PC162: Gods of the North

[Swamp]

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.

[Spindaddy]

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.

[DKT]

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.

[Gamercow]

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?

[Wilson Fowlie]

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?)

[kibitzer]

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.

[Scattercat]

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.

[Talia]

 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). 

[kibitzer]

...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).

[Spindaddy]

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.

[Scattercat]

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]

@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...

[Scattercat]

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)

[DKT]

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...

[Scattercat]

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.)

[slag]

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.

[olivaw]

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.

[deflective]

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.

[Salul]

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?

[Thomas]

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 ...

[Sgarre1]

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

[slag]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[jrderego]

Thanks for running this one. It's one of my favorite Conan stories for the sheer economy of storytelling.

[Calculating...]

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.

[DKT]

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!