Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

J.G. Keely's Reviews > The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian

The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian by Robert E. Howard
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
84023
's review

really liked it
bookshelves: fantasy, short-story, america, pulp, horror, reviewed, supernatural-horror, sword-and-sorcery, favorites

What it is that makes Howard so much more compelling than his many imitators? To the untrained eye, it may be hard to see differences, since his faults are sometimes more readily apparent than his virtues, though he has plenty of both. Some might try to 'salvage him' from his pulp origins, but despite all his literary aspirations, I'm happy to call him a pulp author, and one of the best.

I have a great deal of praise for this edition in particular, volume one of a three-part series which collects for the first time Howard's Conan stories as he originally wrote them, without the meddling of either magazine editors or De Camp (who shamelessly rewrote Howard's unfinished stories to match his own views, and released them as 'originals'). It is also first to publish them in pure chronological order, eschewing all and sundry attempts to produce an official 'internal chronology'.

Howard meant the order to be somewhat ambiguous, mimicking the epics and histories that inspired the names and events of his stories. Our delightful editor plays the old Lit Crit game of connecting all the dots from the Conan tales to their origins in Plutarch, Bullfinch's Mythology, Lovecraft, or Bierce. I'm indebted to her for helping me to see Conan with new eyes by lending me the perspective of the Howard scholar.

Seeing the way his world sprang up from notes, sketches, and maps is fascinating, and the critical essays try to get a little more mileage out of Lovecraft's misunderstanding of Howard's pseudo-historical names. They are meant to be evocative of a world that, while familiar, still holds surprises. We can recognize a type, a historic conflict, terrain, and temperament without being tied down to the specificity of true historical fiction.

Howard did not want so narrow a view, and was never a stickler for small details, as evidenced by the singular madness his chronologers develop trying to account for the appearance and disappearance of Conan's red cloak and horned helm throughout the stories. Howard liked an underpinning of consistency, but excitement and story always took precedence, which is why, despite drawing names and plots from history (much as Shakespeare did), he never let them bog down his stories, always aiming, above all, to entertain.

When I say that we get Howard without editorial meddling, we must still understand that he was writing for an audience, and that much of the excitement and titillation in his tales was a sugaring of his pill for the lower denominator. Yet for all that, much of his psychology and sexual politics is deceptively complex. It is easy to dismiss him as a cliche strong man with an endless following of swooning women, but there is something more subtle at work.

Firstly, each story that shows Conan in a relationship is written from the point of view of the woman. Often, Conan does not even appear until after her character and situation are already developed. We rarely get an emotional insight into Conan, into his plans or emotions, but we do see into his heroines, which is the reverse of most fantasy romances.

In addition, Conan is often painted as the object of desire. The author's vision rests equally on the desirability of Conan and of the women, showing how and why feeling might develop between them. Conan, having been raised outside of civil society, cannot charm the women, bargain with them for favors, or fool them. His appeal is not that he has wealth, prestige, or grooming, but that he is attractive, confident, physically powerful, guileless, and does not mingle his desires with ulterior motive. He is part 'bad boy', but he is also attractive because he lies outside the arena of sexual politics--something like dating someone outside your high school to avoid the judgment, name-calling, in groups, and jealousy that would otherwise result.

The women are often the victims of civilization; that is to say, they have been carefully bred to be beautiful, desirable, and controlled. They rarely have power in their own cultures, often finding themselves at the whims of powerful men, and so it makes sense that they would seek out Conan, who is not a part of this unbalanced social system, and who has the physical and mental strength to protect them from reprisal when she abandons that culture.

On the surface, "The Vale of Lost Women" is the story which most condemns Howard as a chauvinist (and racist), but there is a subtle subversion within the tale that shows Howard as a much more canny student of the human condition than most give him credit for. The premise of the story doesn't do Howard any favors, and certainly hasn't aged well: a well-bred white woman has been captured by a barbaric pseudo-African tribe by whom Conan has found himself employed.

He finds the woman accidentally, during a revel, chained up in a tent, and she begs him to release her, saying that surely not even a barbarian like him would leave a white woman in the hands of the cruel black chief. It's hard to read without feeling a lump of political correctness rise in our throats--but socially and historically, it's neither and absurd statement, nor an insulting one.

'Odalisques' or white, virgin girls were the most valuable in trade for Barbary pirates to Moorish harems. Even today, Black women get fewer responses in online dating than any other race/sex group. Just because it's unpleasant doesn't mean that it isn't socially true, and just because it is a current social fact doesn't mean that it is an ultimate, universal truth.

We can say it is a social fact that women have been historically controlled and judged by the slut/virgin dichotomy, but that doesn't mean that they desire to be controlled, or to be sluts or virgins. It also doesn't mean that stories which portray this unfortunate dynamic necessarily support it. As students of Nietzsche and Machiavelli know, saying 'this is how the world is' is not the same as saying 'this is how it ought to be'.

Let me say that again: just because a writer presents white women as more culturally valuable doesn't mean that they are any more attractive, intelligent, or worthwhile than any other person. Cultural values are funny things, and don't necessarily align with real values. Just because someone is willing to pay $500 for a rare Beanie Baby doesn't mean that a Beanie Baby is somehow intrinsically better than a comparatively cheaper encyclopedia or road atlas.

It's easy to get hung up on what the author is specifically saying, and hard to step beyond it and look at how and why it's being said. A character's statement is different from an author's, and Howard is surprisingly careful to keep social observations in the mouths of characters, and out of the omniscient narrative voice. After her appeal to racial loyalty, the woman offers herself to Conan in exchange for being freed from the tribe--aghast at the lengths to which she must go. But Conan laughs.

He laughs and tells her that she is sadly mistaken if she assumes that she can merely trade sex for favors, as she has been taught to do in civilized society. It's this simple observation that shows that Howard (and Conan) are better students of the human condition than they get credit for. For Conan, sex does not have this connotation of a social trade, it is an act engaged in out of desire, not coercion. He scorns the 'civilized' notion that women are property to be bargained for. This separation is the same conclusion Angela Carter makes about De Sade in her incomparable Sadeian Woman : that the trade value of sex must be unveiled and demystified in order to approach any kind of sexual equality.

We must recall that this understanding of sex is enforced on both sides, and that if women have an artificially increased value in sexual social trade, it will eclipse any other value they have, or that they might wish to have, and few will consider them as anything else.

But Conan, being outside of that system, values women differently. After his moment of insight, he shocks us back with his barbarism, saying he really couldn't leave a white girl like her in the hands of the chief, and that he's tired of 'black sluts', which is unpleasant and unsympathetic enough to clamp our minds shut again, though whether it might be true to the world or the character (who has hang-ups with his own racial identity), I leave up to you. After all, it is rare that a person raised under one set of signifiers for attractiveness learns in later life how to appreciate a completely different idea of beauty.

He does decide to save her, but not in trade for sexual favor, which once again separates Howard from the writers who followed him. Again and again, if we look at Conan's scattered romantic relationships, we see that he is only interested in the fulfillment of mutual desire, and that the woman's side of the relationship is often the one Howard chooses to explore. Conan rejects the notion of coercing women, let alone forcing them, as beneath him.

He doesn't pressure women, or conquer them, or trade for sex, and the women are constantly surprised at his lack of overture, his refusal to make a game out of the whole thing--or a schoolboy's lovesick obsession. But then, Conan is less interested in an 'erotic victory' than in mutually beneficial pleasure, even if that pleasure is not socially condoned, and is, instead transgressively focused on female desire. Conan's outsider status as a barbarian allows him to approach women on more-or-less equal terms, giving them an opportunity to reject the values which otherwise bind them and to choose for themselves.

Sure, the relationships and their consummation might be idealized and romantic--they're still pulp--and I'm not claiming Howard didn't harbor certain racist and sexist opinions, but the way these themes develop psychologically in his work is rarely so simple. Howard, like Conan, was a man of contradiction and surprising subtlety.

His language also makes his work stand out from the pack: high-energy, evocative, and well-paced, his world and characters are always alive and active on the page. He takes generously from his historical and literary influences, playing with vocabulary and style to evoke a far-off period without growing so distant that he risks losing the uninitiated, as an eccentric linguist like Eddison is liable to do.

One thing the reader must come to terms with in order to enjoy him is Howard's repetition. He has favored words, phrases, and descriptions that come up again and again throughout the stories, and sometimes they feel like crutches. Part of it is that these were to be consumed as single stories, so some repetition would not likely have been noticed--but it happens even within a story.

At these points, I am tempted to compare Howard to the deliberate repetition of the epic tradition of the 'Homeric Epithet', an oft-repeated poetic phrase that becomes part of the rhythm of the text, such as "wine dark sea" or "long-haired Acheans"--or the way every warrior in the Shahnameh is described as a lion, and every beautiful woman is a cypress. Howard knows that there is power in phrases, and by repeating them, he creates motifs, identities, and connections. But, as usual for Howard, it's a combination of highs and lows: we get glimpses of his powerful, poetic language intermixed with his less effective, florid attempts.

But more than even his most effective prose (and occasional, surprisingly unoffending poetry), what sets Howard apart is his pure storytelling. His sense of pacing is admirable, often cutting out unnecessary scenes that other writers would not have realized were redundant. The stories flow along, drawing equally from the verisimilitude of historic tales and the archetypal form of the adventure story.

He moves fluidly through themes and styles, combining romance, war stories, supernatural horror, political thriller, and treasure hunting all in one story, maintaining a lilting, surprising pace without losing the story's center. His stories as a whole also work to build a grander world, much of it left for the reader to complete between hints and loose threads. There is a definite sense of historical discovery in this style, and the first three Howard stories give us Conan as a king, as an untried youth, and as a wary reaver.

Read a hundred pages of Conan and you will get a picture of a whole life, a man in different stages, changed by the world. We also get a glimpse of that world, and understanding of its places and ways without being explicitly told what they are. Compare this to almost any other fantasy writer, and they will come up short.

A hundred pages of Tolkien, Jordan, Goodkind, or Wolfe, and you haven't even left the protagonist's home. You won't get a view of the world, nor character growth. You might read a thousand pages of a fantasy series and see less growth than you would in a few Conan stories.

My question has always been: what do we gain from those thousands of extra pages? A more exciting story? A more complex world? A deeper character? Sadly, the answer is often no. Few authors seem to have taken Howard's lesson that saying more isn't as easy as simply writing more.

But then, Howard set the bar pretty high. There's nothing wrong with pulp, because pulp is written for an audience. Too often, these days, one seems to find authors obsessed with a kind of 'pure' writing that refuses to bow to any audience, editor, or sense of fun, and all you're really left with is pretension.

Pulp often gets a bad rap--the unshy way that it approaches sex, race, and politics can make a modern reader feel awkward, but at least these stories are actually, in a very real way, confronting and exploring those issues--and forcing us to do so, as well. Though the next two volumes of Conan stories never quite reach the vivacious heights of these early outings, I have to say: for all his flaws, it's still hard to find a fantasy writer who can better Howard.

163 likes ·  âˆ� flag

Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

December 7, 2010 – Started Reading
December 7, 2010 – Shelved
December 7, 2010 – Shelved as: fantasy
December 7, 2010 – Shelved as: short-story
December 7, 2010 – Shelved as: america
December 7, 2010 – Shelved as: pulp
December 27, 2010 – Shelved as: horror
December 28, 2010 – Finished Reading
January 28, 2011 – Shelved as: reviewed
February 11, 2011 – Shelved as: supernatural-horror
September 14, 2011 – Shelved as: sword-and-sorcery
January 27, 2012 – Shelved as: favorites

Comments Showing 1-25 of 25 (25 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

Jean-marcel All right, this is one of the best reviews of Conan and Howard in general that I've ever seen, and not just because I instinctively agree with all of what you've said here.


J.G. Keely Thanks, glad you liked it.


Jean-marcel Keely wrote: "Thanks, glad you liked it."

I also find the Solomon Kane stories to be really interesting...


J.G. Keely I read them a number of years ago, I remember them being rather odd and very dark, but I had trouble making sense of Kane, himself, as a character, in terms of his psychology and motivations. As you say in your review, he doesn't seem exactly sane much of the time.


message 5: by [deleted user] (new)

Hey great review. I was planning on ordering some Conan novels from my local bookstore. I heard you say Del Rey still had a lot of Robert E. Howard's original works, could you recommend the best ones?


J.G. Keely Well, the only place you will find Howard's original stories in full without changes and edits by other writers are in the three Del Ray volumes. They contain all of Howard's original Conan stories in chronological order. This first volume is very good, the second isn't quite as strong, and I've heard excellent things about the third, but haven't had the chance to read it myself yet.


Μιχάλης one of the best Howard reviews I've read


J.G. Keely I'm glad you liked it.


message 9: by Jim (last edited Sep 23, 2013 10:47AM) (new)

Jim I was curious to see how the Conan myth was translated to film so I went to see what Roger Ebert thought of the first 1982 film starring a young Arnold Schwarteneger.

His verdict is largely positive and as he was wont to do, Ebert makes passing reference to Howard's work:

"Conan the Barbarian" is, in fact, a very nearly perfect visualization of the Conan legend, of Robert E. Howard's tale of a superman who lived beyond the mists of time, when people were so pure, straightforward, and simple that a 1930s pulp magazine writer could write about them at one cent a word and not have to pause to puzzle out their motivations.

This is pretty much only an intellectual statement of the time when Howard wrote. Later Ebert confesses to a more visceral reaction to a scene and connects it to a more pentrating Howard reference. This time he refers to Howard's inferences or allusions to Nazi race-beliefs:

(generously quoted to assure context)

But there is one aspect of the film I'm disturbed by. It involves the handling of Thulsa Doom, the villain. He is played here by the fine black actor James Earl Jones, who brings power and conviction to a role that seems inspired in equal parts by Hitler, Jim Jones, and Goldfinger. But when Conan and Doom meet at the top of the Mountain of Power, it was, for me, a rather unsettling image to see this Nordic superman confronting a black, and when Doom's head was sliced off and contemptuously thrown down the flight of stairs by the muscular blond Conan, I found myself thinking that Leni Reifenstahl could have directed the scene, and that Goebbels might have applauded it.

Am I being too sensitive? Perhaps. But when Conan appeared in the pulps of the 1930s, the character suggested in certain unstated ways the same sort of Nordic super-race myths that were being peddled in Germany.
Am I being too sensitive? Perhaps.
These days we are more innocent again, and Conan is seen as a pure fantasy, like his British cousin, Tarzan, or his contemporary, Flash Gordon. My only reflection is that, at a time when there are no roles for blacks in Hollywood if they are not named Richard Pryor, it is a little unsettling to see a great black actor assigned to a role in which he is beheaded by a proto-Nordic avenger.


Ebert was devoted to showing that he was a literary (not just filmic) polymath of sorts. This of course requires a lot a reading.

I'll make up my own mind when my copy of the collection shows up (and I'm looking forward to it more than most). But meanwhile I ask:

Was Ebert being fair to Howard? Were the film writers/directors fair to Conan?

(and never mind whether Gobbels would have applauded)

Is Ebert "being too sensitive" here?


J.G. Keely Well, I do think the script, penned by a young Oliver Stone, was a respectable one, though he melded Howardian themes with . There is certainly a theme running through Conan that hearkens back to fascist art: the powerful, chiseled male form, the straightforward individual battling against corrupt, refined, overly-civilized enemies.

However, I think it that focus on the individual that separates Howard from real fascist overtures, because his stories are fundamentally about freedom, about living one's own life, and rejecting everything communal. Certainly, Conan does become 'a king by his own hand', but it's not through rousing speeches or political machinations, but through military competence and building trust through his actions.

It's also not fundamentally 'us vs. them', the community vs. the outsider, since Conan is invariably an outsider in every community he enters, and finds allies and enemies everywhere.

The scene Ebert points out does present an image we might find troubling, yet Thulsa Doom is a powerful and fascinating character, even if he is a villain, he's not weak or stereotyped. The reason they put the character in a wig and colored contacts is because he is supposed to represent one of the 'primordial races of man', the last of the Atlantean race, so it's hard to say that ancient wisdom and power is an unflattering characterization.


[Name Redacted] I think my favorite moment in this collection was the story in which Conan was held prisoner by a black prince (whose brother he had killed while serving as a mercenary) and who said that only a "white dog" would be willing to kill a human for money. It's one of those moments when you think Howard might ALMOST have gotten so caught up in his ancient ideals that he lost sight of his very modern prejudices.


message 12: by [Name Redacted] (last edited Nov 23, 2013 09:28PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

[Name Redacted] Keely wrote: "Well, I do think the script, penned by a young Oliver Stone, was a respectable one, though he melded Howardian themes with a more modern, progressive view. There is certainly a theme running throug..."

Also, it's worth nothing that Conan LEAVES the throne he won and goes off to be a lone warrior again. The message seems almost more proto-objectivist, obsessed with individual achievement and honor, than the communally-focused fascism.


Jonesy I've been trying to look into getting access to the Del Rey editions through the library or a used bookstore. It didn't work out, so instead I picked up a copy of Conan the Adventurer because it claimed to hold mostly stories that were written by Howard as opposed to being tampered with by Sprauge. That said... jesus, I don't even know if it's worth continuing to read. The first story in and Conan is out of nowhere spanking a woman he is holding captive. I was already somewhat raising my eyebrows over how quickly she gets over being kidnapped and starts getting aroused by him, but this... I mean, is this in the original text, or is this LS screwing with the text?


message 14: by Jim (new)

Jim Jonesy,

You might try Keely's blog - he seems not so active on GR these days.

It does sound like an unlikely male fantasy, though, which male (author) is up for grabs.


Jonesy I'll do that, thanks.


Pearl I've started reading this book based on your recomendation. And wow. Just wow. I can't even formulate into words how much I love it. The phrase 'dark splendour' comes to mind when I try to describe it to friends at the moment. So thank you. I'm working my way down your fantasy reading list too, and I'm just so floored by the quality of work that I've never heard of!


J.G. Keely LPG said: "I'm just so floored by the quality of work that I've never heard of!"

Yeah, that's something that never seems to stop happening to an avid reader--you stumble across a book, and find yourself wondering how it is you'd never heard of it before, because it's so good. I hope you're able to find some good stuff through my suggestions.


message 18: by Eli (new) - added it

Eli Thanks for the review, Keely.

The music which Basil Poledouris' wrote for the 1982 movie (which I strangely stumbled across at random on a number of separate occasions in fairly close succession) immediately caught my almost obsessive interest, and later made me curious to watch the movie. That too has grown on me, and (judging from your review) seems to exhibit many of the prominent themes of the original pretty faithfully, and I'm interested in following the rabbit trail and reading them too.

One quality of Conan the Barbarian which struck me as interesting and unique is its deliberate theme of strength and its pursuit, and yet with something pensive and cautious about it which absolves it from the easy criticism of a cheap action flick. Conan in the movie did not strike me as either proud or full of false-confidence, but as a wanderer seeking answer to the Riddle of Steel in hopes to gain the approval of Crom, the powerful god of strength whom Conan acknowledges to be much the superior, even in his acceptance of divine complacency. He seems very perceptive of the cruel nature of possible fate as no slight to what's owed him: no complaint or lamentation come from him following The Wheel of Pain and the Tree of Woe, and yet he accepts the hard circumstances (even if Crom could stop them) and persists in the harsh and arbitrary world as the state of things despite any desires or notions of how it should be. His very selfishness seems to fit this scheme, too (whatever destruction of one's enemies consummate the best of life, his own was a fair wager in the rescue of Osric's daughter); and it seems to separate his character quite apart from the self-emanating aura of the typical badass. Both a special concern for the idea of himself, and an obsequious false-humility which placates for favor both fail to describe Conan (as it could Achilles, Agamemnon, Caesar, perhaps Alexander). Despite this, the wandering Conan, unsure of his purposes and destiny, becomes much stronger than he could be if they were able to.

Of course that's just my observation from the movie. What is your impression, having read the books, and coming from your perspective otherwise?


Julio Valentin Great review. I enjoyed the book as well. Have you read any books by Harold Lamb it is said that he was a huge influence on Howard. If not I recommend you read The Mighty Manslayer one of my favorite short stories I have read recently.


Britton This is one of the authors that I'm surprised that you like. Much like with Leiber.


message 21: by John (last edited Aug 10, 2020 06:00AM) (new) - added it

John I enjoyed reading your analysis on Conan and will definitely read it once I finish reading other titles.

I found the part on Howard's treatment of women insightful, especially when you mentioned that settings women find themselves in really is depicted in the history of the Barbary Cosairs: women were indeed poorly treated by Black pirates. But just because Howard uses that setting, doesn't mean he necessarily agrees with it, or that he is a misogynist (or a racist). After all, Conan does set the woman free and doesn't use sex as currency for his services.


message 22: by Jim (new) - added it

Jim Maguire Fantastic review 🙌🙌


Pham Vi Phuong hi


[Name Redacted] Kane is an ideologue, a fanatic. I mean he's a Puritan, it comes with the territory. But the conceit of the Solomon Kane stories is that he is a dour, grim, joyless fire-and-brimstone, fanatic-personality sort of fellow...in a world in which that attitude is 100% the correct one to have. Solomon Kane, having awakened to the truth of the world, cannot rest until he has died eradicating the festering corruption that lies beneath all things worldly for the greater glory of God -- whether that be killing slavers or fighting supernatural monstrosities. He despises the present, preferring he promise of a Celestial future he fears may be beyond his reach (because like all good Puritans he also believes "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God").

Meanwhile Conan is very much a Present-ist, best summed up thusly: "'I have known many gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by the Nemedian skeptics, or Crom's realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer's Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."


[Name Redacted] Also, for what it's worth, I think that Ebert missed the point of the confrontation between Thulsa Doom (who's actually a Kull villain) and Conan in the film. Setting aside that Conan is supposed to be a proto-Celt (who fought & killed plenty of proto-Nords in written form), the film version of Conan ASSUMED killing his family's killer would bring him peace, bring him closure, but it doesn't. He doesn't cheer and dance and rejoice -- he sits, a building of corpses (including that of his dead lover) behind him, and broods before lighting fire to the building. Then he quietly leads away the girl who was, after all, nothing but the pretext for embarking upon his revenge quest -- and they walk off into the barren wasteland.

The implication is that he had built a central part of himself around avenging the wrongs done to himself and his people (not at all a part of the literary Conan) and finds that succeeding at that goal leaves him a general sense of emptiness and unease which he has never before had to face. Which is why the film then cuts from them walking into the wastes to the image of aged and brooding Conan on a throne, hearkening back to the introduction in which we were informed that he would "wear the jeweled crown of Aquilonia upon a troubled brow." The fact that everything after the climax is without dialogue, slow and subdued, again indicates that this isn't a joyous finale -- no triumph. Just one step on the road to him being a grim-faced old man ruling unhappily.

Also, I may not miss academia, but i clearly definitely miss writing. XD


back to top