Robert E. Howard Readers discussion

A side discussion started on the Black Stranger/The Treasure of Tranicos" thread about the pros and cons of Robert E. Howard's original texts, as published in Weird Tales and other pulps, and the variously edited versions that most of us are probably more familiar with.

I think this deserves it's own thread and here it is!

So, as somebody with a limited budget who can't (for now, anyway) obtain all the various versions of REH's works, I'm clearly a fan of the edited versions as I don't have copies of the original REH texts.

I guess that this relates more to the Conan stories, which I know exist in different versions, rather than Howard's other works, which presumably aren't generally popular enough to warrant drastic editing for either style or "Politically Incorrect" content. Can anybody weigh in with a more informed view on this?

Anyway, having edited-Conan as my basis, am I able to form a firm view as to Howard's attitudes on race, gender issues, barbarism, etc? I thought I could, but then I thought the editing had been to fill in plot holes, complete fragmentary stories and such like, not to actually the fabric and sense of what REH wrote. Now I'm not sure.

Is it right to remove, say, offensive racial stereotypes and language from reprinted material, or should the publishers have faith that their readership is well informed enough to put such things into an historical context?

I think it depends both on the author's intent and the intended readership. I wouldn't want to read an author intending to promote race-supremacist ideas, and younger readers do, IMO, need to be protected from concepts that are now morally repugnant.

It seems to me that Howard reflected the general views of his time and place - he refers to black people as "niggers" in some stories; he implies that lesbianism is a moral degeneracy in others (though he was a fan of Sappho's poetry) - but there was no agenda to promote such views. Many of his heroes, including Conan, are from ethnically mixed races, for example.

Have I made a point here that's relevant to the topic description? I'm not sure :-D - Let me know.

I prefer the original text no matter how offensive. REH prejudice isnt not near as bad as many writers of his times.

Conan stories is pretty tame compared to his contemporary weird southwestern stories. With N word, other old views of the characters.

The cheapest stories to get by Howard is the original text collections these days by Del Rey, Bison and co. Just avoid Gollancz, old De Camp books.

I don't particularly care for editing Howard's works for current politics as that generally hurts the story. A lot of the impact of Howard's stories are based on fears along racial lines, some real, some imagined. I think REH did a great job of making those fears come alive in the reader's minds, whether they were repellent underworld denizens, bat people or blacks. Just because it's not politically correct today is no excuse to change it, IMO.

That said, some of Howard's original stories needed some editing, like that of most writers. In the case of "The Black Stranger" being changed into "The Treasure of Tranicos", it was all for the better, IMO. Continuity was added & some elements were strengthened. Howard often strained coincidence to the breaking point & did so here, in the original. The simple, tiny addition of a priest of Mitra to the list of characters handed much of that over to the 'will of the gods' & made the unlikely series of events much more believable in Conan's world.

As for what what 'Howard scholars' think of my opinion, I really couldn't care less. There were people who used to seriously debate how many angels could dance on the head of pin, too. While being a Howard scholar isn't quite as silly, there does seem to be a lack of perspective there. His stories are pure entertainment & should be treated as such.

I certainly don't claim to be a Howard scholar, just someone interested in his works. The more I learn about him, the more I dislike about the man, himself. He was obviously weird as hell & mentally ill to boot. I like the works of a lot of movie stars & think most are complete jerks in their real life, though. It's not an unusual situation. The art is not the man, just a public expression of one aspect. Too many people seem to think otherwise. I think that's foolish.

There isn't much that is more useless than an unsold story to an author or his admiring public. The goal of an author is to sell stories & make money, not to titillate scholars after he is dead. If the people who read pulps want sex & violence & an author writes for the pulp market, then it is his duty to provide those elements.

Having looked over my earlier post, I see that I did not, in fact, make my point! Which is that, with the appropriate introduction setting the works into their contemporaneous social context, they should be printed in the author's words.

Now, editing plot points is different and can only be a matter of the reader's taste: some will like and some will not - buy the versions you think you'd prefer, would seem to be the solution. Re Conan, I've only read de Camp's editions and, as I'm here, clearly they were to my taste.

Jim wrote: "I don't particularly care for editing Howard's works for current politics as that generally hurts the story. A lot of the impact of Howard's stories are based on fears along racial lines, some rea..."

Of course Howard original stories was edited, they were all edited by editors he worked for. Edits we are talking about are changing him, taming him for modern readers PC ways. Thats what they did in 60s, 70s. Not like he was perfect writer who didnt need regular editing.

Its not pulps days, REH fans, scholars wants him to be known for his own words. It doesnt matter if the stories sold in his life time or not. His most hailed stories didnt sell in his times because western genre was not big pulp mag presene wise. His historical fiction was not heroic enough. He was a realist, he didnt have time for pulps that rejected him when he was big in fantasy, boxning, humour westerns.

Today that doesnt matter, we can buy many stories that wasnt printed in his days. If we went by only published stories he would be known only for fantasy, horror, boxning. Not El Borak, his historical, his western.

The frustrating thing is the lack of information casual readers have surrounding these texts, or the lack of information people dnon't seem to realise that they need when approaching them. I read the de Camp editions when I was younger and loved them, but had no idea that I wasn't reading anything close to what Howard had written and didn't find out until the Fantasy Masterworks editions republished them. I'm still not sure what the editorial status of those texts are.

I think that the de Sprague texts are pretty enjoyable in their own right and they're historically interesting in their own right as an attempt to revive an author that would have been considered non-PC, but that they loved anyway. Nowadays we don't really want to read those when we read Howard, at least, I don't understand why anyone would choose to read them over the published originals... Howard and his editors made the calls back when they were published as to what worked and what didn't and its down to us now to decide why, not arbitrarily think that we know better than the original author.

...but the main point is that information about Howard's works has been fairly poor and versions of his texts have been fairly poor because there's not a lot of interest in him as an author academically, in Univeristies and so on. No-one has really stepped up to help out and publishers haven't cared enough to reprint their works with a detailed history outlining exactly what went on and what were reading.

As far as the PC issue goes, well, that's a non-issue completely, we wouldn't want to censor a text from 1820 for containing the word nigger and for having terrible portrayals of black people, so there's really no need to do it for one written in 1920... we're quite capable as readers of making the judgement on whether we find Howard offensive or not.

I dodn't know that the Del Rey editions were significantly different from the Gollancz ones. Are you saying that the Gollancz ones are no good Mohammed?

Stay away from Gollancz books is the rule, they dont use Howard own untampered with words from Weird Tales, other mags. Complete Conan is more like censored.

Del Rey, Bison, other publishers is fine. Even Penguin publish him now. You dont need Gollancz.

Today is not like when people had no choice but reading De Camp and co. Today there is alot of Howard forums, Howardworks(complete bilbliography.

Mohammed wrote: "...Its not pulps days, REH fans, scholars wants him to be known for his own words. It doesnt matter if the stories sold in his life time or not...."

I disagree with that, which was why some later editing was good, IMO. Not all his stories were edited for political correctness during the 60's & 70's. Some were done because the story was weak - the case with the "Black Stranger".

That doesn't mean I always like an editor's changes. Just as I don't care for all stories by a specific author, I don't always care for how some editors handle some stories. John W. Campbell is an example of a heavy handed editor that ruined more than a few stories, mostly SF stories, I believe.

Yes, the time had some impact on what would sell & the wording, but I'm not always a fan of keeping the latter exactly the same, either. There are quite a few 'classics' that have become much more readable under some heavy editing & updating of their wording. Moby-Dick or, The Whale & The Canterbury Tales are two that come to mind. I suppose scholars would disagree, but for those of us who read for pleasure, detailed descriptions of cutting up a whale or Middle English, don't do much for the story.

And Howard's westerns - the humorous ones - sold very well. The shoot 'em up kind didn't, but that might be because too much of that sort of thing had happened in recent history.

We have different perspectives Jim, i have no respect for editing back then for story was weak or not. I have become a fan because of todays new complete only Howard collections.

I like reading the weaker stories in comparison with the great stories. Thats what you do with important, legendary authors you take their bad with their great. You dont see today new REH books with 60s,70s editing.


I dont care what scholars wants because as a fan i want complete stories by Howard. No editing unless original editing done by the editors he worked for. You cant change literary history like that.

I might sound like a purist but i respect the authors i admire enough to take thier weaknesses with their strengths.

Yeah his serious westerns is what i meant because he sold most humor western, boxning stories. I can see why his great serious western didnt sell, they are so bleak, violent, psychological. His days was before the western boom. He was ahead of his times when it came to western genre.

Mohammed wrote: "...Lets be honest most changing of Howard stories was making El Borka, Kane, Bran Mak morn stories into Conan stories to sell. They were not after to enhance REH stories for his sake. They want to sell only...."

It's a fine line to walk & will never please everyone. If his stories hadn't been edited to become popular, he may have drifted into obscurity. Most authors do after most of a century. We're lucky in that we have access to so many of his stories & variations, so we can please both our tastes.

I'm not sorry I read "The Black Stranger" & did enjoy it. I doubt I'll re-read it again, though. I can't count the number of times I've read 'Tranicos' though.

People can & do change literary history all the time - often for the worse. Putting the title of "My Name is Legend" or "I, Robot" on the POS movies Will Smith starred in is one example. Everyone knows Hollywood changes things all the time, but it's amazing how many people thought they knew these books a bit by these movies. Not as many as with 'Frankenstein' but close.

Here's an interesting list:
http://www.cracked.com/article/18368_...
Warning! It's a Cracked.com article so it is guaranteed to be profane & NSFW, but I find them a lot of fun.

You are giving those editing too much credit. It was paperback sales of Conan that made Howard popular again. De Camp and co played their part but Its the author who have survived 80 years because of his writing.


His editing made him popular is just so wrong that maybe you need to read his publishing history. From his death to now his original stories was published many times over. Many of his famous stories was not ever re-edited to publish.

I see what you mean but it feels like you are underrating the characters, stories he is known for before he became classic as now. Like his rep was saved by Black Stranger and co was edited...

Yes, the time had some impact on what would sell & the wording, but I'm not always a fan of keeping the latter exactly the same, either. There are quite a few 'classics' that have become much more readable under some heavy editing & updating of their wording. Moby-Dick or, The Whale & The Canterbury Tales are two that come to mind. I suppose scholars would disagree, but for those of us who read for pleasure, detailed descriptions of cutting up a whale or Middle English, don't do much for the story.

I think that people, scholars or not, would disagree on what makes a good story. I sense that it would surprise you to know that Academics and scholars, more than anyone I've ever met, enjoy the pure art of storytelling, they're not necessarily dull pedants sitting on a pedestal trying to bore people to death with their editing decisions. Furthermore, its thanks to these scholars enthusiasm for such books that we're still reading them at all..

I don't really understand particularly why you'd want to read an edited version of Moby Dick or The Canterbury Tales. I suppose that Moby Dick often gets cited as a "dull work" with many long and extraneous passages but I didn't find it to be so and generally I find long descriptions or sections are there for a reason. if an author is good then we should trust in his/her original intentions and not try to presume that our own whims make for better storytelling. If there's a passage in Moby Dick one doesn't like or understand, then we should turn our minds to questioning why it was included.

Of course, its a peefectly valid choice to choose to read bastardised versions of texts - Melville or Robert E Howard - if you want to, I just can't personally see how one would gain *anything* from doing so. One can't really love an author and his work whilst saying that "I prefer his work when its been butchered by someone else". I personally love Howard for the viscerality and often the stark beauty of his prose writing. At the end of the day his stories are fairly simplistic pulp, but he elevates his material tomething special because he's a great writer. if you mess with that then you're not even experiencing fully what made Howard so great... obviously he's a better writer than De Camp was.

I like that Carter and de Camp added to the Conan mythology in their own way though and I'm a fan of additional novelisations and extra stories based on drafts etc but only as far as they are properly credited and noted. I think that they kept the pulp spirit alive in their own way..

Mohammed wrote: His editing made him popular is just so wrong that maybe you need to read his publishing history. From his death to now his original stories was published many times over. Many of his famous stories was not ever re-edited to publish.

I don't think that the editing decisions that de Camp made, made Conan all that popular, although I think that spinning the tales into some kind of chronological story may have helped a little bit ... it's quite satisfying reading them that way. However, in a pre-internet age where texts simply weren't available and the fantasy shelves were being flooded with David Eddings and his clones I think that the marketing of those books did a lot to keep Howard' work alive. Other good authors have fallen by the wayside for longer periods of time and Howard is still not really a canonical author, so we're lucky that he had strong enough fans who wanted to fight hard for his work .... it just so happens that they were terrible editors!!

Mohammed wrote: "You are giving those editing too much credit. It was paperback sales of Conan that made Howard popular again. De Camp and co played their part but Its the author who have survived 80 years becau..."

I don't think so. Yes, Howard was republished for years, but the DeCamp editions really spurred the general knowledge & popularity of them. A lot of that had to do with the covers. Frazetta's artwork was popular & risque, pushing the envelope of the time. A lot had to do with making a comprehensible history for Conan & that's one of the things the editing of 'Black Stranger' did.

Alex wrote: "...I think that people, scholars or not, would disagree on what makes a good story. I sense that it would surprise you to know that Academics and scholars, more than anyone I've ever met, enjoy the pure art of storytelling,..."

The first sentence is pretty obvious or we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?
;-)

No, the second doesn't surprise me at all since I've known quite a few over the years, although I disagree with descriptions like 'the pure art'. It's an art (What exactly is a 'pure' art?) & as such affects everyone differently.

You don't know why I'd prefer Moby Dick without all the boring descriptions that I find extraneous to the story & I don't know why you'd prefer them. They don't do anything for the story itself except detract from it, IMO. It boils down to an action-morality story that is stopped by a long boring section about cutting up a whale. Acceptable back then, it probably wouldn't get published today, although Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell did, so I guess anything is possible.
;-)

A similar case is The Count of Monte Cristo. I read a huge tome, maybe 750 pages, many years ago & thought it was pretty good, but never had the urge to re-read it. When I read an edited version to my kids that was 1/4 that size, I liked it even better. Good story, with all the major elements there, just lacking extraneous padding. It's one of the reasons I like Howard's writing, his prose is lean, but like any author, he needed some editorial help & his unpublished stories didn't get it.

Times & tastes change. Should Chaucer only be read in the original language? Not by me. I don't read 700 year old Middle English well (I know, I had to do some in school.) & it's too much trouble to learn for the book or two that might still be worth reading from that period. Shakespeare, 200 years later, was tough enough & I only liked his stuff after reading several editions that had a page of the play with the opposing page full of explanations. I had to learn his English in order to enjoy The Bard, kind of ironic.
;-)

Editions that update a book can be called 'bastardized', but that's tarring them with a brush that isn't always called for. If you're a Protestant, do you think the King James version of the Bible is a 'bastardized' edition? Catholics & some other flavors of Christianity do, but I think those who use it as their bible would consider that an insult.

It's entertainment art & tastes vary. If you want to study Howard, of course his unedited stuff is a more direct route to the man. I don't particularly care about the man. I'm glad he wrote the stories, but the little I do know about him makes me doubt I'd ever want to know him personally. I read his works for entertainment &, as such, some editing has helped, other has detracted, but that's my opinion & I have the option to satisfy my tastes. In any case, my tastes aren't going to affect any editor's decisions, only what I read more than once.
;-)

Jim wrote: "Mohammed wrote: "You are giving those editing too much credit. It was paperback sales of Conan that made Howard popular again. De Camp and co played their part but Its the author who have surviv..."

Thats common knowledge and has nothing to with what you talked about. Unless you are saying "Conan Saga" by those guys improved the stories.

I was talking about editing weaker stories in general and not republishing Conan those days,Frazetta and co which something everyone who read REH knows. Its ancient history by now. Those things dont matter now. Its not 60s now.

Mohammed, maybe I got lost. It was exactly what I was talking about. You said, I was giving the editing too much credit & that his most famous stories were never edited.

I disagreed & pointed out the DeCamp versions of the 60's, which were heavily edited. IMO, they revived the interest in Howard's works & they did so by editing some of the weaker stories, finishing some, outright adding new ones, & basically putting together the Conan saga whole cloth. Then they packaged it up in the Frazetta covers & Howard's popularity boomed. This is what allowed many other publishers to sell books of his other stories by creating a much bigger market than existed before.

In the 70's, I was further turned on to Howard stories by things like Zebra's printing of The Incredible Adventures of Dennis Dorgan. ("By the creator of Conan", an obvious & huge marketing point.) This book was edited to change Steve Costigan into Dennis Dorgan because they thought the name would sell better. Since I don't really care about the character's name & it led to a popularized, easy way to get the stories, I think it was great.

Remember that these were pre-Internet times when most of us were limited to what the local book store or library had & the latter rarely had much of Howard's work, at last in my area. Cheap, plentiful paperbacks was one of the huge boons to Howard's popularity. Purists now have the Internet & the legacy of those early, heavily edited & popularized versions to thank for the availability of Howard's works. You can decry them, but I think you owe them a lot & happen to enjoy many of them.

Finally, these things do matter now & it's not so ancient history. I was alive to see it & I'm not quite fossilized yet, thank you very much.
;-)

It seems to me that this is more of an argument about the difference between entertainment & art. I read an interesting write-up about that in the SUVUDU newsletter. It addressed genre fiction as a whole, but I think the points are on target here. It's short, just 6 paragraphs. You can find it here:
http://www.suvudu.com/enewsletter/

I thought you were talking about editing in general and not Conan stories. I know the history no matter how infamous of De Camp and co.

Its not ancient history but we were talking about different things. I was talking about editing doesnt matter anymore today and you were talking about things decades ago.

Im glad i never had to read those heavily edited stories no matter they revived Howard's popularity. Im glad i wasnt fan back then like some of the older readers.

Mohammed wrote: "...I was talking about editing doesnt matter anymore today..."

OK, now I'm definitely lost.

Jim wrote: "Mohammed wrote: "...I was talking about editing doesnt matter anymore today..."

OK, now I'm definitely lost."

If Mohammed will forgive me for putting words into his mouth, I think the point he was making is that as the de Camp editions came out decades ago, their relevance to new readers now, who have unedited (or possibly differently edited) texts, is minimal. That's why Mohammed thinks those versions don't matter to that readership.

Mohammed, if I've misunderstood/misinterpreted you, please call me a jackass!!

Ah! That makes sense, although I still disagree. Ace was reprinting those edited stories up through the 90's at least & folks are still eating them up. With 3 full decades of used paperbacks running around, they probably outnumber the unedited versions by a large margin. I'll bet a lot, if not most people, get started on the deCamp editions. I know my kids & quite a few people I've turned on to Howard did, anyway. I've given away dozens to folks over the years because they're the ones I've seen the most of.

I don't have any proof for the above, of course. It might make an interesting poll, not that it would prove anything either.

Thats exactly what i meant.

Jim im not saying those books are not around, there are many fans who like them. Those books are not in PRINT. You can buy second hand only if you want pastiche.

Im saying today Howard stands on his own without those edited stories. All Howard books in print are only his words, his texts, fragment etc

To readers like me only Howard Howard exist as stories.

Did anyone read the SUVUDU article I posted the link to? It's an interesting argument that was famous between Hemmingway & Spillane, along the same lines that Braff outlines in his SUVUDU article:
But the relative value of "art" and "entertainment" is just that: relative! Is a piece of literature that few people have read more culturally valuable than a pulp novel that has been read and enjoyed by millions? By that same extension, is a major blockbuster film more culturally valuable than a small, independent foreign film that only plays in select theatres? I would say "no" to both! Moreover, these areas are not mutually exclusive: art can be entertaining, and entertainment can be artistic.

What is art & what separates it from 'just entertainment'? A well crafted project can be art. A poor craftsman can never achieve what I'd consider art in their medium of choice, so it is a degree of craftsmanship & how it effects the viewer. Often art is separated from craft & I've never been completely happy with that. I've done a lot of thinking about it because of my own work. I make bowls out of found, usually green wood. Craft or art? I've sold at both craft shows & others where my work had to be judged as art first. I think of myself as a craftsman & anything resembling art is simply the best possible result. Still, some like it, some don't - that's the nature of art.

Messing with an artist's work is heresy, but fixing on a craftsman's work isn't. Right? Maybe, sometimes... For example, pretend I have 2 tables, an original Chippendale & a very good copy. They're art & craft, respectively. They're both wobbly with bad finishes & I need to use one, so what do I do? I'd never alter an original Chippendale - it's art. Depending on the job I do fixing the copy, it might make the piece better or worse, more or less useful &/or valuable. A bad job will make it worth less, while a good job could transform it into a centerpiece. Since it's not much good as it is, I'd take a stab at fixing it.

Howard was primarily a craftsman, a word smith. He wrote to pay the bills & that meant crafting words together to enterain people. Sometimes, he transcended his craft & rose to the realm of art. IMO, it's usually when Howard puts his horror & fighting stories together that I think he achieves his best results & becomes an artist. "Black Canaan" is one such example - a swashbuckling hero facing plenty of foes & an inhuman horror(s) that crush lesser men.

Editing this "Black Canaan" for political correctness is blaphemey - editing art - IMO. Some people see the word 'nigger' in "Black Canaan" & think of it only of the modern, completely negative connotations, but it is so deeply ingrained in the culture of the time - the people, places & things - that altering it also alters the very fabric of the story & makes it weaker. IMO, it's like altering a Chippendale candle stand. Candle stands may have gone out of fashion & use, but the piece is still art. "Black Canaan" was Howard at his best, the artist.

But, a lot of his stuff, especially notes & unsold stories are just scraps of his craft, like bowls of mine that don't make the grade & I toss out. Although they can show the artistic flare, as a whole they just don't cut it. Read my description of "Black Canaan" again. Isn't this is also a description of "The Black Stranger"? It is, but this piece wasn't his best work. By the only real measurement, a sale, the primary purpose of the story, "The Black Stranger" failed. Editing it is simply fixing a piece of Howard's craft that didn't quite make the grade.

I agree with most of what Peregrine 12 said in #10 of:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/6...
The story did hop around & relied far too much on coincidence to bring all those disparate pieces together. It just never fully succeeded for me. Editing it into "The Treasure of Tranicos" altered a poor piece of Howard's craft into a much better & useful piece of the Conan tapestry. It took weaknesses, coincidence & disparate elements, & welded them into a strength by making Conan larger than life, he was important enough to be a major part of a god's complex plans. So, I'm glad DeCamp & Carter reworked this piece of Howard's craft & don't see a problem with it.

I'm often peeved about how Hollywood, comic books, & novelists have changed & added on to a well known characters such as Conan & James Bond. Other times, I'm pleased at some of the attempts to extend the stories because it is good entertainment. The result will never be considered art, but sometimes they're almost what the author would have written if he were still around. Other times, they're not so good, but still entertaining. And some, of course, just ruin the entire concept. It's just all relative.

What exactly makes you qualified to judge something as "art" and something as "entertainment" Jim? What, actually, makes anyone qualified to make that particularly judgement. People have been debating definitions of art vs entertainment for centuries so - wth all due respect - I doubt you've come up with the perfect formula that enables you to judge that its not OK to mess with Black Canaan because its art, but it is Ok to toss away The Black Stranger.

Personally I've tossed aside all attempts to try and define art anymore... there's simply "the stuff that we produce that we like". Some people like some of it enough to feel that it's beautiful, or instructive, or constructed perfectly, whilst others think that the same thing is rubbish. IMO it's all important because it sheds light on our culture and cultural practices, and that's why I'd disagree that the de Camp texts are worthless. I don't really want to read them, personally, but they still have a lot of value.

No-one can define art because no-one can create an objective set of criteria that makes something "more good" than something else, it can only ever come back to subjective opinion ... veen if we agreed jointly, as a culture that, say, Moby Dick was a work of art (oh, some people find it dull....) it could well be that another culture would come along and call it pointless twaddle.

Alex wrote: "What exactly makes you qualified to judge something as "art" and something as "entertainment" Jim? ..."

My opinion, of course. Like I said, it's all relative -- to me, the center of the universe.

Well, my universe.
;-)

Do you really think I was asking for consensus? Tastes vary. Didn't I mention that? (Still, some like it, some don't - that's the nature of art.) I know my mother would never believe that anything written by Howard could be art & couldn't care less what happened to his works, up to & including throwing them out. Mohammed is at the other end of the spectrum & thinks all Howard's works should be sacrosanct. I'm somewhere in the middle & outlined my limit on editing his works along with my reasoning. Obviously your take on it differs.


I know what I like & if I can't define art objectively, I don't think that invalidates what I consider art nor my opinions on how it should be handled. I also don't think anyone should give up trying to define the indefinable - it's an important part of what makes us human, IMO.

I also feel we should be flexible enough to change as time & circumstance dictate - another indefinable line. That was my reasoning behind editing out the boring descriptions in "Moby Dick" or a 'good' update of Chaucer's language. I consider both of them works of art, but they've lost their impact due to time & circumstance. So now I feel that having edited versions around does more good than harm, but I certainly wouldn't want to get rid of the originals, even if I didn't want to read them more than once. (Actually, I'm not sure I made it through more than one story in the original Canterbury Tales.) A few other folks apparently felt the same way, so both versions were readily available. Others felt that way about changing "Black Canaan". That's their right, but I don't have to buy it & won't. If I ever find a copy for free, I might read it just to see if my opinion is correct - in my opinion, of course.
;-)

Well, you can't really have it both ways. You can't argue that yes, all ideas of art are subjective, and therefore art is "indefinable" and then attempt to argue for a definition of art anyway. If you agree that art is subjective, why not just be content to say that "you "like" a particular text because of x,y and z and that you don't like one for x,y,z. Why even bring the concept of art into the conversation, since as a cncept the implication is that it has a transcendent greatness over other literary/creative works that make it more culturally important. I'm presuming your definition of art covers those kinds of things otherwise we would just be back in the realm of things that you do and don't like, anyway....

Otherwise ... Imostly agree with you :D I have no problem with you reading edited or abridged versions of Moby Dick providing that the originals are still widely available and that they aren't heavily marketed over the originals. But then, that's just my penchant for reading original texts, who's to say that opinion is any more important than the next person's?

I suppose the important fact is that we all enjoy reading Robert E Howard's work!

Alex wrote: "Well, you can't really have it both ways. You can't argue that yes, all ideas of art are subjective, and therefore art is "indefinable" and then attempt to argue for a definition of art anyway. I..."

Consistency is the bug-a-boo of small minds.
(Robert A. Heinlein)
;-)

When it comes to art, I certainly can have it both ways because my standards vary depending on the type of art, time frame, my current knowledge, & my mood. That's part of what makes it indefinable. I can look at something I have no prior knowledge of & think, "That's art!" or "That's crap!" Both opinions are quite valid to & for me.

Art can transcend knowledge. For instance, I know nothing about flower arranging, but I've seen examples all my life & find most pretty enough, but nothing to really remember. A while back, I saw some arrangements that about popped my eyes out. It turned out they had been done by an artist who had just turned her hand to that medium & had created something extraordinary by breaking some of the accepted rules. We heard some other folks who seemed to know something about the subject going wild over it, too.

Art can be improved by knowledge, too. Woodworking has some basics that haven't changed since our cave days & I know something about it, so I can often see the subtleties that make a masterpiece &/or art work. I have a much better idea what it takes to go above & beyond the norm, although that doesn't always mean I think it's art, but sometimes helps me appreciate it.

Wood is a more enduring medium than words. If I don't understand the nuances of the language, as was the case when I first read Shakespeare, then how can it be art to me? It's not comprehensible enough to move me. There were enough tools & a large enough body of work that I had to study in a short enough period of time so that it was better for me to learn his language than it was to read an updated version. (I've read one or two & didn't find them as good.) That wasn't the case with Chaucer, so I have different standards - leave Will's art alone, but change Chaucer's. Skim a LOT or read an edited version of Melville's. They wrote 400, 600 & 150 years ago, respectively & I apply wildly different standards to them all. Seems reasonable & works for me, though.

But, yeah, at the end of the day, we all think REH was The Man, so all is good.
;-)

I've been very busy lately and have not had much time to read some of the posts here. I have skimmed them and read them on a peripheral basis and want to comment on a couple of things....
I grew up on the Lancer editions (heavily edited by DeCamp and loved them but after reading the unedited editions or pure Howard...I've come to understand why the "Howard Scholars" and Purists who have kept Howard works alive disliked DeCamp so much. In essence he hijacked the Conan character. When others (like Karl Edward Wagner) tried to publish the unexpurgated Howard, DeCamp went to court and stopped it. In addition he contributed to the "fallacy" that Howard was mentally ill which I do not believe he was. It's hard to find a bio of Howard written by and "outsider: who doesn't mention in a couple of paragraphs that Howard had a fixation on his mother and committed suicide. The result is that we are led to believe he was mentally ill. I don't believe this is true. I also don't believe there is any comparison to the real Howard material (read the Del Rey editions of Conan and the other characters to get the idea) and the unedited Howard material.
I read "Dark Vally Destiny" back in the 80's and even had a copy signed by DeCamp but there was something that always bothered me about DeCamp's bios on Howard as mentioned above. He gives him backhanded compliments. It seemed like he praised him in some ways but knocked him in so many others, He took Howard's greatest character and hijacked him for his own profit. It wasn't to promote Howard's works in my opinion. DeCamp was one of the owners of Conan Properties. He didn't care about the other characters. During the 80's and 90's the only Howard stories you could buy in the bookstores were pastiches written by authors like Robert Jordan. I've never read them! There is a new book about to be published see Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1932... about the Battle for the Legacy
of Conan to get an understanding of what went on here. Another good source to read is http://www.rehupa.com/?cat=19 by Mark Finn. Also read his bio of Howard which is much more accurate and much more respectful called Blood and Thunder (http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Thunder-L... by Mark Finn
published in 2006. There is a lot more info out there which may help convince you but I was very upset during the 80's and 90's when the only stuff you could find was in used book stores while DeCamp and publishers like Tor made $ off the Conan character being misrepresented. DeCamp edited those stories published in Lancer and Ace and added pastiches with Lin Carter in order to create his "Own idea" of the Conan Saga and of course to make money! I doubt that his main reason wasn't because he wanted to make Howard's fiction available to everyone. I understand that everyone has their likes and dislikes but I am very appreciative of the passion and sacrifices of the REH Scholars and fans who have kept the "real Howard stuff alive. Right now is the greatest time to be a Howard fan. We have so much of the real stuff at our disposal and being published all of the time. Back when I started in the 60's much of it was edited (at least the Conan and Kull stories). Check out Robert E Howard Foundation, REHUPA, The Cimmerian, and others to get an idea of what I am talking about. They are also responsible for The REH Museum and the Robert E Howard Days in Cross Plains and many are editors of many or the books being published now of Howards works. Glen Lord in particular had done more to keep the Howard Legacy alive than anyone in my opinion. This was because he was a fan first. I think DeCamp saw a cash cow.
Anyway I'm not trying to offend anyone but check it out and you may come to the same conclusion I have.

Alex: why do you think the measure of whether something is art or not is only a matter of liking it (art) or not (not art)? There are lots of artworks I don't like, yet I still consider them artworks.

Michael, it seems to me that any healthy person who commits suicide is mentally ill. When it is a 30 year old man over his mother, I don't think there's any doubt. If there was another underlying cause - he had cancer or something - I've never read about it.

I don't doubt that deCamp was in it for the dollars, but the net result was still a huge interest in Howard's works. I don't know that I've read much about Howard by deCamp. Mostly I've read Glenn Lord's stuff. I do agree that this is the best of times for REH readers. It would be even better if there weren't such weird copyright laws.

Jim wrote: "Michael, it seems to me that any healthy person who commits suicide is mentally ill. When it is a 30 year old man over his mother, I don't think there's any doubt. If there was another underlying..."

At the risk of going off topic, there are many reasons why a person may take their own life and mental illness is only one. Suicide is not diagnostic of mental illness. Back to the lively discussion re editing!

If we want to have a discussion about REH's mental health, please start a new thread.

OK, I started a new topic for it. I'd be interested to hear what other reasons a healthy, 30 year old man has for committing suicide except for being mentally ill.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/6...

Henrik wrote: "Alex: why do you think the measure of whether something is art or not is only a matter of liking it (art) or not (not art)? There are lots of artworks I don't like, yet I still consider them artworks."

I'm guessing that your perception of those works as "art" has a lot to do with their current cultural status. Since its culturally recognised that certain authors, such as Milton, Shakespeare, Homer, Dickens etc etc or even someone like Murakami are artistically superior authors, one tends to buy into the idea of these works as artistically significant ... even though most people don't even read or like Shakespeare these days, most people tend towards the idea that he's a genius.

Shakespeare's cultural relevance has been added to over the years via him "being culturally relevant" and that's just made hm more and more important as an author. Since he's considered great already, more people refer to him, remake, reinterpret his work and so on, which means we continue to talk about him...usually in hushed tones. (I do happene to like Shakespeare a lot, myself btw but I also get frustrated as to how he's been put on a pedestal)

Generally I wouldn't use the phrase "that's art" to describe something that I didn't like, I'd say "I recognise the cultural significance of that literature". If I were to exclaim about a book or a painting "that's art" I think anyone hearing that would presume that I was enamoured of the piece.

Michael wrote: "I've been very busy lately and have not had much time to read some of the posts here. I have skimmed them and read them on a peripheral basis and want to comment on a couple of things....
I grew up..."

Thats what i feel i dont care about "Conan Saga". I have grown up as reader so to speak only recent years when so much of real stuff is out. I can collect Howard in so many ways. I can read literary analyses, scholars,fans talk about him and no one else.

Thats why i tried to say that you put much better.

Thanks Mohammed. I can't agree more.

I just finished reading of End of Trail western collection and felt in awe of his really interesting hardboiled take on the western story. Thats what i want to go from Howard book to another.

Disjointed and random thoughts on various aspects of this thread:

On Shakespeare: I disagree that he's not widely read these days. However, as a study in corrected texts, let's not forget that there's...what? a half dozen verified signatures of W.S.? and none of them are spelled the same way twice, IIRC. That's his own name; it must have been a nightmare trying to puzzle through his scripts as an actor. There were no standardized dictionaries in his days (once again, IIRC). I believe it would be around a hundred years or so after Big Will until someone tried to standardize the language. If I wasn't so lazy, I'd Google it, but...eh.

On Moby Dick: I loved every word of it, yet back in my college days I had a lit prof. who told me when she taught it to her Freshman or Sophomore students, she would let them skip the sections pertaining to 'whale behavior'. She holds the Ph.D., so I guess that means she outranks me.

On censorship: I generally stand against it in Howard the same way I do when it's brought up every now and again with Twain. I think Howard's views on race and sexuality were a bit more complex than the mere derogatory terms. Many of his admirable characters were black. I just moved and most of my books are packed away, so I'm playing guessing games, but I'm trying to remember the terms he used to describe 'Tom Molineaux' (surely an egregious misspelling). Let me take this out of the black/gay area for a bit. I was discussing a book about Ambrose Bierce which in english is translated as 'The Old Gringo'. I, myself, am anglo (see the pretty picture?), my wife is a Mexican(not a chicana or Mexican-American, by the way, a Mexican National...we're working on her citizenship...and yes, she is here legally). When I used to visit my wife in Mexico, people were very cautious not to use the 'G' word around me. I don't get offended by Fuentes title, in fact, I think the alien element Bierce poses in Fuentes setting makes it unavoidable. Since no one else has mentioned it, I suppose I should also make passing mention to some of Howard's vulgarities regarding hispanics. I'm married to one. That's the way life is sometimes, but my half-Mexican children will have access to Howard's works the way he wrote them should they ever want to read them.

Well said.

Mohammed wrote: "I prefer the original text no matter how offensive. REH prejudice isnt not near as bad as many writers of his times.

Conan stories is pretty tame compared to his contemporary weird southwester..."