vs. Robert E. Howard stories - Conan the Barbarian (1982) Discussion

[–] tomimt (24) 2 years ago

Personally, I like them both. Conan is a more nuanced character in Howard's stories, but the movie is a very good adaptation of the world Howard created. And while Arnold's Conan isn't Howard's Conan, he fits well in the movie.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 2 years ago

Funnily enough, I'd say that the character has quite a bit of nuance in the film, and depending on the story, he is little more than a flawless demigod who has time to decapitate a bad guy, bed a maiden, and just enough hours in the day left over to ripple some muscles.

That does depend on the story, though; many of them go more in-depth on the character and flesh him out more. And don't misunderstand me: the stories that don't flesh him out are still raucously fun. Sometimes what I want to read is not James Joyce, Herman Melville, or John Milton; sometimes it's broads and broadswords.

Still, the film has a surprising amount of depth. I think many people judge Conan by the reputation of the sword-and-sorcery genre as a whole. It set the bar, but it's far above most other entries in that S&S world.

I'm with you: I like them both. But I do edge the film slightly.

reply

[–] DoctorThirteen (14090) 2 years ago

Howard's original stories. I'm a big fan.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 2 years ago

That's almost a story-by-story thing for me. Some of the stories are entertaining, but a bit "fluffy". That is to say, they are very much pulp fiction. Very enjoyable, but not particularly deep. That's fine, and they aren't trying to be "deep". Others go a little deeper or present a fuller world for the reader. As an aggregate, they're excellent and so full of the kind of brawny fun that we need as readers sometimes.

The film... the thing about the film is that, while very different from Howard's stories, I find that it's ability to create the Hyborian Age (at least partly) visually is a tremendous asset. These are stories and worlds that benefit from spectacle. Furthermore, I think the film is undervalued for its depth. It's like physical poetry and speaks to the human condition in surprisingly touching, moving ways. I think the film hits as deep - possibly deeper - than Howard's stories.

Ultimately, the movie is for me. Is it the fact that I'm seeing it all live? Is it that I saw the film before reading the stories? Or is it the glorious soundtrack (also underrated)? I think it's all of these pieces together.

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77493) 2 years ago

I love the movie, it’s amongst my favorites.

The Howard stories were eye opening to me as a very young reader. His economy of words and vivid vocabulary allowed him to tell an amazing, macabre and swashbuckling story with no wasted paragraphs. He was paid by the word count by various periodicals and boy was he an efficient pro!

Strange guy, interesting life. Dan Ireland directed a movie, The Whole Wide World, back in 1996 about his doomed life. Vincent D’Onofrio stars, it’s quite a good movie.

reply

[–] DoctorThirteen (14090) 2 years ago

I love that movie. D'Onofrio and Zellweger absolutely nailed it.

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77493) 2 years ago

Agreed.
Great cast, D’Onofrio even sort of resembled the guy.

It’s always been weird to me that R.E. Howard ended his life, his writing was really excellent.

reply

[–] DoctorThirteen (14090) 2 years ago

Yes, real blood 'n' thunder stuff, the sort of heroic tales I could imagine warriors of old telling each other around campfires. I read that Howard said he felt Conan used to come up and stand at his shoulder and dictate as he sat at his typewriter.

reply

[–] Darren (1344) a year ago

His economy of words and vivid vocabulary allowed him to tell an amazing, macabre and swashbuckling story with no wasted paragraphs.

That was a necessary skill for writers who wrote for magazine publication, the way Howard did. They got paid by the word (usually 2¢ per word, IIRC), and editors would not pay them for wasted, excess verbiage. Also, the editors had only so much room in the magazine, so either writers learned to be economical with their words, and get the most mileage out of them, or they didn't get published. Howard was a good enough writer that we are still reading his stories nearly a hundred years later, whereas most of the other writers published in those same magazines back then have faded from memory.

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77493) a year ago

Howard was and remains masterful.
I'd put him on Lovecraft's level in terms of delivering stunning short fiction.

reply

[–] Darren (1344) a year ago

Well, the two of them were friends, through correspondence, though they never met face to face, and Howard wrote a few stories set in Lovecraft's fictional universe.

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77493) a year ago

Oddly enough I do recall this bit of trivia, they shared similar genres so it's not totally crazy to think they exchanged some letters.

In any event both were terrific horror/fantasy writers, I'm pretty sure I've read all of their stuff and Howard's stories at least twice:)

reply

[–] Darren (1344) a year ago

They didn't just exchange some letters. They corresponded warmly and frequently right up until Howard's suicide. Lovecraft started referring to Howard affectionately as "Two Gun Bob" after reading Howard's lengthy letters about his love for his native southwestern US and its history. Lovecraft was an avid correspondent, and he was in the habit of networking with fellow writers, introducing people (through correspondence at least) whom he thought would like each other's work, might share ideas for stories, and in general and help each other succeed in the pulp field. In fact Lovecraft was deeply effected by Howard's death, and he wrote a tribute, titled "In Memoriam: Robert Ervin Howard," which was published in the September 1936 issue of Fantasy Magazine, in which he wrote "That such an artist should perish while hundreds of insincere hacks continue to concoct spurious ghosts and vampires and space-ships and occult detectives is indeed a sorry piece of cosmic irony!"