Post originally by Justin Bacon at 2004-07-14 21:44:33
Converted from Phorums BB System

camazotz wrote:
-------------------------------
Which is odd, since I am a fan of Howard's work, but apparently seem able to appreciate other authors' efforts as well. And oddly, I rarely hear of any purist speaking fondly of Nyberg, either.
-------------------------------

Well, that has more to do with the fact that Nyberg's Conan pastiches are amateurish fan fiction given notice only because de Camp decided to include his work in the Lancer paperbacks.

------------------------------
but I ave always enjoyed hiw works, Conan and non, so I guess that, in spite of owning a complete collection of Howard's works as well as all of de Camp's (pastiche and non), Carter's, and, hell, all of the pastiches to date, that I am not a fan of Howard by the Justin Bacon definition.-
------------------------------

Anyone who supports rewriting an author's work is not a fan of that author. A fan of an author would want to read that author's work, not a rewritten version of it.

Anyone who supports a man who kept an author's work out of print is not a fan of that author. A fan of an author would want the author's work in print.

This is basic, common sense stuff. I can't believe it even needs to be said. Only a complete moron would believe that a fan of Howard would want his work out of print and rewritten.

------------------------------
Quick note about Tolkien: pastiche does not necessarily constitute using the same characters verbatim;
------------------------------

And such pastiche has absolutely nothing to do with Conan pastiches.

------------------------------
Howard's works, being far too brief due to his short career as an author, have always left people wishing there were more Howard out there, I suspect, and thus the pastiches which sought to continue the very specific lives and tales of different characters.
------------------------------

This betrays a basic ignorance of the history of fantasy fiction. There are many Howard-derived figures of sword and sorcery out there -- Karl Edward Wagner's Kane is just the tip of the iceberg.

This is where the basic disconnect between the handling of Tolkien's literary legacy and Howard's literary legacy differ: Tolkien's heirs worked to present Tolkien's published and unpublished works in authoritative, high quality editions. Howard's works, unfortunately, fell into the hands of people like de Camp, who not only sullied and rewrote Howard's work, but actively degraded his accomplishments in the introductions of the very books themselves.

THAT'S the disconnect. And you keep dancing around it by claiming that Tolkien and Howard both had a profound influence on the field of fantasy fiction.

Yes, they did. How does that excuse what de Camp did to Howard's work?

Justin Bacon
triad3204@aol.com