Talk:Robert E. Howard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Age?

I noticed that the information on when he died, was listed at 1963. As far as I know, and all other sources tell, it's 1936 and he became only 30 years of age.on the Wiki page

--StarWolfer 12:16, 31 may 2008 (GMT+1)

He died in 1936. Nathraq (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This sounds rather POV:

"Another field in which he was quite successful was supernatural horror, where he borrowed heavily from his peer and correspondant Howard Phillips Lovecraft but without forgetting to add his trademarks... quickly paced action and colorful characters (while Lovecraft's writing can often seem stiff and his characters drab). "

Sign and timestamp your discussion entries, please. Why don't we just change the wording and make it more neutral? I think I'll give that a shot right now, actually. --InformationalAnarchist 21:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Depression

Does it not seem to anyone else that Howard's obviously severe depression is handled in a rather archaic way in the writing of this article? That a serverely chronic depressive considers suicide a legitimate "way out" seems less a statement of philosophy than symptom. Similarly perhaps "melancholy" is a less legitimate description that "untreated severe depression"?

If not, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.117.193 (talk) 10:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Organization

It seems to me that this page doesn't have much information about REH and the information it does have is poorly organized.

Updating this page with more biographical information and better descriptions of his various works will be a project I take on over the next few weeks.

68.98.134.182 12:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Casey Campbell

Why no mention of Robert Jordan?

It is odd that the article contains no mention of the great Robert Jordan, who wrote eight or nine Conan books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.212.61 (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no need to enter Rob Jordan's name here. DeCamp, Carter, and Nyberg edited and revised some orginal REH stories, and created pastiche's to fill in the gaps. Hence the reference to them in the article. Jordan, Offutt, and others capitalized from the universe Howard created, with mediocre writings at best. Jordan did not even pick up on the Conan bandwagon until 1982, with his story Conan the Invincible.Nathraq (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Howard's Perceived Racism

I changed the comment about readers with "leftist political sentiments," or something similar. Anti-modernism, even a fantastic sort like Howard's, rejects not only modern socialism but democracy as well. He made several comments negative to civilization as a rule, so his views go beyond simple left-right descriptions.

And just so you know, I'd say I have leftist sympathies, and I think Howard is one of the great seminal writers of fantasy. I also like Nietzsche, as well. But I'm no Aryan nor a believer in Aryan mythology. Hashshashin 15:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct and I think that "leftist" statement also violated NPOV. Incidentally, those same sentences were injected into the Conan the Cimmerian article followed by paragraphs about Aryan supremacy and racist theosophy, etc. Caused a big uproar and an admin had to intervene. As such, I believe we may have a white supremacist on the prowl who is defacing these articles with his own agenda. -- Flask 12:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me really irresponsible not to at least mention the obvious racism of many REH stories. I mean, the man was a great writer, and also perhaps understandably a product of his time, but he wrote many undeniably racist words. I don't see how we can leave that out of this article. -N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.117.193 (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been re-reading Howard's work recently, and I readily admit that I admire his writing style. For the time it was extremely advanced and did much to bring fantasy literature to the masses and I totally mean that in a good way. However, his writings are blatantly racist and sexist. You read the early Conan stories and they are especially full of what I would sum up as "Black Bastards", in that is the way many opponents are depicted whether they be human or not. Just like reading other works from the same time period when thinly veiled racism was readily accepted by the general public, spending some time with Howard's work will give you the same impression. I don't think it has anything to do with leftist perception at all, just a modern day perspective. Pointing out that an author had faults along the lines of racism and/or sexism doesn't necessarily have to be a condemnation, but a discussion of what has changed in American culture. I don't have to share the views of an artist to appreciate their work. I'm a full blown atheist but I love the Narnia books even with all their heavy handed approach towards depicting a god that must be loved AND feared. By NOT discussing these topics and addressing them, you are pretty much insulting the readers intelligence. The word racism does not appear once in this article and I, for one, think it needs to be brought up. Vaginsh (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You still need a reference, preferably a secondary one, to add things to the article. Otherwise you are violation the No Original Research policy. While I don't think it came out as much in his writing (he seems to hate everyone equally at times) he was racist and it can be seen in some of his letters (which I don't have access to at the moment, I'm afraid). He also had left wing political views and criticised the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, in opposition to Lovecraft's enthusiasm. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Lovecraft

How exactly was Lovecraft influenced by Robert E. Howard? He borrowed a couple Mythos props from him (e.g. Nameless Cults), but that's not really the same as influence. I'm not saying there isn't influence going both ways, but I'd be hard pressed to say what HPL got from REH. Nareek 06:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Nareek -- you could just as easily say, "How exactly was Howard influenced by Lovecraft? Sure, he borrowed a couple Mythos props, but that's not really the same as influence -- when writing his own horror he inevitably abandoned Lovecraft's style and instead went for battles and bloodshed."

Neither author had a crystal clear influence on the other, but both became better writers by absorbing some of the other's worldview. Howard admired Lovecraft's skill at evoking moods of helpless horror, while HPL envied Howard his ability to conjure things like potent ancient civilizations. Lovecraft once wrote Derleth in re: REH, "God, what a man! I never knew any human being to be so deeply & passionately saturated in the life & traditions of a region as that bird is in the life and traditions of his native & ancestral southwest. He oozes its heroic & sanguinary lore at every joint, & falls into long epic or descriptive recitals which come close to pure poetry…." Did HPL's stories perhaps begin to exhibit more "pure poetry" as the years of writing back and forth to REH went on? Could HPL have ever conceived of a cracking chase scene like the one in "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" without thinking at least a little bit about how Howard would approach such a scene?

HPL fans all too often make it sound as if Lovecraft was this rigid stylistic writer who influenced many but who managed to resist the influences of others save for a few choice weird fiction purebreeds like Poe and Hodgson. Whereas I have no doubt in my mind that REH opened HPL's mind to a lot of things and inspired him to a broader approach to both his writing and his outlook on life. Those two wrote hundreds of pages of letters to each other and for years carefully read and admired each other's stories -- of course the influence went both ways. Leo Grin 13:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Lovecraft was influenced by a wide variety of writers whose impact on any number of stories has been noted on critics; I've been putting in references to such tracings in the various Lovecraft story articles on WP. The ones that come up again and again are Dunsany and Machen, to a lesser degree Poe; Hawthorne has been cited as a model for several stories. There are a lot of minor writers whose mark is seen on particular tales. But other than the Mythos hat-tips that Lovecraft often gave to his writer friends (Derleth, Bloch, Smith, etc.), I haven't seen any particular citation of Howard's work being an influence on Lovecraft's work. I think to avoid OR we should base these things on critical commentary and not on our own sense of what must have happened.

I have, on the other hand, seen numerous comments that Lovecraft's fiction was an obvious model for Howard stories like "The Black Stone" and "The Thing on the Rooftop"--which I think is hard to deny.

If Lovecraft, writing the chase scene in "Shadow Over Innsmouth", had asked himself how Howard would have handled it, I think he would have answered "very differently." It's hard to imagine a Howard hero being pursued by deep one hybrids without at some point turning around and giving them what for. Nareek 15:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Nareek -- Thanks for responding. The important thing to my mind is that, unlike others who slavishly imitated Lovecraft's style for years, REH rejected it. Take the stories you mention. Here's REH to August Derleth, July 1933: "You're right about The Black Stone and other kindred yarns of mine. They were written more as experiments than anything else, and I soon saw that they were not my natural style." There's a reason why we never got a tsunami of "Black Stone" type stories from REH, even though it sold: Howard cast off HPL's influence and went his own way. Wasn't for him.

Howard thought that his "Thing on the Rooftop" turned out a lot better, but according to him the influence behind the story was not Lovecraft but rather his own imagination, specifically the sights and sounds of his native Texas. REH to HPL, May 24 1932: "Like you I am moved by the golden glory that foreruns some sunsets; and then, in the long summer days, when the skies are cloudless, I am stirred by the dreamy magic of slumbering twilights, between the set of the sun, and the gathering of night. At such times familiar sights somehow take on an alien and glamorous aspect; gables of houses, wood-clad hills, even figures of people moving through the twilight. Somehow, when I see high-ridged houses blocked out darkly against the deepening blue of a western twilight sky, a vagrant thought enters my mind, a dim semi-expectancy, of fantastic winged monsters dropping from the sky and lighting on the dusk-etched roofs, folding their great wings and crouching there gargoyle-like, their chins resting in their cupped and taloned hands." HPL critics can say whatever they want (Joshi still maintains that "the bulk of Howard's fiction is subliterary hackwork that does not even begin to approach genuine literature") but as for me, I'll take Howard's own word concerning the real influence for "Rooftop".

Meanwhile, early this year I published an essay in The Cimmerian ("Lovecraft's Southern Vacation" by Brian Leno, V3n2) that proposes that "Pigeons from Hell" was REH's specific attempt to introduce Lovecraft to southern gothic horror, demonstrating the independence and viability of the Texan model from HPL's New England model. Interesting stuff, and it tells me that, while many Lovecraft fans assume that anything that kinda-sorta sounds like HPL must have been derived from him, the truth was that some folks (like REH) had their own ideas, thank you very much, and the actual influence of HPL on their writing was minimal. Much more powerful horror influences to REH were Poe (see the raven in The Hour of the Dragon), Hawthorne (see the Pearl and Chillingworth stand-ins in "The Black Stranger"), history (the Bran cult, Crom), and the Texas ghost stories he heard as a child ("Pigeons from Hell," "Black Canaan," "Kelly the Conjure Man").

Sure, REH enjoyed HPL's stuff, but that general feeling of admiration was mutual. But like HPL, after the praise Howard carefully went his own way and used his own nightmares. In One Who Walked Alone, he praises HPL's "Rats in the Walls" to Novalyne, says it was one of the best stories he ever read, and adds that when he's starting a new story he thinks about that one and why it worked so well. But then he adds, "As I think about it, I begin to have my own thoughts and ideas. Maybe there was something I believe about life that he didn't say."(emphasis added)

In regards to "Innsmouth," I feel you are trying to have it both ways. If you can reject REH's fairly obvious action-scene influence on "Innsmouth" because HPL would have done things "very differently," then know that REH's so-called "Mythos tales" often feature intensely personal and emotional blood feuds and battles ("Valley of the Lost," "People of the Black Coast") — all VERY different from anything HPL would have done — and so by your own criteria these stories cannot be judged as having been truly influenced by HPL.

On the other hand, we know factually that HPL liberally borrowed from Howard's mythic underpinnings (Kathulos, Bran, Crom, Von Junzt, Nameless Cults, serpent men) to give his own stories more verisimilitude. Without counting them up, I daresay HPL did this far more often than REH borrowed such names from Lovecraft. HPL fans like to dismiss all such uncomfortable facts as too minor to kick about, whereas I say it's a clear sign that HPL carefully read REH and admired much of what he found there, that indeed he was happy to establish associations between his own work and REH's that showed clear influence. And so I think it's rather absurd for HPL fans to claim that REH seldom if ever rubbed off on HPL. In Wikipedia terms, I think it should be either/or: either they both get name-checked as influences to each other, or neither does. Anything less smacks of Lovecraft scholars introducing their own personal prejudices about REH into the entry. "Your guy loved and imitated our guy, but our guy was a true original and hence above such slovenly displays." Yeah, right.

My sense is that HPL would be appalled at the way his fans routinely extirpate HPL's old friends from his legacy, subtly rewriting history in an attempt to minimize the influence of the bourgeois pulps on his reputation. The truth is that HPL liked REH a great deal, often praised his stories, kept all his letters (something he only did with a few other people). Six years and hundreds of pages of back and forth, talking about horror, history, pulps, philosophy, everything under the sun, with HPL frequently acknowledging that REH had broadened his horizons, matured his outlook, and thrilled him with prose poetry and tales of ancient ruins and swamp-infested evils. No influence? Give me a break.

By the way, thanks for the tweaks to the new Intro. I am putting the finishing touches on a massive new biography section for REH to replace the all-but-useless one there now. Only thing is I don't have all the cites written out and formatted yet. Do you think I should post the thing without cites first, then add them as time permits, or should I wait until the whole works is finished? Leo Grin 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You make it sound like being influenced by another writer is a shameful thing, or puts the influencee in a subordinate position. But of course all writers are influenced; great writers are influenced by minor writers just as minor writers are influenced by the greats. And any writer of any significance takes his or her influences and does something original with them.

So the question of whether Lovecraft influenced Howard or vice versa shouldn't be taken as way of placing them on some kind of scale--it's irrelevant to who's a "better" writer (whatever that means). It's largely a question of timing--by the time Howard published his first story, in 1925 at the age of 18, Lovecraft was 35 and had already established himself as a writer, having written such characteristic pieces as "The Rats in the Walls" and "The Festival". When Lovecraft and Howard began corresponding in 1930, Lovecraft had finished the bulk of his lifetime output, and had just a few major works left in him. So the opportunity for Howard to influence Lovecraft was fairly limited.

Howard, on the other hand, was reading Lovecraft at the very beginning of his writing career; take a look at The Call of Cthulhu to see his response to that story. And his most important contributions to literature occurred after he began corresponding with Lovecraft. This largely has to do with being born in 1906 rather than in 1890; it's no slur on Howard. If Lovecraft had been a more prolific writer in the 1930s, maybe we would have seen more influence going the other way.

On the bio, I feel like if what you can put up now is better than what's there now, then go for it. Be bold! Nareek 02:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Nareek -- I agree with you in re: using influence to place them on a scale, but I'm also interested in getting at the truth. Lovecraft wrote less in his last years, yes, but he did write, and his style did measurably change during that time. Howard had been providing readers with a smorgasbord of stories featuring ancient civilizations and cyclopean ruins and degenerate peoples all through the early and mid-thirties, and Lovecraft was ga-ga over them. Meanwhile, there were those amazing letters, of which Lovecraft wrote: "I value that correspondence as one of the most broadening and sharpening influences (emphasis mine) in my later years. We were constantly debating sundry historical and philosophical points, and through these arguments (as well as through many passages of sheer description) I gained a much clearer perspective on various phases of history than I would ever have had otherwise." And elsewhere: "He was almost alone in his ability to create real emotions of fear and of dread suspense...Bloch and Derleth are clever enough technically — but for stark, living fear....the actual smell and feel of darkness and brooding horror and impending doom that inhere in that nighted, moss-hung jungle....what other writer is even in the running with REH?"

I see Lovecraft in his later years hitting previously unfathomed weird peaks in those very areas, and I attribute that in part — in part — to following Howard's lead in certain choice areas and being inspired by his example, from "Wolfshead" on. HPL's well-documented, frequently fawning admiration of Howard speaks of a not-insignificant degree of influence. A good critic recognizes such things whether or not Joe Blow Lovecraft Scholar recognized them when scribbling out his umpteenth Cthulhu-book intro. I have not been impressed, to say the least, with the average Lovecraft scholar's perceptions of HPL's relationship with Howard.

OK, I'll fix up the bio as best I can and post it. Leo Grin 06:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course I want to get at the truth as well--and I honestly think the truth is there's not much evidence of a significant impact by Howard on Lovecraft's fiction. From 1930 until his death in 1937, Lovecraft wrote eight major stories: The Whisperer in Darkness (1930), At the Mountains of Madness (1931), The Shadow Over Innsmouth (1931), The Dreams in the Witch House (1932), Through the Gates of the Silver Key (with E. Hoffmann Price) (1932), The Thing on the Doorstep (1933), The Shadow Out of Time (1934) and The Haunter of the Dark (1935).

For most of these, I've added in all the references I could find to their literary models--and I've never seen Howard mentioned among them. None of them strike me as particularly Howardian--they are mostly pretty static, with the "action" mostly involving people remembering dreams, interpreting murals or looking out windows. A couple of them contain scenes of people running away, but that's about it.

And I don't buy the idea that there's some kind of anti-Howard prejudice that prevents Lovecraft scholars from noticing Howard's impact. For one thing, there's quite a wide variety of people writing about Lovecraft, and many of them clearly have a great love for the whole pulp tradition--take Will Murray (writer), for example. Robert M. Price, one of the biggies in Lovecraft studies, has written an article about Edgar Rice Burroughs' influence on The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath--what, is Burroughs high-brow enough for the Lovecraft snobs and Howard seen as chopped liver?

I gotta say, if someone made a convincing case for Lovecraft borrowing from Howard, they could easily get that published in Lovecraft Studies or Crypt of Cthulhu. And I don't think it would particularly shock anyone or overturn conceptions--it's something that certainly could have happened, but there doesn't seem to be any real evidence that it did.

The "influences" quote from Lovecraft that you present (which comes, let's keep in mind, from someone's tribute to a recently deceased friend) strikes me as being about Howard's personal influence on him--about his "perspective on various phases of history" rather than on his literary style or subject matter. There is significant historical perspective in The Shadow Out of Time and At the Mountains of Madness, but does it really resemble Howard's? I would think Lovecraft's move toward a more socialistic perspective that's been seen in those stories would be something Howard would have taken strong exception to, but maybe I misunderstand where he was coming from. Likewise, it would be surprising to me if the kind of philosophy laid out in Through the Gates of the Silver Key could be traced back to Howard--correct me if I'm wrong.

You say that either Lovecraft and Howard both influenced each other, or neither was an influence. I don't see how that follows. I think if you look at the stories, and more importantly look at what people have said about the stories, Lovecraft's influence on Howard is clear. (I can get into this further if you're doubtful.) That's not in any way to denigrate Howard or downplay his originality. Look: I think most everyone would agree that Christopher Marlowe was a much bigger influence on William Shakespeare than Shakespeare was on Marlowe. But who would conclude from that Marlowe is the more important writer?

In short, I think the consensus of critics is that both Lovecraft and Howard were both important, original writers, giants in their respective genres--and that Lovecraft was a significant influence on Howard and not the other way around. I don't think there's any need or reason to protect Howard from that judgment. Nareek 21:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no such consensus Nareek, not even close. I've already quoted you Joshi's bottom line on REH, which doesn't even remotely match your fantasy about what critics have supposedly agreed on. Meanwhile the other authority you drag out, Reverend Bob, penned what is still considered one of the all-time worst things ever written about Two-Gun, namely his introduction to REH's Selected Letters 1931-1936. (see the review that ran in Necrofile for the current "critical consensus" on that). I like Reverend Bob, I've published Reverend Bob, but the echo-chamber of Lovecraft Studies and Crypt of Cthulhu does not a critical consensus make. There's a whole wide world out there of published critics that routinely disagree with the latest cobwebbed pronouncements from those guys.

Yep, you're definitely a Typical Lovecraft Guy, trotting out Joshi's tired old theory that HPL was just overpraising due to grief — even though he had been saying the same kinds of things about REH for years. And then you add that even if he did mean exactly what he said — INFLUENCE — there was nevertheless some invisible wall between Lovecraft's personal mind and writing mind preventing influence in one area from seeping into the other. It's always fun to watch Typical Lovecraft Guys engage in excruciating contortions of reality in an attempt to wiggle out from under Lovecraft's clear, unambiguous statements, twisting his words into pretzels in a futile effort to support treasured preconceptions.

Meanwhile on the other end you keep assuming "significant" Lovecraftian influence on Howard's work. I realize that Typical Lovecraft Guy assumes that REH's Lovecraftian stories form a sizable subsection of his total output, but Howard wrote over three hundred stories in a variety of genres, almost all of them in the years after he had been exposed to HPL's work. Despite having Lovecraft there as a model for all that time, there are only perhaps a half-dozen stories which have sufficient amounts of Lovecraft's style and thematic verbiage beyond superficial name-dropping to justify claims of "significant" influence. That's only two percent of Howard's fictional output, the merest drop in the bucket. And while the actual extent of Lovecraft's influence on those few tales has been argued to death, what is agreed is that not a single one of them is considered central to his literary achievement. The "critical consensus" is that — far from being significant — they represent a mere hiccup in his career on a par with other minor digressions such as his aborted foray into the detective field. After experimenting with the Lovecraftian model and quickly deeming it a failure in style and tone, Howard went on to produce a separate Southern Gothic canon of horror tales that rank among his best work, stories influenced not by Lovecraft but by the ghost stories and feud-haunted legendry of his native Southwest. Tales that — your "polite eulogizer" theory notwithstanding — Lovecraft praised highly.

There's no need to protect Howard from anyone's judgment, his place in literature is secure. But the sloppy criticism and silly assumptions originating in Lovecraft fandom deserve to be challenged. The navel-gazing on display is priceless — my Lord, why on earth would someone ever want to waste an REH-HPL-themed article on a tired, limping forum such as Lovecraft Studies or Crypt of Cthulhu when they could instead get it pubbed in a dynamic World Fantasy Award-nominated venue such as The Cimmerian and get paid three cents a word? Leo Grin 04:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Lovecraft revisited

The question of influence regarding Lovecraft and Howard is discussed at great length just above here. To summarize, Lovecraft wrote the vast majority of his work before beginning his correspondence with Howard; he wrote relatively little in the 1930s, the period in which the two were in communication. What Lovecraft did write in this time frame shows relatively few signs of influence from Howard, with narratives based on protagonists who are quite passive and a socialistic philosophy of history (e.g., At the Mountains of Madness, The Shadow out of Time) that would seem to be quite foreign to Howard's.

Howard, on the other hand, encountered Lovecraft's work at the beginning of his writing, and it made a great impression on him; in a letter to Weird Tales, he wrote:

Mr. Lovecraft's latest story, "The Call of Cthulhu", is indeed a masterpiece, which I am sure will live as one of the highest achievements of literature. Mr. Lovecraft holds a unique position in the literary world; he has grasped, to all intents, the worlds outside our paltry ken. His scope is unlimited, and his range is cosmic.

Howard and Lovecraft began corresponding at the beginning of the period of Howard's greatest productivity. Howard subsequently wrote stories that can be described as Lovecraft pastiches (e.g., The Black Stone). Lin Carter (a big Howard fan) writes in Lovecraft: A Look Behind the Cthulhu Mythos, "In writing these Lovecraftian tales, Howard and his colleagues generally followed Lovecraft's example."

More importantly, Lovecraft's work was one of several influences on the work for which Howard is best remembered. Charles Hoffman & Marc A. Cerasini write in Crypt of Cthulhu: "What [Howard] derived from his association with Lovecraft was a modern vision of monumentally threatening horrors from outside the realm of human experience. This type of horror was utilized by Howard...in his later heroic fantasies. Lovecraftian horror is an integral part of modern heroic fantasy, and Cthulhoid abominations comprise a significant percentage of the evil forces that heroes like Conan strive against."

I want to stress again, as I have above, that this is in no way about who is a better or more important author. No one is accusing Howard of "swiping" anything from anyone. Minor writers influence major writers all the time. What doesn't happen is that later works influence earlier works, which given the reality of Lovecraft's career is essentially what's being suggested in the most recent edit. Nareek 12:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The edit summary reads, "REH's letters are full of anecdotes he was told as a child that later became pieces of his horror stories." No one is suggesting that Howard was a plagiarist, or that he brought nothing original to his stories! This comment, offered in support of the idea that Howard was a significant influence on Lovecraft, seems to misunderstand what literary influence is. Nareek 14:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me spell this out again: I don't think that Howard was an unoriginal writer. I don't think that he slavishly imitated Lovecraft, even in his most clearly Cthulhu Mythos-oriented stories, or that Lovecraft was the only influence on his supernatural fiction. I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, but these seem to be the claims that I'm not making that you are arguing against.

What I am saying is that I haven't seen any evidence presented that Howard's writing was a substantial influence on Lovecraft's writing, little of which was written after Lovecraft and Howard came into contact. I don't say this because I'd be embarrassed for Lovecraft to be influenced by Howard; to the contrary, I think Lovecraft could have greatly benefited from an influx of Howard's narrative drive, vivid characterization and sense of humor. These are not, however, traits that you find a great deal of in Lovecraft's last major works, like At the Mountains of Madness or The Shadow out of Time, which are notable for their almost dialogue-free talkiness and their socialistic philosophy.

If critics have, despite surface appearances, detected Howard's impact on such tales, please let me know and I'll happily include the specific parallels among the inspirations for those stories. But without such evidence, I don't see how it can be claimed that Lovecraft and Howard influenced each other in equal measure. Nareek 02:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In popular culture

I started a couple of entries to do with historical figures as fictional characters: Nikola Tesla in popular culture and Mark Twain in popular culture and have proposed others: Harry Houdini and Thomas Edison. I notice a "In popular culture" section but this is more for adaptations of his work. There are a a lot of examples [1] and I'd suggest renaming "In popular culture" to "Adaptations" (along with things like Conan (comics)) and start a new entry: Robert E. Howard in popular culture. There is already enough material to start the entry but I wanted to open the floor for ideas, more examples, etc. first. (Emperor 20:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

De Camp

Is there any reason for the sniping at L. Sprague de Camp in recent edit summaries (November 29-December 3, 2006), aside from the absurd antipathy some Howard fans have for him? Granted, as a writer he does not have the emotional power of Howard, and his role in popularizing Howard's work is controversial. But he was far from being a bad writer, as Solomon Kane implies. De Camp has in fact consistently been recognized in science fiction and fantasy fandom and critical circles alike as being among the great figures in both genres. Too many Howard fans seem to judge his work solely on the basis of his Howard pastiches. Had de Camp written nothing else it would be valid to do so; as it is, the judgment merely reveals his detractors as poorly-read.

I agree with Nareek that de Camp was influenced by Howard, which should be an obvious point. It is also reasonable to postulate that without de Camp's efforts on Howard's behalf, Howard might not have had much influence. BPK 08:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Solomon Kane's post at User talk:Nareek: If I recall correctly, you were the one who insisted that the article text include the claim that Lovecraft was influenced by Howard. I still find that highly dubious, particularly since Lovecraft had done the great majority of his writing by the time he came into contact with Howard. But what if Lovecraft, after reading Howard, had written a series of Conan pastiches, and also written a couple of original series in the sword and sorcery genre? I can't believe you'd get any argument then about Howard's impact on Lovecraft--and I can't believe that you're arguing that de Camp, with that exact relationship to Howard, was not influenced by Howard. You continue to point out that (in your opinion) de Camp's fiction never got any better, which is completely meaningless. Terrible writers can be influenced by great ones--and vice versa. Nareek 02:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As noted above, I agree with Nareek. Checking the post of Solomon Kane's he cites, I note that the latter states of de Camp: "at no time did he go write his own sword and sorcery epic, with lean, muscular prose, fast action, and supernatural menaces galore. He never did that, Nareek. That would have been a case of REH influencing de Camp. De Camp's prose never improved for all of his working on Howard's work. THAT is why I keep taking de Camp's name off of the Influenced list. De Camp was a defacto editor, not someone who read Howard and decided to go and do likewise."

Well, whether de Camp's prose was lean and muscular is certainly arguable (I myself would argue it was usually the former, if not the latter). But the remainder of Solomon Kane's assessment is simply not true. De Camp did go write his own sword and sorcery epic; in fact, he wrote three, the Pusadian series (particularly Howard-influenced), the Novarian series, and the two volume saga beginning with The Incorporated Knight. All of these had plenty of supernatural menaces; more, in fact, than you find in the typical Howard tale (Howard generally, though not always, stuck with one per story).

Solomon Kane appears to hold that for Howard's prose to have influence on de Camp's the latter's prose would have to show qualitative improvement. Influence, however, is not the same as improvement, and quality is a matter of opinion. Influence in this instance could only be stylistic influence, which can be for better or worse. You can argue the stylistic influence of Howard on de Camp was good, bad, or nil, but if you do, be prepared to demonstrate it, or your argument is irrelevant. In any case, since de Camp's popularity was well established before he ever read much Howard, it's a moot point whether or not his style even needed "improvement" by Howard's. Don't forget, de Camp developed his own fan base at a time Howard (being deceased and not yet rediscovered) was not even being published.

Summing up, regardless of Howard's effect on de Camp's style, he had plenty of influence on de Camp's content — witness both the latter's continuations of the Conan saga and his three sword and sorcery series. De Camp was "someone who read Howard and decided to go and do likewise." Solomon Kane, I think you've illustrated my point that detractors of de Camp tend not to speak from much familiarity with him; while you speak as if with authority, your whole argument appears to rest on ill-founded opinion. BPK 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly whose page are you monkeying around with?

The last time I looked, this was a page for Robert E. Howard, not a page for people to heap laudatory praises on L. Sprague de Camp, nor a place to further the reputation of H.P. Lovecraft, who frankly needs no more help in that arena. Ask yourself: are you pushing these two author into the Robert E. Howard entry because you really feel like they need to be adequately represented, or are you grinding some fannish axe in response to the fans already trying to make this a comprehensive entry for REH? Don't de Camp and Lovecraft already have their own Wiki entries? Maybe that's where some of this stuff should go, don't you think? Mark Finn 20:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Pastiche"

From recent edits, I feel I should point out that the use of the word pastiche is correct. From wikitionary:

1. A work of drama, literature, music, or architecture that imitates the work of a previous artist, often satirically.

(My highlighting)

Not only that but it is a commonly used and accepted term for the non-Howard works. I have also added an inline link to wikitionary in the hopes that this will clear up any confusion. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is commonly used by Howard fans and scholars but that is not the correct or general usage for pastiche. To be encylopedic a word needs to have a more general use, not a specific one. (The entry on REH needs to be understood by people who are not Howard fans, as well as people who are.)

Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an imitation of a previous artist's work. While wiktionary has other definitions that is the main one, and the only definition in the Oxford English Dictionary. The term is also used to refer to non-original Sherlock Holmes stories, as the wiki article on Pastiche states. Any confusion caused to non-Howard/Doyle fans can easily be solved by linking to the article on "pastiche" (on wikipedia, wiktionary or both). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not an imitation of the previous writer's work, it's a continuation of it. It's a complete misuse of the word. A pastiche of Conan is a Swords & Sorcery character imitating REH's work (Conan) or style... not a continuation.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree but I've thought of a compromise. Is that acceptable? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the comprise, I hope you don't mind my change to it. Is it wrong for me to still want you to agree, though (even if you do, the compromise is more informative so should stay.) We agree that pastiche=imitation, but whether later writers of Conan are imitating Howard or not. Let's look at the sentence in question:

He subsequently converted unpublished non-Conan stories by Howard into Conans and edited the first outright "pastiches" by Swedish Howard fan Björn Nyberg.

He subsequently converted unpublished non-Conan stories by Howard into Conans and edited the first outright "imitations" by Swedish Howard fan Björn Nyberg.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your change is fine. I would say, however, that the non-Howard works are imitations (or at least imitations of his work). I would be the same with Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, James Bond etc or continued series such as Dune. In all cases, only the original author made the "real" works in these series. I imagine we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? So every episode of a TV show not written by the original writer is an imitation not a continuation? That's insane. The word Pastiche generally used and means someone taking an idea, style, etc from an author, musician, artist and doing something similar. The "usually satirically" should be a big sign that it isn't a continuation. Is Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and imitation of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek or a continuation. Howard fandom uses Pastiche differently, and that's fine, it's jargon, but in the real world that's not what it means, and an encylopedic entry needs to use the general usage.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why dont you guys chance this article to sound less like bloviating tripe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.165.212.38 (talk)

04:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 

Second Best Selling Fantasy Writer of All Time?

On the fiftieth anniversary of Howard's death (1986), Texas Monthly Magazine made this claim, that only J.R.R. Tolkien's works have ever sold more copies than Howard's. Can anyone verify this claim? We are talking about pure fantasy here, not science fiction, through 1986 (or later). Caracaskid (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Caracaskid

POV

Article is flagrantly fannish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.62.47 (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

how do you suppose? Nathraq (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The POV comment has merit. The entire article is written in the POV of a biographer who personally knew Howard- and might conceivably be verbatim copy from a biography. Too many adjectives, and personal observations: i.e., "It's obvious that...", "It's clear that"... It would be better to cite a quote from someone who knew him, saying what was obvious or clear. 99.149.22.88 (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1