Religious propaganda? - Solomon Kane (2012) Discussion

[–] adamwarlock 15 years ago

All of Howard's characters are quite uncompromising and anti-heroic. Conan, Kull, Kane: they have been copied by Clint Eastwood and all the other laconic loners who fight evil and seek no accolades. I'm not sure how serious Howard was about religion, I'm sure he was conservative in some ways. But making Kane so religious might have been dark humor on his part or just how you'd imagine a Puritan superhero if such a thing existed.

reply

[–] Taranaichsaurus 15 years ago

All of Howard's characters are quite uncompromising and anti-heroic. Conan, Kull, Kane

Kane's not really an anti-hero: he's more of a dark hero like Batman. Antiheroes are morally vague, and don't go out of their way to help people. Kane is: he's dedicated to protecting the innocent and wiping out evil wherever he finds it, be it human evil like murderers and rapists, or supernatural horrors.

I'm not sure how serious Howard was about religion, I'm sure he was conservative in some ways.

Howard was all over the place politically and religiously. He seemed to genuinely believe in reincarnation, for one thing. As for conservatism, well, I distinctly remember a letter mentioning that he'd "die before he voted for a Republican."

Just because you tell a story does not mean that you believe the story to be based on facts. This is a fictitious story based on the thoughts and feelings of Howard not Bassett. Bassett is simply fascinated by the story, the character and the genre. And the fans are as well.

The entire story of the film is Bassett's invention, based on a few highly ambiguous lines from the stories and poems. It's no more a representation of Howard's work than "Pride & Prejudice & Zombies" reflects Jane Austen.

reply

[–] Duncan_Idaho02 15 years ago

So we have a new heroe who wants to fight evil because (as he says) in the 1600´s nobody cared to fight it. Evil pagans ruled the world. But thanks to God and Solomon,the good guys, they'll get rid of evil (still waiting).

Mmmm, a little problem here. In the 1600's there were a lot of wars among Christians, they were killing each other because they thought the others were evil. Chrisitians ruled Europe and Christians were killing innoncent people. Not only that, we had the Inquisition killing more innocent people. We had a lot of saviours helped by God (or so they thought).

You may say "it's an alternative world". Yes, an alternative world created by someone very religious who wants to make us think that religion solves everything. Well, he must look back at history.

For goodness sake man, get over yourself. Why do people like you go into movies expecting them to fit your closed minded, simple little world view then whine when they don't? Is your life really that limited that movies not fitting your agenda bother you this much? Did it totally escape you that this movie is not being shown on the history channel or on the documentary channel? How difficult can it be to realize you are watching a piece of fiction based on a fantasy writing? Geez.

reply

[–] ergomane 15 years ago

Thank God it's not another anti-religion proganda movie. The internet is already full of it and sick of it.

reply

[–] Vanarchy 15 years ago

Do movies inherently have a message to sell?

No, they're to entertain us in return for dollars, especially the hero vs bad guy template which probably covers 90% of the action movies ever made.

Maybe some people would wonder why anyone would ask such a question to begin with, except to show contempt for any flavor of Christianity. I am not a Christian or religious in any way, and fully see the underlying reason for posing the original question in this thread - to create an argument for attention.

reply

[–] adamantius 15 years ago

Not even close. Howard was not an especially religious man. He just happened to be writing about a Puritan. The Kane stories are no more Christian propaganda than the Conan stories are Crom propaganda.

Kane is not a man who's doing what his religion tells him to. He's a man whose religion has become to do what he knows is right, in spite of what his own wishes sometimes tell him.

reply

[–] pfalkyk 15 years ago

jesus h christ! harry potter, narnia, golden compass, etc etc etc blah blah fekn blah. IT IS A FILM!!! remove your head from your own r-se for just FIVE minutes & you'll see not every fekn thing is a god damned conspiracy! some things are just fictional & fantastical nonsense who's ONLY purpose in existing is to entertain those who enjoy that kind of thing. FEK SAKE! get a fekn grip!

reply

[–] Aeronomer 15 years ago

So if someone holds to the belief that the (Christian) God and His followers have diminished evil in the world, I guess they shouldn't make a movie. Because you have a different (albeit cliched and tired) opinion. Yeah, I see your point.

reply

[–] Taranaichsaurus 15 years ago

Get off your high horse. You're reading childish pap and crowing about it like it's Proust.

So the Library of America and Penguin Classics have started to include "childish pap" among their publications? Good to know you have a greater knowledge of 1930s writers than two organizations dedicated to preserving the best and brightest of fiction in the world. Then again, perhaps you're the sort of elitist literati who really does hold no stock in what such organizations do.

And, of course, nobody claimed Howard or Lovecraft was Proust in the first place, so before you go about demanding people disembark from their acro-equines, you should probably crane your neck downwards. Probably to where your copy of Swann's Way comfortably nestling on your lap.

Kane is not a man who's doing what his religion tells him to. He's a man whose religion has become to do what he knows is right, in spite of what his own wishes sometimes tell him.

Kane's motivations are complicated. He wanders the earth "relieving evil-doers of their lives" and vanquishing horrors from the darkest recesses of the planet. His justification for doing this is that he believes it's what the Lord wants him to do, but this might be an intellectual justification for something more primal and id-driven: lust for adventure, battle and excitement. Of course, he'd never admit that, for as a Puritan he'd be scandalized by the very idea of pursuing violence and danger for something so earthly.

So Kane is a man who *thinks* he's doing what his God tells him to do, but encouraged because he's driven to by deep-seated impulse.

Remember, Robert E Howard, created, along with Kane---Conan--hardly a Christian viewpoint.

Depends on your definition of "Christian"! Still, for all the carnality and brutality of Conan, there are quite a large amount of biblical allusions, so it can't be called *entirely* Godless, if only for the references to the source material.

reply

[–] salimy3k 15 years ago

You made some valid points amticol, and here's the reasons why:

Solomon Kane was created by Robert E. Howard, an American pulp author who was also the creator of Conan The Barbarian. He single handedly popularized the 'sword and sorcery' genre in contemporary fiction. However, some of the darker aspects of his life and personality are also prevalent in his work: He was a product of his time (the 1930s) and as such had a healthy dose of racism and prejudice towards anyone who was not white skinned or American in his works. Examples can be found of this in 'Black Canaan', where an uprising of Afro-American slaves led by Saul Stark is quashed by the white hero, Kirby Buckner. The Horror classic 'Pigeons from Hell' is also another story of his about black magic voodoo causing havoc among wealthy white Southerners.

His family and influences were also not exactly ideal; his mother hated Native Americans, his father although loving towards him, was never there for him owing to his profession as a doctor and his most prominent mentor, H.P. Lovecraft, was a confirmed racist who openly admired Hitler and Mussolini!

His environment was hardly conducive to a positive worldview: He grew up during the oil boom in Texas, and as such was exposed to the vices and corruption, particularly corruption of the youth around him, and had a negative opinion of 'progress' - so much so that most of the heroes of his literature are uncultured savages like Conan and Bran Mak Morn who nevertheless turn out to be more honorable and trustworthy than their 'civilized' opponents like the Roman generals and the evil sorcerers they encounter!

Solomon Kane is a dour puritan adventurer; basically he's the death of the party. The Taliban would kick him out for being so glum and cheerless! He also has a tendency to go into 'uncivilized' places like Africa and Asia, and since he's the only armed white man in a story written by a white man who knew how to handle a gun, surprise, surprise, he emerges victorious.

Strangely enough, while he may be a boring christian fundamentalist, but he IS nice enough to save damsels in distress, befriend African shamans and avenge his colleagues by killing their enemies (most of whom happen to be white) all without a hint of him going 'evangelical' on the natives - I would imagine that if any of those grotesque American evangelical preachers tried to approach good 'ol Solomon, I'm sure that he, overwhelmed by their overdose of hairspray and mascara, would mistake them for demons and, disgusted by their opulence while preaching austerity, would be overcome with anger by their hypocrisy and lop their heads off, thus promptly getting branded a 'terrorist' and sent off to Guantanamo Bay.

I'm pretty sure Solomon himself would be horrified by this new movie; The trailer especially is sucky - Purefoy looks NOTHING like him; Christopher Ecclestone, Clive Owen or (my personal fave) Sean Pertwee would have been a better fit. Solomon is also taciturn; he does not want to draw attention to himself so he hardly ever speaks - but here he is, blabbing on non-stop about curses, Christ and getting crucified at one point (!) sorry guys, Conan did it all earlier (he actually did get crucified in an earlier story Howard wrote AND in 'Conan The Barbarian' - which is set before the coming of Christ - so does that mean that Jesus stole his act?) and better.

It's almost as if the makers of this movie didn't read any of the written works featuring Mr. Kane and made up their own story to pad out this film's running time - either way, it stinks. This movie is going to flop badly and set back any further adaptations of Howards' work - not a bad thing come to think of it, if the public is spared such abominations like this movie!

I think I'll spend my time reading Dark Horse Comic's current adaptation of the Conan mythos, thanks.....

reply

[–] Taranaichsaurus 15 years ago

You'll never please all of the fans all of the time. For example, fans of V For Vendetta complained because it had been updated for the modern era and fans of Watchmen complained because it *hadn't* been updated for the modern era.

That's true: however, that doesn't mean that valid complaints don't deserve to be addressed. There are plenty of things fans wouldn't agree upon: the hue of Kane's sash, the style of his sword, the radius of his hat. Those are nitpicks, and fans will pick at them. But there's a difference between those sorts of things, and completely altering the character for the purpose of a superfluous origin story that contradicts what little we do know about the character.

However, some of the darker aspects of his life and personality are also prevalent in his work: He was a product of his time (the 1930s) and as such had a healthy dose of racism and prejudice towards anyone who was not white skinned or American in his works. Examples can be found of this in 'Black Canaan', where an uprising of Afro-American slaves led by Saul Stark is quashed by the white hero, Kirby Buckner. The Horror classic 'Pigeons from Hell' is also another story of his about black magic voodoo causing havoc among wealthy white Southerners.

Howard's racism was a sad fact of his life, but I think it's also important to note when he rose above the standards of his time with anti-racist sentiments. Witness Ace Jessel, the hero of "Double Cross" and "The Spirit of Tom Molyneaux," intelligent, sensitive, kindly, the only world champion of Howard's many boxing heroes - and he was black. N'Longa from the Solomon Kane stories at first appears to be your typical stupid, pigin-speaking Uncle Tom, until he's revealed to be a man of incredible wisdom, intelligence and power that causes Kane to feel ashamed for his prejudices.

"Pigeons from Hell," too, should be noted for being a case of black magic voodoo being vengeance visited upon the wealthy white southerners for the sins of their ancestors. "Black Canaan" is undoubtedly racist, but it uses the racism as the crux of the story: as much of the events are caused by the ill-treatment of blacks as it is by the charismatic manipulations of Saul Stark.

His family and influences were also not exactly ideal; his mother hated Native Americans, his father although loving towards him, was never there for him owing to his profession as a doctor and his most prominent mentor, H.P. Lovecraft, was a confirmed racist who openly admired Hitler and Mussolini!

His mother's hatred of Native Americans stems mostly from the fact that she was alive during the time of actual Apache and Comanche conflicts, which wouldn't exactly endear her to them.

As for Hitler and Mussolini, this was a major point of contention between Howard and Lovecraft, mainly that Howard despised the two dictators.

He also has a tendency to go into 'uncivilized' places like Africa and Asia, and since he's the only armed white man in a story written by a white man who knew how to handle a gun, surprise, surprise, he emerges victorious.

In most of the stories, Kane emerges victorious only through the assistance of N'Longa, or with the use of the Staff of Solomon, an artifact of immense power. His handiness with a gun only really affected the outcome of "The Moon of Skulls."

Strangely enough, while he may be a boring christian fundamentalist, but he IS nice enough to save damsels in distress, befriend African shamans and avenge his colleagues by killing their enemies (most of whom happen to be white) all without a hint of him going 'evangelical' on the natives - I would imagine that if any of those grotesque American evangelical preachers tried to approach good 'ol Solomon, I'm sure that he, overwhelmed by their overdose of hairspray and mascara, would mistake them for demons and, disgusted by their opulence while preaching austerity, would be overcome with anger by their hypocrisy and lop their heads off, thus promptly getting branded a 'terrorist' and sent off to Guantanamo Bay.

Doubtful. Kane distinguishes himself from the cliche of "fanatical Christian avenger" by going after and killing people who actually deserve it, like rapists, murderers and pirates.

I'm pretty sure Solomon himself would be horrified by this new movie; The trailer especially is sucky - Purefoy looks NOTHING like him; Christopher Ecclestone, Clive Owen or (my personal fave) Sean Pertwee would have been a better fit.

While not my first choice, Purefoy doesn't do a bad job. Sean Pertwee would've been awesome, though.

Solomon is also taciturn; he does not want to draw attention to himself so he hardly ever speaks - but here he is, blabbing on non-stop about curses, Christ and getting crucified at one point (!) sorry guys, Conan did it all earlier (he actually did get crucified in an earlier story Howard wrote AND in 'Conan The Barbarian' - which is set before the coming of Christ - so does that mean that Jesus stole his act?) and better.

Well, to be fair, Jesus wasn't the first person to be crucified, not by a long shot. Despite being used for hundreds of years before even the Roman Empire came about, the act of crucifixion is just so inextricable from Christianity in modern culture that any time it does appear, it's almost always assumed to be a reference to Christ.

reply

[–] salimy3k 15 years ago

"Well, to be fair, Jesus wasn't the first person to be crucified, not by a long shot. Despite being used for hundreds of years before even the Roman Empire came about, the act of crucifixion is just so inextricable from Christianity in modern culture that any time it does appear, it's almost always assumed to be a reference to Christ."

If you were under the impression that I was cocking a snook at Christianity in general - I apologize. I was merely making a nod towards Robert E. Howard himself who wrote a story called "A Witch Shall be Born", first published in Weird Tales in 1934, which depicts the barbarian being crucified as punishment against a rogue queen. In the 1982 movie, Conan The Barbarian, the same scene is depicted (this time though Conan is crucified on The Tree of Woe) and in one of the single most astounding scenes depicting a main characters toughness, although he's immobile as his palms and feet are impaled with nails, manages to kill a vulture that's trying to pluck his eyes out by biting into it's neck with his teeth until it's dead as a doornail!

The Solomon Kane movie also has a similar scene, no doubt cribbed from the Conan movie, along with a wardrobe pilfered from Van Helsing, the cinematography nicked from Gladiator and the weather stolen from Blade Runner. I'm not mentioning the so-called demon that recently made an appearance in a commercial advertisement to join the Marines! Is NOTHING in this movie original?

reply

[–] pfalkyk 15 years ago

"H.P. Lovecraft, was a confirmed racist who openly admired Hitler and Mussolini" i must confess i was qite amazed by this little fact. i do enjoy lovecraft's work immensely. i find the whole cthulhu mythos to be enthralling & dreamquest of the unknown kadath is one of the best short stories i've read. i did find a typically "christian" slant against witchcraft, but it's worth remembering the mind-set of the era. as for his nazi/fascist tendencies? i confess i saw no clue to this in his writing & indeed, have never seen any allusion to this in the admittedly few biographical websites i read on him. i can only say i'm glad i bought his complete works posthumously. the only thing i'd like to give nazis comes out of a drilled metal pipe at roughly the speed of sound.

reply

[–] SupaChupacabra 15 years ago

Lovecraft was not a racist, I'd say he was a self-loathing Anglo suprematist... his wife was a Ukranian jew. But he did hold anti-semitic feelings although to call someone racist means they want everyone dead. I certainly don't think he "admired Hitler and Mussolini" that's ridiculous, suggesting he was some sort of Aryan Fatherland supporter. He was a snotty snobby New Englander that thought of himself as an Anglophile and that all of civilization was collapsing. I'm sure you can find quite a few intellectuals in England who thought the same way. They don't want genocide, but certainly feel they represent the height of civilization... and the "masses" of immigrants or foreigners represented the slow devolution of mankind. His stories reflect this great horror of succumbing to the "irrational" which is effectively code for "non English-speaking Others".

I'm not defending his skewed views of civilization but think anyone extrapolating his views to mean he sympathized with Nazism or Fascism is pure bs.

A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees. -William Blake

reply

[–] pfalkyk 15 years ago

in this matter, i shall bow to greater knowledge than my own. i just like his stories.

reply

[–] Taranaichsaurus 15 years ago

I certainly don't think he "admired Hitler and Mussolini" that's ridiculous, suggesting he was some sort of Aryan Fatherland supporter.

Have you read "A Means to Freedom", a collection of correspondence between REH and HPL? The two regularly argued about Hitler and Mussolini, with REH vigorously decrying the two while Lovecraft defended them. However, it should be noted that this discussion was based in the mid 1930s, before the outbreak of war, and long before news of various atrocities were known by the populace. He wasn't an Aryan Fatherland supporter by any means, though, certainly not by the modern conception of the idea.

reply

[–] justonefyx 15 years ago

I haven't read every single response so I don't know if someone has already said what I'm about to say.

I didn't find this film to religious propaganda at all. If anything, I found it critical of Christianity. Pagan medicine works when Christian prayer fails. Solomon complains that God sits by and does nothing, allowing evil to roam the earth. Finally, Solomon defeats evil by his own actions, not with the help of God. As an atheist, I enjoyed this. I was wondering how Christians would feel about seeing these things.

reply

[–] Taranaichsaurus 15 years ago

As an atheist, I enjoyed this.

It's kind of weird, seeing as in this film, the Devil exists, and God does appear to exist as well, even if He's going by an "I help those who help themselves" sorta credo. Why, exactly, would you enjoy this? (not rhetorical, I'm genuinely intrigued)

reply

[–] archer1812 15 years ago

That's silly, why would it be weird? Is not any different than a Christian (or an atheist for that matter) enjoying a movie like "Clash of the Titans" where is set in a world full of Greek gods and where the Christian god doesn't even exists. They're both just good fun movies based on myths.

reply

[–] sboshear 15 years ago

I know this thread has already gone on way too long, but if I can do so in the form of a discussion and not an argument, I'd like to offer my views on the subjects discussed.

The main thing to realize here is that there are two people who can rightly be called "creators" of this film. The first is Michael Bassett, the director, who according to other posters here is not a Christian (I don't know how they know that - I haven't been able to find the information anywhere).

The other "creator" was Robert E. Howard, who created the Solomon Kane character and wrote the original short stories. Anyone who suggests Robert E. Howard was anything like a Christian is way off. I am quite a fan of his writing. I have read all the Kull stories, most of the Solomon Kane stories and am working my way through a complete collection of his Conan stories. I have also read a few of the correspondences he exchanged with H.P Lovecraft during his life. Howard was a firm believer in an early version of evolution theory and, like Lovecraft, at least gave serious thought to certain aspects of the occult. He basically seems to have been trying to piece together his own worldview based on whatever parts of any philosophy or religion fascinated him or seemed true to him.

As odd as it may seem, the worlds that Conan and Kull are set in seem to be based on a prehistory that Howard believed might actually have occurred - previous races of man constantly building vast civilizations only to be wiped out by great cataclysms and forced to start over. Solomon Kane was simply another hero set in this world - albeit in a time frame closer to our own. It is clear to anyone reading the stories that the author does not share Kane's religious viewpoint. In several places, in fact, it is bluntly stated that Kane is using his religion and his sense of right and wrong to justify what his base warrior instincts would tell him to do no matter what. Namely, travel around and fight. In Kane's case, because he's the only one of Howard's characters raised with a Christian morality, he only wreaks death upon those he deems "evil," usually monsters or the human beings that summon them. Howard constantly makes reference to Kane's "savage instincts" and more than once refers to him as a "barbarian," even though he's an Englishman from a civilized age. This is because to Howard, those words say more about the character's core spirit than his culture or professed faith. Given Howard's belief in reincarnation, I've always thought the underlying suggestion was that Kull, Conan, Kane and possibly Bran Mak Morn (even though he met Kull in one time-travel story) were actually all the same man reincarnated in different time periods. They certainly all have the exact same personality.

Now I have not seen the film, only because it has not been released in the U.S., but I have to ask the other Howard fans here why they feel the film is such a betrayal of the original character. True, based on the trailer, he does seem to do a lot more talking than he does in the text, but I would say that's forgivable. Howard never addresses Kane's origins much, so how could Bassett's origin story contradict anything? And as for the fire monster - true, Kane never fought a fire monster, but he did face supernatural forces in almost every story - often besting demons, monsters or evil shamans who could summon the dead. So how is it out of tone for him to face a fire monster? I'm sure the film is nothing but campy action and has been tweaked accordingly, but I'm curious why other Howard-lovers seem so violently opposed to it.

Lastly, to those who have belittled the fiction of writers like Robert E. Howard and H.P. Lovecraft, I'm not going to hit you with another long list of respectable people and organizations who disagree with you. I'm simply going to suggest that just because you don't enjoy a certain genre of literature, that doesn't make it trash. These men were very talented writers with unique visions. They both inspired genres that entire conventions are formed around today. Comparing them to Shakespeare and the like is ridiculous. They were who they were and they wrote what they wrote. If anyone cares to wait 500 years and see whose modern work is revered at that time the way we revere Shakespeare today, I eagerly await the letter you will send back through time to inform the rest of us of your discovery. Until then, quit knocking my friend Howard. My delusional, suicidal, mind-numbingly racist friend.

Thanks,
Steve

reply

[–] Taranaichsaurus 15 years ago

That's silly, why would it be weird? Is not any different than a Christian (or an atheist for that matter) enjoying a movie like "Clash of the Titans" where is set in a world full of Greek gods and where the Christian god doesn't even exists. They're both just good fun movies based on myths.

Ah, gotcha. I just find it strange that you said "as an atheist" as a qualifier, is all.

Given Howard's belief in reincarnation, I've always thought the underlying suggestion was that Kull, Conan, Kane and possibly Bran Mak Morn (even though he met Kull in one time-travel story) were actually all the same man reincarnated in different time periods. They certainly all have the exact same personality.

Kull, Conan, Kane and Bran have the exact same personality? Don't be preposterous.

Kull is an introspective philosopher, given to dark brooding and contemplating, with no interest in women, and is a virgin. Conan is a gregarious man's man who voraciously enjoys the company of women, and while is given to the occasional musings, doesn't tend to get caught up in his thoughts too often. Kane is an untalkative and driven man who spends zero time on self-actualisation, and is too focused on ridding the world of evil to be distracted by wine & women (though the mysterious Bess might well be a lost love). Bran is driven by hatred of the Romans, tormented by his choices and the prospect of his doomed people, is not alien to women but neither a womaniser.

Apart from the four characters having similar hair colour and being strong warriors, there are substantial divergences between the characters. I could almost understand considering Conan, Cormac Mac Art and Black Turlogh as reincarnations, but even they have great differences (Cormac draws the line at endangering innocents and is far more of a trickster than the others, while Turlogh is more given to melancholy and pessimism than the others.) I can only suspect that you're relying on old, biased, outdated information, perhaps from De Camp, he of the infamous back-handed compliment and questionable research methods, who certainly thought all of Howard's heroes were effectively interchangeable.

Now I have not seen the film, only because it has not been released in the U.S., but I have to ask the other Howard fans here why they feel the film is such a betrayal of the original character.

Because there is simply no way Howard's Solomon Kane could've been a murderous, avaricious, sadistic pirate without utterly betraying the character.

Howard never addresses Kane's origins much, so how could Bassett's origin story contradict anything?

Because it contradicts the little we do know. We know from Kane's own admission that he "spent all his life fighting evil." The film contradicts this entirely. The film has Kane's change of heart take place in 1601, which means that "The One Black Stain" (set in 1578) and "The Return of Sir Richard Grenville" (1591) make no sense, since Kane is acting like a good man when he should be acting like the evil pirate. "Hawk of Basti" references Queen Elizabeth, and since Kane has the staff of Solomon, that'd mean that all the adventures up to that story would have to happen within the space of two years after the events of this film - which is practically impossible.

And as for the fire monster - true, Kane never fought a fire monster, but he did face supernatural forces in almost every story - often besting demons, monsters or evil shamans who could summon the dead. So how is it out of tone for him to face a fire monster?

For the same reason it'd be out of place for Aragorn to face a beholder in The Lord of the Rings: sure, it'd be fine for a Dungeons & Dragons story, but not for a Lord of the Rings one. For the same reason, since Howard never wrote of a fire demon, or anything resembling one (indeed, demons in the Howard universe are vulnerable to fire), it is indeed out of tone.

I'm sure the film is nothing but campy action and has been tweaked accordingly, but I'm curious why other Howard-lovers seem so violently opposed to it.

Mostly because most of the Howard fans I know don't want "campy action," they want a dark, serious Solomon Kane film that doesn't alter the character and universe to the point of anathema. Having said that, the film isn't really that campy in tone: everything's treated pretty seriously.

Until then, quit knocking my friend Howard. My delusional, suicidal, mind-numbingly racist friend.

Wow, that's one of the biggest back-handed compliments I've ever seen. In addition to being incorrect: Howard was not delusional nor "mind-numbingly racist," and suicidal is hardly a nice thing to say. I'm surprised you didn't find a way to stick in "paranoid, weird, Oedipal manchild." For a professed Howard fan, you seem to be sticking to nonsense that's been debunked and ridiculed for about a decade. I suggest you have a perusal of "Blood & Thunder: The Life and Art of Robert E. Howard," maybe go over to the REH forums. We're always looking for new folk to enter the fold, but only if they're willing to cast away the old myths and misconceptions.

reply

[–] sboshear 15 years ago

Hey Taran-

Sorry, I had rather hoped my line there at the end would be received as the gentle ribbing I intended it to be, but on rereading I can see how it might have sounded more like an attack than a wink, so I sincerely apologize. To be fair though, Howard absolutely was a racist. Any suggestion that the man who wrote these words...

"Kane stood, an unconscious statue of triumph - the ancient empires fall, the dark-skinned peoples fade and even the demons of antiquity gasp their last, but over all stands the Aryan barbarian, white-skinned, cold-eyed, dominant, the supreme fighting man of the earth, whether he be clad in wolf-hide and horned ...helmet, or boots and doublet - whether he bear in his hand battle-ax or rapier - whether he be called Dorian, Saxon or Englishman - whether his name be Jason, Hengist or Solomon Kane."

...was not a racist, is silly. I understand all the mitigating factors of his life and I'm not saying he was a bad person or a hatemonger, but he definitely believed in the superiority of the white man as scientific fact - his letters to Lovecraft bear that out. If you think there is evidence to the contrary, that is your right.

As for your response to my suggestion that Conan, Kull and Kane are reincarnations of each other, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. The differences in bearing and attitude you described are certainly clear, but I believe all of those things can be accounted for by the cultural differences between them. Surely the same man, raised in different circumstances in a different world, would have the same level of deviation. Perhaps to say they have the same "personality" is the wrong word. It seems more that they have the same spirit. Certainly Kane and Conan seem opposites on the surface because Kane was raised a Puritan and Conan an uncivilized tribal warrior. Put them in a fight, though, where a person's true colors come out, and I say they are the same man. When Howard strips each character down to his core, they all seem much more similar than you imply. It's only a suggestion, though. Howard certainly never wrote anything to suggest it beyond what I've already mentioned.

And no, I am absolutely NOT basing my observations on DeCamp. I'm sure he's a fine author, but I tend to lean toward the purist in everything I take an interest in and when I fixated on Howard a couple of years ago, you would not believe the extent of my rage at how hard it was to find unadulterated copies of his work. I have not even read DeCamp's modifications other than a few quick glances. My observations are my own.

Regarding the film, thanks for the explanations. Like I said, I haven't seen it so I wasn't aware of some of the things you mentioned. That does kind of irk. I still think it would bother me less in certain areas, but I'm mostly just glad anyone took enough of an interest in Howard to make a movie about someone other than Conan.

-Peace

reply

[–] Readnought 15 years ago

I for one agree with your view on Howards main characters having the same spirit/core personality.

I'd also agree Howard was a convinced racist as much as he was evidently also openminded and rational enough to toy with his own introverted ideas of the world.

reply