Illustrations" Sorry about the 18+ restriction but Howard sometimes pushed the edges and Brundage ran with it in beautifully transgressive ways. Fabulous job today.
Excellent job discussing Howard being the only one truly able to write Conan! Much as I like some interpretations of him-the Schwarzenegger film is one of my favorites-no interpretation can match the original thing. Howard truly did put a lot of himself into the character as Lovecraft mentioned and as you discussed on the Greatest Pulp Writer video.
I got pulled into Conan via the Frank Frazetta covers on the original 1960's Lancer paperbacks, which fell apart upon reading, which made me excited to see Ace re-release them. At the time I read them I realized Howard's stories were more...intense, This led me to purchase every book I could find by Howard. Then the DelRay editions came out and I had to own them! Yes I TRUE Conan! You are correct Mike, there is a profound difference! Thanks for the article!
Great to see the Howard Show back! I completely agree, I love reading Bond pastiche for example and most of the films are great but nobody NOBODY writes like Fleming 👍
I might have missed you mentioning this in the video, but Robert Jordan also did the novelisation of the second 80s Conan film, and possibly the first one as well. The Milius '82 Conan the Barbarian film borrows a lot from Kull stories as wella s Conan ones, though I agree that Arnold's Conan doesn't quite seem as smart as either of them -- then again, that could just be Arnold being Arnold taht early on, when he had to get elocution help from james Earle Jones. August Derleth was another one who tried to pass off stories as his own. In the 40s he passed off his own story as a lost sheritan le Fanu tale, and possibly re-wrote a Hodgson outline extensively, too. And of course there was teh business with Lovecraft. First Derleth tried to convince HPL that he shoudl be allowed to "edit" Shadow over Innsmouth, and then when Lovecraft was gone came all the "collaborations".
I take your point that Conan is a creation of Robert E. Howard, and his unadulterated stories are the "canon", if you will. I have a much fonder view of the Ace paperbacks, however, as they and the comics were how I found Conan and Robert E. Howard way back when. I am very glad to have Howard's original, complete stories available now; but while I know them to be pastiches, I have enjoyed many other works using the Conan character.
My first exposure to Conan were the Marvel Comics when I was a kid and I really liked them. I still think John Buscema and Roy Thomas did a great job on getting Conan to the masses! As far as novels, my first ones were the Robert Jordan books. Like you said, in the 80's and 90's, unless you just lucked into them, you were not going to find any Robert E. Howard Conan books floating around. As time went on, I found a few here and there and enjoyed them. Even with L. Sprague De Camp's tinkering, you could still tell a difference in Howard's Conan versus the pastiches. And when I eventually found the restored Del Rey books, I fell in love with them! Robert E. Howard's Conan is a complicated guy. Between bouts of fighting and drinking, he's a pretty deep thinker. Or at least has thought through his own philosophy. He's not a random thug running around and finding magic swords and killing monsters in every story. Yeah, Howard could be repetitive, but not as much as the comics and pastiches would lead you to think. The closest to his Conan that I have seen might be Robert Jordan's, but it's still not Howard. I enjoy SOME of those pastiches, but honestly, I would rather spend most of my time reading Howard works I bump into rather than wasting my time on "second-hand Conan". All this being said, have you considered doing a video on some of the other writers that did Conan pastiches? I mean, the ones from the late 90's and early 2000's are mostly cranked out crap, but some pretty big authors worked on the early pastiches that got published after De Camp finished that initial Howard run. I know Michael Moorcock put out at least one. A few years back, I ran into some luck when some poor guy's wife took his collection of Howard and Howard-related books to a book store in a city nearby and dumped them. Sadly, his loss, my gain. Same place I got most of my Doc Savage books. I miss that store. It's getting harder to find used book stores in general, and the ones in small towns just don't tend to have the access to interesting things that some of the cities do. At any rate, if you've already covered the topic, I would love a link to the videos. Awesome work!
I 100% agree with you on all these points, even though I grew up with, and massively enjoyed, the UK Sphere versions of the Lancers. Even as a teenager I could tell the difference between say Queen of the Black Coast and The Thing in the Crypt. It had never occurred to me before about the weirdness of interspersing the pastiches with the real stories. I can see a lack of respect at work in the intros too, an attitude to REH's mental state that reduces him to a sort of fatally flawed inadequate with a genius for writing.
I think my first introduction to Conan were those two cartoons in the 90s with him. I'm sure they were very faithful 😄 Robert Howard is great. I actually have an ancestor named Solomon Kane.
You are correct, only Robert E Howard could write Conan. Not just the character, but the fights and the world it was set in. But Saying that I enjoyed the L Sprague de Camp and Lin Carter stories too. Favourite Conan story was always Red Nails - the story and the Marvel Comics supersized edition (Roy Thomas? ).
Phew, luckiliy I only had to wait 5 minutes in the scheme of things, I went straight to those Del Rey editions - thanks to your channel. The nerve of those guys, harrumph. Bravo for putting the boots into those reprobates. 👢👢
I enjoy the DeCamp and Carter Conan stuff but I take it as a different version of Conan, its a simple fun read but Howard's stories will always be best tho
The Frazetta covers pulled me in and the fantastic stories kept me coming back. Currently working my way through the Del-Rey Coming of Conan collection on your recommendation!
The Conan Centenary Edition is one of the jewels in my REH collection Michael. I first read the Conan stories as a child in the UK Sphere paperbacks in the 1970s, which mixed Howard's original work with the pastiches by DeCamp and Carter. At the time I just enjoyed them all regardless of who had written what. Now I agree with you that the Howard tales should have been separated from the non-Howard works. I still like the pastiches but they do not approach the impact of Howard's writing. In fact, for me Lin Carter's Kull Of Atlantis tales - where he finished off unconcluded Howard stories or expanded fragments into full works - captured Howard's style and mirrored his themes and characterisations much better than DeCamp did with Conan.
Your argument is really with the rights holders of Howard’s properties, not De Camp or other writers. For myself, I would have never discovered Conan, Kull, Solomon, Cormac or Bran without De Camps efforts.
Can't help but agree good sir, the og is the most legitimate and it is strange thin for me to think of later books and comics as being every bit as legitimate as the original writer's works. I dearly hope we never get LOTR pastiche books after it goes into the public domain though I suspect that we will and must confess to being a little reluctant to read some of the Conan works of latter day writers.
This reminds of when anime 1st started getting attention in the US. They took 3 unrelated anime shows and merged them into the Robotech series for US audiences.
Not long after the Lancers, the Zebra paperbacks were published. These were excellent. But now I realize there wasn't much or perhaps not any Conan stories in that series. What's up with that? I suppose their intent was to publish everything Lancer had not already published. And since there do not appear to by an Solomon Kane stories among the Zebras, maybe they didn't want to duplicate Centaur Press either.
I got that book the complete chronicles of Conan it's awesome but I must confess I also own a Conan book that is edited by L Sprague dr Camp it's the book that got me into Conan n the Robert E Howard stories r what I read it had tower of the elephant, rogues in the house and god on the bowel so I got that book but I love the Black book with all Conan stories it's awesome I love reading Robert E Howard's work.
You have this endearing goofiness about your presentations that is so enjoyable. I greatly appreciate your dedication to Robert E. Howard. One nit-pick about this episode: when you speak of The Complete Chronicles of Conan as being the "real" Conan, you certainly are correct. But you sort of blow off the Del Rey editions as equal to Chronicles. While Chronicles DOES have all the Conan written by REH, the stories contained therein are the ones as they were printed in Weird Tales and other places noted. The true original-as-they-came-off-of REH's-typewriter stories are found in the Del Reys. The WT stories were lightly edited, for sure, but they were edited. Yeah, I know this is uber-nerd REH stuff, but it's what I got. Enjoying your work here, Michael - can I talk you into getting to Robert E. Howard Days next June 13-14?
Heartily concur! Two quick points: First, while it was "disrespectful", for me that term might be a little vague. Arrogant and disingenuous would be closer to my view. How arrogant to assume your work is on par with Howard! And how disingenuous to package and market it with that hubris in mind as if fans wouldn't notice. Second, this begins to scratch the surface of the current Rings of Power kerfuffle. This is precisely what Amazon attempted to do, while stepping even further and completely changing Tolkien's cultures, history, personalities of characters and their roles, plot lines, etc. At least de Camp, Carter, and Nyberg appeared that they were trying to mimic Howard's original work.
I grew up with the Conan comics. It was only when I was almost an adult that iencountered the real Howard. What a difference. The real Conan stories bordered on being horror stories they were so dark. No one else got it. Not de Camp and Carter, not Robert Jordan, not Roy Thomas not Michael Fleisher, nobody.
Will you be reading the upcoming Conan novel from S.M. Sterling that is to be released on December 6th? Any thoughts on the upcoming comic series from Titan?
Its comparable to when the silver surfer was written by authors other than stan lee , it gives the character exposure but few and far between do the character justice.
These things can get muddy though. To some extent, it is about fooling yourself - that's what fiction is - so if a pastiche writer really gets close to the character, the style, the worldview then it can be really close to par with the original, even if fundamentally it's never the original. Also, sometimes, authors change and they take their creations in a whole new direction that may be nonsensical to the readers (ask Anne Rice fans), are they then canon? Officially yes (and it's good to give the author the benefit of the doubt and try it out), but that can hold less and less weight and the importance of "head-canon" grows. These are the wyrd ways fictional worlds "belong" to the readers.
I guess this will be an argument till time immemorial. Did deCamp ruin and disrespect Conan and Howard with his adaptations or did he keep the fires burning through the dark times? There are people in both camps. I'm just happy that pure Robert E. Howard and Conan stories are easily available for us now to enjoy, savour and collect.
Ah, thank you so much for the analysis of the awful Conan flicks. As a diehard fan of Conan, I detested the 1982 Milius movie for disrespecting and insulting Robert E. Howard and his creation. REH's Conan was like a religion for my friends and I, the tales sparking life-changing interests in mythology, history, art, fitness. I forced myself to sit through the Milius movie, wanting to walk out of the theater, but I hoped for some shred, for some glimpse of the real Conan that might redeem the pathetic mess. Ironically we were fans of Milius' work in 1970s movies--- Dirty Harry, Jeremiah Johnson, The Wind and the Lion, Apocalypse Now---- and had high hopes for his cinematic adaptation of Conan. I started reading the Lancer Conan when I was 12, and over the course of several re-readings it became clear to me, even as a teenager, that there was a huge difference between the stories by this guy Howard, and the two pastiche authors, DeCamp and Carter. My friends and I became Howard purists. I agree that the early Marvels came closest to capturing Conan outside the Howard tales. It was clear that Thomas truly respected Howard's work, and Smith, due to his British heritage, I believe, produced the most convincing Conan and Hyborian Age (even if his Conan was a burly hippie). Smith's art is infused with an ancient Celtic spirit which Howard repeatedly stressed as an analogue for Cimmerians. The Celtic influence is absent from later writers and artists, like Buscema, who relied too heavily on superhero formula, rather than Howard's text.
I have to disagree with you, love the first conan movie, it’s awesome and probably the best fantasy movie of all time (definitely the best sword and sorcery movie hands down) but I really prefer adaptations to be different, as different as possible from the source material (even better if there are no adaptations and it’s all original but…), personally I would have probably hated a movie closer to REH’s actual work. It just wouldn’t be the same.
@@konstantinos-6-6-6-8 The first Conan movie has nothing to do with Conan. You can like it all you want and think it's awesome, but it might as well be called Fred the Barbarian because it bears zero resemblance to Robert E. Howard's Conan. It has more in common with Fred Flintstone than it does with Howard's Conan. For example, the REH Conan was never a slave, and yet the first Conan movie depicts Conan as a pathetic, docile slave, groveling at the feet of his "master." That is not Conan. The Arnold Conan would piss his diapers if confronted by the REH Conan.
@@davidsnow2420 well, yeah, that’s why I like it🤣 because it’s not Conan, or if you will, alternative dimension Conan or something. It’s a bit like Dracula, no movie version of Dracula is anything like the book version, but I don’t think having the book version Dracula on screen be a good think. Like what’s the point? Read the book. Of course, it would be much better if they just made some original movies for a difference, or as in the case of Conan, change the name (though I’m pretty sure people would say the movie is “pretty much Conan anyway.” It’s really close in many ways). Or to put it another way, this is like the difference between “who goes there?” and Carpenter’s “the thing”. Both great, not the same, but not quite different enough to really be a different… thing.
@@konstantinos-6-6-6-8 Faithful cinematic adaptations of literature are quite common. The LOTR trilogy was wildly successful financially and artistically, as was the more recent Game of Thrones. In case it need to be stated, audiences appreciate interpretations of literature across different forms of media, movies, tv shows, paintings, operas, plays, etc., to the tune of billions of dollars. You may be content to simply read a particular book, but others want more, and are unwilling to accept garbage efforts from garbage opportunists. The reason the Conan movie fails is that it's weak sauce compared to Howard's source material. It is a mediocrity that leeches from a work of genuine passion. If you like CTB, fine, but the point is proven in your response. "It's not Conan."
I agree to an extent, BUT, does this mean that the only REAL Spider-Man stories are the ones by Stan lee and Steve Ditko? Are the only REAL Captain America stories the ones by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby? Are the only REAL Batman stories the ones by Bill Finger and bob kane? if the answer is yes, than we haven’t seen a new REAL superman story since the 60s, have we been getting fake phony superman for over 50 years? I’m not even sure myself what the correct answer is, I’d like to know what others think.
Nothing beats the original. No matter how good of a writer U are Ur never as good as the guy who created the character even if Ur a better writer. The creators creation is far more personal than anyone can understand even to the creator themselves. As U said only the author who created an original character can tell that character correctly originality is personal aswell as imaginative.
I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a Conan or Robert E. Howard aficionado. But, honestly, I’m not hung up on “canon”. I’ve read tons of Sherlock Holmes pastiches. Some good, some bad. Heck, not all of Doyle’s stories are great. I read Hound of the Baskervilles, then I read The Seven Percent Solution. It’s a different take on the character. I disagree that only the original author can write a character’s story. There’s nothing “sacred” about these characters. They’re fictional. This is not real life, where someone led one life - had one true story. People should write or read whatever they want. It is not “disrespectful” to write a pastiche. Frankly, it’s an homage to the original author and character.
It isn’t disrespectful to write a pastiche, that’s true. It is disrespectful to write them and then stick them in a collection of the creators original stories as if they belonged there. Particularly if that set of stories was the only one available to readers.
@@michaelk.vaughan8617 So you made a whole video talking about canon and pastiche to criticize the actions of 1 guy, essentially. I don't think anyone would argue that what this editor did was ethical, much less moral or right. But I don't see this as a common problem. Just make a video about this one guy. There's not really a broader issue.
Blasted old pastiche! Stop trying to copy Robert E Howard! Would anyone today try to copy a famous author after they are dead? It's not that the copier or writer is not good and that they cannot capture the spirit of the character or genre, they are passing off their work as the deceased author. Would someone, in the guise of editing, write a story and throw it into a work of say, Stephen King? I think there are more legal protections now.
Michael....bringing the passion!!!
I am old. Old enough to remember those dark days when Lancer and Ace paperbacks were all we could cling to, until Wagner and Berkley gave us a taste of the real Conan, unsullied by deCamp's edits. We live in far better times now and I am warmed by the knowledge that we are kindred spirits in this.
02:50 Oh man, your facial expression here is priceless! About Conan, Sherlock, Tarzan (and the Cthulhu Mythos as well, in my opinion), I couldn't agree more. There's nothing like the real deal! Thank you for all the great videos, you're really inspiring.
Hi Michael, Your discussion of the original vs derivative versions of Conan was insightful, informative and fun. I did a video a month ago trying to recapture the "Weird Tales" experience of the 1930s and include a discussion of Howard and quite a bit on the edgy and astonishing Brundage Conan covers. It's called "Margaret Brundage & Weird Tales: Conan, Bat Woman and Edgy and Erotic Illustrations" Sorry about the 18+ restriction but Howard sometimes pushed the edges and Brundage ran with it in beautifully transgressive ways. Fabulous job today.
Excellent job discussing Howard being the only one truly able to write Conan! Much as I like some interpretations of him-the Schwarzenegger film is one of my favorites-no interpretation can match the original thing. Howard truly did put a lot of himself into the character as Lovecraft mentioned and as you discussed on the Greatest Pulp Writer video.
I got pulled into Conan via the Frank Frazetta covers on the original 1960's Lancer paperbacks, which fell apart upon reading, which made me excited to see Ace re-release them. At the time I read them I realized Howard's stories were more...intense, This led me to purchase every book I could find by Howard. Then the DelRay editions came out and I had to own them! Yes I TRUE Conan! You are correct Mike, there is a profound difference! Thanks for the article!
I love your channel and share your passion for Robert E Howard! Keep up the good work!
By Crom! The Robert E Howard show finally returns!
Solar Pons is a good example of a character similar to an iconic character in this case Sherlock Holmes
The original stories will always be the best.
Great to see the Howard Show back! I completely agree, I love reading Bond pastiche for example and most of the films are great but nobody NOBODY writes like Fleming 👍
I might have missed you mentioning this in the video, but Robert Jordan also did the novelisation of the second 80s Conan film, and possibly the first one as well. The Milius '82 Conan the Barbarian film borrows a lot from Kull stories as wella s Conan ones, though I agree that Arnold's Conan doesn't quite seem as smart as either of them -- then again, that could just be Arnold being Arnold taht early on, when he had to get elocution help from james Earle Jones.
August Derleth was another one who tried to pass off stories as his own. In the 40s he passed off his own story as a lost sheritan le Fanu tale, and possibly re-wrote a Hodgson outline extensively, too. And of course there was teh business with Lovecraft. First Derleth tried to convince HPL that he shoudl be allowed to "edit" Shadow over Innsmouth, and then when Lovecraft was gone came all the "collaborations".
I take your point that Conan is a creation of Robert E. Howard, and his unadulterated stories are the "canon", if you will. I have a much fonder view of the Ace paperbacks, however, as they and the comics were how I found Conan and Robert E. Howard way back when. I am very glad to have Howard's original, complete stories available now; but while I know them to be pastiches, I have enjoyed many other works using the Conan character.
My first exposure to Conan were the Marvel Comics when I was a kid and I really liked them. I still think John Buscema and Roy Thomas did a great job on getting Conan to the masses! As far as novels, my first ones were the Robert Jordan books. Like you said, in the 80's and 90's, unless you just lucked into them, you were not going to find any Robert E. Howard Conan books floating around. As time went on, I found a few here and there and enjoyed them. Even with L. Sprague De Camp's tinkering, you could still tell a difference in Howard's Conan versus the pastiches. And when I eventually found the restored Del Rey books, I fell in love with them! Robert E. Howard's Conan is a complicated guy. Between bouts of fighting and drinking, he's a pretty deep thinker. Or at least has thought through his own philosophy. He's not a random thug running around and finding magic swords and killing monsters in every story. Yeah, Howard could be repetitive, but not as much as the comics and pastiches would lead you to think. The closest to his Conan that I have seen might be Robert Jordan's, but it's still not Howard. I enjoy SOME of those pastiches, but honestly, I would rather spend most of my time reading Howard works I bump into rather than wasting my time on "second-hand Conan".
All this being said, have you considered doing a video on some of the other writers that did Conan pastiches? I mean, the ones from the late 90's and early 2000's are mostly cranked out crap, but some pretty big authors worked on the early pastiches that got published after De Camp finished that initial Howard run. I know Michael Moorcock put out at least one. A few years back, I ran into some luck when some poor guy's wife took his collection of Howard and Howard-related books to a book store in a city nearby and dumped them. Sadly, his loss, my gain. Same place I got most of my Doc Savage books. I miss that store. It's getting harder to find used book stores in general, and the ones in small towns just don't tend to have the access to interesting things that some of the cities do. At any rate, if you've already covered the topic, I would love a link to the videos. Awesome work!
I 100% agree with you on all these points, even though I grew up with, and massively enjoyed, the UK Sphere versions of the Lancers. Even as a teenager I could tell the difference between say Queen of the Black Coast and The Thing in the Crypt. It had never occurred to me before about the weirdness of interspersing the pastiches with the real stories. I can see a lack of respect at work in the intros too, an attitude to REH's mental state that reduces him to a sort of fatally flawed inadequate with a genius for writing.
I think my first introduction to Conan were those two cartoons in the 90s with him. I'm sure they were very faithful 😄
Robert Howard is great. I actually have an ancestor named Solomon Kane.
Wow really? Solomon kane doesn’t even really sound like a real name 😂 cool!!
Wow really? Solomon kane doesn’t even really sound like a real name 😂 cool!!
You are correct, only Robert E Howard could write Conan. Not just the character, but the fights and the world it was set in. But Saying that I enjoyed the L Sprague de Camp and Lin Carter stories too.
Favourite Conan story was always Red Nails - the story and the Marvel Comics supersized edition (Roy Thomas? ).
Phew, luckiliy I only had to wait 5 minutes in the scheme of things, I went straight to those Del Rey editions - thanks to your channel. The nerve of those guys, harrumph. Bravo for putting the boots into those reprobates. 👢👢
I enjoy the DeCamp and Carter Conan stuff but I take it as a different version of Conan, its a simple fun read but Howard's stories will always be best tho
The Frazetta covers pulled me in and the fantastic stories kept me coming back. Currently working my way through the Del-Rey Coming of Conan collection on your recommendation!
The Conan Centenary Edition is one of the jewels in my REH collection Michael. I first read the Conan stories as a child in the UK Sphere paperbacks in the 1970s, which mixed Howard's original work with the pastiches by DeCamp and Carter. At the time I just enjoyed them all regardless of who had written what. Now I agree with you that the Howard tales should have been separated from the non-Howard works. I still like the pastiches but they do not approach the impact of Howard's writing. In fact, for me Lin Carter's Kull Of Atlantis tales - where he finished off unconcluded Howard stories or expanded fragments into full works - captured Howard's style and mirrored his themes and characterisations much better than DeCamp did with Conan.
Your argument is really with the rights holders of Howard’s properties, not De Camp or other writers. For myself, I would have never discovered Conan, Kull, Solomon, Cormac or Bran without De Camps efforts.
Can't help but agree good sir, the og is the most legitimate and it is strange thin for me to think of later books and comics as being every bit as legitimate as the original writer's works. I dearly hope we never get LOTR pastiche books after it goes into the public domain though I suspect that we will and must confess to being a little reluctant to read some of the Conan works of latter day writers.
Totally agree!
thanks, I read the De Camp/Carter books in the 70's. I have also read the Jordan and Wagner too. Glad the real stuff is available now.
This reminds of when anime 1st started getting attention in the US. They took 3 unrelated anime shows and merged them into the Robotech series for US audiences.
Not long after the Lancers, the Zebra paperbacks were published. These were excellent. But now I realize there wasn't much or perhaps not any Conan stories in that series. What's up with that? I suppose their intent was to publish everything Lancer had not already published. And since there do not appear to by an Solomon Kane stories among the Zebras, maybe they didn't want to duplicate Centaur Press either.
Awesome discussion!
It's useful to cite a writer's voice. Like singers, each has a personal set of quirks no one can truly replicate, regardless how they imitate it.
Without Conan pastiche, we would never have heard of Robert Jordan. (For some reason, I always want to stick an R.R. in there)
🎶 it's finally the Robert E. Howard Show! 🎶 You go, Michael! I agree wholeheartedly!
Preach, brother.
I got that book the complete chronicles of Conan it's awesome but I must confess I also own a Conan book that is edited by L Sprague dr Camp it's the book that got me into Conan n the Robert E Howard stories r what I read it had tower of the elephant, rogues in the house and god on the bowel so I got that book but I love the Black book with all Conan stories it's awesome I love reading Robert E Howard's work.
"The only person who could really write Conan was Robert E. Howard". 100% agree!
You have this endearing goofiness about your presentations that is so enjoyable. I greatly appreciate your dedication to Robert E. Howard. One nit-pick about this episode: when you speak of The Complete Chronicles of Conan as being the "real" Conan, you certainly are correct. But you sort of blow off the Del Rey editions as equal to Chronicles. While Chronicles DOES have all the Conan written by REH, the stories contained therein are the ones as they were printed in Weird Tales and other places noted. The true original-as-they-came-off-of REH's-typewriter stories are found in the Del Reys. The WT stories were lightly edited, for sure, but they were edited. Yeah, I know this is uber-nerd REH stuff, but it's what I got. Enjoying your work here, Michael - can I talk you into getting to Robert E. Howard Days next June 13-14?
BTW, are we diving into "Black Colossus" soon?
Heartily concur! Two quick points: First, while it was "disrespectful", for me that term might be a little vague. Arrogant and disingenuous would be closer to my view. How arrogant to assume your work is on par with Howard! And how disingenuous to package and market it with that hubris in mind as if fans wouldn't notice. Second, this begins to scratch the surface of the current Rings of Power kerfuffle. This is precisely what Amazon attempted to do, while stepping even further and completely changing Tolkien's cultures, history, personalities of characters and their roles, plot lines, etc. At least de Camp, Carter, and Nyberg appeared that they were trying to mimic Howard's original work.
I would like to hear your thoughts on the New Conan book that is coming out next month by S.M. Sterling.
What?!?!
When do you read the most? Early morning? At night? Im just curious I usually do my reading on my commute to school.
Hear hear!
I grew up with the Conan comics. It was only when I was almost an adult that iencountered the real Howard. What a difference. The real Conan stories bordered on being horror stories they were so dark. No one else got it. Not de Camp and Carter, not Robert Jordan, not Roy Thomas not Michael Fleisher, nobody.
I noticed that you failed to even mention that animated TV series, which had Conan using a magic sword etc.! 😂
The Conan movie the backstory was almost like Kulls backstory
Will you be reading the upcoming Conan novel from S.M. Sterling that is to be released on December 6th? Any thoughts on the upcoming comic series from Titan?
Its comparable to when the silver surfer was written by authors other than stan lee , it gives the character exposure but few and far between do the character justice.
I find it odd that it's titled centenary edition since Conan doesn't hit 100 till 2032.
These things can get muddy though. To some extent, it is about fooling yourself - that's what fiction is - so if a pastiche writer really gets close to the character, the style, the worldview then it can be really close to par with the original, even if fundamentally it's never the original. Also, sometimes, authors change and they take their creations in a whole new direction that may be nonsensical to the readers (ask Anne Rice fans), are they then canon? Officially yes (and it's good to give the author the benefit of the doubt and try it out), but that can hold less and less weight and the importance of "head-canon" grows. These are the wyrd ways fictional worlds "belong" to the readers.
I guess this will be an argument till time immemorial. Did deCamp ruin and disrespect Conan and Howard with his adaptations or did he keep the fires burning through the dark times? There are people in both camps. I'm just happy that pure Robert E. Howard and Conan stories are easily available for us now to enjoy, savour and collect.
I was a 98 pound weakling but after reading Conan I became a GigaChad!
Ah, thank you so much for the analysis of the awful Conan flicks. As a diehard fan of Conan, I detested the 1982 Milius movie for disrespecting and insulting Robert E. Howard and his creation. REH's Conan was like a religion for my friends and I, the tales sparking life-changing interests in mythology, history, art, fitness. I forced myself to sit through the Milius movie, wanting to walk out of the theater, but I hoped for some shred, for some glimpse of the real Conan that might redeem the pathetic mess. Ironically we were fans of Milius' work in 1970s movies--- Dirty Harry, Jeremiah Johnson, The Wind and the Lion, Apocalypse Now---- and had high hopes for his cinematic adaptation of Conan. I started reading the Lancer Conan when I was 12, and over the course of several re-readings it became clear to me, even as a teenager, that there was a huge difference between the stories by this guy Howard, and the two pastiche authors, DeCamp and Carter. My friends and I became Howard purists. I agree that the early Marvels came closest to capturing Conan outside the Howard tales. It was clear that Thomas truly respected Howard's work, and Smith, due to his British heritage, I believe, produced the most convincing Conan and Hyborian Age (even if his Conan was a burly hippie). Smith's art is infused with an ancient Celtic spirit which Howard repeatedly stressed as an analogue for Cimmerians. The Celtic influence is absent from later writers and artists, like Buscema, who relied too heavily on superhero formula, rather than Howard's text.
I have to disagree with you, love the first conan movie, it’s awesome and probably the best fantasy movie of all time (definitely the best sword and sorcery movie hands down) but I really prefer adaptations to be different, as different as possible from the source material (even better if there are no adaptations and it’s all original but…), personally I would have probably hated a movie closer to REH’s actual work. It just wouldn’t be the same.
@@konstantinos-6-6-6-8 The first Conan movie has nothing to do with Conan. You can like it all you want and think it's awesome, but it might as well be called Fred the Barbarian because it bears zero resemblance to Robert E. Howard's Conan. It has more in common with Fred Flintstone than it does with Howard's Conan. For example, the REH Conan was never a slave, and yet the first Conan movie depicts Conan as a pathetic, docile slave, groveling at the feet of his "master." That is not Conan. The Arnold Conan would piss his diapers if confronted by the REH Conan.
@@davidsnow2420 well, yeah, that’s why I like it🤣 because it’s not Conan, or if you will, alternative dimension Conan or something. It’s a bit like Dracula, no movie version of Dracula is anything like the book version, but I don’t think having the book version Dracula on screen be a good think. Like what’s the point? Read the book.
Of course, it would be much better if they just made some original movies for a difference, or as in the case of Conan, change the name (though I’m pretty sure people would say the movie is “pretty much Conan anyway.” It’s really close in many ways).
Or to put it another way, this is like the difference between “who goes there?” and Carpenter’s “the thing”. Both great, not the same, but not quite different enough to really be a different… thing.
@@konstantinos-6-6-6-8 Faithful cinematic adaptations of literature are quite common. The LOTR trilogy was wildly successful financially and artistically, as was the more recent Game of Thrones. In case it need to be stated, audiences appreciate interpretations of literature across different forms of media, movies, tv shows, paintings, operas, plays, etc., to the tune of billions of dollars. You may be content to simply read a particular book, but others want more, and are unwilling to accept garbage efforts from garbage opportunists. The reason the Conan movie fails is that it's weak sauce compared to Howard's source material. It is a mediocrity that leeches from a work of genuine passion. If you like CTB, fine, but the point is proven in your response. "It's not Conan."
Those guys didnt grow up in texas early 1900's. It shapes you and how you see the world and what you want from an antihero.
Will the real Robert E Howard please stand up?
😊
Wish Conan the Barbarian fought Predator
I agree to an extent, BUT, does this mean that the only REAL Spider-Man stories are the ones by Stan lee and Steve Ditko?
Are the only REAL Captain America stories the ones by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby?
Are the only REAL Batman stories the ones by Bill Finger and bob kane?
if the answer is yes, than we haven’t seen a new REAL superman story since the 60s, have we been getting fake phony superman for over 50 years?
I’m not even sure myself what the correct answer is, I’d like to know what others think.
Nothing beats the original. No matter how good of a writer U are Ur never as good as the guy who created the character even if Ur a better writer. The creators creation is far more personal than anyone can understand even to the creator themselves. As U said only the author who created an original character can tell that character correctly originality is personal aswell as imaginative.
I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a Conan or Robert E. Howard aficionado. But, honestly, I’m not hung up on “canon”. I’ve read tons of Sherlock Holmes pastiches. Some good, some bad. Heck, not all of Doyle’s stories are great. I read Hound of the Baskervilles, then I read The Seven Percent Solution. It’s a different take on the character. I disagree that only the original author can write a character’s story. There’s nothing “sacred” about these characters. They’re fictional. This is not real life, where someone led one life - had one true story. People should write or read whatever they want. It is not “disrespectful” to write a pastiche. Frankly, it’s an homage to the original author and character.
It isn’t disrespectful to write a pastiche, that’s true. It is disrespectful to write them and then stick them in a collection of the creators original stories as if they belonged there. Particularly if that set of stories was the only one available to readers.
@@michaelk.vaughan8617 So you made a whole video talking about canon and pastiche to criticize the actions of 1 guy, essentially. I don't think anyone would argue that what this editor did was ethical, much less moral or right. But I don't see this as a common problem. Just make a video about this one guy. There's not really a broader issue.
Disrespectful much like what Brian Herbert is doing to Frank Herbert's Dune.
Please explain who is the real Conan, and what's the difference with the pastiche Conan
Blasted old pastiche! Stop trying to copy Robert E Howard! Would anyone today try to copy a famous author after they are dead? It's not that the copier or writer is not good and that they cannot capture the spirit of the character or genre, they are passing off their work as the deceased author. Would someone, in the guise of editing, write a story and throw it into a work of say, Stephen King? I think there are more legal protections now.