I might add that cursed hoards that transform their guardians into monsters are not unknown in northern legends. There is also the case of Fafnir, who was somehow transformed into a dragon.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I might add that cursed hoards that transform
> their guardians into monsters are not unknown in
> northern legends. There is also the case of
> Fafnir, who was somehow transformed into a dragon.


I just re-read the story.

There's a lot about it I don't like, e.g., the first two paragraphs seem like a forced, rushed expository designed to quickly give an impatient reader the story frame. This is OK for this kind of fiction (pulp, basically), I guess.

I think a part of the modern feel that you noted (I detect this, too) is that the narrative POV is split between Ulf and the priest, Johann. This permits the injection of a conventional morality--Johann's comments and implied thoughts are more aligned with our modern ideas. If the story was from Ulf's it would not have this added layer of commentary.

The Bran Mac Morn story was entirely from his POV, and hence we bring only our own moral observations. I prefer Howard's approach in this case.

As far as Ulf being evil, here's an interesting point: do you think that Ulf or his ilk, the old troll, e.g., would see themselves as evil? Would the culture from which they both sprung view Ulf's actions as immoral or evil? We know that Johann's culture does, and our own as well, but what about the pre-Christian Nordics?

I think that the parts I liked were the revelations during Ulf's re-telling about how he came by the information--the massacre of the woman's household. What his story told us about how he thought, what he valued.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I gave this one a try.
>
> I've always had a tough time with Howard's
> works--everything seems contrived to set up "good
> guy/bad guy" divide. And while he very much likes
> to adopt a sort of Nietzchean worldview for his
> "good guys", making them closer to a conventional
> bad guy (are Howard's main characters
> anti-heroes?), it's really like making Dirty Harry
> the good guy--he's supposed to be a product of the
> kind of world in which he lives.
>
> Or better, Popeye Doyle.
>
> He then goes to some length to make the characters
> stand out in some physical way. There can be no
> physically inconspicuous characters, it seems
> like. Howard seems to relish this.
>
> Then the expository seems very clumsy and forced.
> In this case he starts with a bad guy cheerfully
> ordering a crucifixion.
>
> I just can't get far enough into his works to gain
> exposures to his ideas--which might be
> interesting, but I just can't get past the
> writing. My guess is that Howard truly recognized
> what the average reader of the weird magazines
> wanted, and how they valued simplified melodrama
> over nuance

Interesting observations as always, Sawfish. One thing about Howard many either don't know or are only tangentially aware of is that his immensely popular stuff was written AFTER a period of writing a body of historical fiction, with more realistic character development, but less marketability. The omnipresent violence remains, naturally. In "Hawks of Outremer", or one of the Cormac FitzGeoffrey tales, a battle axe is thrown a long distance, yet still cleaves the skull of a "bad guy"(gimme a break)! These are all collected in SWORD WOMAN & other Historical Adventures, which I got at a film convention last year. I read the title story and a few others. Impressive, and while not radically divergent stylistically, they sport a genuine historical sensibility that gave way to the pure fantasy of what became his Weird Tales legacy. The "Hyborian Age" of the Conan tales was a reassertion of his commitment to the framework if not the spirit of serious historical fiction. "Sword Woman" is one of the best stories he ever wrote.

jkh

Thanks for this added information, Kipling!

I'll give Howard a few more tries--this last time, with Worms of the Earth, there were a few things I really liked--he put us unequivocally inside the head of a man of extreme action of the era, as best Howard understood it. I think maybe he has such an admiration for this cultural tradition (N. European aggression and free-booting) that he raises it to the level of heroism (anti-heroism?) and in part it's that I object to ***stylistically***, not morally, and it's simply a personal reflection of my personal mistrust of and disdain for heroes.

Quirky as hell, I know...

I just re-read Houellebecq's Possibility of an Island--no heroes there, I assure you. And yet I'm more comfortable with that than otherwise.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kipling Wrote:
> In "Hawks of Outremer", or one of the
> Cormac FitzGeoffrey tales, a battle axe is thrown
> a long distance, yet still cleaves the skull of a
> "bad guy"(gimme a break)!

The only distance specified in the story is "the other side of a moat with drawbridge raised". This, plus the fact that the baron is surrounded by retainers, and not for any particularly long distance, is why the baron thinks he is safe from Cormac, who has just challenged him to a sword-fight. Which does not strain credibility for me. The throw is at a downward angle, even, since Cormac is mounted and the baron afoot. It is achievable by random axe-throwers on youtube, so I won't blink at it being achieved by a larger-than-life hero in a world of medieval escapism. A "battle axe" is, in its broadest sense, merely a combat axe as distinct from a utility axe, so there is no need to blink at this one being sufficiently light and balanced to be thrown effectively by a strong man.

I'm not sure why "bad guy" is in scare quotes. The baron is a traitor responsible for the death of Cormac's friend, and so Cormac seeks revenge. Perhaps this is not the best motive in the world, nor Cormac the most engaging of heroes, but it is what it is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 7 Feb 22 | 10:19PM by Platypus.

For all Howard's rhetoric about the incredible strength, speed, vitality, etc., of his larger-than-life pulp heroes, he is generally pretty good at keeping their physical feats more-or-less within the limits of human plausibility. Howard has his weaknesses, but this is not one of them.

Kipling Wrote:
> One
> thing about Howard many either don't know or are
> only tangentially aware of is that his immensely
> popular stuff was written AFTER a period of
> writing a body of historical fiction, with more
> realistic character development, but less
> marketability.

I would question this chronology. The two stories you mention are THE HAWKS OF OUTREMER (1931) and SWORD WOMAN (posthumous). HAWKS is more or less contemporaneous with the first CONAN story. But it is preceded by IN THE FOREST OF VILLEFERE, SEA CURSE, at least two KULL stories and at least five SOLOMON KANE stories, all of which were published 1925 though 1930. REH tried to sell stories in multiple markets, and achieved particular sucess with CONAN from 1931 onward, but he was always drawn to the weird tale and the weird adventure tale.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 8 Feb 22 | 01:37AM by Platypus.

No chronology was attempted. The book I mentioned is a stout 400 pages, and some of the works within were indeed written before any of the Conan stories or any of the Lovecraftian stories Howard wrote. As for the hawk of Outremer, I didn't mention that I read that story in my early 20s, but thanks to your careful checking of the text I stand corrected. The "other side of the moat" could indeed have been targeted and the axe throw executed as described, however unlikely. The fact that it surprised me works in its favor, even if I did scoff. The quote marks around "bad guy" were to suggest that Howard's heroic fantasy is viewed as too formulaic to some readers, not to me. BTW, did you see the video feature showing the restored Robert E. Howard home? They retrieved as much of his personal library as they could. Interesting to see one of the old typewriters he used and some manuscripts. The curators did a great job.

jkh

uPlatypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kipling Wrote:
> > In "Hawks of Outremer", or one of the
> > Cormac FitzGeoffrey tales, a battle axe is
> thrown
> > a long distance, yet still cleaves the skull of
> a
> > "bad guy"(gimme a break)!
>
> The only distance specified in the story is "the
> other side of a moat with drawbridge raised".
> This, plus the fact that the baron is surrounded
> by retainers, and not for any particularly long
> distance, is why the baron thinks he is safe from
> Cormac, who has just challenged him to a
> sword-fight. Which does not strain credibility
> for me. The throw is at a downward angle, even,
> since Cormac is mounted and the baron afoot. It
> is achievable by random axe-throwers on youtube,

There are now YouTubed replications of the feats of Howard's heroes? ;^)


> so I won't blink at it being achieved by a
> larger-than-life hero in a world of medieval
> escapism. A "battle axe" is, in its broadest
> sense, merely a combat axe as distinct from a
> utility axe, so there is no need to blink at this
> one being sufficiently light and balanced to be
> thrown effectively by a strong man.
>
> I'm not sure why "bad guy" is in scare quotes.
> The baron is a traitor responsible for the death
> of Cormac's friend, and so Cormac seeks revenge.
> Perhaps this is not the best motive in the world,
> nor Cormac the most engaging of heroes, but it is
> what it is.

Diverging here to two things I noticed, one in Worms, now in this present thread, and is related in two ways to another instance I recall.

Long ago I read a Conan (I believe) story which explained his expulsion from his own tribe. It seems like the tribe was attending the execution (by burning) of a young tribeswoman who was the lover of a pirate who had preyed upon the tribe. In this segment there is: a) the motif of the condemned looking imploringly at the hero for deliverance (as in Worms with the crucified Pict); b) the throwing of an edged weapon to achieve a quick end.

I wonder if ardent readers of Howard have noted recognizable instances of either implored deliverance from a painful death by a swifter death; and the fairly heroic throwing of an edged weapon to achieve a sudden surprise end to a given situation.

Further, I wonder if there are recurring instances of the hero of the story mercy killing as an act of empathy and humanity.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No chronology was attempted. The book I mentioned
> is a stout 400 pages, and some of the works within
> were indeed written before any of the Conan
> stories or any of the Lovecraftian stories Howard
> wrote.

I'm unsure of the order in which pieces were WRITTEN. According to isfdb, the earliest-PUBLISHED pieces in your collection were the two Cormac FitzGeoffrey stories, both published in 1931 in ORIENTAL TALES (an unsuccessful project, also edited by Farnsworth Wright). Many of the pieces in your collection were published posthumously.

By 1931, REH was already an established writer for WIERD TALES. But it is true that his earliest-published CONAN tale, and his earliest published CTHULHU MYTHOS tale, were yet to appear.

But obviously, REH was interested in history. And while all his published Solomon Kane pieces were weird fiction, his Solomon Kane poem "The One Black Stain" (not published til 1962) is historical fiction, and clearly not written for the demands of the market. I would not be surprised if it were the earliest Solomon Kane piece he ever wrote.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 8 Feb 22 | 10:48AM by Platypus.

Sawfish Wrote:
> There are now YouTubed replications of the feats
> of Howard's heroes? ;^)

Well ... in the sense of showing that it is not impossible to hurl an axe 15, 20 or even 30 feet and have it stick in the bulls-eye, yes. There is an entire genre of youtube videos, of varying quality, exploring what is and is not possible for medieval-style weapons.

Sawfish Wrote:
> I wonder if ardent readers of Howard have noted
> recognizable instances of either implored
> deliverance from a painful death by a swifter
> death; and the fairly heroic throwing of an edged
> weapon to achieve a sudden surprise end to a given
> situation.

"You cannot possibly reach me before I tug this cord and send you to hell." -- gloating villain from ROGUES IN THE HOUSE. However, Conan threw a stool, which is not an edged weapon.

Sawfish Wrote:
> I wonder if ardent readers of Howard have noted
> recognizable instances of either implored
> deliverance from a painful death by a swifter
> death;

TOWER OF THE ELEPHANT features an implored deliverance from a tortured existence. The "elephant" asks Conan to kill it.

Thinking superficially, now, I wonder if, among the big three of weird fiction (Howard, Smith, Lovecraft) Howard might be considered to be more concerned with the characters--their feelings and motivations, than the other two.

Generally speaking, of course...

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
> As far as Ulf being evil, here's an interesting
> point: do you think that Ulf or his ilk, the old
> troll, e.g., would see themselves as evil?

They are both mad, so who knows?

If Ulf were a real person, I would leave God to judge his soul. But since he is only a character in a book, why hesitate to say that he is obviously a villain? I'm sure that is David Drake's opinion, and I for one agree with him.

> Would
> the culture from which they both sprung view Ulf's
> actions as immoral or evil?

You mean the cultures of the pagan Norse? Again, who knows? Nobody was recording cultural attitudes until Christians showed up and began writing stuff down.

This is the eternal question that torments moral subjectivists. But I believe in objective morality, and his actions are evil regardless of what his culture thinks.

If you want me to guess, my guess is this. Yes, I do think the pagan Norse would, by and large, have considered Ulf to be evil. History sees the Norsemen through the eyes of those who were victims of their ravages and piracy. But I don't think it is entirely fair to judge an entire culture by the standards of a handful of adventuring pirates. And my guess is, that when these adventuring pirates came home to their communities, they did not by and large boast to their wives and children about how many women they had raped and how many babies they had slaughtered. Because that sort of thing does not tend to go over well with most people. Good and evil are at war in all communities and in all ages of the world.