PC162: Gods of the North

[Gamercow]

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. 

[Salul]

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.

[Rough Week]

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!

[Sandra M. Odell]

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

[Scattercat]

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?

[kibitzer]

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.

[Swamp]

I was in the book store today (picking up Greg van Eekhout's new YA novel) 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.

[InfiniteMonkey]

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.

[Scattercat]

@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?

[Salul]

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*

[mbrennan]

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!"

[slag]

wow, i mean, just wow.

[childoftyranny]

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, 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.

[Thomas]

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.

[stePH]

The sexual sadomasochism aspect of Conan is positively tame, almost insignificant, when contrasted with John Norman's world of Gor.

[Reed]

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.

[Leslianne]

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?

[Thomas]

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....

[Scattercat]

Thirding Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, actually.  That would be neat.

[Spindaddy]

Thirding Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, actually.  That would be neat.

By CROM! Count me in for fourthing Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser!

[LaShawn]

::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.

[Unblinking]

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.

[Scattercat]

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.)

[Unblinking]

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." 

[Fenrix]

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

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