Escape Artists
PodCastle => Episode Comments => Topic started by: Talia on June 21, 2011, 11:48:47 AM
-
PodCastle 162: Gods of the North (http://podcastle.org/2011/06/21/podcastle-162-gods-of-the-north)
Featuring Conan the Barbarian! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conan_the_Barbarian)
by Robert E. Howard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Howard)
Read by Graeme Dunlop
Originally Published in Fantasy Fan. Read the story here (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gods_of_the_North)!
Across the red drifts and mail-clad forms, two figures glared at each other. In that utter desolation only they moved. The frosty sky was over them, the white illimitable plain around them, the dead men at their feet. Slowly through the corpses they came, as ghosts might come to a tryst through the shambles of a dead world. In the brooding silence they stood face to face.
Both were tall men, built like tigers. Their shields were gone, their corselets battered and dinted. Blood dried on their mail; their swords were stained red. Their horned helmets showed the marks of fierce strokes. One was beardless and black maned. The locks and beard of the other were red as the blood on the sunlit snow.
“Man,” said he, “tell me your name, so that my brothers in Vanaheim may know who was the last of Wulfhere’s band to fall before the sword of Heimdul.”
“Not in Vanaheim,” growled the black-haired warrior, “but in Valhalla will you tell your brothers that you met Conan of Cimmeria.”
Rated R: Contains violence.
-
I AM THE FISH UNDER THE SEA (WHICH IS ALSO UNDER THE MOUNTAIN) BOW BEFORE MY WATERY FEEDBACK.
Conan. Awesome. Silly, cheap and fun swords and sorcery at its very best. My 14 year old self loves it, whereas the part of me that sits at the back of my brain doing the Sunday crossword and sneering at anything that does not have at least three layers of meaning and complexity just died a little bit. Good job, I get sick of that guy sometimes.
-
I loved it! It has been a long time since I have read/listened to a Conan story, and this one was a great pick. There was more behind the story than just Conan mowing down people with his sword, though there was plenty of that (as well as the ubiquitous heaving breasts). While Conan stories are pretty straight forward in their story-telling, and generally similar in content, I would by no means call them cheap. (not aiming that at you personally, iamafish, just the term. I can tell that you enjoyed the story as well.)
Howard is an icon, and sword and sorcery holds a great place in the annals of fantasy. Thanks for running this, Anna and Dave.
-
This story actually has an interesting publication history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Frost-Giant's_Daughter). I looked it up because it seemed distantly familiar. Turns out I was remembering Marvel's comic book adaptation of it. Okay, now I have to get back to work.
-
Perfect light-hearted goodness for the Solstice ;D Even though this obviously doesn't take place in a summery clime, it's perfect to kick-start the summer! (Well, that and a visit to the beach to watch the sunset. I love the longest day of the year!)
I've never read any Conan, I think I was turned off by Arnold Schwarzenegger when his movie came out. (I was 8 years old in 1982 so it was before I was reading anything more serious than Beezus And Ramona.) But, like the Carnacki story PodCastle ran a few months ago, this introduction will lead to more stories on my "To Read" list! yay!
-
Norse mythology, fierce warriors, classic language, fantastic narration. this story is swoon material.
-
BY CROM! RAWWWWWWWWWWWWWR!
Haha great story! I have a collection of Conan short stories and an essay on the history of Conan's world (which honestly made more sense after a six pack than before) and I gotta admit all the stories embody an awesome lighthearted romp through imagination that really thrusts its middle finger up in the air at all the stories that require 3 PHDs to understand what the heck is going on. Don't get me wrong, I love when a story gets me thinking about action and consequence or the first thing I do at work is figure out who else listened to the story that morning to say "Damn the story was awesome today!" Too many "serious stories" with depressing plots or tragic characters start to get stale. It was a breath of fresh air to hear Conan today.
Gods of the North is particularly fun. If you want something more testosterone laden, you're gonna have to rip out the heart of a 18 year old jock.
-
Huh. Conan. Yeahhhhhhh...
Okay, I'll admit it, I found the beginning wonderfully cheesy. I was all set to turn off my brain and just enjoy the sheer mindless violence and gore and ARRRRRRRHHHHness of it. And for the first half, I really enjoyed it. But then the Frost-Giant daughter shows up, and I was like, "uh, okay, naked white lady. Got it." And then the story went on and on, and I was like "OKAY, NAKED IVORY-LILY-WHITE LADY AND CONAN WANTS HER. I GET IT, ALREADY." And then he kills the frost giants and...um...
At that point, I stopped it, because I just couldn't really turn off my brain that much longer. Part of me thought back to Greek mythology and how much gore and rapeage happened there. But I guess I got hung up by all the descriptions of the Frost Giant Daughter and Conan's frenzied lust over her...really took me out of the story. Ugh. I did eventually finish it, but yeah, I don't have any pressing desire to read anymore Conan. And since I was never an 18-year-old boy and thus never read them as a kid, I'm glad to see I wasn't missing anything. I'll stick with the TV Conan version.
And now, for no reason whatsoever, I have a strong urge to watch Erik the Viking...
-
But I guess I got hung up by all the descriptions of the Frost Giant Daughter and Conan's frenzied lust over her...really took me out of the story. Ugh. I did eventually finish it, but yeah, I don't have any pressing desire to read anymore Conan.
Hi there, second time poster, I haven't formally indroduced myself yet. But, LaShawn, I'm with you there. To start off with, it was cheesy epic fun, but I started to get a tad uncomfortable around that bit. I think I said "Urgh" out loud a couple of times. Although it did remind me of this hilarious very wrong comic strip (NSFW bit adult and silly).
http://lolpics.se/3278-snow-queen (http://lolpics.se/3278-snow-queen)
-
Now, ladies, I think you missed the point...
SHE WAS A NAKED LADY. AND HE WANTED HER.
Now Mirrie, with regard to your comic, it reminded me of The Reign of the Wintergod, Pseudopod number 137 (http://pseudopod.org/2009/04/10/pseudopod-137-the-reign-of-the-wintergod/). It's... hurm... challenging in a similar yet opposite way. Ahem.
-
I agree, it did get a bit rape-y in the middle, but that's just how classic heroes roll. not saying it's ok to go around forcing yourself on a ice princes (even if she tried to have you killed) but it was appropriated for this type of story.
-
Women everywhere are going to hate me as a traitor for my next statement...but, thats OK.
Making men desire her was the goal of the naked lady. In all regards, she was "asking" to be chased and wants men to want her to the exclusion of all sense. At least, thats what I got from it. And, I still enjoyed the story, even though I am a woman myself.
(Edited to remove a word that didn't belong)
-
Yes, I too was cringing a little bit when Conan actually got to Atali. I kept thinking, "I hope this doesn't actually go THERE." Let's just say that I am glad Ymir stepped in when he did. And yes, it was Atali's intent to fire lust in Conan to draw him into a trap. It's just no one had ever gotten past the Brothers before. She was never at risk until then.
-
I've loved the cerebral stuff we regularly feature, but damn if I don't love me some hack n' slash every now and again. This was the brutal sorbet I needed.
-
Honestly, how can you argue with a Conan story?
I'd actually seen this same story twice before, though, in the comics adaptation of Conan, both times as "The Frost Giant's Daughter".
-
This story actually has an interesting publication history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Frost-Giant's_Daughter). I looked it up because it seemed distantly familiar. Turns out I was remembering Marvel's comic book adaptation of it. Okay, now I have to get back to work.
Dark Horse took a whack at it too...
-
Ummmm, hello? Why does everyone seem to be okay with the rape scene in this story? Exhibit A for why I could never get into the Consn stories. Oh, no it's cool she was really just another beautiful evil bitch out to destroy men, she TOTALLY deserves it. Good lord. Ick. Oh, and it's also cool cause Conan is just being Conan, he can essentially do whatever he wants. To go crazy feminist nut for a little bit longer, stories like these perpetuate evil stereotypes about women and men. Seriously think about it for longer than 3 seconds. Men are allowed to have whatever they can take even if it's through force and to hell with what anyone else wants? Women are beautiful evil ice queens who will literally lead you on and cause you nothing but pain? And men are allowed to do what they will with said women? This story isn't favorable for men or women, it's just painful to listen to. Now if this were a story about the epic battle he had just fought, or even just the battle with the ice giants, that I could totally get behind for entertainment. A story about rape that has no real conclusion? Hell no.
-
it's a story. from the 30's. obviously it will not live up to today's standards of equality.
edit.
I'm taking this story in its historical context.
-
See, this is why I could never get into Conan. Granted, I'm not a testosterone-laced, adolescent boy so so I'm clearly at a disadvantage here. I tried really hard to remember when it was written and the historical context and all that, but in the end I couldn't get past the objectification of the woman. Sure, you can argue that her character was asking to be objectified, but that's silly because she is a character, written by a man for the purpose of objectifying her. (with apologies to danooli, I just can't agree with you here) No self-respecting woman would behave in that way, and even the Greek mythology that I've read hasn't been nearly so demeaning as this story! Anyway, the battle scenes were wonderfully overwrought and the interaction between the men at the end was hilariously old-school but the rest just ruined it for me. :-\
-
it's a story. from the 30's. obviously it will not live up to today's standards of equality.
edit.
I'm taking this story in its historical context.
Sorry I missed that part in history class, rape was a cool thing to do in the 1930s? Last time I checked rape hasn't been acceptable since caveman days and has always been used as a means to torture and assert dominance over another human being. I would have found these comments to be very different if Conan was the one being terrified, brutalized, and barely getting away.
-
and even the Greek mythology that I've read hasn't been nearly so demeaning as this story!
their whole culture was structured to oppress women. but that's ok because their myth weren't!! /sarcasm
-
where's the rest of this story? what happened? why did you stop at the first few pages of the prologue???
I think she felt she was safe and wasn't "asking for it". She was actively luring him into a trap.
The barbarian's attitude in it is not, by any means, civilized. He lets his basic emotions dominate him and he has no neocortex/superego repression of his desires. It is effectively rape what he wants, there is no way to argue against that. But, what would you expect from this character? So, I guess what bothers is that he is considered the hero, a "good guy" despite this.
-
where's the rest of this story? what happened? why did you stop at the first few pages of the prologue???
I think she felt she was safe and wasn't "asking for it". She was actively luring him into a trap.
The barbarian's attitude in it is not, by any means, civilized. He lets his basic emotions dominate him and he has no neocortex/superego repression of his desires. It is effectively rape what he wants, there is no way to argue against that. But, what would you expect from this character? So, I guess what bothers is that he is considered the hero, a "good guy" despite this.
I agree, I'm waiting for the rest of the story!! I feel like too many of the stories have "ended" like this recently. It's one thing to leave the readers wishing there was more because the story is just so damn cool, it's another to just leave tue story half way through.
I can handle a bad guy being the good guy in any story, I guess what bothers me more is that people are considering Conan to be good and making excuses for his behavior in the rape scene. "it's just Conan" "he's a barbarian" "he was justified because she was taunting and teasing him and leading him to what she thought was his death" yes the portrayal of women and men is horrendous, but really you have to defend him so that he can still be a "good guy" in your mind? Conan is a bad guy, accept it. He doesn't have redeeming qualities. Sorry you fell in love with the bad ass bad guy.
. and even the Greek mythology that I've read hasn't been nearly so demeaning as this story!
their whole culture was structured to oppress women. but that's ok because their myth weren't!! /sarcasm
Difference is Greek mythology didn't support or view rape in a positive light, rapists were bad and were punished (okay not fairly or timely or ever did anything to help those that had been raped). Rape was used as a means of control, power assertion, and torture. Rape was not an okay or cool thing to do by any stretch of the imagination.
-
Men are allowed to have whatever they can take even if it's through force and to hell with what anyone else wants? Women are beautiful evil ice queens who will literally lead you on and cause you nothing but pain? And men are allowed to do what they will with said women?
Well ... no, not really. This story isn't about all women, or all men. It isn't even about a typical woman or man, which might make these questions relevant.
The story is about one man - really, an over-muscled, under-brained proto-man - with an over- (but poorly-) developed sense of personal 'honour' who thinks he can have whatever he can take (but is, I note, proven wrong). Lucky for him his friends came along. Perhaps his narrow escape will cause him to rethink his actions, since it's obvious that he doesn't think there's anything wrong with what he's doing.
And one woman - a spoiled brat (demi?)goddess, actually - who, yes, led that man on to try to cause him nothing but pain - death, in fact. And Conan wasn't the first that she did this to. But she did get something of a comeuppance for it: the fright that Conan caused her (which is less than he wanted to cause her, of course), not to mention the loss of her brothers (though one can argue self defence, there). Lucky for her that her father stepped in to save her. Perhaps her narrow escape will cause her to rethink her actions, since it's obvious that she doesn't think there's anything wrong with what she's doing.
Do I think either of them is justified? I hope my words make it obvious that no, I don't.
Did I enjoy the story anyway? Rather surprisingly, I rather did. It's not the sort of thing of which I want a steady diet; unlike others, I'm not going to go searching out more Conan stories on the strength of this one. But the writing was bold and descriptive, and really, both of these fairly unlikable characters were nearly killed for their own failings. I get the same sort of grim pleasure from that as I do from reading some of the accounts of Darwin award winners, or the Least Competent Criminals in News of the Weird (http://www.newsoftheweird.com/archive/index.html).
But I don't get the sense that the author was putting either of these characters up as models of behaviour.
-
I feel I need to clarify my earlier post. It was written on a very short break from work on my phone, so I wasn't able to articulate what I was really feeling.
I do not think, by any means, that any woman, in our society or not, deserves to be raped. The "she was asking for it" defense does not fly.
That said, in the context of this story, Atali was like a Siren, she lured men to their deaths using sex appeal. Or sex magic, if you will. I gleaned that the men she enchanted were bewitched into following her to her brothers who would then slaughter the poor bastards. But in Conan she met, well, she met Conan. He's an extraordinary character who was still taken under her spell, but was able to overcome her as no other man had before. So, it was magic-induced attempted rape. (I feel so dirty. :-\ )
-
Men are allowed to have whatever they can take even if it's through force and to hell with what anyone else wants? Women are beautiful evil ice queens who will literally lead you on and cause you nothing but pain? And men are allowed to do what they will with said women?
Well ... no, not really. This story isn't about all women, or all men. It isn't even about a typical woman or man, which might make these questions relevant.
The story is about one man - really, an over-muscled, under-brained proto-man - with an over- (but poorly-) developed sense of personal 'honour' who thinks he can have whatever he can take (but is, I note, proven wrong). Lucky for him his friends came along. Perhaps his narrow escape will cause him to rethink his actions, since it's obvious that he doesn't think there's anything wrong with what he's doing.
And one woman - a spoiled brat (demi?)goddess, actually - who, yes, led that man on to try to cause him nothing but pain - death, in fact. And Conan wasn't the first that she did this to. But she did get something of a comeuppance for it: the fright that Conan caused her (which is less than he wanted to cause her, of course), not to mention the loss of her brothers (though one can argue self defence, there). Lucky for her that her father stepped in to save her. Perhaps her narrow escape will cause her to rethink her actions, since it's obvious that she doesn't think there's anything wrong with what she's doing.
Do I think either of them is justified? I hope my words make it obvious that no, I don't.
Did I enjoy the story anyway? Rather surprisingly, I rather did. It's not the sort of thing of which I want a steady diet; unlike others, I'm not going to go searching out more Conan stories on the strength of this one. But the writing was bold and descriptive, and really, both of these fairly unlikable characters were nearly killed for their own failings. I get the same sort of grim pleasure from that as I do from reading some of the accounts of Darwin award winners, or the Least Competent Criminals in News of the Weird (http://www.newsoftheweird.com/archive/index.html).
But I don't get the sense that the author was putting either of these characters up as models of behavior.
Alright, I'll grant you that these are two characters who do not necessarily represent men and women everywhere. And that they both have character flaws. But as other posters have said previously, they were young boys filled with hormones when they read Conan stories, and I know that adults are not the only ones listening to these stories. Okay, so I tend to over think things to the point where my brain hurts and the finished product in no way correlates to the original subject matter, but can you not see some poor little kid associating with Conan and extracting the wrong messages from stories like this? I know I did when I was younger, I expected guys to always come to my rescue no matter the mess I got myself into. Stories like this make me so nervous, and then seeing some of the responses make me furious, and then I realize I really need a drink.
-
Alright, I'll grant you that these are two characters who do not necessarily represent men and women everywhere. And that they both have character flaws. But as other posters have said previously, they were young boys filled with hormones when they read Conan stories, and I know that adults are not the only ones listening to these stories. Okay, so I tend to over think things to the point where my brain hurts and the finished product in no way correlates to the original subject matter, but can you not see some poor little kid associating with Conan and extracting the wrong messages from stories like this? I know I did when I was younger, I expected guys to always come to my rescue no matter the mess I got myself into. Stories like this make me so nervous, and then seeing some of the responses make me furious, and then I realize I really need a drink.
Just wanted to drop in and say, this is a really fantastic discussion, and I'm glad we (er, mostly you all) are having it :)
I could have possibly talked a little bit about the scene in question after the story, and maybe I should have. It's a rough, uncomfortable scene - and we (Anna and I) knew that going on. In the intro, I mentioned that Howard's creation is part of fantasy fiction's legacy, and I really appreciate how many of you are asking difficult questions about some of the aspects of that legacy in this particular story.
People can always extract the wrong message from a story (Hello, Jesus). That's why having the discussions are so worthwhile. So...basically, all that to say: thanks to all of you for thinking and talking about the stories. You all rock :D
-
As much as I have not been a big fan of the most recent stories, I am glad y'all post stories that inspire discussion. I will always take mental stimulation over mindless entertainment. Keep it up (sorta)! ;D
-
That said, in the context of this story, Atali was like a Siren, she lured men to their deaths using sex appeal. Or sex magic, if you will. I gleaned that the men she enchanted were bewitched into following her to her brothers who would then slaughter the poor bastards. But in Conan she met, well, she met Conan. He's an extraordinary character who was still taken under her spell, but was able to overcome her as no other man had before. So, it was magic-induced attempted rape. (I feel so dirty. :-\ )
Well said. I think what needs to be remembered here is Atali was NOT a woman. She was a capricious dark god who would have done much worse to Conan if she could have (and probably HAD done worse to lesser men before him). It's just unfortunate for her that her latest victim was some Nietzchean godbreaker who takes down a Lovecraftian horror roughly twice a month.
As a long-time Conan fan, I feel I must point out to those unfamiliar to the stories that this is actually atypical behavior for him. Conan as depicted in the original stories is actually a pretty honorable guy. He deals with women quite fairly, more fairly than most in his society, actually. The only times he's ever been violent toward a woman is when they do something really rotten to him: like say, betray him to the city watch. Or...you know, lead him through an icy wasteland to his doom. So his behavior in this story is pretty out-of-character, which I think shows just how close Atali pushed him to his limits.
I did enjoy the reading of this story. Somehow the gruff Aussie voice works for a Conan tale. Tell me more of the days of high adventure, o chronicler!
-
is this Conan on podcastle?! a new era dawns!
i'm happy to experience my first Conan story, and i'm happy that podcastle gave it to me.
this isn't the kind of story that i want all the time from a fantasy podcast but i'm very glad podcastle included it and no longer considers itself above simple sword & sorcery.
-
As a long-time Conan fan, I feel I must point out to those unfamiliar to the stories that this is actually atypical behavior for him. Conan as depicted in the original stories is actually a pretty honorable guy. He deals with women quite fairly, more fairly than most in his society, actually. The only times he's ever been violent toward a woman is when they do something really rotten to him: like say, betray him to the city watch. Or...you know, lead him through an icy wasteland to his doom. So his behavior in this story is pretty out-of-character, which I think shows just how close Atali pushed him to his limits.
Thanks for the context. I gather that the reader is meant to understand that Conan is strongly ensorceled by Atali. She cast her siren spell over Conan as bait to lure him to his death, which then backfired when Conan killed her brothers, and she found herself in danger. I found myself quite anxious as he got nearer to actual rape, and was very relieved when she was able to call on her father to rescue her. I was strongly reminded of the nymph Syrinx being turned into reeds to escape the clutches of Pan, and I half expected Atali to be transformed into a pillar of ice or something.
I really enjoyed the story, even with all its violence. It treads a wonderfully mythological space, where gods and ice giants toy with humans for sport. The ending did stop cold (pun intended), but so do many fairy tales. I think the way it ends adds to the fairy tale nature of the story. I can imagine it as a story told on a deep winter night, the last line eliciting thrilled gasps from the audience.
-
Although it did remind me of this hilarious very wrong comic strip (NSFW bit adult and silly).
http://lolpics.se/3278-snow-queen (http://lolpics.se/3278-snow-queen)
In the interests of sending page views to the right place:
(2 pages) (http://www.oglaf.com/snowbound/)
together with the prequel (http://www.oglaf.com/snowqueen/) and sequel (3 pages) (http://www.oglaf.com/meltwater/). (All, as above, NSFW and splendidly silly).
-
Alright, I'll grant you that these are two characters who do not necessarily represent men and women everywhere. And that they both have character flaws. But as other posters have said previously, they were young boys filled with hormones when they read Conan stories, and I know that adults are not the only ones listening to these stories. Okay, so I tend to over think things to the point where my brain hurts and the finished product in no way correlates to the original subject matter, but can you not see some poor little kid associating with Conan and extracting the wrong messages from stories like this? I know I did when I was younger, I expected guys to always come to my rescue no matter the mess I got myself into. Stories like this make me so nervous, and then seeing some of the responses make me furious, and then I realize I really need a drink.
I never got a chance to listen to Conan when I was a teenage boy, mainly because I'm not done being a teenage girl yet.
I know you think my remarks are sexist (whatever, that's your opinion), but I think just because I like certain things about this story (like the language and the mythology) doesn't mean I'm saying its OK to try and rape a lady.
and, just because I listen to (and read) stories that portray the men as big strong heroes that don't take no for an answer, does not mean that I expect a night in shining armor (or barbarian with midnight locks for that matter) to save/rape me.
*sigh* I really wanted to only post positive things on escape artists, but I don't think I have managed that. I really don't mean to cause offence.
-
Ok, so, I loved this story, and if that makes me a pervert I don't want to be normal.
Gods of the North is fantasy, and for me, fantasy means "not reality." Not reality includes many good things (in reality I can't fly, in reality I'm not royalty, in reality I probably won't live forever, in reality I have do deal with stupid repetitive daily crap) and bad things (in reality I don't solve my problems with a sword, in reality I'm in a fulfilling long term romantic relationship, in reality nobody is trying to kill me). So, I don't judge a fantasy purely by whether or not it represents only positive impossibilities. There's something neat and invigorating about imagining that someone is trying to kill me, even though I'd find that kind of situation pretty challenging in real life.
A lot of people - myself included - find something kind of hot about unequal sexual relationships. This is not limited purely to rape fantasies. Nubile slaves eager to prove their worth, sexually voracious monarchs, demon incu/succubi from hell... these situations are nifty to some folks. They get our blood flowing. Some people seek these things out in erotica, and some people also seek them out - in less openly sexual ways - in other forms of fiction.
For me, Conan has always been at least in part about that kind of fantasy. Conan is huge, muscled, gruff, and doesn't take no for an answer. Conveniently enough, most of the time, his chiseled good looks and brooding persona mean that most of the women who inhabit his world are happy to say yes. But is Conan scrupulous to make sure that all his sexual encounters are perfectly consensual and entirely equitable? Probably no. Because he's Conan.
Is ElectricPaladin scrupulous to make sure that all his sexual encounters are perfectly consensual and entirely equitable? Of course. But I'm a real live person. Conan is not.
Anyway, the point is that it doesn't bother me that this is, in fact, the story of a battle-mad barbarian attempting to rape who he thinks is a human woman. Gods of the North enjoys a certain hyper-reality. In the same way that we cheer when Indiana Jones shoots Nazis in the face, but would be pretty horrified at the blood and death of shooting someone in the face ourselves, we can enjoy Conan chasing after Atali. If an Indiana Jones story dwelled in exquisite and agonizing detail on the death throes of the Nazi, how he writhed on the floor, bleeding, shitting and pissing himself as his damaged brain misfired, we'd all be pretty turned off. I think the same thing would happen if Conan had actually caught Atali and Howard had launched into a bloody and detailed description of the rape. Fortunately (and by design, I'm sure) Conan never managed to run Atali down.
Finally, I think that this is a story that only appeals to some people. Some of us are a little kinky for barbarism, and some of us are not. Sometimes Podcastle runs deep and sentimental stories, like Tending the Mori Birds, and sometimes Conan chases Atali across the fields of the dying. Sometimes we have chocolate cake for dessert, and sometimes we have carrot cake. Life goes on.
-
Let's remember that Conan was also a thief too. Now, I don't wish to draw an equivalence between two crimes, but I doubt Howard was advocating thievery either, nor was he modeling behavior. Conan is not a paragon or a role model.
-
Ok, so, I loved this story, and if that makes me a pervert I don't want to be normal.
Gods of the North is fantasy, and for me, fantasy means "not reality." Not reality includes many good things (in reality I can't fly, in reality I'm not royalty, in reality I probably won't live forever, in reality I have do deal with stupid repetitive daily crap) and bad things (in reality I don't solve my problems with a sword, in reality I'm in a fulfilling long term romantic relationship, in reality nobody is trying to kill me). So, I don't judge a fantasy purely by whether or not it represents only positive impossibilities. There's something neat and invigorating about imagining that someone is trying to kill me, even though I'd find that kind of situation pretty challenging in real life.
I enjoyed reading your perspective, ElePal, and made me wonder if I would react as strongly to a different line being crossed in a fantasy piece. Like cruelty to children or racism (I'd like to hope that I would). But dude, you have an interesting idea of what constitutes a bad thing! :P
-
Ok, so, I loved this story, and if that makes me a pervert I don't want to be normal.
Gods of the North is fantasy, and for me, fantasy means "not reality." Not reality includes many good things (in reality I can't fly, in reality I'm not royalty, in reality I probably won't live forever, in reality I have do deal with stupid repetitive daily crap) and bad things (in reality I don't solve my problems with a sword, in reality I'm in a fulfilling long term romantic relationship, in reality nobody is trying to kill me). So, I don't judge a fantasy purely by whether or not it represents only positive impossibilities. There's something neat and invigorating about imagining that someone is trying to kill me, even though I'd find that kind of situation pretty challenging in real life.
I enjoyed reading your perspective, ElePal, and made me wonder if I would react as strongly to a different line being crossed in a fantasy piece. Like cruelty to children or racism (I'd like to hope that I would). But dude, you have an interesting idea of what constitutes a bad thing! :P
Some of those bad things were a little off, especially the second. What I mean to say is that being in a long term committed relationship is great. In real life, I love it. It's sometimes fun to imagine that I'm a hot-as-nails hero and elf babes are throwing booty at me like there's no tomorrow, even though that kind of life would probably be less fulfilling than being with my beautiful nerdy wife.
-
The controversy puts me in mind of a recent one, started by Leo Grin in the post http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lgrin/2011/02/12/the-bankrupt-nihilism-of-our-fallen-fantasists/ (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lgrin/2011/02/12/the-bankrupt-nihilism-of-our-fallen-fantasists/) "The Bankrupt Nihilism of Our Fallen Fantasists" in which the author decries the state of fantasy and the fantasy hero (too psycho, too edgy), and how the writers of today - "little more than become cheap purveyors of civilizational graffiti" - have "soiled the building blocks" given to us by Tolkien and Howard.
(one of the authors answered him in the post "Bankrupt Nihilism" http://www.joeabercrombie.com/2011/02/15/bankrupt-nihilism/)
My problem - well, one problem - that claiming modern fantasy comes from Tolkien and Howard together is comparing apples and oranges. They are VERY different authors, with very different messages and points of view. Nothing wrong with that, mind you. But to claim them both as equal progenitors of modern fantasy....
-
Whoa whoa whoa, I need to back this up a little bit.
Alright, I'll grant you that these are two characters who do not necessarily represent men and women everywhere. And that they both have character flaws. But as other posters have said previously, they were young boys filled with hormones when they read Conan stories, and I know that adults are not the only ones listening to these stories. Okay, so I tend to over think things to the point where my brain hurts and the finished product in no way correlates to the original subject matter, but can you not see some poor little kid associating with Conan and extracting the wrong messages from stories like this? I know I did when I was younger, I expected guys to always come to my rescue no matter the mess I got myself into. Stories like this make me so nervous, and then seeing some of the responses make me furious, and then I realize I really need a drink.
I never got a chance to listen to Conan when I was a teenage boy, mainly because I'm not done being a teenage girl yet.
I know you think my remarks are sexist (whatever, that's your opinion), but I think just because I like certain things about this story (like the language and the mythology) doesn't mean I'm saying its OK to try and rape a lady.
and, just because I listen to (and read) stories that portray the men as big strong heroes that don't take no for an answer, does not mean that I expect a night in shining armor (or barbarian with midnight locks for that matter) to save/rape me.
*sigh* I really wanted to only post positive things on escape artists, but I don't think I have managed that. I really don't mean to cause offense.
If you go back and read my other posts you'll see I'm talking specifically about the rape scene and certain responses that made me very upset and frankly quite angry. Posts like that only perpetuate evil. And I honestly cannot see how you could enjoy the story since the ENTIRE thing was a big chase scene centered around rape. The mythology was thin and I'm not sure what "language" you're referring to. And I must say, I am proud of you if you're able to see stories such as these as pure escapism and not extrapolate anything from stories and apply any meaning or life lessons onto your own life and "reality", you must have much more perspective than any other teenager I have ever met. Congrats on that one.
Ok, so, I loved this story, and if that makes me a pervert I don't want to be normal.
Gods of the North is fantasy, and for me, fantasy means "not reality." Not reality includes many good things (in reality I can't fly, in reality I'm not royalty, in reality I probably won't live forever, in reality I have do deal with stupid repetitive daily crap) and bad things (in reality I don't solve my problems with a sword, in reality I'm in a fulfilling long term romantic relationship, in reality nobody is trying to kill me). So, I don't judge a fantasy purely by whether or not it represents only positive impossibilities. There's something neat and invigorating about imagining that someone is trying to kill me, even though I'd find that kind of situation pretty challenging in real life.
A lot of people - myself included - find something kind of hot about unequal sexual relationships. This is not limited purely to rape fantasies. Nubile slaves eager to prove their worth, sexually voracious monarchs, demon incu/succubi from hell... these situations are nifty to some folks. They get our blood flowing. Some people seek these things out in erotica, and some people also seek them out - in less openly sexual ways - in other forms of fiction.
For me, Conan has always been at least in part about that kind of fantasy. Conan is huge, muscled, gruff, and doesn't take no for an answer. Conveniently enough, most of the time, his chiseled good looks and brooding persona mean that most of the women who inhabit his world are happy to say yes. But is Conan scrupulous to make sure that all his sexual encounters are perfectly consensual and entirely equitable? Probably no. Because he's Conan.
Is ElectricPaladin scrupulous to make sure that all his sexual encounters are perfectly consensual and entirely equitable? Of course. But I'm a real live person. Conan is not.
Anyway, the point is that it doesn't bother me that this is, in fact, the story of a battle-mad barbarian attempting to rape who he thinks is a human woman. Gods of the North enjoys a certain hyper-reality. In the same way that we cheer when Indiana Jones shoots Nazis in the face, but would be pretty horrified at the blood and death of shooting someone in the face ourselves, we can enjoy Conan chasing after Atali. If an Indiana Jones story dwelled in exquisite and agonizing detail on the death throes of the Nazi, how he writhed on the floor, bleeding, shitting and pissing himself as his damaged brain misfired, we'd all be pretty turned off. I think the same thing would happen if Conan had actually caught Atali and Howard had launched into a bloody and detailed description of the rape. Fortunately (and by design, I'm sure) Conan never managed to run Atali down.
Finally, I think that this is a story that only appeals to some people. Some of us are a little kinky for barbarism, and some of us are not. Sometimes Podcastle runs deep and sentimental stories, like Tending the Mori Birds, and sometimes Conan chases Atali across the fields of the dying. Sometimes we have chocolate cake for dessert, and sometimes we have carrot cake. Life goes on.
I understand the appeal of dominance/submission in sexual relationships, I understand many people enjoy that and it helps them get off. Cool by me, what what goes on between two consenting adults is their issue, not mine. But this needs to be clarified, Conan did catch Atali. In fact he "dug his fingers into her soft flesh...kissed her mouth till it bruised." That sounds like rape and little bit to close for comfort for me. She manages to escape in the end out of pure luck. Mainly because she let Conan rip her clothes off so she's standing half naked there and has to run to her father for protection. Don't even get me started on that whole issue. And so the fact that she is not actually a human woman, even though Conan thought she was, makes it some how better? I can accept that some people only want to take this story at face value and not look into the sexist issues running rampant through this story, that is fine by me, I have listened/read stories that I only want to enjoy and not think about the awful underbelly of what the author is implying. But if you're going to take that stance and just enjoy it as a fantasy tale that you're going to turn your brain off and just enjoy it, why are you bothering to argue that this story is not all about rape, masculinity, and sexism?
Let's remember that Conan was also a thief too. Now, I don't wish to draw an equivalence between two crimes, but I doubt Howard was advocating thievery either, nor was he modeling behavior. Conan is not a paragon or a role model.
I agree, in one of my earlier posts I commented that the Conan stories are about a bad guy, Conan isn't a good guy, he's a bad guy, so, like I said before, stop trying to defend him as a good guy, just accept he's a bad guy and move on.
-
it is worth noting that this story also includes wholesale slaughter on religious & racial grounds and no one seems to have noticed it, much less be bothered by it.
-
it is worth noting that this story also includes wholesale slaughter on religious & racial grounds and no one seems to have noticed it, much less be bothered by it.
I did, but no sense throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Actually, I have no clue what that means, but my mother in law says it so much... ::shrug::
-
it is worth noting that this story also includes wholesale slaughter on religious & racial grounds and no one seems to have noticed it, much less be bothered by it.
I did, but no sense throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Actually, I have no clue what that means, but my mother in law says it so much... ::shrug::
I think this would be more like throwing the baby into the bathwater... :)
-
OK, so this was my first Conan story, in any medium (story or movie). I REALLY enjoyed the language.. thought the writing was simply great. Yeah, it did include sexual assault, but I did buy it was an evilish goddess at play rather than "gee men cannot help but rape" scenario. For me personally, wasn't enough character development of Conan to please me. Course that might be the nature of the beast. Is there anything to Conan besides "GRRR ARRRGH"? I donno. :) I personally like my characters with more character, though.
-
This is generally a great discussion - but I will remind people not to get personal, or imply that anyone is stupid or evil for taking a position on a story.
-
I understand the appeal of dominance/submission in sexual relationships, I understand many people enjoy that and it helps them get off. Cool by me, what what goes on between two consenting adults is their issue, not mine. But this needs to be clarified, Conan did catch Atali. In fact he "dug his fingers into her soft flesh...kissed her mouth till it bruised." That sounds like rape and little bit to close for comfort for me.
Remember what I said about the difference between fantasy and reality? If you were to walk in on two consenting adults playing out a non-consent scene, it would look and sound a lot like rape, too. You see, nobody got raped here. It's a story. Words on a page. No actual rape taking place. I understand how it might not appeal to you - not every story is going to appeal to every person, sure - but you can't argue that something bad happened here. Nothing happened, except that vibrations produced by a machine - based on words spoken by a man, those words based on squiggles put on paper by another man - went into your ears. No demigods or barbarians were harmed in the making of this story.
But if you're going to take that stance and just enjoy it as a fantasy tale that you're going to turn your brain off and just enjoy it, why are you bothering to argue that this story is not all about rape, masculinity, and sexism?
Two objections:
Firstly, I'm not turning my brain off. My brain is very much set to on while I enjoy this story, thank you very much.
Secondly, I'm not arguing that this story is about anything but rape, masculinity, and sexism. That's what this story is about. I'm arguing that there's nothing wrong with the occasional story about rape, masculinity, and sexism, especially when they take place against a hyper-real fantastic backdrop. Just like there's nothing wrong with a story about peace, compassion, and brotherhood. Or sisterhood. Or thinghood (http://escapepod.org/2011/06/23/ep298-the-things/). All stories have their time and place.
-
What's really fun is reading "Solomon Kane" and getting sexism and racism all in one go. (Kane doesn't really make with sexytimes much, at least.)
Conan is pretty much not my bag on every level. Sword and Sorcery in general isn't my thing; I don't really like thews or mighty cleaving blows, and the genre seems to bring out the worst in authors in terms of (sometimes veiled, sometimes not) misogyny and racism. I'm also going to have to rag on ElecPal, because this story is about as far from sub/dom play as you can get. I don't like dominance play at all in my sex life, but I have no problem with people who want to enjoy it that way. However, this story had a big old actual rape in it, and the "It's just a story" defense doesn't really hold a lot of water. Yes, evil goddess, luring men to their death, not emblematic of all women. Yes, Conan doesn't usually go right for the rambunctious cuddling. And still. This is a story about a man who slaughters a bunch of dudes for ill-defined reasons and then gets really angry when he's unable to rape to his satisfaction. That's kind of unpleasant, and the lack of other perspectives rings pretty loudly in it.
I can understand and even appreciate to some extent the impact Robert E. Howard had on fantasy fiction, but I gotta say that in a lot of cases I kind of wish he hadn't. The bar got set awfully darned low back in the day, and we're still paying off the dividends of those adolescent power fantasies in terms of public perception of genre fiction and the role and status of female authors, editors, publishers, etc. Stuff like this has its rough edges worn away by the passage of time and the acknowledgement of its "classic" status, but I'd honestly be okay with jettisoning this baggage for good if someone were to propose such a thing. I don't think it's good for genre fiction that so many of our old masters and founding fathers have to have their work prefaced with, "Now, you have to remember the time and place when this was written," or "Really, there wasn't that much of this sort of thing, considering." If I go to an art museum, there aren't any curators standing around giving apologia for all the rape, racism, and casual violence in the mainstream body of work.
Imagine if this story had been published without Conan in it, without the gleam of Howard's name behind it, without the patina of decades passing. Imagine some newbie author dropped this into the Podcastle slush box, unchanged except for the names. What would our collective reaction have been? (Other than, "Man, this guy's ripping off Robert E. Howard.")
-
What's really fun is reading "Solomon Kane" and getting sexism and racism all in one go. (Kane doesn't really make with sexytimes much, at least.)
Conan is pretty much not my bag on every level. Sword and Sorcery in general isn't my thing; I don't really like thews or mighty cleaving blows, and the genre seems to bring out the worst in authors in terms of (sometimes veiled, sometimes not) misogyny and racism. I'm also going to have to rag on ElecPal, because this story is about as far from sub/dom play as you can get. I don't like dominance play at all in my sex life, but I have no problem with people who want to enjoy it that way. However, this story had a big old actual rape in it, and the "It's just a story" defense doesn't really hold a lot of water. Yes, evil goddess, luring men to their death, not emblematic of all women. Yes, Conan doesn't usually go right for the rambunctious cuddling. And still. This is a story about a man who slaughters a bunch of dudes for ill-defined reasons and then gets really angry when he's unable to rape to his satisfaction. That's kind of unpleasant, and the lack of other perspectives rings pretty loudly in it.
I can understand and even appreciate to some extent the impact Robert E. Howard had on fantasy fiction, but I gotta say that in a lot of cases I kind of wish he hadn't. The bar got set awfully darned low back in the day, and we're still paying off the dividends of those adolescent power fantasies in terms of public perception of genre fiction and the role and status of female authors, editors, publishers, etc. Stuff like this has its rough edges worn away by the passage of time and the acknowledgement of its "classic" status, but I'd honestly be okay with jettisoning this baggage for good if someone were to propose such a thing. I don't think it's good for genre fiction that so many of our old masters and founding fathers have to have their work prefaced with, "Now, you have to remember the time and place when this was written," or "Really, there wasn't that much of this sort of thing, considering." If I go to an art museum, there aren't any curators standing around giving apologia for all the rape, racism, and casual violence in the mainstream body of work.
Imagine if this story had been published without Conan in it, without the gleam of Howard's name behind it, without the patina of decades passing. Imagine some newbie author dropped this into the Podcastle slush box, unchanged except for the names. What would our collective reaction have been? (Other than, "Man, this guy's ripping off Robert E. Howard.")
Heh. I just recently read some Solomon Kane stories and couldn't believe some of the incredibly racist overtones in one of them. That said, this is not a genre issue. It's a literature issue - I've seen it a lot in American Literature in particular - not only with race, but gender issues.
Regarding this story - again, this is a really great discussion, and I'm anxious to comment on it for fear of becoming a threadkiller. So please don't let that happen :)
When we picked this story, yes, we discussed this scene in particular, and what was happening in it. It's not nice. It's not fun. It is totally uncomfortable. But I kind of think that's the point - at least, for me. Something akin to a siren bewitches men across the icy wastelands for her brothers to slaughter. Except, instead of just some guy, she lured Conan, and since he's Conan, he keeps going where all the other poor bastards were cut down. He kills her brothers, and comes at her, and she can't turn the enchantment off. So Conan nearly rapes her. (I think it's worth mentioning nobody was raped in this story. Intent was there, but it would've been a different story if that had happened, and that's not the story we ran.) I suspect if Conan hadn't been out of his mind with whatever enchanments she threw at him, he would've just killed her after killing her brothers.
Some people have suggested it doesn't end, or ends too soon, but again - for me - the ending's pretty perfect. Two very strong characters - the last man standing on a battlefield and a goddess - get thrown completely off their game, and have to grapple with what happened, and what they've done. It's uncomfortable. I think it's supposed to be, and that's one of the reasons we ran it.
Regarding whether this story would've been published if some newb author had sent it in - this trick's been tried before, I think? Not that long ago, an author submitted a Jane Austen book (link (http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/07/jane-austen-rejected/)), and held it up on the internets as LOOK! THEY'RE EVEN REJECTING JANE AUSTEN. Well, duh. We love Jane Austen because she was Jane Austen, not somebody ripping off Jane Austen. She wrote what she wrote when she wrote it, and we're still being impacted by her stories. Howard is similar. Part of what makes his work iconic is when he wrote it, and the impact it had after that. (Heh. Some of that derivative conversation from the other thread is bleeding into my mind here...)
Now, if somebody writes some ass-kicking sword and sorcery, makes it their own, takes into consideration where we are now in literature, and sends it to us (or in the case of Garth Nix, lets us solicit it), we're all for that. Unfortunately, not many people do :(
-
The controversy puts me in mind of a recent one, started by Leo Grin in the post http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lgrin/2011/02/12/the-bankrupt-nihilism-of-our-fallen-fantasists/ (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lgrin/2011/02/12/the-bankrupt-nihilism-of-our-fallen-fantasists/) "The Bankrupt Nihilism of Our Fallen Fantasists" in which the author decries the state of fantasy and the fantasy hero (too psycho, too edgy), and how the writers of today - "little more than become cheap purveyors of civilizational graffiti" - have "soiled the building blocks" given to us by Tolkien and Howard.
(one of the authors answered him in the post "Bankrupt Nihilism" http://www.joeabercrombie.com/2011/02/15/bankrupt-nihilism/)
My problem - well, one problem - that claiming modern fantasy comes from Tolkien and Howard together is comparing apples and oranges. They are VERY different authors, with very different messages and points of view. Nothing wrong with that, mind you. But to claim them both as equal progenitors of modern fantasy....
Ha. I remember that conversation - actually considered mentioning it somewhere in this episode, but decided to stick with Howard this time out. Abercrombie's response was soooooooooooooooo great :)
-
Imagine if this story had been published without Conan in it, without the gleam of Howard's name behind it, without the patina of decades passing. Imagine some newbie author dropped this into the Podcastle slush box, unchanged except for the names. What would our collective reaction have been? (Other than, "Man, this guy's ripping off Robert E. Howard.")
Regarding whether this story would've been published if some newb author had sent it in - this trick's been tried before, I think? Not that long ago, an author submitted a Jane Austen book (link (http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/07/jane-austen-rejected/)), and held it up on the internets as LOOK! THEY'RE EVEN REJECTING JANE AUSTEN. Well, duh. We love Jane Austen because she was Jane Austen, not somebody ripping off Jane Austen. She wrote what she wrote when she wrote it, and we're still being impacted by her stories. Howard is similar. Part of what makes his work iconic is when he wrote it, and the impact it had after that. (Heh. Some of that derivative conversation from the other thread is bleeding into my mind here...)
It seems to me that an unknown submitting an Austen-esque novel today is akin to an unknown submitting a Conan-esque story today and in both cases I agree with Dave that modern day editors would be well within their purview to go ahead and reject both stories. However, in my mind Scattercat was raising a different interesting question: what of the other less long-lived stories of the 1930's?
I assume that there were other "sword and sorcery" writers that were contemporaries of Howard, and for whatever reason their work just hasn't enjoyed the longevity that the Conan stories did. I'm guessing that their stories carry many of the same themes and that without the name of Howard/Conan it would be harder to shrug off the more offensive aspects of the narrative. How would modern readers feel about these same transgressions if it was "Arthur the Berserker" by John Smith? I honestly doubt that a dated (in the worldview/values represented) story like this would have been run on Podcastle had not the decades deemed it a "classic", and I doubt as well that a story like this would have been run if the anti-hero had been anyone other than Conan.
ETA: I meant to also ask, so therefore why do we give Conan a break, and should we in fact continue to do so?
-
Remember what I said about the difference between fantasy and reality? If you were to walk in on two consenting adults playing out a non-consent scene, it would look and sound a lot like rape, too. You see, nobody got raped here. It's a story. Words on a page. No actual rape taking place. I understand how it might not appeal to you - not every story is going to appeal to every person, sure - but you can't argue that something bad happened here. Nothing happened, except that vibrations produced by a machine - based on words spoken by a man, those words based on squiggles put on paper by another man - went into your ears. No demigods or barbarians were harmed in the making of this story.
Yes, you're right, in the grand scheme of things this is only a compilation of words that make a story written onto pages. So was Mein Kampf. And The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And Quotations from Chairman Mao. Get my point? At some point those stopped being words on a page and actually had some effect in the real world.
Of course if I were to walk in on people acting out scenes for their own sexual pleasure, of course I would think it was rape. Most people would. But that isn't the issue here. Conan and Atali aren't playing out some scene they both agreed on. There is real fear and real danger.
And can you please clarify how this ISN'T rape? Honestly, if you've never been in that position of having someone on top of you and forcing themselves upon you, you don't know the fear and emotions that go with that. That is a form of rape, Atali was just lucky enough to get away before anything truly bad happened. This would be completely different if Conan was chasing a man down to rape him, or if Conan himself were being chased by a man, or if Conan were chasing a child. Forcing yourself on another being is wrong no matter the situation or circumstance.
But if you're going to take that stance and just enjoy it as a fantasy tale that you're going to turn your brain off and just enjoy it, why are you bothering to argue that this story is not all about rape, masculinity, and sexism?
Two objections:
Firstly, I'm not turning my brain off. My brain is very much set to on while I enjoy this story, thank you very much.
Secondly, I'm not arguing that this story is about anything but rape, masculinity, and sexism. That's what this story is about. I'm arguing that there's nothing wrong with the occasional story about rape, masculinity, and sexism, especially when they take place against a hyper-real fantastic backdrop. Just like there's nothing wrong with a story about peace, compassion, and brotherhood. Or sisterhood. All stories have their time and place.
There is something wrong when the story about rape, masculinity, and sexism is portrayed in a positive light. Rape and sexism are not positive qualities, no matter what age, genre, time, or place. This is something my entire being rejects, even if it is set in a hyper-real fantastic backdrop.
-
It seems to me that an unknown submitting an Austen-esque novel today is akin to an unknown submitting a Conan-esque story today and in both cases I agree with Dave that modern day editors would be well within their purview to go ahead and reject both stories. However, in my mind Scattercat was raising a different interesting question: what of the other less long-lived stories of the 1930's?
I could be wrong, but I don't think Scattercat was suggesting a Howard-esque story. He was suggesting this exact same story, written today. (And the Austen-esque novel was literally Pride and Prejudice. Not even Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.)
It seems to me that an unknown submitting an Austen-esque novel today is akin to an unknown submitting a Conan-esque story today and in both cases I agree with Dave that modern day editors would be well within their purview to go ahead and reject both stories. However, in my mind Scattercat was raising a different interesting question: what of the other less long-lived stories of the 1930's?
I assume that there were other "sword and sorcery" writers that were contemporaries of Howard, and for whatever reason their work just hasn't enjoyed the longevity that the Conan stories did. I'm guessing that their stories carry many of the same themes and that without the name of Howard/Conan it would be harder to shrug off the more offensive aspects of the narrative. How would modern readers feel about these same transgressions if it was "Arthur the Berserker" by John Smith? I honestly doubt that a dated (in the worldview/values represented) story like this would have been run on Podcastle had not the decades deemed it a "classic", and I doubt as well that a story like this would have been run if the anti-hero had been anyone other than Conan.
ETA: I meant to also ask, so therefore why do we give Conan a break, and should we in fact continue to do so?
Devoted135, I think that's an excellent question. I can't speak about those other S&S stories/writers that were Howard's contemporaries, because I'm not that familiar with them. If you, or anyone else has any suggestions for us to check out, please let us know. I'd love to read more, especially if it's in Public Domain.
In the past, we've run more obscure PD stuff...William Hope Hodgson and Israel Zangwill. And we may do more of that. But, we decided to run Howard this time.
We may run more S&S - in fact, we're actively trying to get some more contemporary stuff. But the reason we ran a Robert E. Howard Conan story is because...well, it's a Robert E. Howard Conan story. And that comes with all the good stuff and all the baggage that it does. And I think the baggage is worth talking about.
One of the good things is - it's in Public Domain. Not all Conan stories are. A lot of them aren't. Some of the more recent S&S stuff from the 60s, etc. is definitely not.
That said, we're not giving Howard a break, exactly. That Solomon Kane story I mentioned upthread? It is PD, and there's not a snowball's chance in hell you'll ever hear it here at PodCastle as long as Anna and I are editing. (Note: I'm not saying that about all Solomon Kane stories...just that particular one.)
We've got a story coming out next week that's a wicked, mean epic fantasy and I joked in the intro that it made this Conan story seem tame. (I still think it does.) It's not exactly S&S, but it takes into account a lot of the baggage these kinds of stories have, I think. I wish I had waited to record that intro until after all this discussion - it's been really fascinating and caused me to think and reflect even more. So thanks again! :)
-
ETA: I meant to also ask, so therefore why do we give Conan a break, and should we in fact continue to do so?
Because it was historically influential. And because we shouldn't hide from our history, even when it is unpleasant. In order for us to continue advancing, we need to know where we came from relative to where we are now. And that means we should be exposed to the works that were important in getting us here, even if we don't approve of them.
There is something wrong when the story about rape, masculinity, and sexism is portrayed in a positive light. Rape and sexism are not positive qualities, no matter what age, genre, time, or place. This is something my entire being rejects, even if it is set in a hyper-real fantastic backdrop.
Something wrong? Absolutely. But the fact that there's something wrong with a story shouldn't amount to complete rejection (before I proceed, let me note that I'm not responding to your individual reaction - if you feel like *your* only valid response is total rejection, then you need to act on your feeling. I'm arguing about the general case). Let me give another example that perhaps affects me more personally. I am Jewish. I am the grandson of Holocaust survivors, and the son of a historian specialising in twentieth century Jewish history. I grew up hearing about the horrors of antisemitism, and when I was old enough to travel on my own in Europe, I had two seperate occasions where antisemitic tirades were directed at me. And yet, I can appreciate The Merchant of Venice as a piece of art, even though its characterisations and resolution are repugnant to me. There's a lot wrong with that play, but that doesn't mean that what's good about it also doesn't exist. And the same holds for positive portrayals of sexism, or any other form of racism - they're wrong, yes, but we can't allow the wrong to dominate our conversation.
This would be completely different if Conan was chasing a man down to rape him, or if Conan himself were being chased by a man, or if Conan were chasing a child. Forcing yourself on another being is wrong no matter the situation or circumstance.
Wait, what? Completely different how?
-
There is something wrong when the story about rape, masculinity, and sexism is portrayed in a positive light. Rape and sexism are not positive qualities, no matter what age, genre, time, or place. This is something my entire being rejects, even if it is set in a hyper-real fantastic backdrop.
See, this is where we're reading/hearing different stories. I don't think it's meant to be a positive portrayal of any of those things. My entire being rejects all that as well.
-
Yes, you're right, in the grand scheme of things this is only a compilation of words that make a story written onto pages. So was Mein Kampf. And The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And Quotations from Chairman Mao. Get my point? At some point those stopped being words on a page and actually had some effect in the real world.
Of course if I were to walk in on people acting out scenes for their own sexual pleasure, of course I would think it was rape. Most people would. But that isn't the issue here. Conan and Atali aren't playing out some scene they both agreed on. There is real fear and real danger.
Again, there is fictional fear and fictional danger. Just like there is fictional fear and fictional danger in every other piece of adventure fiction you will ever read. And, for that matter, fictional fear and fictional danger in the bedroom of a couple of consenting adults playing out a rape scene.
That's also the difference between The Gods of the North and things like Mein Kampf, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and Quotations from Chairman Mao. Gods of the North is fiction. These other things are not (or, in the case of The Protocols, were fiction but did not present themselves as such). They are real. If Gods of the North had actually happened or been presented with unappealingly realistic detail, I would have had a different reaction to it.
I'm going to turn this around on you: do you really want to read in a world where bad things don't happen in fiction? Where every morally ambiguous character invariably gets his or her comeuppance? Do you want every novel to be a bland morality play in which the bad guys can be distinguished by their black hats and greased mustaches? It seems to me from your comments that you consider fictitious atrocities the rough moral equivalent of real life atrocities - how on earth did you read Ender's Game, The Lord of the Rings, or anything else with any kick? How can you read Cormack McCarthy's The Road? Kidnapped by Robert Louis Stevenson contains scenes of, well, kidnapping, not to mention child abuse, theft, and murder - and I'm pretty sure rape is alluded to. Fiction contains gross, horrible, terrifying stuff - that's what makes it exciting. How on earth do you ever read anything?
As for myself, fiction is the magic spice that makes these things readable. I don't actually want to be forced to live in a family compound full of murderous relations who want to kill me for the right to lead a family of heartless sociopaths, while dealing with the semi-wanted affections of a deity of death and madness. In fiction, though, I'd read the shit out of that. In fact, I did read the shit out of that; it's called N. K. Jemisin's The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms, and it was really good.
And can you please clarify how this ISN'T rape?
Because. It's. Fiction.
Honestly, if you've never been in that position of having someone on top of you and forcing themselves upon you, you don't know the fear and emotions that go with that.
So what?
This would be completely different if Conan was chasing a man down to rape him, or if Conan himself were being chased by a man, or if Conan were chasing a child. Forcing yourself on another being is wrong no matter the situation or circumstance.
I'm going to mimic the posters who scooped me and ask: how is it different and what does it matter?
There is something wrong when the story about rape, masculinity, and sexism is portrayed in a positive light. Rape and sexism are not positive qualities, no matter what age, genre, time, or place. This is something my entire being rejects, even if it is set in a hyper-real fantastic backdrop.
I suppose that's where you and I differ: in my mind, stories are never wrong. They simply are. They educate, entertain, enlighten, and challenge. Even a bad story - or a story about bad things, or a story whose moral perspective you disagree with or even find abhorrent - can cause you to grow. Actions can be right, wrong or a little of both; stories are eternal, transcendent, and divine. They are beyond good and evil. They simply are. The point is not what the story says, it is what you see in the mirror of story and how it changes you.
-
ETA: I meant to also ask, so therefore why do we give Conan a break, and should we in fact continue to do so?
Because it was historically influential. And because we shouldn't hide from our history, even when it is unpleasant. In order for us to continue advancing, we need to know where we came from relative to where we are now. And that means we should be exposed to the works that were important in getting us here, even if we don't approve of them.
You make a good point, and I definitely agree with you on that one. In addition to the example of Shakespeare, I would add The Scarlet Pimpernel, which is a classic book that uses the anti-semitic feelings of 18th century France as a major plotpoint. I think the difference here is I don't see that particular argument being made upthread. Rather, the stance has been that "Conan will be Conan" and we shouldn't judge him according to today's standards, which I disagree with. Much like we do with Shakespeare, I think we can stop giving him a break without writing him out of the history of fantasy.
This would be completely different if Conan was chasing a man down to rape him, or if Conan himself were being chased by a man, or if Conan were chasing a child. Forcing yourself on another being is wrong no matter the situation or circumstance.
Wait, what? Completely different how?
From the context of the post, I'm assuming Calculating... meant "This would not be any different" or something along those lines.
-
It seems to me that an unknown submitting an Austen-esque novel today is akin to an unknown submitting a Conan-esque story today and in both cases I agree with Dave that modern day editors would be well within their purview to go ahead and reject both stories. However, in my mind Scattercat was raising a different interesting question: what of the other less long-lived stories of the 1930's?
I could be wrong, but I don't think Scattercat was suggesting a Howard-esque story. He was suggesting this exact same story, written today. (And the Austen-esque novel was literally Pride and Prejudice. Not even Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.)
Whoops, thanks. Okay, then I'll ask the question :D
Devoted135, I think that's an excellent question. I can't speak about those other S&S stories/writers that were Howard's contemporaries, because I'm not that familiar with them. If you, or anyone else has any suggestions for us to check out, please let us know. I'd love to read more, especially if it's in Public Domain.
I did a quick search, but it didn't yield very much. Sadly my knowledge of classic sf/f is very much lacking by the standards of this forum.
We may run more S&S - in fact, we're actively trying to get some more contemporary stuff. But the reason we ran a Robert E. Howard Conan story is because...well, it's a Robert E. Howard Conan story. And that comes with all the good stuff and all the baggage that it does. And I think the baggage is worth talking about.
For sure, it's for threads like these that I'm glad that the culture of positive discussion has been so successfully nurtured here!
We've got a story coming out next week that's a wicked, mean epic fantasy and I joked in the intro that it made this Conan story seem tame. (I still think it does.) It's not exactly S&S, but it takes into account a lot of the baggage these kinds of stories have, I think. I wish I had waited to record that intro until after all this discussion - it's been really fascinating and caused me to think and reflect even more. So thanks again! :)
Okay, now I'm both excited and nervous! Can't wait to hear what you guys have cooked up! :)
-
Conan and Atali aren't playing out some scene they both agreed on. There is real fear and real danger.
And can you please clarify how this ISN'T rape? Honestly, if you've never been in that position of having someone on top of you and forcing themselves upon you, you don't know the fear and emotions that go with that. That is a form of rape, Atali was just lucky enough to get away before anything truly bad happened.
Calculating, I WAS raped. It'll be almost 20 years this summer. I know what it feels like, so please be careful what you say.
I'd like to ask you to look at the story in just one other way. Please. I'd like you to look at Conan who is the one who really is playing out a scene he didn't agree upon. Atali is the one who bewitches Conan. She is the character in the story who sets the ball in motion. He is the one who doesn't have control over the situation due to the power of a Demi-Goddess. I know what it's like to not be in control of what is happening to you. Can you see that if you're damning Conan, you're sort of blaming the victim?
And, this was a work of fiction. The "words on paper" you mention above are manifestos. Completely different.
-
Because it was historically influential. And because we shouldn't hide from our history, even when it is unpleasant. In order for us to continue advancing, we need to know where we came from relative to where we are now. And that means we should be exposed to the works that were important in getting us here, even if we don't approve of them.
Here, here. Couldn't have said it better myself (and probably would have taken quadruple the words!)
-
Conan and Atali aren't playing out some scene they both agreed on. There is real fear and real danger.
And can you please clarify how this ISN'T rape? Honestly, if you've never been in that position of having someone on top of you and forcing themselves upon you, you don't know the fear and emotions that go with that. That is a form of rape, Atali was just lucky enough to get away before anything truly bad happened.
Calculating, I WAS raped. It'll be almost 20 years this summer. I know what it feels like, so please be careful what you say.
I'd like to ask you to look at the story in just one other way. Please. I'd like you to look at Conan who is the one who really is playing out a scene he didn't agree upon. Atali is the one who bewitches Conan. She is the character in the story who sets the ball in motion. He is the one who doesn't have control over the situation due to the power of a Demi-Goddess. I know what it's like to not be in control of what is happening to you. Can you see that if you're damning Conan, you're sort of blaming the victim?
And, this was a work of fiction. The "words on paper" you mention above are manifestos. Completely different.
Danooli, you are now my hero. That is a brilliant set of observations.
-
For me personally, wasn't enough character development of Conan to please me. Course that might be the nature of the beast. Is there anything to Conan besides "GRRR ARRRGH"? I donno. :) I personally like my characters with more character, though.
this is my impression as well. i was reminded of a superman plot.
something challenges the hero, conflict occurs, the hero tries hard and wins.
it doesn't much matter what happens, if the opposition is stronger then the hero just needs to try harder.
-
Just for clarity's sake... so it would have been ok if Conan had been led to his death by the naked evil godess? Or if the Dark god of the mountain popped out and treated Conan to a forced backdoor entry? Then it's ok? Why is it ok for the Dark evil goddess who has been tormenting the dying for centuries to get off scot-free and not reap a little bit of what she's been sowing? She's not an innocent here. She's there in that field to deliberately torment the dying and to flaunt her beautiful naked body, to lure the bewitched to her brothers who kill and rip out the hearts for sacrificial offerings to a dark god. I'm sorry, but looks like a little bit of dark justice.
The scene was not "One day Atali was minding her own business enjoying a fine winters walk in her favorite transparent veil when she happened upon a battlefield. After offering the lone survivor some first aid and a bit of her coffee, she suddenly noticed a wild hunger in his eyes. From the way he was staring at her hips and breasts, she could tell no good was on his mind. The stranger began to speak, telling her how beautiful she was and though she tried to deny his advances, he would not be put off. Fearing for her life, she ran to her brothers for help, but the huge hulking man slew her poor kin. Onward she dashed, but eventually the man-beast leapt upon her. In a last desperate act, she tore free from the only stitch of clothing she wore and called out to her father for help. Her Father swooped out of the sky, gathered her to his bosum and took the poor dear home."
That's not what happened.
At this point, I wish that Howard would have written "Once Conan caught up to her, he struck her coldly cruel evil head from her naked shoulders and then went back to town for some ale and consenting wenches. The End."
Look, I've read all of the Conan stories and they are completely ridiculous with all of the stupid amazing feats that Conan pulls off--at one point he is crucified for 3 days and after day 2, he begins to despair because he can't pull his own hands off the spikes to save himself. Seriously? While hanging out crucified he bites the head off a buzzard too. He gets off the cross when this bandit lord cuts the cross down and rips the nails out. Really? I'm supposed to believe that? What was Howard smoking? The stories are laughable, horrendously filled with references to mighty musclebound apemen, bodacious scantily clad babes, and grim seedy world. The stories themselves are forced transparent plotlines and nothing even remotely cerebral--you can guess exactly what is going to happen. Yet, much like all the silly and cheesy cartoons I watched while growing up, by CROM! I have a soft spot in my heart for Conan and his silliness--and just b/c i do like Conan, it doesn't make me a rapist anymore than violent video games make me a killer or horror movies will turn me into a pyschopath. I'm sorry, I like my heavy metal music and no preacher can convince me I'm a spawn of satan.
Honestly I find this discussion about as annoying as all of the men who are furious over the simpsons, family guy, and all the other evening sitcoms portray men as fat, stupid pigs incapable of any sort of human decency or rational thought without being led by the nose.
-
ETA: I meant to also ask, so therefore why do we give Conan a break, and should we in fact continue to do so?
Because it was historically influential. And because we shouldn't hide from our history, even when it is unpleasant. In order for us to continue advancing, we need to know where we came from relative to where we are now. And that means we should be exposed to the works that were important in getting us here, even if we don't approve of them.
There is a difference between remembering your roots and celebrating/defending them. This is a story about a pretty horrible pair of people. Excusing it by saying, "Well, standards of the time, hem hem, Conan is just so larger-than-life, hem hem," is what I don't care for. I'm okay with people printing a Howard story and saying, "You know, this really hasn't aged well. In fact, it's kind of offensive." I'm less okay with printing a Howard story and going, "Yeaaaaaah, Conan!" and not examining what it means that this was a part of the foundation of the genre, no less than Tolkien's carefully manicured Manichean struggle.
It's similar to how the less savory aspects of Lovecraft have to be addressed, because holy crap was that dude racist, and not in a "everyone was racist then" kind of way, but in a "Dude was freaking terrified of anything that came from outside of about a ten-mile square radius around Providence." You can't run some of Lovecraft's stories ("Horror at Red Hook" springs to mind, for example) and not say, "This story is basically just racist and doesn't have much else to recommend it. It's a part of his work, but it's not why he is remembered." Robert E. Howard's work, overall, displays a fair amount of immature power fantasy, and a part of that is the way Conan always gets what he wants.
I think the people who point out that Atali lured Conan on are missing the point a bit. That is, yes, within the world of this story, that's what happened. However, in the real world, rape victims STILL have to overcome this massive subconscious (if I'm being generous) belief that people who are raped somehow did something to "deserve" it, or at least made themselves vulnerable in some way. If the defense can prove that the rape victim had been drinking, for instance, that somehow serves as evidence to exonerate the rapist. Even if they bring up how many other sexual partners the rape victim has had in the past, that can help get the attacker a lesser sentence. This is how it works in the real world, and so I see this story and all I can hear is that chorus of judgmental voices saying, "She was asking for it. She led him on. She's just a slut who didn't get away with it this time."
That is why this story is troubling. Not because Conan was necessarily acting inappropriately in context (He was bewitched, after all) but because the story by necessity exists in conjunction with reality. It reflects and influences behavior and attitudes, simply by existing. Will someone read this story and go out to rape someone? No; that's ridiculous. Does this story add one more pebble to the press, one more straw to the load, one more drop in the flood? I think it does, and for that reason I dislike it and its simplistic portrayal of the interactions between its godlike avatars, both masculine and feminine.
-
There is something wrong when the story about rape, masculinity, and sexism is portrayed in a positive light. Rape and sexism are not positive qualities, no matter what age, genre, time, or place. This is something my entire being rejects, even if it is set in a hyper-real fantastic backdrop.
Something wrong? Absolutely. But the fact that there's something wrong with a story shouldn't amount to complete rejection (before I proceed, let me note that I'm not responding to your individual reaction - if you feel like *your* only valid response is total rejection, then you need to act on your feeling. I'm arguing about the general case). Let me give another example that perhaps affects me more personally. I am Jewish. I am the grandson of Holocaust survivors, and the son of a historian specializing in twentieth century Jewish history. I grew up hearing about the horrors of antisemitism, and when I was old enough to travel on my own in Europe, I had two separate occasions where antisemitic tirades were directed at me. And yet, I can appreciate The Merchant of Venice as a piece of art, even though its characterizations and resolution are repugnant to me. There's a lot wrong with that play, but that doesn't mean that what's good about it also doesn't exist. And the same holds for positive portrayals of sexism, or any other form of racism - they're wrong, yes, but we can't allow the wrong to dominate our conversation.
This would be completely different if Conan was chasing a man down to rape him, or if Conan himself were being chased by a man, or if Conan were chasing a child. Forcing yourself on another being is wrong no matter the situation or circumstance.
Wait, what? Completely different how?
I meant more the responses of posters would be completely different, which like I have been saying, really are the most disturbing part of this whole thing for me.
And, shalom. I'm also Jewish (and lived through and abusive ex in which sex was not always consensual, relevant later), I couldn't go certain places when I was in Europe two years ago, specifically because of what my great grandparents and grandparents told me. Same reasons why I cannot go certain places in New Orleans (besides safety issues) because I am not good with dealing with the reality of the pain and horror. Part of the reason why I turn to fiction. I am able to read and appreciate plays like Merchant of Venice because it at least offers a story outside of antisemitism, which it seems like you can appreciate it in a similar way. Gods of the North doesn't offer much beyond Conan's insatiable lust, so I personally cannot get much out of the story. Like I have said repeatedly, the main issue I am having is the response of posters on this thread who seem to not acknowledge that this story is about rape, or out right cheering for Conan. I thought people had evolved over the years.
Yes, you're right, in the grand scheme of things this is only a compilation of words that make a story written onto pages. So was Mein Kampf. And The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And Quotations from Chairman Mao. Get my point? At some point those stopped being words on a page and actually had some effect in the real world.
Of course if I were to walk in on people acting out scenes for their own sexual pleasure, of course I would think it was rape. Most people would. But that isn't the issue here. Conan and Atali aren't playing out some scene they both agreed on. There is real fear and real danger.
Again, there is fictional fear and fictional danger. Just like there is fictional fear and fictional danger in every other piece of adventure fiction you will ever read. And, for that matter, fictional fear and fictional danger in the bedroom of a couple of consenting adults playing out a rape scene.
We're on different pages here. I KNOW IT'S FICTION! There. Now in the FICTIONAL story the FICTIONAL character Atali feels real fear within the confines of a FICTIONAL STORY. Are we still clear? I get that the actual evil goddess Atali never existed and neither did Conan. I am talking about real fear felt by a FICTIONAL character in a FICTIONAL story. If I have confused or lost you at any point, please let me know and I will try my hardest to make sure you understand what I am trying to say.
That's also the difference between The Gods of the North and things like Mein Kampf, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and Quotations from Chairman Mao. Gods of the North is fiction. These other things are not (or, in the case of The Protocols, were fiction but did not present themselves as such). They are real. If Gods of the North had actually happened or been presented with unappealingly realistic detail, I would have had a different reaction to it.
I don't see much difference between them. Take evil act A, make it appear okay, maybe even cool, and then present it in an interesting way so as to get other to understand, accept, and maybe even adopt my way of thinking. I cannot remember the name of that awful science fiction book, but it was all about female slaves and it started a real cult in England I think. Or how about all the Trekkies running around? Back in the 80s there was that lady who went to jury duty in a Star Fleet uniform because as a crew member on a ship it was her duty to wear her uniform in official capacities. Or how about after Tolkien came out with Return of the King, lots of graffiti started popping up saying "Frodo lives". Fiction affects our lives, how we think, how we feel, how we view the world.
I'm going to turn this around on you: do you really want to read in a world where bad things don't happen in fiction? Where every morally ambiguous character invariably gets his or her comeuppance? Do you want every novel to be a bland morality play in which the bad guys can be distinguished by their black hats and greased mustaches? It seems to me from your comments that you consider fictitious atrocities the rough moral equivalent of real life atrocities - how on earth did you read Ender's Game, The Lord of the Rings, or anything else with any kick? How can you read Cormack McCarthy's The Road? Kidnapped by Robert Louis Stevenson contains scenes of, well, kidnapping, not to mention child abuse, theft, and murder - and I'm pretty sure rape is alluded to. Fiction contains gross, horrible, terrifying stuff - that's what makes it exciting. How on earth do you ever read anything?
Fair enough. And no. But at least I recognize when I'm cheering for a morally ambiguous character. I know Han shot first, but I still love him. I know Ender killed an entire species, but I still love him. Like I have said ad nauseum at this point, my main problem has been how people reacted to this story. I think pretty much anyone who has spent more than 30 seconds reading this thread can tell I really did not enjoy this story. That much is obvious and not the issue for me. I am more uncomfortable with how people have responded to this story, professing their love for Conan, making excuses for his behavior so that he still remains a "good guy" in their minds, trying to pretend there is ANYTHING else to this story.
As for myself, fiction is the magic spice that makes these things readable. I don't actually want to be forced to live in a family compound full of murderous relations who want to kill me for the right to lead a family of heartless sociopaths, while dealing with the semi-wanted affections of a deity of death and madness. In fiction, though, I'd read the shit out of that. In fact, I did read the shit out of that; it's called N. K. Jemisin's The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms, and it was really good.
I haven't read it so I cannot speak to the story, but I'm assuming there was something more to the story that attracted you to it? Because if not you just saved be the time of reading it. A story of endless pain with no real resolution or story or personal development is not enjoyable. Or I guess for certain people that is, but not by the majority of people.
And can you please clarify how this ISN'T rape?
Because. It's. Fiction.
Got the fiction part. That was never really a question in my mind. You still didn't answer my question.
Honestly, if you've never been in that position of having someone on top of you and forcing themselves upon you, you don't know the fear and emotions that go with that.
So what?
So obviously you have no idea what is like and I guess you're really not the best person to determine what is or is not rape. Or if a person's feelings (yes, even if it is a FICTIONAL character, in a FICTIONAL story, I'm referring to the feelings of the character within the confines of the FICTIONAL story) are valid. There is a HUGE difference between fictional fear in sexual role play, and real fear, even if it is expressed in a fictional story. That is like saying because Ender is in a fictional story, the sorrow and remorse he felt was also fictional. Still on the same page?
There is something wrong when the story about rape, masculinity, and sexism is portrayed in a positive light. Rape and sexism are not positive qualities, no matter what age, genre, time, or place. This is something my entire being rejects, even if it is set in a hyper-real fantastic backdrop.
I suppose that's where you and I differ: in my mind, stories are never wrong. They simply are. They educate, entertain, enlighten, and challenge. Even a bad story - or a story about bad things, or a story whose moral perspective you disagree with or even find abhorrent - can cause you to grow. Actions can be right, wrong or a little of both; stories are eternal, transcendent, and divine. They are beyond good and evil. They simply are. The point is not what the story says, it is what you see in the mirror of story and how it changes you.
I was going to go on a whole thing about this, but really that is a matter of opinion and I can respect yours, I hope you can extend me the same courtesy.
Conan and Atali aren't playing out some scene they both agreed on. There is real fear and real danger.
And can you please clarify how this ISN'T rape? Honestly, if you've never been in that position of having someone on top of you and forcing themselves upon you, you don't know the fear and emotions that go with that. That is a form of rape, Atali was just lucky enough to get away before anything truly bad happened.
Calculating, I WAS raped. It'll be almost 20 years this summer. I know what it feels like, so please be careful what you say.
I'd like to ask you to look at the story in just one other way. Please. I'd like you to look at Conan who is the one who really is playing out a scene he didn't agree upon. Atali is the one who bewitches Conan. She is the character in the story who sets the ball in motion. He is the one who doesn't have control over the situation due to the power of a Demi-Goddess. I know what it's like to not be in control of what is happening to you. Can you see that if you're damning Conan, you're sort of blaming the victim?
And, this was a work of fiction. The "words on paper" you mention above are manifestos. Completely different.
danooli, no offense meant, but the only thing that can reconcile what you posted in my mind is that you've had more distance from the event and have actually had time to come to accept and heal more than I have. I know me and my story, and I know nothing about you and your story, and I in no way mean offense or disrespect, but you're still making excuses for Conan! That is like saying since my ex was drunk and I made the mistake of wearing a shirt that was too revealing, its not really his fault for what he did. That is such bullshit and crap I don't even have a swear appropriate for it. I cannot keep typing or I will say something regrettable and awful.
-
Easy there, everyone. Everyone's got different reactions and responses to things. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree and move on.
-
And my rant is not done yet.
Just for clarity's sake... so it would have been ok if Conan had been led to his death by the naked evil godess? Or if the Dark god of the mountain popped out and treated Conan to a forced backdoor entry? Then it's ok? Why is it ok for the Dark evil goddess who has been tormenting the dying for centuries to get off scot-free and not reap a little bit of what she's been sowing? She's not an innocent here. She's there in that field to deliberately torment the dying and to flaunt her beautiful naked body, to lure the bewitched to her brothers who kill and rip out the hearts for sacrificial offerings to a dark god. I'm sorry, but looks like a little bit of dark justice.
The scene was not "One day Atali was minding her own business enjoying a fine winters walk in her favorite transparent veil when she happened upon a battlefield. After offering the lone survivor some first aid and a bit of her coffee, she suddenly noticed a wild hunger in his eyes. From the way he was staring at her hips and breasts, she could tell no good was on his mind. The stranger began to speak, telling her how beautiful she was and though she tried to deny his advances, he would not be put off. Fearing for her life, she ran to her brothers for help, but the huge hulking man slew her poor kin. Onward she dashed, but eventually the man-beast leapt upon her. In a last desperate act, she tore free from the only stitch of clothing she wore and called out to her father for help. Her Father swooped out of the sky, gathered her to his bosom and took the poor dear home."
That's not what happened.
At this point, I wish that Howard would have written "Once Conan caught up to her, he struck her coldly cruel evil head from her naked shoulders and then went back to town for some ale and consenting wenches. The End."
Look, I've read all of the Conan stories and they are completely ridiculous with all of the stupid amazing feats that Conan pulls off--at one point he is crucified for 3 days and after day 2, he begins to despair because he can't pull his own hands off the spikes to save himself. Seriously? While hanging out crucified he bites the head off a buzzard too. He gets off the cross when this bandit lord cuts the cross down and rips the nails out. Really? I'm supposed to believe that? What was Howard smoking? The stories are laughable, horrendously filled with references to mighty musclebound apemen, bodacious scantily clad babes, and grim seedy world. The stories themselves are forced transparent plotlines and nothing even remotely cerebral--you can guess exactly what is going to happen. Yet, much like all the silly and cheesy cartoons I watched while growing up, by CROM! I have a soft spot in my heart for Conan and his silliness--and just b/c i do like Conan, it doesn't make me a rapist anymore than violent video games make me a killer or horror movies will turn me into a pyschopath. I'm sorry, I like my heavy metal music and no preacher can convince me I'm a spawn of satan.
Honestly I find this discussion about as annoying as all of the men who are furious over the simpsons, family guy, and all the other evening sitcoms portray men as fat, stupid pigs incapable of any sort of human decency or rational thought without being led by the nose.
So its better that men are led by their groin and lust? Seriously? And since women have bad traits (admittedly leading men to their deaths and tormenting the dying is REALLY bad) justice is for them to be raped? And since you have admitted you're a Conan fan, did you ever have any real doubt that he couldn't somehow win? You mentioned some of his previous rather unbelievable feats, and as a non-Conan fan even I knew two snow monsters were really no match for Conan. So not only does he kill the monsters, which are this evil goddess's brothers (which if we're talking about dark justice wouldn't that be enough?) she also deserves to be raped? I think I clarified my somewhat misleading comment about if the situation were different or reversed, but just in case: People would be reacting differently to this story if the situation with Conan were reversed or if it involved a different character than an evil temptress goddess.
-
Easy there, everyone. Everyone's got different reactions and responses to things. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree and move on.
Sorry, trying to be as nice as possible.
-
I meant more the responses of posters would be completely different, which like I have been saying, really are the most disturbing part of this whole thing for me.
Like I have said repeatedly, the main issue I am having is the response of posters on this thread who seem to not acknowledge that this story is about rape, or out right cheering for Conan. I thought people had evolved over the years.
Let me turn what you said to Danooli back at you - I don't know much about you and your story. I certainly don't share it; indeed, I'm painfully aware that as a man, rape is something I really never had to worry about in the same way women in our culture do. I don't know if I'm one of the posters you are complaining about. But I do know that part of what every reader/listener gets from a story is what they bring to it. And, for me, my reading of the story is along the lines of DKT's - I certainly think it is about rape, but I also think it is supposed to be representing a *negative* portrayal of rape, not a positive one. I just think it does so in a way that is unfortunate for modern sensibilities. When I say "this is a historical approach", I'm not saying "rape used to be ok", I'm saying "authors didn't know how to properly condemn rape".
This is perhaps a subtle distinction, one that means little to someone who has had a personal experience with the subject. That's always a risk. I remember many years ago my father took me to see the play "Wit" in New York. For me, it was a touching meditation about a cancer patient coming to death with her mortality. For my father, who witnessed his own father die a slow death from cancer firsthand, it was crass and painful. His pain was a stronger reaction than mine, but it did not invalidate mine.
So, really, what I think I'm doing is asking you for your forgiveness on behalf of myself and other posters here - not for our opinion on the story, but for the fact that we're not reading the same story you are. We cannot, because to do so we need to read it through your eyes. And through my eyes, this is not a story that is positive about rape - and because of that, my reaction is different. Certainly, I do not excuse anyone who thinks this *is* a positive portrayal of rape and at the same time is happy with that. But, re-reading the thread, I don't see much of that.
I'd like to ask you to look at the story in just one other way. Please. I'd like you to look at Conan who is the one who really is playing out a scene he didn't agree upon. Atali is the one who bewitches Conan. She is the character in the story who sets the ball in motion. He is the one who doesn't have control over the situation due to the power of a Demi-Goddess. I know what it's like to not be in control of what is happening to you. Can you see that if you're damning Conan, you're sort of blaming the victim?
danooli, no offense meant, but the only thing that can reconcile what you posted in my mind is that you've had more distance from the event and have actually had time to come to accept and heal more than I have. I know me and my story, and I know nothing about you and your story, and I in no way mean offense or disrespect, but you're still making excuses for Conan! That is like saying since my ex was drunk and I made the mistake of wearing a shirt that was too revealing, its not really his fault for what he did. That is such bullshit and crap I don't even have a swear appropriate for it. I cannot keep typing or I will say something regrettable and awful.
I think the parallel that Danooli is proposing is more that Conan was slipped a powerful drug or something. Being drunk is never an excuse for many reasons, but one of them is that decision making while being drunk may be impaired, but the decision to *get* drunk was a willing one, and therefore does not absolve of responsibility. It's also true that being drunk does not give you new desires, only makes you act on ones you might know better otherwise.
In this story, I think it's quite explicit that Conan did not choose to come under the influence, and, perhaps more importantly, the sorcery is making him do things that not only he would otherwise know better than do, but things that he would otherwise have no desire to do.
Is this making excuses for Conan or is it genuinely the case that Conan as a victim? That, as I point out above, may be different for different readers. The difference between reality and fiction is partially this - the facts of what happened to any real woman are facts. But a fictional story does not contain facts, only words. People may map them onto different sets of events. What I think Danooli is asking you, and what I'm asking you too, is to realize that when some readers are more forgiving of Conan, for those readers, Conan is genuinely in a different story than the one you were exposed to. You've made the story you've heard clear enough here that I can tell you with no equivocation that there's no excusing Conan's behaviour in that story. But that story partially came from you, and none of us but you have gotten it in the same way.
-
Taking rape out of the equation for a minute, I have been trying to think of a character in our times that represents Conan.
The first person I thought of was Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry. He is not a nice guy and doesn't always make the morally right decision, but we like him because he takes out the bad guys, though he is not too far away from being one himself.
Another example of this would be Wolverine. Yes, he is more of a hero than Dirty Harry, but he can also be a mean SOB. And if Wolvie goes beserker on ya, he don't care much who gets cut down, similar to Conan. (oh great now somebody will go write a Wolverine vs. Conan fanfic) But we like Wolverine. He is an anti-hero.
I'm sure there are other examples.
---
Regarding Conan and the attempted rape in this story, I would be interested if there are any other examples in the Conan cannon of him letting his lust take him so close to the act. I'm not sure. I don't remember any, but I mostly just read my friend's comics and maybe one collection of stories. I mostly remember him fighting monsters and corrupt idolatrous priests.
---
I do agree that the portrayal of rape in a fictional story can lead to wrong impressions, especially to a younger mind. Going back to Clint Eastwood, I remember seeing the western High Plains Drifter when I was younger and there is a scene where he comes walking into town and this woman comes up to him, asking him a bunch of questions, and isn't very nice about it. He grabs her, takes her to a barn , rapes her, and then goes to get a bath and a shave. The town doesn't do anything about it, even when she pleads for them to. They just play it off for laughs. I took cues from this that that was OK. "That's what she gets for being so annoying. Clint Eastwood is cool because he was so brazen about it." Reflecting on that later in life, I found it appalling and now refuse to watch that movie.
That said, I did not see the same level of offense in this story. Nobody was really playing it for laughs, like "Oh that Conan, he's just a rapist, that's the way is is, but he's cool." I didn't get that feeling from this story or from the posters At least for myself, I can say that my enjoyment of this story tapped into my overall experience with the character of Conan.
-
The story pretty much fails to take a stance on the rape thing. Like, it happens, but it happens without commentary or any indication one way or the other. That gives it a pretty flat affect, onto which one can project what one wishes. I don't think that's the best way to portray something like rape, because no one in the world is neutral on rape. It's just not something you can feel nothing in particular about. The lack of condemnation and the pretty clear portrayal of the woman as the instigator and cause of the rape are the sources of my own qualms about the story.
However, one point Calculating... made bears outlining again; if you look at a lot of the responses on the first few pages, and in particular the responses to the (in some cases perhaps overly harsh) criticism of the story, a lot of people DID argue, "Oh, that's just Conan," and laughed it off. I put it to (generic) you that that is, in fact, a problematic reaction. The story says, "Take Conan, the unstoppable force, and give him a magic lust compulsion, which then backfires on the evil woman who attempted to trap him via lust." That's a pretty horrific scenario. But no one in the story - least of all Conan - feels any remorse about what he (almost) did, and back here in the real world, the audience rushes to apologize and explain it away... that feels pretty icky to me.
-
However, one point Calculating... made bears outlining again; if you look at a lot of the responses on the first few pages, and in particular the responses to the (in some cases perhaps overly harsh) criticism of the story, a lot of people DID argue, "Oh, that's just Conan," and laughed it off. I put it to (generic) you that that is, in fact, a problematic reaction. The story says, "Take Conan, the unstoppable force, and give him a magic lust compulsion, which then backfires on the evil woman who attempted to trap him via lust." That's a pretty horrific scenario. But no one in the story - least of all Conan - feels any remorse about what he (almost) did, and back here in the real world, the audience rushes to apologize and explain it away... that feels pretty icky to me.
I've got other responses to what Calculating... said earlier, but I want to speak to this.
I've got to say, this plot actually works for me. I see no reason to apologize for Conan.
Perhaps its the fiction thing, but the fact is that Atali was attempting to use magical mind control lust to entrap and destroy Conan for no good reason at all. There was no kindness, compassion, or justice in her actions. Conan was a victim of her mind control powers - and not in complete control of his own faculties - but his incredibly awesome Conanness caused the situation to blow up in Atali's face. That's a story.
I think we can all agree that rape is bad.
Mind control, on the other hand, doesn't actually exist. However, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that mind control is also bad.
Is mind control worse than rape? Is rape worse than mind control? Is mind control so bad that a failed attempt at mind control exploding into rape is just desserts (not in the "real justice" sense, in the "poetic" or "narrative" justice sense)? I don't pretend to know the answer to any of those questions, but I am firm in my belief that the answer is not a foregone conclusion.
What a lot of people seem to be reacting to is the fact that the situation resembles something else. Atali kind of resembles a flirt and her "mind control" resembles the lame excuses for rape that we hear a lot: she was too cute, dressed to attractively, in the wrong neighborhood.
I understand that these are not completely insane interpretations of the text. What I'd like to propose, however, is that they are not the only interpretations of the text. To some readers Atali is not a human woman, her evil mind control is simply evil mind control, and that's evil enough that maybe the situation is not so cut-and-dried as it seems to others.
Ok, I'm on a roll here so I'm going to go ahead and include my response to Calculating...
First of all, I have no idea what you mean when you say "the real fear felt by a fictional character." To me, that phrase is an oxymoron. It doesn't make any more sense to me than "the red part of a blue dress" or "the up part of moving down" (don't get snotty at me science guys; I know full well that there is a red part of a blue dress AND an up part of moving down, but I can't think of a better way to express myself. I mean in common parlance, not science fact. Go back to Escape Pod). Perhaps this is our central disagreement: I don't see any reality in fiction.
Secondly, it sounds like you are trying to say that we need to be careful of fiction that talks about bad things because it can influence real lives, like people who read Gor and become "Goreans," people who take Star Trek too seriously, and people who use Tolkien's work as an excuse for lame graffiti. You're making this point in a roundabout way, and I think I understand why. It's hard to advocate for censorship in this day and age.
My response to this can be summed up as "crazy is as crazy does." John Norman's work - that's Gor - never made anybody crazy; people who were disturbed, probably because of events in their past or unfortunate quirks of biology, ended up patterning their crazy after the books they read. Nothing about Star Trek makes people obsessive; people who find Star Trek and also have holes in their emotional lives chose to fill those holes with Star Trek. If you can find the part of Tolkien that forces people to graffiti "Frodo Lives" on things, I'll eat one of my hats.
If you're crazy, you're going to do crazy things. You might be inspired by a crazy thing you read somewhere, but it's not like you'd be a perfectly sane, safe, and normal person if only - if only! - you'd never read the wrong short story. Someone who's going to rape is going to rape whether or not he reads Conan the Barbarian short stories. You can't stop him by taking away the short stories - you need to intervene earlier, at whatever point some trauma causes his life to depart from sanity.
Ultimately, I find the idea that fiction can "cause" evil to be destructive for two reasons.
Firstly, when you say that fiction can cause someone to do something bad, you are simplifying the reasons that people become screwed up. You are replacing "he could have been a good person, but then he got caught up in complicated economic/sociopolitical/personal events that led him to a warped way of thinking, and then his cries for help were ignored" with "oops - read the wrong story!" The thing is, in some ways, it's a lot more comforting to think that stories are to blame. You can save people from stories. It's a lot harder to look at how our societies are deeply screwed up, deeply unfair, and incredibly warped and then try to figure out how to fix them. Really fixing our problems also involves a lot more sacrifice.
Secondly, that way lies censorship, close-mindedness, and damnation. I refuse to live in a world of censorship. I demand the right to read, write, create, and consume ideas however the hell I want, no matter how distasteful anybody finds them. I demand that people who want to read, write, create, and consume ideas that I find distasteful have the right to do so. Period.
-
And yet we also have a responsibility to use that freedom wisely. It is well within bounds to criticize someone based on what they wrote, and even more appropriate to criticize the ideas themselves. Saying that one voluntarily repudiates the negative aspects of a certain kind of speech is not censorship any more than refraining from using racial slurs toward those who annoy you is censorship.
As I said above, this story isn't going to cause anyone to rape anyone else, and examples of fiction directly influencing lives is reaching a bit. However, saying that art has no influence on culture is an equally extreme position, and one I don't think anyone with any studying under their belt can make. A story that seems to have as its "moral" the idea that women are temptresses and sluts who get what they deserve if they taunt a man who has real strength is posing an idea that has too many unpleasant echoes in reality, and the more a society encourages that sort of behavior, even in play (or jokes or careless art), the more likely that society will continue to turn that direction. Teasing out the line between reflection and influence is nearly impossible in itself, but denying that influence is possible isn't much better. I think it's healthier to say, "This story has some problems, but it also had a lot of influence in our culture, and it has some good points to it, too," than to say "Any story is okay because stories can't hurt anyone."
To return to the story for a moment, while I agree that Atali used mind control and is pretty clearly evil and trying to manipulate Conan for evil purposes, the issue I take is that Atali IS clearly evil in the story, but Conan is not. Conan's actions are either presented positively or neutrally. At no point does he think to himself, "Man, I almost raped that woman. Losing control like that was awful." He just bulls through in a straight line and receives praise for surviving at the end. That is what makes the story seem to favor the aggressor to me, and that is why I see the troubling connections with the modern rape apologia that comes out every time there's a case tried in courts.
-
When we picked this story, yes, we discussed this scene in particular, and what was happening in it.
This begs the question.... why this Conan story and not some other? Legal reasons?
-
When we picked this story, yes, we discussed this scene in particular, and what was happening in it.
This begs the question.... why this Conan story and not some other? Legal reasons?
Dave mentioned this yesterday, I think this answers your question..
We may run more S&S - in fact, we're actively trying to get some more contemporary stuff. But the reason we ran a Robert E. Howard Conan story is because...well, it's a Robert E. Howard Conan story. And that comes with all the good stuff and all the baggage that it does. And I think the baggage is worth talking about.
One of the good things is - it's in Public Domain. Not all Conan stories are. A lot of them aren't. Some of the more recent S&S stuff from the 60s, etc. is definitely not.
-
However, one point Calculating... made bears outlining again; if you look at a lot of the responses on the first few pages, and in particular the responses to the (in some cases perhaps overly harsh) criticism of the story, a lot of people DID argue, "Oh, that's just Conan," and laughed it off. I put it to (generic) you that that is, in fact, a problematic reaction.
First of all, Scattercat, I agree with what you are saying in this thread, and much of what Calculating... has said as well. There is a responsibility to writing and to criticizing it, or pointing out something that is bad about the content.
I agree that that is a problematic reaction, but looking back through the thread, I really see only one example of where it seemed someone was playing it off for laughs:
Now, ladies, I think you missed the point...
SHE WAS A NAKED LADY. AND HE WANTED HER.
In this case, I think kibitzer was being knowingly wrong-minded in his statement to show how ridiculous that argument is. Unfortunately, that doesn’t always come across well in text from.
Or perhaps you are referring to my own reference to “ubiquitous heaving breasts”. I was referring to my experience with the women in Conan stories wearing very little clothing, which in the graphical form of comics, did make an impression on my adolescent hormone-filled younger self. Yes, that is more objectification of women, which is wrong in its own right, but I was NOT making reference to the attempted rape with that statement.
I will give you that many responses sounded like “she was asking for it”, but I think those have been hashed out and explained already.
I am not trying to apologize for anyone. I definitely do not agree with all of the statements that have been made in this thread. And I have enjoyed this discussion. I think it has been good. But where I guess I feel uncomfortable with is the initial impression I got from Calculating…’s comments were “You are a bad person if you enjoyed this story at all”. I think that has been toned down a bit now, but everybody comes into a story with different focus and past experiences with the subject matter.
-
Swamp, this is more the kind of post that I was reacting to:
I agree, it did get a bit rape-y in the middle, but that's just how classic heroes roll. not saying it's ok to go around forcing yourself on a ice princes (even if she tried to have you killed) but it was appropriated for this type of story.
It's not exactly playing it off for laughs, but it (and several others on the first page) definitely falls under the "Conan will be Conan" mindset that really surprised me. As we were discussing earlier, I doubt there are very many characters in fiction that could have played a central role in an unpunished (and in fact glorified) rape scene and elicited this sort of reaction.
You mentioned earlier that:
Regarding Conan and the attempted rape in this story, I would be interested if there are any other examples in the Conan cannon of him letting his lust take him so close to the act. I'm not sure. I don't remember any, but I mostly just read my friend's comics and maybe one collection of stories. I mostly remember him fighting monsters and corrupt idolatrous priests.
I'm also keen to find this out because if this was an anomaly I wonder if that might go a long way toward explaining why Conan fans were so quick to dismiss the deeper tensions of this story.
-
Swamp, this is more the kind of post that I was reacting to:
I agree, it did get a bit rape-y in the middle, but that's just how classic heroes roll. not saying it's ok to go around forcing yourself on a ice princes (even if she tried to have you killed) but it was appropriated for this type of story.
It's not exactly playing it off for laughs, but it (and several others on the first page) definitely falls under the "Conan will be Conan" mindset that really surprised me. As we were discussing earlier, I doubt there are very many characters in fiction that could have played a central role in an unpunished (and in fact glorified) rape scene and elicited this sort of reaction.
Yes, I do see your point there. I find that excuse pretty lacking.
-
I had a much longer response, but I decided I really can't be bothered to argue this vehemently on the internet about a Conan story when I'm 100% certain neither viewpoint will change. It boils down to:
1. I'm a Conan fan.
2. I'm not a rapist.
3. This is the internet.
4. I had some cheesecake for lunch and I love the world right now.
To me, the story would have reached a satisfying conclusion if Conan had gleefully lopped Atali's head off her shoulders or banished her into limbo or any one of a hundred other endings where Conan once again wins the day. And you know what else? I would have cheered for a force of women turning the tables on Conan, forcing him to flee and to suffer through the victim role for once. Why? Mainly Conan's Kharma, but it would be a fitting Conan story--due to the sheer ridiculous nature of Conan. Conan overwhelmed by women would have been highly entertaining. Hell, I think had Atali morhped into a man or a giant lizard that would have been fine too. "By Crom! I just kissed a man-lizard!"
So why am I a Conan fan? Mainly because when I was a young kid with a broken leg, I devoured SF&F. I read everything and anything I could get my hands on. Back in those days I fancied myself a budding artist in the vein of Frank Frazetta, Boris Vallejo and similiar. These days, if I pick up a Conan story, its more of a walk through nostalgia-land. I'm not stopping to think to myself "Whoa Conan! What are you doing!?" Then again, I'm also not saying "Go Conan!" either. More like I'm remembering the silly days of my youth when I believed the world was black and white and simple.
Maybe thats the real issue here. I'm familiar enough with the stories where I just skip over the parts I don't like. Honestly, I'm really not thinking when I read the Conan stories. There is really no substance--much like a CGI film with bad acting. No, reading Conan is like watching Tom and Jerry or some of the other older Hanna Barra cartoons. I sit there and laugh at the sheer ridiculousness of the stories and don't spend a single second thinking about anything else. I'll read a story, chuck the anthology back on the shelf with the rest of my random SF&F books and go do something else.
From what I've been reading, it looks like most of you only know Conan from the movies. Let me tell you... the movies are just adapations of the stories Howard wrote. Conan the Barbarian is cobbled together from about 3 or 4 short stories that have nothing to do with each other beyond Conan killing monkey people and bedding pirate queens. Conan was not a kidnapped child forced into a gladatorial arena and forced to fight. No, the original Conan was basically a displaced Viking warlord who is constantly attempting to claim leadership of some warband and grab land. His desires are to be king, kill everything that opposes him and of course, sleep with anything that has boobs.
With Conan, there is no well thought out magic system. There is no real political structure or even world building. In my collected works book, it has the "Hyborrean (sp?) Essay" in which Howard explains everything that happens in his world. The essay is terribly boring and didn't make any sense to me until I hit about the 6th beer.
All Conan stories follow a formula. It's Conan being chased/shackled/arrested etc followed by him escaping. There is an ivory-skinned voluputious maiden either being dangled in front of him or in need of rescueing. There is some sort of powerful villian that only Conan can confront and kill. Then, in the end, Conan and the chick ride off into the sunset. Half the time (now that I'm actively thinking) Conan gets date-rapey, but Howard pulls the whole "she resisted at first but then melted against his manly might..." blah blah blah. I find that Howard's constant use of the relunctant-then-willing virgin-slut is irritating, but again, usually I skip over that part. If you didn't like this story, you probably won't like too many of the other Conan stories.
Wow... this got way too long again. Anyway, I'm cool with the story. If you think I'm a horrible person for it, thats your perogative.
-
When we picked this story, yes, we discussed this scene in particular, and what was happening in it.
This begs the question.... why this Conan story and not some other? Legal reasons?
Dave mentioned this yesterday, I think this answers your question..
We may run more S&S - in fact, we're actively trying to get some more contemporary stuff. But the reason we ran a Robert E. Howard Conan story is because...well, it's a Robert E. Howard Conan story. And that comes with all the good stuff and all the baggage that it does. And I think the baggage is worth talking about.
One of the good things is - it's in Public Domain. Not all Conan stories are. A lot of them aren't. Some of the more recent S&S stuff from the 60s, etc. is definitely not.
That's one of the major factors we ran this particular Conan story, yes. Thanks, Talia :)
Something that appealed to me about this particular Conan story (and something apparently not everyone agrees with, which is totally cool) is that, yeah, sure, Conan survives to live another day. But he also gets pretty messed up too. In some ways, he gets his ass handed to him. At the end of the story, he's forced to question his sanity, and forced to realize that he was dealing with something bigger than his Barbarianism could actually handle. Conan may be able to de-crucify himself, he may be able to kill the sons of the Frost Giant, but he is, we learn, not all powerful. He can lose his mind to magic, Ymir can snap his fingers and make everything go away, leaving him to potentially die in the snow. To me, that makes Conan actually seem almost human and...maybe not helpless, but vulnerable. I dug that.
We don't see Atali's perspective except through dialogue where she's demanding that her brothers serve up Conan's heart on a platter to their father. But as I mentioned earlier, I also appreciate that there's that dichotomy between them. That these are two very powerful, opposing characters - an unbeatable barbarian and a murdering goddess - that they both get completely thrown off their game. They both survive, and thus, they both have to grapple with what happened, and what they've done, and how they've failed.
It's uncomfortable. I think it's supposed to be, and that's one of the other reasons we ran it. So personally, I'm glad Conan didn't lop her head off and she got away. But that's just me.
You mentioned earlier that:
Regarding Conan and the attempted rape in this story, I would be interested if there are any other examples in the Conan cannon of him letting his lust take him so close to the act. I'm not sure. I don't remember any, but I mostly just read my friend's comics and maybe one collection of stories. I mostly remember him fighting monsters and corrupt idolatrous priests.
I'm also keen to find this out because if this was an anomaly I wonder if that might go a long way toward explaining why Conan fans were so quick to dismiss the deeper tensions of this story.
I am by no means a Conan or Robert E. Howard scholar (Anna's much more knowledgable. Heh, generally she's much more knowledgable. But in this case, specifically :)). That said, my impression is no. The other Conan stories I'm familiar with give me the impression that this is not part of his regular and bizarre Barbarian thief code.
-
I'm not sure how much I can add to the discussion here, but I'll try. I liked the story for what it was. A Conan story. About as elemental as you get.
As for the ongoing debate. While the scene in the story was uncomfortable, again, it was a fiction, and an elemental fiction at that, very far from real life. The story was a siren story, that is as old as the Greeks, and as new as True Blood. It has been told thousands of times, in many different flavors, by men and by women, with many different outcomes ranging the spectrum of horribleness. I didn't find it offensive, because it was a caricature, and like ElePal said, fiction. I think that the works of Hemingway were more damaging towards women than the works of Howard.
Calculating..., have you read/listened to "Spar" yet?
-
Anyway, I'm cool with the story. If you think I'm a horrible person for it, thats your perogative.
Nah, I just think you're a horrible person for misspelling 'prerogative'. ;)
(You know I'm kidding, right?)
-
Now, ladies, I think you missed the point...
SHE WAS A NAKED LADY. AND HE WANTED HER.
In this case, I think kibitzer was being knowingly wrong-minded in his statement to show how ridiculous that argument is. Unfortunately, that doesn’t always come across well in text from.
(Sigh) Yup. Been wondering whether I should delete that, but I thought I'd let it stand rather than try to be revisionist.
-
Honestly, I'm really not thinking when I read the Conan stories.
And THAT is my primary beef with this situation. Conan gets a pass because he's a "classic," and everyone just gets all misty-eyed for the days of yore when they first read about him. However, a lot of the underlying tone and thematic structure of the Conan stories (and I have read them, thank you) is deeply troubling to me. I don't think it's good to hold these things up as classics simply because they are old and, through whatever vagaries of chance, had an influential role in the early days of the genre. Denying the problem of a 'hero' who feels more regret about not getting his revenge than about nearly raping a woman on the grounds that "that's just how classic heroes roll" just gives me the cold shakes.
@DKT - There are a lot of stories where Conan gets messed up by magic, though. That was always his big weakness, and the reason he hated sorcerers so much, ne? I can understand the point about being intrigued by the way things pan out in an overtly unsatisfying way in this story, but I still don't think this particular story has much to recommend it either as literature or as a Conan tale.
@kibitzer - I, at least, was referring more to the "that's just how Conan is" tone, not the obvious joke posts. My sarcasm detector is up to code, never fear.
-
I don't think it's good to hold these things up as classics simply because they are old and, through whatever vagaries of chance, had an influential role in the early days of the genre. Denying the problem of a 'hero' who feels more regret about not getting his revenge than about nearly raping a woman on the grounds that "that's just how classic heroes roll" just gives me the cold shakes.
I donno, those two things put together pretty much define was a 'Classic' is in my opinion. I think one can appreciate certain aspects of a story despite finding other aspects morally repugnant. Thus saying "well the Conan stories are classics" is NOT the same as saying "well sexual assault is OK" or anything like that, much like saying "well the Sherlock Holmes stories are classics" is not the same as saying "Heroin use is OK." (Disclaimer: I haven't actually read any Sherlock Holmes, I'm drawing a comparison based purely on what I've heard about them. Which is probably a bad idea).
-
...much like saying "well the Sherlock Holmes stories are classics" is not the same as saying "Heroin use is OK." (Disclaimer: I haven't actually read any Sherlock Holmes, I'm drawing a comparison based purely on what I've heard about them. Which is probably a bad idea).
Cocaine. (sorry, bit of a Holmes enthusiast here).
-
Anyway, I'm cool with the story. If you think I'm a horrible person for it, thats your perogative.
Nah, I just think you're a horrible person for misspelling 'prerogative'. ;)
(You know I'm kidding, right?)
Haha, that's hilarious man. I KNEW I should have ran that through the spell checker one more time, but a couple of frost giants were asking me if I knew where their sister's underwear was and... well you know how that goes. Let's just say I had to leave post haste.
...much like saying "well the Sherlock Holmes stories are classics" is not the same as saying "Heroin use is OK." (Disclaimer: I haven't actually read any Sherlock Holmes, I'm drawing a comparison based purely on what I've heard about them. Which is probably a bad idea).
Cocaine. (sorry, bit of a Holmes enthusiast here).
Damn you beat me to it. Holmes was a Rockstar.
-
The Sherlock Holmes stories didn't ignore the cocaine use, though. It was pretty clear from the context that the drugs weren't doing Holmes any favors, health-wise. (And he did opium, too, just to be clear.) If someone were to respond to me pointing out that Holmes was clearly manic-depressive and self-medicating with dangerous drugs by saying, "But these stories are classics, and they didn't really understand psychological problems in those days, and it's not really that bad, he only mentions it every so often, and that's just how Holmes rolls," I would feel just as irritated with the argument then as I do here.
Again, there's a difference between saying, "This story had a tremendous influence, but it was created by a flawed human being living in different circumstances. Here are the good things and here are the bad things," and saying, "This story is a classic, so you just have to ignore the rape." Personally, I don't see a problem with saying, "These stories were classics, but they also contain some pretty awful and regressive attitudes, so we will acknowledge them without celebrating them," and I don't see anything wrong with declining to commemorate the stuff that was just kind of appalling. One can remember without nostalgia if one tries.
-
@DKT - There are a lot of stories where Conan gets messed up by magic, though. That was always his big weakness, and the reason he hated sorcerers so much, ne? I can understand the point about being intrigued by the way things pan out in an overtly unsatisfying way in this story, but I still don't think this particular story has much to recommend it either as literature or as a Conan tale.
And that's fair enough. Obviously, I disagree ;) For me, Conan being bested by magic in addition to the comparison between the two characters - and the way things ended for them - sets it apart.
This particular story's been adapted at least a couple of times in comics, so I think as a Conan story in and of itself, it can be (and has been) considered somewhat influential.
Again, there's a difference between saying, "This story had a tremendous influence, but it was created by a flawed human being living in different circumstances. Here are the good things and here are the bad things," and saying, "This story is a classic, so you just have to ignore the rape." Personally, I don't see a problem with saying, "These stories were classics, but they also contain some pretty awful and regressive attitudes, so we will acknowledge them without celebrating them," and I don't see anything wrong with declining to commemorate the stuff that was just kind of appalling. One can remember without nostalgia if one tries.
I think this was to the "general you" again? But just in case it wasn't, I think I've been pretty clear that I'm not suggesting anyone "Just ignore the [attempted] rape." It's a very uncomfortable moment in the story, and it should be.
As I mentioned earlier, there are classic and influential stories by Robert E. Howard that are in the Public Domain that I guarantee you won't hear here at PodCastle because we find some of what they're saying simply repulsive. So I certainly agree that you can look back at where you came from without nostalgia.
I also think you can look back at other stories like this one that aren't (at least, IMO) so simple and discuss, analyze, and think about them. And I'm glad we're having that discussion here. It's definitely worth having.
ETA: damn typos...
-
I would find the comparison between the two characters a lot more compelling if it weren't for the complete obliviousness to rape-trial tropes and the fact of Conan's actions within the story itself. If, like, Neil Gaiman had done this exact same plot, it would probably have come out a lot more palatable because he knows how to get those subtle flavors in there. I think a lot of the subtlety here is coming from you, DKT, and not the story per se. It bothers me that the story doesn't even seem to realize how offensive its portrayal of the sole female character is.
However, overall I'm less bothered by the story than by the "You just have to ignore that stuff" reaction, because no, no you do not have to and in fact most definitely should not ignore that stuff. (All generic you, there, btw. :-P)
-
I would find the comparison between the two characters a lot more compelling if it weren't for the complete obliviousness to rape-trial tropes and the fact of Conan's actions within the story itself. If, like, Neil Gaiman had done this exact same plot, it would probably have come out a lot more palatable because he knows how to get those subtle flavors in there.
I've no doubts Gaiman would write a more sublte story. I imagine I'd probably enjoy it more myself. Of course, he's a contemporary writer, whereas Howard's story is 80 years old, and I think it's important to keep that in mind when putting them side-by-side. Not to blindly ignore anything, but just for historical perspective. Gaiman would be writing from a perspective much closer to our own, whereas Howard was 80 years of culturally history poorer.
But okay, sure. I'd love to read Gaiman's story. I'd pretty much love to read any story by Gaiman.
I think a lot of the subtlety here is coming from you, DKT, and not the story per se.
Specifically, what subtleties? The parallels between Atali and Conan? The lack of expected vengeance? The general discomfort of the situations and the fear of falling into insanity?
Don't get me wrong, I certainly understand that my own life, experiences, influences, and the age I'm living in help me interpret the stories I read. But I don't think that you have to look too hard at the story to be able to find those elements. They can be supported by the text. In fact, you've said you can see them all yourself upthread (the comparison between the two characters and Atali's own bloodlust/evilness, the way things pan out in an overtly unsatisfying way), you just don't appreciate them and are not compelled by them. That's cool, and totally valid. But I'm not creating something new here.
ETA: Typos again...
-
Yeah, those subtleties. :-D
I'm reminded of being back in college, where people saw all KINDS of things in the books we read that, well, yes, you can read it that way (and it can be a fun and entirely valid reading, the author is dead and we're all deconstructionists, etc.), but it's really doubtful that the original author was thinking anything of the kind. (For example, reading "Frankenstein" as if the Creature is the Doctor's latent homosexual urges given shape and form. Sure, opens up intriguing pathways, but virtually guaranteed not to have been the original point.) I think this story was primarily written to titillate, and the interesting parallels and the thoughts about madness and death are stuff we're bringing to the table. You can certainly see it in there, but it's not exactly written to highlight them; they're buried under the 'perfect breasts' and the Twilight Zone ending. (Just like it wasn't written to highlight the rape, either; that's something *I'M* bringing to the table.)
-
Nice to turn off my brain and finally listen to a story with some hair on its chest!
Conan is a classic, but that doesn't mean that things shouldn't go unnoticed.
One of my biggest draws to Conan is ability to use his brain as well as his sword. I was reading The Scarlet Citadel the other day,
and there are things in that particular story about Conan being a good and fair king who took down a tyrant and began
treating people fairly within his kingdom. There was one passage that did deal with his "women" being dragged away by some
prince trying to usurp the throne, but it also stated that they were not used to such brutality. Which I took to mean
that even thought Conan has a harem, he probably doesn't do much raping. But I don't know, I am not very familiar
with the whole Conan mythos.
If the purpose of the white naked chick is to lure men away to be slaughtered by her brothers,
then I'm sure that Conan wanting to rape the girl outright is not completely within his character.
Personally I took him wanting to kill her as a part of some spell she was casting to lure him away from the battle.
-
The worrying thing about Conan stories is that whatever he does, be it slaying evil demons, murdering hapless temple guards to steal their treasure, or chasing a naked woman with intent to rape, is told with the same gusto and enthusiasm; a thrilling adventure, demonstrating one man's heroism and virility; "this," it claims, "is where you want to escape to".
In most of the fantasies of the last century, especially on the big screen, these have been indicators for 'the good guy'. The good guy has desperate, thrilling adventures; the bad guy has a luxuriant lifestyle and a sneaky attitude. So when we see someone having thrilling adventures we 'know' they're the good guy and we know their elegant rival/employer/colleague will turn out to be Eeevil. The exceptions to the rule are generally well marked out. It's arguably a failing of modern storytelling.
So when we apply the same rule to Conan, it's not necessarily Howard's fault that we expect him to be a good guy when he clearly isn't.
That said, I do find it difficult to appreciate Howard's work, because after a page of lovely purple prose, I'll find him asking me to look at the world through xenophobic, misogynistic and resolutely unsophisticated eyes, and enjoy it.
-
the worrying thing about modern cinema is that it creates the expectation that every character should wear a 'good' or 'bad' hat.
Conan is a return to mythic heroes from the past. he isn't good or bad, he's the equivalent of a rockstar. he trashes his hotel room and has sex when and where he wants because he's above normal societal restrictions.
many people want and celebrate these stories of unrestrained id. it's why Charlie Sheen's name results in a joke and a laugh but Bono's name can result in genuine animosity.
-
Where to begin?
Ok, first, I really enjoyed coming across an original Conan story on PC, and, importantly, I hope that the intensity of the consequent debate does not put Dave and Anna off when choosing from potentially controversial stories in future - be they classics or no.
Second, I find the discussion around this story puzzling. I fall squarely within DKT and ElecPal's (and several others') line of reasoning regarding the very personal reaction that each of us can have, not to mention the escapist, fictional nature of the tale, as well as the various details and nuances in it that don't quite render it a simple incitement to gender hatred or rape.
So yes, I feel quite happy to enjoy this story, and Conan stories generally, without fearing that this somehow automatically reduces me to a blind, uncritical justifier of mysoginy or gender violence. I think most of us are smarter than that; and those who aren't probably have issues that precede and transcend the larger-than-life, testosterone-driven escapism served up by Robert E. Howard. Sure, I agree that the lust and rage exhibited by Conan can be characterised as a form misogynistic brutality. This is true of much of the Conan cycle. But like others have said - Conan is a caricature. A rather one-dimensional one at that. But no less enjoyable for it. And if it isn't, that's fine, but don't presume to tell me I'm supporting idiotic incitements to rape because I enjoy this character.
I really do believe that focusing monothematically on the question of rape is a reductionist argument, and quite idle at that, because it most certainly is far more about what each of us prioritise and take away from the story than the actual intent of the story itself.
I respect that some people can feel very strongly (negatively) about this. But where I get confused is on the insistence on characterising everyone else who disagrees as an apologist for rape. This is about the ways in which each of us reflects and reacts to the material at hand.
One thing should make us pause for thought, if we want to get serious with the unbending moral outrage: namely, there are dozens of other PodCastle stories that could potentially be characterised as repugnant, fit only for the rubbish bin. I know I've heard a few that made me react very negatively. Is that any reason to condemn them AND those readers who enjoyed them as out and out purveyors of unacceptable behaviour/values? That's a rhetorical question of course, because the obvious answer is no.
Otherwise, let's get busy censoring all those SF&F stories, and movies, and books, and works of art that we believe have morally ambiguous content we don't agree with. Because in the end that is the only logical outcome of sticking to categorical judgements of a moral nature. Again, I think most of us are smarter than that. And if not, then I welcome the brave soul who is willing to produce a once-and-for-all chart of what is and isn't acceptable in the world of fictional narrative.
Come on, people, relax. There are far many more important moral and humanitarian issues that need addressing in the real world without us falling head over heels about a ruddy Conan story. Nay?
-
CONAN, BY CROM!!
I have been a loyal listener ever since the beginning and before, and NOW you finally put in a Conan story?? ABOUT TIME!! Howard got me reading for enjoyment. I discovered Conan and Howard's other writings back in the early 70's, (yes, i am old). I consumed every book of his I could find at the time.
Howard made his heroes out of steel and blood and lust. Conan is the stick all sword and sorcery heroes are measured by. Totally awesome that you brought Howard to Podcastle. Looking forward to more of Howard's work here.
P.S. you guys rock ...
-
You can't run some of Lovecraft's stories ("Horror at Red Hook" springs to mind, for example) and not say, "This story is basically just racist and doesn't have much else to recommend it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqq0lMhPTb4
-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-
Thanks for running this one. It's one of my favorite Conan stories for the sheer economy of storytelling.
-
Frankly I do not have the energy left to respond to everything that has been posted, over the last few days I've been through hell and back and essentially lost almost all my faith in humanity. Thank you to those who understood there is s difference between "Just because it's a Conan story doesn't automatically mean it isn't offensive or wrong, and therefore should be praised" and "This story is so offensive no one should ever read it ever again and if you liked it you're a evil being who has no right the breathe the same air I do". I beg you to read through the posts (yes, they're long), I never advocated for censorship, never said anyone was a bad person or a rapist for enjoying the story (not sure how anyone could enjoy it, but really that is between you and your ears), and I'm not advocating for happy little stories where nothing bad happens ever. If you feel I am implying that in anyway, sorry, but I'm not so go somewhere else with it. All I asked was for people to see that Conan is not a great guy and that this story is rape and misogyny rolled up in a snow beast blanket with Conan being the hero of the day once again. If I really have to explain any of that to anyone you probably have not read through all the posts by me and other posters.
-
Hey all, generally, this conversation's been...well, not exactly fun, but as I've said before, a very worthwhile one. However, reading posts like this:
Come on, people, relax. There are far many more important moral and humanitarian issues that need addressing in the real world without us falling head over heels about a ruddy Conan story. Nay?
and this:
All I asked was for people to see that Conan is not a great guy and that this story is rape and misogyny rolled up in a snow beast blanket with Conan being the hero of the day once again. If I really have to explain any of that to anyone you probably have not read through all the posts by me and other posters.
Well, I get a bit nervous. This forum is here so people can talk about the stories and what they like and don't like about them, and everything in between. It's to promote story discussion, and hopefully, give people some space to talk and think about what they've heard. Suggesting that people just get over it, or that people just see things the way you do does not promote this discussion.
That's not me asking people to stop discussing. Please, discuss the hell out of our stories. But please keep in mind that other people may not see stories exactly like you do. And that's okay - that's why we have these forums.
Thanks, and carry on!
-
Conan is not a great guy
I don't think anyone has said that Conan was/is a great guy. Most people said "Conan is Conan", with all that implies. I don't think anyone in this thread wants to emulate him, or grow up to be like him, or anything like that. Conan is a mythical figure, much like Zeus, Thor, and all the rest. Big Z and Hammertime aren't exactly paragons of chivalry either, if you read your mythology.
The Escape Artist podcasts will always be posting stories that (hopefully) invoke visceral feelings in people, both good and bad. I had such a feeling with the 9/11 story. Others had it with Spar. Others had it(in a good way) with the Squonk stories. The list goes on and on, as do the stories. They are put out for our consumption and reaction. No one's reaction should be discounted or dismissed, and everyone's going to have a different reaction to every story, hopefully. Given your past, some of the themes of this story hit a nerve with you, and that is 100% legitimate and valid, and should not be questioned, dismissed, or disqualified. But neither should anyone else's. I just ask you to go and re-read some of the commentary of other stories, and think about how your opinion differs from others on those stories. Perhaps on a story with less visceral themes, you might see what I'm talking about, different viewpoints having equal validity.
-
I apologize for my poor choice of words. It was probably inappropriate and certainly unnecessary; makes it seem as though I am being dismissive, even inflexible, which certainly wasn't my intention.
The bit about censorship was not intended as an accusation, but as genuine concern for where categorical judgement ultimately leads. It goes without saying, of course, that I respect different interpretations and the freedom to elaborate on their whys and wherefores. I think Gamercow has hit on the right notes.
-
It looks like the discussion here has mostly run its course, but I just finished this one over the weekend and wanted to say I really appreciated hearing a historical and influential piece of fantasy literature on PodCastle. When I heard the story announced, I wondered if it was actually episode 200, since Escape Pod and the Drabblecast did classic stories by Asimov and Heinlein for their 200th eps.
It's cool to hear a story from one of the greats every now and again (when licensing allows!), and I was glad to hear this one here. Questionable content aside, this story had some classic barbarian battling and rampaging in it, and was a fun listen. The reading/narration was also excellent!
-
I really enjoyed Gods of the North when I listened to it. Having two friends who are die hard Conan fans, I forwarded the link, and they enjoyed the story as well. And then one of them commented about the discussion in the forums.
For the record, I am a woman, mother, writer, gamer, advocate for individuals with special needs, LGBTI advocate and supporter, and all around liberal. What I am not is PC.
I had no problems with the story, the assault, the message towards women, or how male behavior is viewed. I've given a fair bit of thought to comments made in this discussion, and, like Dave, am glad that people feel free to speak out, but I find many of the "MY GODS, IT'S RAPEZ!" views to be fairly narrow which disturbs me.
Conan is neither a good nor a bad guy. He is a character, a larger than life representation of human urges, thoughts, and desires, one without a definite "this is good, this is evil" line of demarcation that people expect from their fiction today. Howard recognized this when writing the character, and Conan certainly is not the "worst" or most "barbaric" of his characters.
Yes, rape is a matter of control/power/dominance, I will not argue that (I am also a survivor, and a one time survivor advocate), but I feel readers do themselves a disservice by limiting their views of the story to their modern norms. I apologize for not remembering who first remarked that no one has a problem with the slaughter of the story, or that it is based on ideological/religious norms, a very true observation. Even today folks come to expect killing in fantasy stories, but the subject of rape is one that causes folks to take up arms and put on their "why can't you see that I'm right?" face.
Again, my apologies for not remembering names, but to say that rape was not condoned in Greek myth is too broad a statement. What period? When? What characters? There's still debate whether some of the myths are geared towards a level of societal commentary, or as a means of explaining away incidents of bestiality that came about as a result of some of the lesser known rites and rituals.
Does the story encourage stereotypical beliefs of "bad" women or "brutish" men? I don't believe so, but some readers' milage may vary. I enjoyed the story for the story's sake. I did not see it as a matter of rape any more than I would expect two frost giants to leap out of the snow drifts at the end of my drive in the dead of winter. Howard wrote a specific type of fantasy that is as welcome on my bookshelves as Tolkien, Amal el-Mohtar, Le Guin, and Ellison.
Thank you, Dave and Anna, for another crack episode.
Sandra
-
FWIW, I don't like the slaughter, either. I'd much rather read a story where violence is contextualized much better than it is here. As I said in my initial comments, I've never liked Conan much.
To reiterate, what I object to more than Conan being barbaric is the post-hoc justification of his actions by virtue of their impact on the genre. I.E. the position that it doesn't matter if Conan is brutal or violent because the stories were just so important.
Becoming famous and influential is at least as much luck as talent. I won't deny Howard had talent, but I will openly state my regret that his is the vision that has shaped so much "high fantasy" and "sword and sorcery" material. I don't care for the violence and exploitation and never have; I don't find it fun to read, and I think it's had as unhealthy an effect on fantasy literature as the whole "DD breasts in a skintight suit" trope has had on superhero comics. I freely admit that this is my baggage that I'm bringing to the story, but I don't think, "Well, it's Conan and he's larger than life!" is any kind of excuse for the kind of material I find in these stories. Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill were also larger than life, and they didn't have to rape and murder to accomplish that, y'know?
I find it interesting that so much of the defense of the story fell back on that idea rather than pointing to beautiful prose, tight plotting, or any of the other hallmarks of literature. (DKT's intriguing-but-I-don't-quite-buy-it discussion of the parity of the goddess and the barbarian notwithstanding.) How much do we forgive in the name of honoring the past? How much should we forgive?
-
To reiterate, what I object to more than Conan being barbaric is the post-hoc justification of his actions by virtue of their impact on the genre. I.E. the position that it doesn't matter if Conan is brutal or violent because the stories were just so important.
I'd have to read everything through again to be certain, but I'm pretty damn sure that no-one suggested exactly that sentiment.
-
I was in the book store today (picking up Greg van Eekhout's new YA novel (http://www.amazon.com/Boy-at-End-World/dp/1599905248/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310526013&sr=1-1)) and I took a look at the comics section. They had a bunch of Conan stuff out in prep for the new movie. There was a compilation of the Savage Sword of Conan comics and the very first story was this one (as "The Frost Giant's Daughter"). I thumbed through it, and when Conan got to Atali, he gave the the line about warming up her cold body with his warm blood, and then began kissing her neck before she wrenched herself away. I'm not trying to reopen old topics. I was just curious how the comics handled that scene, and thought I would share.
-
I won't deny Howard had talent, but I will openly state my regret that his is the vision that has shaped so much "high fantasy" and "sword and sorcery" material.
(ok, this is probably a hell of a tangent, and another topic, but.. here goes)
See, I think you can neatly cleave "high fantasy" and "sword and sorcery" apart. I'd put them as two different sub-genres. IMHO, "high fantasy" is the sort of epic quest huge-world-in-a-tome quest type of story with a large cast of characters from various backgrounds. This comes from Tolkien.
"Sword and sorcery" characters are less rooted in an event, more "pulpy" and lurid, and are a lot grimmer and darker - Elric, Fafhard and the Mouser, anti-heroes like that - descended from Conan.
For what it's worth.
-
@Kibitzer:
I agree, it did get a bit rape-y in the middle, but that's just how classic heroes roll.
There. Pretty much word for word.
That and a lot of "Conan is Conan," "Conan is just larger than life," etc., which is the same argument in fancy dress. If you excuse the story's flaws because it is old, then I argue you do a disservice to the genre. Howard was racist and misogynist, and no I will not add "because he was a man of his time."
Conan can and, I would say, should be held to the highest standards we have precisely because we have higher standards now. The changing mores of the times have changed; we can now look at a story that has a woman who is nothing beyond a temptation and a man who is nothing but primal urges and say, "Y'know, this isn't very progressive." That's not PC or repression or any of that: it's moving forward. I don't see a problem with saying, "I wish this wasn't what shaped our genre because it's taken more than a half a century for female authors to gain any kind of voice in fantasy due to the reactionary nature of the whole milieu." Remember the questions in "The Landholders No Longer Carry Swords" intro? Why is fantasy always with the kings and never the more forward-looking stuff? This is the same kind of bag, to me. Why does fantasy have as a given, as a baseline, this idea of Manly Men and Seductive Temptresses?
-
Just to set the record straight...
...regarding the issue of there not being rape (let alone gender violence) in Greek myths.
Seems to me that some of us must have been reading from rather different versions of the (seriously) old classics.
Some egregious examples, to name but a few: the rape of Europa, the rape of Persephone, the rapes of Leto, Eurycleia, Aethra.... Not to mention the incest, parricide, pedophilia and a host of other wholesome little practices that are described in the most graphic way in innumerable fragments from Antiquity.
Much keyboard energy has been expended here, so I don't want to go on and on, but I also did not get the general impression that people were simply defending a specific type of questionable behaviour post-hoc. Yes, addmittedly some of the above interventions will sound like post hoc justifications. But again, I think we can all more or less agree that the general drift here is not one of uncritical justification.
@Scattercat
On the issue of our standards being "higher" now, times have changed and we're moving "forward". There are an army of philosophers, not to mention most historians alive today, who would have significant quibbles with this argument, which potentially takes us back to long discarded teleological views of history, proper to the XVIIIth and XIXth centuries. This goes to the heart of at least part of the argument here, which is that somehow we have to "see a problem" with certain material, authors, etc., and condemn it because that is the socially progressive thing to do. Of course, much of what you and others have pointed out is true regarding the past under-representation of female voices and the existence and indeed uncritical elevation of certain misogynistic stereotypes in fantasy.
However, I think we can agree that our reactions and discussion are part of a necessary conversation amongst ourselves. To bring Howard or Diodorus Siculus into the argument in order to set them (or their work) up as morally condemnable stuff misses the point. To say that some of us are uncritically holding up these stereotypes and justifying them does a slight disservice to the awareness that most of us are showing to these stories.
*edited out some of the sarcastic edges*
-
What bothered me about this was not so much what Conan did (or tried to do), or what Atali did (or tried to do), but the way Howard presented those things. The description of him forcing kisses on Atali, and her "writhing" and tossing her hair about as she tried to get away, was titillating in a way I found deeply uncomfortable. And then after he ripped off her (flimsy) garment, she was literally described as "posing" naked against the snow. The resulting mental image is deliberately provocative. Everything about the sequence was framed so as to suggest she was "asking for it" (to borrow a phrase used all too often in real-life analogues of this scene) -- even the manner of her resistance. That, more than the simple factual issue of what happened, is what bothers me.
I recognize the period this was written in, of course. And I actually quite like Podcastle running occasional classics. But I guess I wish they came a bit more framed with "let's consider where this fits into the genre as a whole, good and bad," rather than just "it's a classic yay!"
-
wow, i mean, just wow.
-
The discussion over this story and its inherent issues is fantastic and has finally drawn me out out of the word-works to post in the forums. I don't know that I have an new thoughts to add directly to this conversation I see that most if not all of my thoughts have been covered.
I'm afraid I'm firmly in the camp that Conan was ensorceled, this of course doesn't make rape alright in any sense, and I think that is what leads me to think that Conan has really always been simply a protagonist rather than a hero in the "normal" sense. As people discussed whether or not he is a good or bad guy I began considering a few other stories I've greatly enjoyed and the ways their protagonist grew complicated in the similar ways.
A big one, in both literal and figurative senses, is the Wheel of Time. The character Graendal is a Siren/Selkie/etc like character and is very strong in a magic that is called compulsion. She is, undoubtedly evil, so there is really little pity that can fall to her as she collects pretty, nubile men and women to serve her as slaves, but this magic of compulsion that takes full control of her victims minds is where it connects to our protagonists. Who send an unknowing noble, whom they dislike and perhaps was plotting against them, to her and she takes control of his mind. They did this in order to test if they could remove the compulsion magic. They could not, and in a rage Rand Al'thor, the conan of this story in many ways, attempts to destroy Graendal with a forbidden weapon. It was this point, more-so than simple errors that had been made before that makes hero a difficult term. This situation is different in that the rape, is rape of the mind, though I dare say that the rape goes both ways in Gods of the North.
That story very much informed my reading of this story. The cruel grin and sardonic tone of our Ice Goddess/nymph reminded me greatly of Foresaken, who of course likely weren't even imagined at the time, yet this is how she appears in my mind. As well as difficulties posed by mind-control(insanity). Recently I'v been taking classes towards becoming a paralegal and we had a good discussion on the insanity defense and conan reminds of the irresistible impulse test http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-criminal-topics/insanity-defense/irresistible-impulse-test.html (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-criminal-topics/insanity-defense/irresistible-impulse-test.html), which it is important consider is a determination of intent in many ways. Its not being declared that an action is alright, and the person involved is most likely committed because they are dangerous even if they didn't intent to commit a wrong act.
It is truly fascinating how much we can read into a story that doesn't seem like it could contain all of it! Depending on whether or not we are inclined to think that this experience might've touched him he does at least sound conflicted in that he doesn't just go along with all his folks, ""You speak truth, perhaps," muttered Conan. "It was all strange and weird — by Crom!"
Ah well, when one steps into the murky waters one might as well go right in, instead of being tentative and slipping and falling in.
-
Howard's Conan represented the coming of reason and the destruction of magic's hold on his world. this story shows this in brutal ways, both in the rape of the goddess and the slaughter of the frost giants. Conan's life was full of him destroying/overcoming magic and those who wielded it. It is not a pretty nor a p.c. tale. Doesn't make it right, it just is.
-
The sexual sadomasochism aspect of Conan is positively tame, almost insignificant, when contrasted with John Norman's world of Gor.
-
I have never read a Conan story before, but heard quite a bit about how influential they were, so I just want to say thank you for running one and giving me a very comfortable way of educating myself. :)
I don't think I'll seek out any more Conan - not because of the near rape thing really, it's just that neither the language nor the characters nor the subject matter appealed to me. But it was really interesting to listen to a piece once.
-
coming dreadfully late to the party.
I actually enjoy Conan stories, with the reservation and understanding that a lot of them are full of period racism and misogyny (Veil of the Lost Women springs particularly to mind, and both are really lamentable aspects in Queen of the Black Coast, which is otherwise a pretty good adventure story). I fully respect that many people have absolutely no desire to muscle past the unsavory aspects of some of these stories, nor do I think they ought to feel obligated to because they're classics. I did, and I found a lot of stuff in there that made it worth it for me. I think the comparison to Lovecraft, who was a crazy racist and Howard's fond pinpal, is well made. There's stuff there that's a lot of fun, but I don't think one does actually get to ignore the problems either. And I really don't think it's cool to tell people who have problems with it based on those grounds that they're just being too sensitive. They're legitimate concerns, and not everyone can set them aside, nor should they feel like they have to, IMHO.
That said, I was really really surprised that of all the Conan stories, Podcastle picked "Gods of the North", because it is just kind of one big long attempted rape and I think more of an uncomplicated narrative than some of the other stories. If you're planning on running any more Howard, can I put in a good word for "Jewels of Gwahlur"? It's public domain, and I think it has a lot of the best parts of the Conan ouvre in it, without a lot of the worst. It's got throbbing thews and a scantily clad chick and an evil sorcerer and horrible monkeys (Howard seems to hate monkeys), but it's also got Conan using his brain as well as his sword, and ever so occasionally making a laudable decision, as well as playing I think to a lot of the thematic strengths of the Conan mythos. I think it stands up a little better to the test of time.
Or Beyond the Black River, where it has the sign of Jhebbel Sag? Conan has kind of pyrrhic victories in both of those?
Also, does this mean we might get a Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser story, while we're doing classics?
-
I think the comparison to Lovecraft, who was a crazy racist and Howard's fond pinpal, is well made.
and let's not forget Howard was a paranoid schizophrenic. kept a loaded gun and rifle near by
also
Also, does this mean we might get a Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser story, while we're doing classics?
loved those two....
-
Thirding Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, actually. That would be neat.
-
Thirding Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, actually. That would be neat.
By CROM! Count me in for fourthing Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser!
-
::blink:: wow. I step away for a couple of months and the comments literally *explode*.
Very interesting thread. I read through it all and found it completely fascinating. Not to add anything that I haven't said before on the story, but I do want to thank our grand and mighty forum masters for letting people say what they needed to say without it descending into hate and accusations. And thanks for providing a safe place for us to actually discuss this story and others that are controversial. And heck, thanks for even running this story, high and mighty Podcastle editors. Even though I didn't like the story, I liked how it spurred good conversation. Made me even rethink a couple of views I had.
Right. Okay. Now on to catching up again.
-
but I do want to thank our grand and mighty forum masters for letting people say what they needed to say without it descending into hate and accusations. And thanks for providing a safe place for us to actually discuss this story and others that are controversial.
Amen to that. Obviously there was lots of tense discussion here, but it was handled well. This is the sort of thing that forums are for.
Regarding the story: I'm not sure that this is the best story for a first introduction to Conan. Others have said that Conan's unstoppable urge to rape is not typical of him, but for me that was not at all obvious. I came into the story expecting him to be a bloodthirsty and... um... rapethirsty? Um... anyway, I pretty much came into the story expecting to see him be those things, and my expectations were fulfilled. Call it enchantment if you like, since I was expecting this kind of behavior, it didn't seem to be enchantment to me. To me the enchantment seemed to be how she was perhaps unnaturally beautiful (but not mind-controlling) and that she clearly has cold-resistance to be gallavanting around in the buff in such a climate without freezing off her tender parts. More than anything his lust seemed to me to be driven by her alluring hair, which seemed to be more of a genetic thing from a mixing of bloodlines across enemy lines that was apparently atypical in that era. So I guess I'm skeptical that there was really any mind control here, just a lusty relentless barbarian who has a thing for strawberry-blond hair. If I had other Conan stories that I'd read to use as comparison perhaps the enchantment would be obvious from his change in behavior, but without any prior behavior to compare it to, I'm skeptical.
On to the story as a whole. I don't find it reprehensible to write a story about rape, nor for a publisher to publish a story about rape. The act of rape itself is reprehensible, but denial of such things does not make them go away. Fiction is one part of a dialog we can have about it, this forum being a prime example. However, it didn't really seem to me like this story had anything worthwhile on the subject. Especially since it didn't seem to me that Conan was enchanted at all, it seemed to me that he was lusty and unrelentless because Conan is lusty and unrelentless. She was trying to entice him to have some sadistic fun in watching him die, so she's clearly not a good person in this exchange either, but her intent doesn't change Conan's intent. Although Conan never said "She was pretty much asking to be raped", thematically it seemed much too similar to that justification used by people in real life, and that similarity bothered me.
In any case, from this story I gather that Conan is pretty much a force of nature with an irrepressible urge for violence and sex in whatever form he can get it. What I don't get is why I should give a crap about what happens to him. I don't find him relatable, nor do I find the goddess relatable. They're just both there, and I don't care how anything resolves between them. I guess this is probably just related to my general dislike of "pulp" style fiction. I just don't get it.
In any case, I was glad to have a sample of Robert E. Howard's work, because I've heard so many recommend it as a cornerstone of fantasy. If this is typical of it, though, I don't think I'll be seeking out more of it.
-
I'll reiterate my general recommendation of the Solomon Kane stories, which are just egregiously racist instead of racist and sexist and squicky. (And for all the white-man's-burden and magical-negro aspects of the Kane stories, the old African witch doctor mentor IS genuinely a good guy and actually does outwit Kane sometimes, at least verbally.)
-
Thinking about this some more, and specifically why Conan didn't interest me as a character. He appears to be nothing but a predatorial beast responding only to his instincts, slave to his urges. Either Conan does what he wants and succeeds, or he does what he wants and fails. There is no other option. Sure, there's external conflict from those whose desires oppose his, lots of enemies to slay, women to have sex with, but without internal conflict it all seems so empty.
Maybe it's because I don't really like nature documentaries that I don't like this story, because it seems like a story about our unthinking friend here is something like that. "The panther feasts on its freshly fallen prey, staving off starvation for some time longer. It scents a female in heat, and abandons its meal, giving chase."
-
I listened to the story. I thought it was an entertaining diversion. Enjoyed the original movies, and watched the heck out of them growing up. I can't recall reading any Conan, but I have read derivatives and material of folks influenced by Conan. Fantasy art has been impacted by Conan (through folks like Frazetta and Vallejo) at least as significantly as literature has. Howard and Lovecraft were chums, and I dig some purple prose, particularly in audio. I had no major expectations going in. Thumbs up and thank you for the production.
Then I get through seven pages of comments that make me wonder if I was paying enough attention. I remember the incited lust and the chase, but I couldn't recall a rape. So that brings me to the part of the conversation here that bugs me the most: the spin. The use of language to paint things as worse than they are. I'm not excusing rape, but I'm also not excusing defining attempted rape or sexual assault as a more serious crime.
Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent.
This is mostly clear, and everything else I've found that has a clear definition usually includes penetration of some sort in rape. So let's examine the offending passage again:
His sword fell into the snow as he crushed her to him. Her lithe body bent backward as she fought with desperate frenzy in his iron arms. Her golden hair blew about his face, blinding him with its sheen; the feel of her slender body twisting in his mailed arms drove him to blinder madness. His strong fingers sank deep into her smooth flesh; and that flesh was cold as ice. It was as if he embraced not a woman of human flesh and blood, but a woman of flaming ice. She writhed her golden head aside, striving to avoid the fierce kisses that bruised her red lips.
"You are cold as the snows," he mumbled dazedly. "I will warm you with the fire in my own blood — "
With a scream and a desperate wrench she slipped from his arms, leaving her single gossamer garment in his grasp. She sprang back and faced him, her golden locks in wild disarray, her white bosom heaving, her beautiful eyes blazing with terror. For an instant he stood frozen, awed by her terrible beauty as she posed naked against the snows.
source (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gods_of_the_North)
So Conan grabs the woman. He is trying to restrain her, so I envision his arms around her. The paragraph includes the language of him embracing the woman. Is the confusion from his fingers sinking into her smooth flesh? I heard this as the flesh of her arms or torso in such a fashion as to attempt to restrain her, not penetrate in a sexual fashion. He's in full armor. Penetration of most sorts is going to be challenging with that constraint.
Could you find Conan guilty of assault, sexual assault, or attempted rape? I think a compelling argument can be made for that. Can you find Conan guilty of rape? I don't think that case has a very good chance.
On a separate note, can you find that Conan was incapable of consent due to the ensorcelment? I think a compelling argument can be made for that. Ultimately, it all falls to who has the better lawyers.
TL;DR - Words have power. Use the right words in the right places or it weakens your argument/position/credibility.
EDIT - added wikisource link
-
You are correct that it was attempted rape, not rape. I suspect that people have more problem with it being the protagonist (who you are following in his head) may be seen as attempting rape.
On a separate note, can you find that Conan was incapable of consent due to the ensorcelment? I think a compelling argument can be made for that. Ultimately, it all falls to who has the better lawyers.
Before the court decides whether he is capable of consent due to ensorcelment, you would have to prove that he has been ensorceled. Since I was only judging him based on his behavior within the space of this story, that was pretty unclear. When I think of activities generally associated with those labeled as "barbarians" in the Conan sense, I think of three activities:
1. slaughter
2. pillage
3. rape.
From what I could gather from this story, it seemed like this was just the sort of thing he would've done anyway. She was a beautiful and naked lady, and the lusty barbarian only tried to do what he would do with any other beautiful naked woman who crossed his path. Her reactions implied that her beauty was sorcerous, but again having no prior knowledge of the character's behavior, another question for you is: "If she ensorcels him to encourage him to do something he was going to do anyway, does that leave him blameless?" If I go to Culver's to buy a delicous hamburger, and someone ensorcels me to make me eat a delicious Culver's hamburger, can I really blame the sorceror for the weight I gain?
Much of this goes to me saying that "If you read only one Conan story, this is probably not the best one to choose" because really believing that this is abnormal behavior kind of depends on knowing what his prior behavior is. Or if the story had shown how he behaves towards mortal women before the chase scene, that would sure help.
-
You are correct that it was attempted rape, not rape. I suspect that people have more problem with it being the protagonist (who you are following in his head) may be seen as attempting rape.
On a separate note, can you find that Conan was incapable of consent due to the ensorcelment? I think a compelling argument can be made for that. Ultimately, it all falls to who has the better lawyers.
Before the court decides whether he is capable of consent due to ensorcelment, you would have to prove that he has been ensorceled. Since I was only judging him based on his behavior within the space of this story, that was pretty unclear. When I think of activities generally associated with those labeled as "barbarians" in the Conan sense, I think of three activities:
1. slaughter
2. pillage
3. rape.
From what I could gather from this story, it seemed like this was just the sort of thing he would've done anyway. She was a beautiful and naked lady, and the lusty barbarian only tried to do what he would do with any other beautiful naked woman who crossed his path.
You do see what you just did there, right? The old "guilty by stereotype and personal pre-existing knowledge (or hearsay*) of the defendant"? He would've done it even if he wasn't ensorcelled.
I think in this case, the judge (or the defending attorney) might suggest you weren't exactly judging him by the "facts" in this story, as much as some preconceived notions you have on what a barbarian is known for.
-
You are correct that it was attempted rape, not rape. I suspect that people have more problem with it being the protagonist (who you are following in his head) may be seen as attempting rape.
On a separate note, can you find that Conan was incapable of consent due to the ensorcelment? I think a compelling argument can be made for that. Ultimately, it all falls to who has the better lawyers.
Before the court decides whether he is capable of consent due to ensorcelment, you would have to prove that he has been ensorceled. Since I was only judging him based on his behavior within the space of this story, that was pretty unclear. When I think of activities generally associated with those labeled as "barbarians" in the Conan sense, I think of three activities:
1. slaughter
2. pillage
3. rape.
From what I could gather from this story, it seemed like this was just the sort of thing he would've done anyway. She was a beautiful and naked lady, and the lusty barbarian only tried to do what he would do with any other beautiful naked woman who crossed his path.
You do see what you just did there, right? The old "guilty by stereotype and personal pre-existing knowledge (or hearsay*) of the defendant"? He would've done it even if he wasn't ensorcelled.
I think in this case, the judge (or the defending attorney) might suggest you weren't exactly judging him by the "facts" in this story, as much as some preconceived notions you have on what a barbarian is known for.
I'm not saying he's guilty, I'm saying it's hard to consider him innocent without knowing his history. And, yes, I do consider those three items to be part of a typical barbarian's occupation. Is it wrong to assume that someone who calls himself a baker bakes? Is it wrong to assume that someone who calls herself an editor edits? Is it wrong to assume that someone who calls himself a barbarian slaughters, rapes and pillages? We'd already seen the slaughter part, so he clearly didn't pick the label just to be ironic, like naming a skinny pacifist filing clerk "Bob the Barbarian". And, he doesn't strike me as one to choose an ironic name in any case. I assume the label was chosen by him because it was an accurate descriptor.
And if his actions were being controlled, then yes you are correct that it's unfair to blame him for that. But how does one prove his actions were being controlled? The best way would probably be to compare this with his prior behavior, but there was no prior behavior towards women in this story to judge by. Even with a record of prior behavior, how can you be sure it's mind control? What if her power over him is not sorcery but is merely unequalled physical beauty? She is more beautiful than any woman he has seen and he feels a lust for her like he has never felt before? How could we tell the difference between those things without some kind of thaumometer to judge the expenditure of magical energy? I would argue that we can't. So should we let every defendent justify their actions by claiming the gods had been practicing mind control on them? And then, when you let them loose on the streets and they immediately become repeat offenders, and say when they are brought in again "Those wily gods are playing tricks on me again. What did I do to deserve this ill treatment?" Once you let one person off for this then there's a legal precedent for future trial lawyers to use, and if it continues on enough, then some may rationally decide to commit the crime on the assumption that the old "The gods made me do it" defense will get them off the hook.
-
Is it wrong to assume that someone who calls himself a baker bakes?
It's just not informed.
You're also using your own definition of what a Barbarian is/does. Here's what Merriam Webster defines it as (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barbarian):
1) of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people
2) lacking refinement, learning, or artistic or literary culture
No mention of slaughter, pillage, or rape, your honor.
As to whether or not he was ensorcelled, it's as much as what other characters in the story say, as well as the way the scenery goes all weird and surreal, that build that defense, maybe even moreso than what himself Conan says. But that's just my own reading. Others have had different ones (including yourself), and that's cool.
(And, c'mon. You assume all editors edit? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh. ;))
And if his actions were being controlled, then yes you are correct that it's unfair to blame him for that. But how does one prove his actions were being controlled? The best way would probably be to compare this with his prior behavior, but there was no prior behavior towards women in this story to judge by. Even with a record of prior behavior, how can you be sure it's mind control? What if her power over him is not sorcery but is merely unequalled physical beauty? She is more beautiful than any woman he has seen and he feels a lust for her like he has never felt before? How could we tell the difference between those things without some kind of thaumometer to judge the expenditure of magical energy? I would argue that we can't.
Why not? I mean, if the victim is the daughter of a god, then I think this would obviously be the best (and easiest) way to go. Also, it might help boost the economy! See if Baltar's busy doing anything.
And now I want a magical thaumometer for Christmas! ;D
-
It's just not informed.
You're also using your own definition of what a Barbarian is/does. Here's what Merriam Webster defines it as (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barbarian):
1) of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people
2) lacking refinement, learning, or artistic or literary culture
No mention of slaughter, pillage, or rape, your honor.
Merriam-Webster also defines "Viking" as:
a : one of the pirate Norsemen plundering the coasts of Europe in the 8th to 10th centuries
b not capitalized : sea rover
No mention of rape there either, but I don't think it's wrong to presume that someone in the appropriate time period who called himself a Viking would engage in such activity. Merriam-Webster's entries are brief by design.
I think the real issue that's being obscured here is not the supposed innocence of barbarians painted red with the blood of teh slaughtered, but the oppression of sexy goddesses. Even if she has some sorcerous effect, it became clear in the story that she couldn't turn it off at will. Perhaps Conan couldn't control his lustiness (which I still doubt), but if her very nature is to cast a glamour on those she sees, what would you have her do? Should she shroud herself in a heavy robe, and put a mask over her face? Should she hide herself away from any man's eyes? She was merely going for a naked walk in the cold snows, as weather-impervious goddesses are wont to do. Was she luring him? No. We have already said that she could not turn off her appeal, so how can I say she's guilty when her glamour is merely a trait, not an action requiring intent? I see not the actions of an evil temptress, but a pragmatist in an act of self defense. She went for a walk, and going for a walk is no crime. When the ruffian pursued her, she returned to her brothers, which is also no crime. She already lives in a frozen wasteland, perhaps because she wishes to avoid this kind of attention, and also because she likes to feel the subzero wind on her skin. Maybe she could move to the moon to isolate herself completely, but should she really have to? Short of that, she has done all that she can do to isolate herself from those who would do her harm, and has also established a way to deal with any who do pursue her, one which proved insufficient in this case. How could she possibly go to any greater length than what she has already done to hide her beauty? Even this is too much to expect of her. Her fault lies not in tempting, but in not having a secondary plan for dealing with a man as powerful as Conan.
And now I want a magical thaumometer for Christmas! ;D
You wouldn't say that if you knew where you had to put the thaumometer to get a measurement. :D
-
It's just not informed.
You're also using your own definition of what a Barbarian is/does. Here's what Merriam Webster defines it as (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barbarian):
1) of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people
2) lacking refinement, learning, or artistic or literary culture
No mention of slaughter, pillage, or rape, your honor.
Merriam-Webster also defines "Viking" as:
a : one of the pirate Norsemen plundering the coasts of Europe in the 8th to 10th centuries
b not capitalized : sea rover
No mention of rape there either, but I don't think it's wrong to presume that someone in the appropriate time period who called himself a Viking would engage in such activity. Merriam-Webster's entries are brief by design.
Geez, generalize much?
I linked to MW because it's an agreed upon and authoritative definition, one that disagrees with your own. And it's your presumptions that I disagree with. A barbarian does not equate rape, pillage, or slaughter.
Really, let's not go down this road any further.
I think the real issue that's being obscured here is not the supposed innocence of barbarians painted red with the blood of teh slaughtered, but the oppression of sexy goddesses. Even if she has some sorcerous effect, it became clear in the story that she couldn't turn it off at will. Perhaps Conan couldn't control his lustiness (which I still doubt), but if her very nature is to cast a glamour on those she sees, what would you have her do? Should she shroud herself in a heavy robe, and put a mask over her face? Should she hide herself away from any man's eyes? She was merely going for a naked walk in the cold snows, as weather-impervious goddesses are wont to do. Was she luring him? No.
Don't get me wrong, I think Atali's side of the story would be FASCINATING, and I have sympathy for her. But I also think it's pretty clear she lured Conan, at least initially.
"Brothers!" cried the girl, dancing between them. "Look who follows! I have brought you a man to slay! Take his heart that we may lay it smoking on our father's board!"
And the story makes it pretty clear she's done this before.
"It was Atali, the daughter of Ymir, the frost-giant! To fields of the dead she comes, and shows herself to the dying! Myself when a boy I saw her, when I lay half-slain on the bloody field of Wolraven. I saw her walk among the dead in the snows, her naked body gleaming like ivory and her golden hair unbearably bright in the moonlight. I lay and howled like a dying dog because I could not crawl after her. She lures men from stricken fields into the wastelands to be slain by her brothers, the ice-giants, who lay men's red hearts smoking on Ymir's board. The Cimmerian has seen Atali, the frost-giant's daughter!"
-
Geez, generalize much?
I linked to MW because it's an agreed upon and authoritative definition, one that disagrees with your own. And it's your presumptions that I disagree with. A barbarian does not equate rape, pillage, or slaughter.
Really, let's not go down this road any further.
Sorry, I hadn't realized I was really bothering you.
I'll just say one more thing about "barbarian" and then I will say no more. I am trying to understand why I think of "barbarians" as having certain traits. To me, when I hear "barbarian", I think "someone who is barbaric". This is confirmed by Merriam Webster, under the definition of "barbaric" it says "of, relating to, or characteristic of barbarians". Also under "barbaric" it says "marked by a lack of restraint". It says nothing further about this, but this seems like the briefest possible way to describe what I had taken for granted as barbarian behavior. Rape is a result when there is a lack of restraint of sexual appetites. So is plundering, a lack of restraint of appetites for collecting wealth. Slaughter is perhaps a bit less along those lines, but Conan slaughters enough in this story that I don't that part of his nature is in question.
To me, it seems that the common usage of "barbarian" is generally a word used by a third party to denigrate a person or social group, to say that they have no control over themselves. If someone else calls you a barbarian, it doesn't necessarily mean anything. But if you call yourself a barbarian, to me it implies that you are embracing barbaric traits, namely what Merriam Webster refers to as "lack of restraint".
Okay, I'm done with that now.
"Brothers!" cried the girl, dancing between them. "Look who follows! I have brought you a man to slay! Take his heart that we may lay it smoking on our father's board!"
And the story makes it pretty clear she's done this before.
"It was Atali, the daughter of Ymir, the frost-giant! To fields of the dead she comes, and shows herself to the dying! Myself when a boy I saw her, when I lay half-slain on the bloody field of Wolraven. I saw her walk among the dead in the snows, her naked body gleaming like ivory and her golden hair unbearably bright in the moonlight. I lay and howled like a dying dog because I could not crawl after her. She lures men from stricken fields into the wastelands to be slain by her brothers, the ice-giants, who lay men's red hearts smoking on Ymir's board. The Cimmerian has seen Atali, the frost-giant's daughter!"
Hmmm... yes, those words of hers are the sort of thing that give a defense lawyer panic attacks when the secret recording is revealed. Perhaps there's some kind of loophole that can strike them from the record. Which is to say that you are entirely right that her intent was there from the beginning. I was enjoying trying to figure out what defense I might muster on her behalf, but that line you quoted makes her position very hard to defend.
I really think that neither of them are blameless; I do still find the "The gods made me do it" defense hard to swallow.
-
Sorry, I hadn't realized I was really bothering you.
I'll just say one more thing about "barbarian" and then I will say no more. I am trying to understand why I think of "barbarians" as having certain traits. To me, when I hear "barbarian", I think "someone who is barbaric". This is confirmed by Merriam Webster, under the definition of "barbaric" it says "of, relating to, or characteristic of barbarians". Also under "barbaric" it says "marked by a lack of restraint". It says nothing further about this, but this seems like the briefest possible way to describe what I had taken for granted as barbarian behavior. Rape is a result when there is a lack of restraint of sexual appetites. So is plundering, a lack of restraint of appetites for collecting wealth. Slaughter is perhaps a bit less along those lines, but Conan slaughters enough in this story that I don't that part of his nature is in question.
To me, it seems that the common usage of "barbarian" is generally a word used by a third party to denigrate a person or social group, to say that they have no control over themselves. If someone else calls you a barbarian, it doesn't necessarily mean anything. But if you call yourself a barbarian, to me it implies that you are embracing barbaric traits, namely what Merriam Webster refers to as "lack of restraint".
Okay, I'm done with that now.
To be clear, it's the generalization that is frustrating me, especially since "barbarian" essentially means foreigner - and foreigners who are supposedly inferior to the dominant culture because of their place of origin. So generalizations like that make me...uncomfortable.
FTR, I am pretty sure Conan never refers to himself as a Barbarian in this story. (Not sure about the other stories.) It's the narrator who labels him that.
And FWIW, I don't see Conan or Atali is blameless, either. And it'd be fascinating to know more about Atali's side of the story.
-
To be clear, it's the generalization that is frustrating me, especially since "barbarian" essentially means foreigner - and foreigners who are supposedly inferior to the dominant culture because of their place of origin. So generalizations like that make me...uncomfortable.
FTR, I am pretty sure Conan never refers to himself as a Barbarian in this story. (Not sure about the other stories.) It's the narrator who labels him that.
And FWIW, I don't see Conan or Atali is blameless, either. And it'd be fascinating to know more about Atali's side of the story.
I thought he introduced himself as "Conan the Barbarian" in dialogue. But it's possible I'm misremembering. If he's not labelling himself as that, it's an entirely different story. I agree with what you're saying if someone else is calling him that. As I said, someone calling someone else a barbarian doesn't mean much.
-
Thanks, y'all. This is some of the most entertaining discussion on this story. I feel obligated to contribute.
"It was Atali, the daughter of Ymir, the frost-giant! To fields of the dead she comes, and shows herself to the dying! Myself when a boy I saw her, when I lay half-slain on the bloody field of Wolraven. I saw her walk among the dead in the snows, her naked body gleaming like ivory and her golden hair unbearably bright in the moonlight. I lay and howled like a dying dog because I could not crawl after her. She lures men from stricken fields into the wastelands to be slain by her brothers, the ice-giants, who lay men's red hearts smoking on Ymir's board. The Cimmerian has seen Atali, the frost-giant's daughter!"
Your honor, I object, as this is hearsay. The witness was not directly lured, so he's projecting motives based on rumors he's heard.
FTR, I am pretty sure Conan never refers to himself as a Barbarian in this story. (Not sure about the other stories.) It's the narrator who labels him that.
I thought he introduced himself as "Conan the Barbarian" in dialogue. But it's possible I'm misremembering. If he's not labelling himself as that, it's an entirely different story. I agree with what you're saying if someone else is calling him that. As I said, someone calling someone else a barbarian doesn't mean much.
Let the record reflect that the two uses of the word "barbarian" were by the narrator and not the protagonist.
-
Thanks, y'all. This is some of the most entertaining discussion on this story. I feel obligated to contribute.
"It was Atali, the daughter of Ymir, the frost-giant! To fields of the dead she comes, and shows herself to the dying! Myself when a boy I saw her, when I lay half-slain on the bloody field of Wolraven. I saw her walk among the dead in the snows, her naked body gleaming like ivory and her golden hair unbearably bright in the moonlight. I lay and howled like a dying dog because I could not crawl after her. She lures men from stricken fields into the wastelands to be slain by her brothers, the ice-giants, who lay men's red hearts smoking on Ymir's board. The Cimmerian has seen Atali, the frost-giant's daughter!"
Your honor, I object, as this is hearsay. The witness was not directly lured, so he's projecting motives based on rumors he's heard.
Heh. I thought about that, but his details corroborate the defendants. But yeah, I dunno exactly where how he (or anyone else other than Conan) could actually know all that and survived.
-
Legal minutiae aside, I think the central point Unblinking made remains, to whit, that this story in and of itself shows a Conan who appears to think very little of pursuing and ravishing maidens, willing or unwilling, sorcerous or not. It's a pretty unpleasant image to take away, particularly for anyone who hasn't read widely of the Conan ouevre.