Was Conan the Barbarian Really a Fictional Character?

Editor’s Note:

This article by Maggie Van Ostrand has become quite controversial, as evidenced by the long and passionate collection of comments below. After receiving numerous e-mails from Robert E. Howard supporters and academics, I have spoken with Maggie and also did some research of my own. I am no REH scholar, and I don’t think Maggie would profess to be either. I know her to be a reputable, friendly, and talented writer who is a valued member of the Fandomania family. She expressed to me her admiration of REH even during and after writing this article. Her admiration of his work is what led her to read about him and research this piece. After the post’s publication, it came to her and my attention that the resources she used are controversial in their own rights, and many readers have attacked her for going to the sources she used. As Maggie’s editor, I can assure you that it was neither Maggie’s nor my intention to lambast REH. She took her sources to be credible reflections of the man’s life, and I trusted her sources based on my confidence in Maggie. Factual errors and misrepresentations never were intended in this article, and I try to make sure that Fandomania as a whole keeps a high standard of credibility and accuracy. If I have failed in this, I most definitely apologize for my negligence.

A lot of people have demanded that I remove this article from the site. While I definitely want to defuse the hostility that has erupted around Maggie’s piece and make things right with our readers, I think it would be dishonest and a disservice to delete the post entirely. A lot of well spoken and thoughtful people have posted their views and scholarly opinions in the comments here, as well as on other websites that have linked here. Removing the article altogether would remove all of those comments that our readers have spent time composing, and it also would break the links and remove the context for the other webmasters who have expressed their thoughts and directed their own readers to this piece.

For those reasons, I decided to include this editor’s note at the top instead of removing the article. In light of this explanation, if you still have problems or concerns you’d like to express, please feel free to contact me through the Contact link above. I sincerely appreciate your visiting Fandomania, and I encourage you to follow up your reading of this article by reading more about Robert E. Howard and his family at these fine sites, as recommended by our readers:

The Cimmerian

The Robert E. Howard Foundation

Two Gun Raconteur

Sincerely,
Jason Dorough
Managing Editor, Fandomania.com

Editor’s Note Addition:

I have disabled comments on this post, effective December 17, 2009, 5:45pm Eastern.

robertehoward1

If you think you come from a dysfunctional family, you’ve got nothing on Robert E. Howard, creator of Conan the Cimmerian, later called Conan the Barbarian. But was Conan really a fictional character? Not exactly. At least, I don’t think so. Conan was almost surely based on Howard’s own father, Isaac Howard, M.D., who practiced medicine on the frontier of the American West.

Both of REH’s parents were beyond weird and there is no doubt they created Robert’s tortured mind. Much of the energetic transmogrification of the tales in his head to the pages of pulp fiction, and later to motion pictures and gaming, emanated from what he experienced as a child. It would create in him a kind of fantastical madness.

For instance, Robert E. Howard was in love with his mother, while his father believed he had brought a curse upon the family by killing a whippoorwill. I believe these things fomented the unsettled, repressed, and chaotic mind that burst forth in the character of Conan.

REH was more than one of Stephen King’s inspirations, more than a flayed mind, and more than the tortured individual so brilliantly portrayed by Vincent D’Onofrio in the biopic The Whole Wide World. Who was this man?

robertehoward2 When Robert was but a babe-in-arms, his mother, Hester Jane Howard, who suffered from an inordinate fear of germs (as Howard Hughes did), and whose family had a history of derangement, turned out to be more possessive than devoted. She would sit at baby Robert’s crib, constantly rocking him and, when she became exhausted, she’d lie on the floor and push up on his bedsprings with her legs, rocking him to sleep from below. She never let up and she never let go. She would expect her smothering devotion to be returned when Robert reached adulthood. And she made sure it was.

The only thing that came between little Robert and mother Hester was the impressive figure of his father, Dr. Isaac Howard. To a little kid, Dr. Howard, who always dressed in black, would have been an awesome figure: a huge (6′2″), domineering man with a fierce temper he frequently lost, piercing blue eyes, a head of excessive black hair, and an overbearing, pretentious attitude. Dr. Howard, who once wanted to be a minister, saw life in fearless and simple terms: good and evil. He saw himself as a Christian soldier committed to the obliteration of evil, and he waged war against what he saw as the enemy. He believed that if he relaxed his vigilance for even a second, he would fail to vanquish evil and death would triumph. Everything was seen in terms of black and white, with no gray areas.

Doctors in those days of the storied Old West experienced medical challenges like Gila monsters, rabid animals, poisonous snakes, fatal duels, scorpion stings, frostbite, stabbings, whippings, amputations, cholera, smallpox, suicides, typhus, gunshot and Indian arrowhead wounds. In fact, one local cemetery had 108 people buried there, and only three died of natural causes.

Dr. Howard frequently talked with his little boy about visionary land schemes, oil deals, and fantasy searches for a fabulous horde of jewels and other treasures. He often moved his family to new locations, but never to cities or urban areas, preferring small, isolated communities. The doctor liked to live on the edge of the world, be it an actual reality or just his internal reality.

Robert would speak of his father’s medical prowess for the rest of his life, telling stories like the one about how his father analyzed pustules on one patient’s back: Dr. Howard broke one large pustule between his fingers, and then sniffed it, put a bit of the leaked pus on his tongue and tasted it. Isaac also practiced “divine” healing by using the methods of Franz Mesmer (mesmerizing) and passing his “magnetic” hand over the patient. In addition, he attended evangelical revival meetings, searching for new ways to fight evil.

robertehoward3

Young Robert also lived with a mother who smiled and pretended to be happy despite severe depression, fatigue, pain, and possible madness — and a father who had the curious habit of concealing his raging temper by utilizing a happy whistle the angrier he became. One parent laughed and the other whistled, though both were full of rage, frustration and despair. What a pair. As a result, the boundaries between reality and fantasy were purposely blurred for Robert, who must have felt a victim of malevolent forces he could not control.

Isaac Howard, who could spin a yarn like a demented Mark Twain, filled his son’s head with superstitions derived from his Nordic ancestors (though Robert later insisted he was of Irish heritage). There, on the fringes of the world, Isaac said, between icy shore and snowy forest, overshadowed by foreboding hills, these barbaric Northmen harbored dark dreams and paranoid impulses. Cloudy skies, shrouding ancient hills, and somber trees, sowed the seeds of madness, which burst out in their descendants in Salem during the witch-hunts of 1692, he told his son. Isaac said he “never let the truth stand between me and a good story.” Had his earth-born child come from the Gates of Hell with a Dark Lord watching over him? Years later, Robert wrote, “Barbaric life was hell; but so is modern life.” About that time, the Howards were living in Texas in a place called Dark Valley, later the fictional Cimmeria, “Land of Darkness and the Night.”

Dr. Howard also taught his son that masturbation was evil and masturbators would either become diseased and perish forthwith, or be damned to burn in Hell forever. The constant repetition of his belief must have had an abnormal effect on Robert, resulting in his severe and lifelong sexual repression. Conan had no such problems with the opposite sex.

robertehoward5

Robert grew up afraid and distrustful of everyone except his parents, seeing the world as full of dangers. He believed he had to have both his gun and his fists ready for a death struggle he did not believe he could win. He told a friend a chilling example of his childhood helplessness. It seems a small girl tumbled into a hog pen and the hogs dismembered and half devoured her before anyone could rescue her, with Robert looking on. Thus he came to fear all situations that made him feel helpless.

Ever vigilant Mother Hester continued to watch him all the way from infancy to manhood. She selected his food, screened his friends, chose his books, and hovered over him, catering to his every whim. At the same time, his father filled his head with a world that did not really exist but, just the same, it became the only world Robert knew. He had no chance to develop a life of his own. Even as young as three or four, Robert conjured up visions of monsters, ghosts, and demons, peopling his world with evil beings. Since he had no friends to talk to, he was forced to invent them — invisible friends and make-believe people — and he created strange and menacing animals that had never existed. During Robert’s adolescence, his father joined in to play variations of his son’s distorted reality.

As a writer, Robert’s thought patterns tended to metaphorical and narrative sequences because he could not deal with his own emotions, his inner violence, and the repressions forced on him by his parents. All his life, Robert had violent outbursts, tantrums, and frightening night terrors. It was Conan who met and mastered these horrors with strength and courage; the qualities Robert could not have developed himself.

When, without his mother’s knowledge or consent, Robert managed to meet Novalyne Price, a local teacher, he at last had someone real to talk to. She had been warned against him, and told by her peers that Robert (Bob) was “the town freak.”

In those days, sex did not enter boy-girl relationships and Robert never tried to take advantage of her. If they were out for a drive and the time came for him to give his mother her medicine, he would turn the car around, go home, do his duty, and return to continue the drive with Novalyne, who could not break the maternal bond, or maybe bondage is a more appropriate word. His adoring mother would bring him meals on a tray while he wrote and “while the divine possessed him.” Novalyne wanted no life like that. “If I married you,” she shot back in one of her discussions with Bob, “it would be just to cook three meals every day and iron your shirts!” Bob retorted, “Look, girl, if this were Conan, he’d bat you down and drag you by the hair in the dust!”

Robert and friend Truett Vinson

“Bob’s attitudes toward women, a recurrent topic for argument, exacerbated their indecision,” state his biographers, L. Sprague de Camp, Catherine Crook de Camp, and Jane Whittington Griffin, in their book Dark Valley Destiny. “Bob might vehemently defend the rights of women; he might write stories about women warriors who could spit a man on their blades as deftly as they could spear a pat of butter — Red Sonya in ‘The Shadow of the Vulture,’ Valertia in ‘Red Nails,’ or Agnes de Chastillon in the unsold ‘Sword Woman’ — but from the women with whom he had daily converse, he expected total dependence and subservience.” Later examples of his ideal of femininity were the soft, timid, passive and foolish Natala in “The Slithering Shadow” and Muriela in “Jewels of Gwahlur.”

As Hester’s failing health declined further, she called in the chips, reversing her slavish devotion to Robert, thus making him a slave to her every whim as she had always been to his. Robert began taking his mother wherever he went and they became constant companions, forestalling the growing intimacy between Robert and Novalyne. Once they ran into each other and Novalyne said Hester glowered “at me as if I were some sort of venomous reptile.”

Neither Novalyne nor Bob’s literary friends admired his writing and considered it trash (though they did admire that he was published). When Bob showed Novalyne a copy of Weird Tales, August 1934, containing his Conan story, “The Devil in Iron,” the great barbarian offended Novalyne because an illustration showed him whacking the monster with a scimitar, while a blonde beauty, wearing very little (only a sash), shrinks in terror from the combat. This was only one of the things that came to divide them as a couple. When Novalyne became so ill that Dr. Howard sent her off to another town’s hospital, Robert never came to visit her. She later learned that, while she was recuperating, Dr. Howard had given orders that no man besides him be admitted to her room. By that time, Hester and Isaac had become estranged, but came together again, united in their zeal not to lose their “boy.”

robertehoward6 Hester’s health continued on a downward trend, resulting in a long road trip by the entire family to a hospital 150 miles away. During this time, Robert told his father that he did not wish to live any longer after his mother was gone. Hester’s condition worsened, forcing Robert to beg Weird Tales to pay the $1,000 they owed him so he could pay Hester’s increasing medical expenses. At the same time, he went into total denial of his mother’s condition (tuberculosis), so much so that he refused to even say the word. He tried to write and earn more money, but so much traveling with Isaac and Hester to seek cures deprived him of the necessary time. That meant that both of the two stabilizing forces in his life were leaving him: his writing, and his mother.

By 1936, so great were the isolation of his life and his denial of Hester’s impending death that all he had left were the devils and monsters in his imagination. He began to dress bizarrely in frock coat, walrus mustache, Confederate officer’s coat, and Mexican sombrero. But nothing could relieve his agony at seeing his mother in terminal decline. At last, his survivor mode of denial had failed him. He wrote, “There seems to be little we [father and son] or anyone can do to help her, though God knows I’d make any sacrifice, including my own life, if it could purchase her any relief.”

At home, caring for Hester, Robert wrote and sold a few Westerns — “A Gent from the Pecos,” “Gents on the Lynch,” and “The Riot at Bucksnort” — and worked on his 50,000-word novel, Almuric, a sword-and-planet tale, which he hoped to sell to the growing science fiction market. He also responded to a letter from two young Conan fans, and wrote that he could not predict Conan’s eventual fate for he was merely “chronicling his adventures as he told them to me… ” According to the aforementioned 1961 biography of REH’s life, Dark Valley Destiny: “He said Conan remained king of Aquilonia for many years during a time of turbulence and warfare. He traveled throughout the Hyborian World and even visited a nameless continent to the west. Whether he conquered a vast territory and built an empire or whether he perished in the attempt, Howard did not know, nor could he foretell how much of the story of Conan’s life and loves would eventually get into print. Those who spin tales of the great barbarian today and those who read them still have not unraveled that mystery, but we all know that the giant Cimmerian still bestrides the Hyborian World and still has tales to tell.”

Oddly, as Hester fell into a coma, and in keeping with his father’s whistling-when-angry ploy, Robert noticeably began to get cheerful. It seemed to onlookers that Robert had found a solution to some perplexing predicament. No one suspected his impending suicide, despite his having penned thoughts like “Life is a liar and a dreary-eyed whore,” “Jets of agony lance my brain,” and “The years are as a knife against my heart.” He spent most of his time in Hester’s bedroom. He asked his father whether he thought Hester would regain consciousness and Isaac replied that he thought not. He asked, “Where will you go, Dad?” and his father replied, “Why, wherever you do.” Robert then drove to the Greenleaf Cemetery in Brownwood to reserve Lot 13, Block 5, for three burials, telling the cemetery people, “My father and I will go away and never come again.”

robertehoward7 Isaac later told people he thought his son was acting strangely and was planning to kill him. Instead, Robert tried to straighten out the mess of papers in his study, but became so overwhelmed by the task that he ended up tossing the whole mass into the air, burying the floor under a flurry of typed pages. Then he returned to the deathwatch in Hester’s room where he remained all night long. In the morning, he marched to his car, and blew his brains out. He had sought relief from his agony in what Isaac thought was an effort to transition to his next incarnation.

Within his world of Conan and King Kull, Robert E. Howard was fearless, inscrutable, and desired by all women. He was a man who could slaughter enemies by the dozen, single-handedly topple rulers from their thrones, and create empires of Oriental splendor. He could vanquish supernatural menaces by the magic he alone controlled. But in his life, he had no resources whatever against the powers of a father and mother who continually denied his innermost needs.

Two coffins were in the Howard home that night: Hester’s and Robert’s. Though devastated by their deaths, Isaac remained strong and courageous, attending the fire-and-brimstone double funeral at the Baptist Tabernacle. He later filed an application for appointment as administrator of Robert’s estate, worth a pittance of $2,902 in cash (excluding the never-paid fee from Weird Tales) and a car. No value was put upon the writings of Robert E. Howard.

Isaac, who I believe was the living model for Conan, lived a nomadic, lonely, and angry life until he died in 1944. He is buried beside his wife and son.

From REH’s “Recompense” in Always Comes Evening:

I have not seen the face of Pan, nor mocked the dryad’s haste,
But I have trailed a dark-eyed Man across a windy waste.
I have not died as men may die, nor sinned as men have sinned,
But I have reached a misty sky upon a granite wind.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 9th, 2009 at 11:00 am and is filed under Feature Articles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

30 Responses to “Was Conan the Barbarian Really a Fictional Character?”

Kelly Melcher Says:
December 11th, 2009 at 6:51 am
This was a very interesting article Maggie!
Summer Suzuki Says:
December 11th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Great article, Maggie! I’m a fan of the Conan movies and Frazetta’s work heavily inspired me as I was growing up (mostly because it was a huge inspiration to my uncle, who was also an artist that I looked up to early in life), but I have to admit I don’t know much about the original Conan stories or the man who wrote them. My brother and I have been getting into REH’s work recently, with the upcoming release of the Solomon Kane movie.

The whole line between reality and fantasy has been a major topic of thought for me lately, and your article was very enlightening in that respect for me.
Maggie Van Ostrand Says:
December 12th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Glad you liked it. I love to find out what writers are like, and REH was certainly the most weird. Researching him was like being on a merry-go-round, spinning out with strange and fascinating information.

Now that I’ve finished, my head’s still whirling.
Damon C. Sasser Says:
December 12th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
This is the biggest pile of malarkey I’ve ever read on the subject of Robert’s life. There are any number of reliable sources on the web (REHupa, The Cimmerian, The Robert E. Foundation) where you can find an accurate account of REH’s life. This is pure speculation and fiction, based on a flawed biography of Howard written by L. Sprague deCamp.
maggie van ostrand Says:
December 12th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Actually, I’ve seen REH’s house in Cross Plains, and was mostly affected by him not even having a table lamp. That means he had to read by the light of a naked ceiling bulb, IF the room is actually as he left it. As you doubtless know, it’s a recreation and not the original.

I’ve also spoken with the editor of a Texas publication who had interviewed Norris Chambers, a man who typed some of REH’s manuscripts, and spent time with him.

The Dark Valley of Destiny was indeed one of my sources, and it had many contributions by Novalyne Price-Ellis. Perhaps the book was flawed, as you say, but it was not my only source. I also used He Who Walks Alone, by Novalyne Price-Ellis.

It’s too bad you think it’s “malarkey.”
Damon C. Sasser Says:
December 13th, 2009 at 12:28 am
Well I’ve met Norris and talked with him, and I doubt if he would approve of the nonsense you’ve written. All of the theories you put forth have been debunked years ago by such Howard scholars Rusty Burke, Mark Finn, Patrice Louinet, Leo Grin and many others. As for myself, I’ve been a Howard fan and collector for nearly forty years and publish a Howard journal, REH: TWO-GUN RACONTEUR, which began in 1976. You might want to read Burke’s short bio here: http://www.rehfoundation.org/?page_id=62 and pick up a copy of Finn’s biography of REH, BLOOD & THUNDER. And I don’t think your piece is malarkey, I know it is.
Maggie Van Ostrand Says:
December 13th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Does insulting my work make you feel better?

Can you stop now?
Scott Oden Says:
December 13th, 2009 at 10:51 am
I understand Damon Sasser’s anger. For years, he and others have fought the good fight against that scurrilous load of crap perpetrated by deCamp (who had a few peccadilloes of his own, including the inability to cope with the idea that REH was a better writer than he). Then, here you go trotting the dead and debunked horse out and putting it on display. Journalistically, it’s the equivalent of writing a piece for a modern medical publication wherein you extol the virtues of blood-letting as a means of restoring balance to the humors.

While I appreciate the effort you’ve put into this, all you’ve really done is continue the character assassination started by deCamp . . .
Maggie Van Ostrand Says:
December 13th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Then why does one of the sites he’s touting as a reliable authority http://www.rehupa.com/romeo_dvd.htm publish the following in an article on Dark Valley of Destiny, one of my several sources?

“LSdC’s opinions are his to make. One can agree or disagree. By cataloging REH’s attitude towards his teachers, fellow townspeople, boomtown oilmen, and especially his employers LSdC does make a case for a person of emotional immaturity, unrealistic attitudes, and strong anti-social feelings.”

and ““Dark Valley Destiny” remains the premiere Howard biography. Perhaps Rusty Burke or some other fan will write a new biography that corrects this biography’s errors, such as they may be.”

and “The latest reprint collection of Conan stories (published in Great Britain) is dedicated to L. Sprague de Camp. While plenty of REH fans writhe and moan about this it is good to see that others recognize the reality of history and give LSdC his due. For whatever reasons, he promoted Conan AND Bob Howard. It is hoped that the publishers at Wandering Star will also dedicate one of their Conan collections to Mr. de Camp. It would do a lot to apologize for fan behavior that was often despicable.

“As a source for Howard’s life this biography is too full of unflattering conclusions to please the Howard “purist.” But as a critical source for fantasy and literary scholars who are trying to appraise REH’s art, “Dark Valley Destiny” is a praise-filled work that extols the craft and genius of Robert Ervin Howard.”

and if, as you suggest, author “… deCamp was unable to cope with the idea that REH was a better writer … ” then why did he write this in Dark Valley:
““[…] all these criticisms fade like morning mist before Howard’s headlong rush of action, his rainbow-tinted prose, the intensity with which he wrote his own feelings into his stories, and, above all, his Hyborian world – that splendid creation – which ranks with Burroughs’ Barsoom and Tolkien’s Middle Earth as a major fictional achievement.” (p. 295)”

I hardly call that “character assassination.”

I stand by my article. If purists want to put an end to a book that one of Sasser’s own recommended sources says “remains the premiere Howard biography,” then why don’t you have a book burning and get rid of the books you disagree with?

You guys can go on tossing grenades at my sources all you want or, as described in Sasser’s own recommended source: “writhing and moaning.” I’m done with this silliness.
Damon C. Sasser Says:
December 13th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Amazing that out of all the sources available, you use Howard fandom’s lone dissenting voice in the wilderness when it comes to deCamp. Gary Romeo is a great guy and Howard fan, but somewhat misguided on the subject of deCamp. Yes deCamp helped get Howard recognized in the 1960’s, but others, such as Glenn Lord (literary agent for the heirs to Howard’s fiction) did far more. In the end deCamp betrayed the trust of Howard fans and actually kept Howard’s work out of print for his own financial benefit. There is a lot of history and complicated issues surrounding Howard and his writings - it just can’t be summed up in one neat little package.
David Gentzel Says:
December 15th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
When you begin an article with phrases such as “Both of REH’s parents were beyond weird” it is immediately clear that you have no intention of writing a balanced piece. This actually reads very much like a de Camp article: decide on your conclusion and then cite only sources (no matter how speculative or tenuous) that support your supposition.

Much of the evidence you cite for the supposed “madness” of Howard and his family were simply the normal attitudes of a very large percentage (majority?) of Americans of that day and age. Discouraging masturbation? Strong attitudes regarding good and evil? Superstitious? Most of the nation was mad by your reasoning.

And inventing imaginary animals and friends as a child is a sign “distorted reality”?

It truly appears that you know very little about the time and places that molded REH, and insist upon judging him by a very narrow minded 21st century mentality. To ignore the context is to never understand the man.
Dennis McHaney Says:
December 15th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Of all the incorrect research I’ve encountered in forty years, this is the worst. It is a clueless interpretation of outdated faulty research by a prejudiced hack named de Camp.

There are a number of more realistic books on Howard. Mark Finn’s biography of Howard paints a realistic picture of the man. Robert E. Howard- World’s Greatest Pulpster dissects Howard’s writing career. You’ve pulled material from an obsolete website that hasn’t been updated in years and should be updated or deleted.

The real contemporary authorities get so tired of having to straighten out crap like this. Every year or so some half-assed hotshot does basic sloppy research and then thinks they are enough of an authority to regurgitate their bile out over the internet.

You have worlds to learn about Howard, but I really think that you need to devote your attention to better research and less imagination and amateur second-hand psychology.
Al Harron Says:
December 15th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Ms Van Ostrand, your article is based on research that has been debunked for decades. What’s more, some things you assert as established fact, such as Conan being “unquestionably” based on Isaac, are opinions that I’ve never encountered until reading this article.

You cite Dark Valley Destiny, a book which has been picked apart by dozens of Howard scholars for its inaccuracies, omissions and examples of armchair psychoanalysis. You also include One Who Walked Alone, which is better than DVD, but hardly free of Price’s own agenda. Finally, you cite Gary Romeo’s assessment of Dark Valley Destiny. I see no mention of Glenn Lord’s The Last Celt, Rusty Burke’s Short Bio, Mark Finn’s Blood & Thunder, or any of the other books which paint a vastly different picture from the “tortured nutcase” you’re interested in perpetuating.

Now, if that was the extent of material on Robert E. Howard, it would be understandable. However, not only does that constitute a mere fraction of the work many individuals have undertaken, it’s the distinct minority. Gary Romeo on REHupa, which you so like to cite as “disproving” Damon’s position, hosts a lengthy series by Morgan Holmes called “The De Camp Controversy” which explores De Camp’s relationship with REH and Conan, and is by no means as appreciative as Romeo. Citing Gary Romeo as typical of the Howard Scholarly community’s opinion on Howard is as incorrect as saying Charles Hodge is the party line on evolution.

Also, instead of casually waving off criticism, it might be worth actually defending your article, by proving exactly why Damon and 99% of the Robert E. Howard scholars, men and women who’ve dedicated decades to Howard’s research, are entirely wrong. I’d respect it more than deeming it “silliness” unworthy of discussion.

It’s just disheartening for Howard studies to have come so far in the past twenty years, only for the old myths and nonsense to rear their ugly heads in poorly researched, biased, reckless, offensive articles such as this.
Frank Coffman Says:
December 15th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
I have to chime in on the gross inaccuracies and wholly baseless statements made in this article. The primary source of Van Ostrand’s misconceptions seems to be the disastrously flawed (and itself poorly researched and fictionalized) biography by L. Sprague de Camp.

One huge problem with the internet is the fact that, now than ANYBODY can publish worldwide — with no juried group of experts to approve or disapprove of content, as with respected professional print journals — too damned many people ARE publishing.

The author also does what far too many in “criticism” of Howard’s work have done before, looked too narrowly and defined Howard as a one or two-trick pony, identified ONLY with Conan and Kull and Sword & Sorcery fiction [although he was, most certainly, the father of that genre]. She completely overlooks his several other genres in fiction: Horror, Adventure, brief excursion into Sci-Fi, Western, Fight Stories (boxing), etc. AND overlooks entirely the fact that he was a fine poet as well as writer of fiction.

I’m glad to see that several respected Howardian voices are already sounding off regarding this essay: Damon Sasser, David Gentzel, and Dennis McHaney are among the foremost names in legitimate Howardian studies. It is to be fervently hoped that Ms. Van Ostrand distance herself from any criticism of Howard (or, from the far from academic or objective tone of her “essay,” perhaps from any literary criticism).

This piece is balderdash of the first order.

Most Sincerely,
Frank Coffman
Professor of English
Rock Valley College
Rockford, IL

also a card-carrying member of the not-too-small-anymore SERIOUS literary critics of Howard’s work
Rob Roehm Says:
December 15th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
One of the better modern assessments can be found here:

http://www.thecimmerian.com/?p=2143
Frank Coffman Says:
December 15th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Excellent articles on Howard and his work can be found at:

http://www.rehupa.com
http://www.robert-e-howard.org/home.html
http://www.rehtwogunraconteur.com
http://www.thecimmerian.com
http://howardworks.com

Anyone curious about the TRUTH about Robert E. Howard is advised to go thither.

Frank Coffman
Frank Coffman Says:
December 15th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
The particular article Ms. Van Ostrand sites that defends L. Sprague de Camp shows the OBJECTIVITY allowed in our legitimate discussions of this author. When the criticism is based upon solidly grounded premises, then there’s not problem with open disagreement. Likely the greatest defender of L. Sprague de Camp’s role in the popularization of Robert E. Howard in the 60s and 70s and thenceforward has been Gary Romeo.

The point is simply this: write an INFORMED, well-researched, and logically supported argument, and scholars will, perhaps disagree, but accept your views as legitimately researched and stated. The present essay by Ms. Van Ostrand does not qualify as such.

Frank Coffman
James Reasoner Says:
December 16th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Ms. Van Ostrand,

You can stand by your article all you want, but what you’re standing by is incorrect in many of its facts and indefensible in its interpretations, as has been demonstrated again and again and again by the Howard scholars cited in the above comments along with many others. It’s not enough to say that you’re done with this silliness when what you’ve done is to potentially damage the reputation of one of the finest writers Texas has ever produced. No one as mentally unstable as you make Howard out to be could have been such an absolutely top-notch professional as he was. Read his correspondence with other authors and you’ll discover a man who was absolutely clear-headed and keenly intelligent about how he produced and marketed his work. The fact that Howard was able to carve out a successful career in an environment such as Cross Plains that was far removed from the publishing centers of the country and was at times actually hostile to what he was trying to do speaks worlds about his abilities and about his approach to his work. He deserves so much better than what you’ve done here. As an author myself, I hate to criticize anyone’s writing other than my own, but when it comes to understanding Robert E. Howard and his accomplishments, Ms. Van Ostrand, I think you have completely missed the mark, and my advice to you would simply be: Start over. Dig deeper. Howard is worth it.
Lisa Says:
December 16th, 2009 at 1:50 am
To be fair, I am no authority on Robert E. Howard. Neither am I a professional academic and scholar like Professor Coffman, Mr. Sasser, Mr. Finn, or Mr. McHaney. I am, rather, just a graduate student who has nothing to speak of in her vita, no long string of letters after her last name, no venerable list of publication credits. To boil it down further, I am a petty rhetoricaster with an astounding amount of student debt. However, I am also a fan of the works of Robert E. Howard, a student of Rhetoric and Literature, and a hopefully (if not entirely successful) scribbler myself. As such, I take considerable issue with this article.

I have no idea who Ms. Van Ostrand is. I do not know her particular qualifications or her history as a writer, a historian, or a scholar. As such, I mean her no ill will — but I cannot find it in myself to allow this article to stand. I might, as many likely have, pooh-pooh it away as some well-intentioned exploration of a little-known Texas visionary that has, alas, made use of questionable sources. I might excuse it as enthusiasm gone awry — and yet I will not. There is too much in this article that is plainly the case of subjective writing designed around a spurious agenda for me to make such excuses. What I will make, however, is an account of my objections.

To begin, the article makes a number of broad and damaging generalizations about Howard and his family without invoking a single source directly. Vague references are made to DeCamp’s _Dark Valley Destiny_ and Price-Ellis’ _One Who Walked Alone_, but at no time does Ms. Van Ostrand provide us, even in footnotes, the location of the grounds for these assertions. We are expected to take her word for it, or so it seems. Yet the accusations made concerning the family’s supposed deviance — Oedipal complexes and abusive natures, among other things — are critical to Ms. Van Ostrand’s argument and would therefore warrant strong support. If her sources for psychoanalytical criticism of the Howards are limited to DeCamp and Price-Ellis, then we must rely upon Ms. Van Ostrand’s own qualifications in the field of psychology to validate any assertions she derives therefrom — for neither writer, to my knowledge, was trained or licensed as a psychologist. As Ms. Van Ostrand is not forthcoming with her own qualifications in the field, I am forced to presume that her assessment of the Howards’ mental health is one of uneducated conjecture and is therefore insufficient to serve as the primary pillar of support for any argument about the psychological origin of Conan.

Ms. Van Ostrand’s example of the hog-pen incident is uncited, and it is an example of a rhetorical tactic Thomas Huckin calls presupposition — the removal of all alternatives in order to suggest to the reader that no alternative to the author’s assertion exists. Moreover, it slyly suggests that such a reaction on the part of a child is unnatural, though no proof of this is provided. Considering Ms. Van Ostrand’s apparent lack of credentials, such information must be forthcoming in order for this assertion to be believable. Likewise in the case of Howard’s imaginary friends. The creation of imaginary friends and environments is a documented trait in children, and the burden of proof is on Ms. Van Ostrand to prove that Howard’s exhibiting this trait, even in an exaggerated sense, is truly indicative of mental instability and not an alternative profile, such as giftedness, for instance.

Furthermore, Ms. Van Ostrand’s characterization of Dr. Howard as a superstitious fool who believed in curses, saw the world as a living manifestation of the Good vs. Evil binary that drove his particular brand of Christianity, and who viciously condemned practices such as masturbation is fallacious in that it attempts to pass judgment on past moral sensibilities from a thoroughly modern perspective. His interest in racial ancestors, folklore, mythology, and blood lineage also reflect a trend common to late Victorian and early 20th-century sensibilities. A survey of the dominant literature and cultural trends of the day will reveal that Dr. Howard’s beliefs were not far removed from the status quo. He cannot be assessed through a modern lens any more than his son’s views on women can be assessed for their relevance to the 1920s and 1930s through feminist modes of criticism.
Concerning Howard and Conan, the creation of perfected ciphers or alternative identities that excel in one’s area of weakness is not peculiar to Howard. A casual observation of the internet alone reveals that this trend is common among young people — especially those engaged in creative pursuits such as art and writing. As to whether this behavior is healthy or not I cannot say, as I myself am certainly no behavioral scientist. Yet neither, I must iterate, is Ms. Van Ostrand. While she as well as any can observe that Conan seemed to possess many traits that Howard lacked or believed he lacked, she lacks the professional authority and the first-hand experience to assess whether this was indicative of mental dysfunction on Howard’s part. Indeed, necromancy nothwithstanding and all Ouija boards aside, none of us can ever know, whatever our qualifications, the first-hand truth of the matter from Howard’s mouth.

Howard’s relationships with and attitudes toward women are also subject to argumentative fallacy in Ms. Van Ostrand’s article. To begin, the author invokes a seeming truism that “sex did not enter into boy-girl relationships” in the early 20th century. To be fair to Howard and Price-Ellis (then Price), neither was considered a child or adolescent at the time. Howard himself had long ago achieved legal majority and had attended business college, and Price-Ellis was a new graduate of teachers’ college. Thus, both were adults, and assessments of childhood behaviors do not bear on discussions of adults. Moreover, Ms. Van Ostrand asserts that Howard was a misogynist in the classical mold, demanding slavish obedience of the women in his life. However, she also acknowledges Howard’s tendency to write stories about heroic women who shattered the bonds constraining them and who could in many cases outfight the men in their lives.

While such an observation is an excellent place for the discussion, perhaps, of a struggling, nascent feminist sympathy in Howard or notions of Gender performativity (as discussed by Judith Butler), Ms. Van Ostrand instead jumps to the conclusion that such notions of strong women remain for Howard in the realm of fantasy, never to invade his brutish sense of patriarchal hegemony. Yet what Ms. Van Ostrand fails to note (and perhaps does not know, I grant) is that Howard dedicated his story “Sword Woman” to Mary Reed and Anne Bonny, two very real women of strength, whom it is said he greatly admired. This dedication remains on the original typescripts, but has not been reprinted. Additionally, the character of Dark Agnes, the protagonist of “Sword Woman,” is said to be based at least in part on Novalyne Price-Ellis, another real woman whom Howard admired. “Sword Woman” is additionally told from the first-person perspective, with Howard assuming Agnes’ role as narrator of the tale, though his Conan stories, among others, are written in the third person. If anything, an observation of Howard’s fictional women indicates that strong, combative women were portrayed as equals to men, while soft and demure women were sacrifices, slaves, and chattel. This hardly seems indicative of a misogynistic tendency on Howard’s part.

Ms. Van Ostrand, in her discussion of Howard’s relationship with Price-Ellis, also advances the assertion that neither Price-Ellis nor Howard’s peers considered his work legitimate. This is another instance of insinuation, suggesting to the audience that neither an authority figure — a teacher — and an unnamed body of “literary friends” approved of Howard’s pulpish tendencies. Yet Ms. Van Ostrand ignores entirely the admiration heaped on Howard by H.P. Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, and other luminaries of the early speculative fiction community. By extension, we might then ascertain that Ms. Van Ostrand does not consider these peers of Howard, now widely acknowledged for their considerable talents, to be legitimate writers either. This presupposition is passed along to the reader who, if he is unfamiliar with the writers of the period, will happily agree with Ms. Van Ostrand’s pronouncement. This argument, then, seems to serve no other purpose than to discredit Howard in the eyes of the audience as a hack with no literary talent — and therefore no agency, authority, or legitimate voice.

Price-Ellis’ disapproval of the cover illustration of “The Devil in Iron” is also a fallacious argument. To my knowledge, Howard was not in control of how the stories were illustrated, yet to be given the cover of the publication was a great honor and a certain boost to his credibility among his peers in the field of speculative fiction. However, Ms. Van Ostrand has gone to great lengths in the preceding paragraphs to discredit Howard as a writer, and she does not point out the particulars of how covers were created or what they implied for the writer. For Howard, being awarded the cover would have been a thing of pride, an accomplishment in his field. Yet because this fact is omitted, Ms. Van Ostrand strives to leave the reader with no other option than to believe that this cover is another black mark on Howard’s character and further proof of his deviance.

As Ms. Van Ostrand’s article progresses toward its inevitable crescendo in Howard’s suicide, she attempts to build a case for a virulent and possibly homicidal brand of depression, quoting liberally from DeCamp’s re-telling of Dr. Howard’s later conjecture — a third-hand source in this case at best. Howard’s personal correspondence might be a better indicator of his mental state, and, indeed, this material is available, but Ms. Van Ostrand quotes only DeCamp, once again establishing a view of Howard and his life that presupposes deviance and instability. The author also brings Howard’s poetry into her discussion of his mental state, but does so in a way that is far from in keeping with critical discussion of poetry. Lines from a variety of poems are cited — all out of context, in isolation, and strung together in such a way as to imply temporal and topical unity. However, the reader can know nothing of these poems without he or she has them available. Considering that most poetry collections containing Howard’s work are either out of print or were circulated in extremely limited editions (though Professor Coffman’s _Selected Poems_ is presently available), this is unlikely. Therefore, the audience must once again take Ms. Van Ostrand’s word that she has responsibly and accurately arranged the material. Considering the liberties she has taken with the rest of her sources, I cannot extend this courtesy to her work and therefore call upon her to more vigorously make her case that the cited poems — in their entirety — are relevant in both time and subject to the discussion.

All in all, I find little, if indeed anything, in Ms. Van Ostrand’s article that has the ring of truth to it. Her distortion of reality, historiographic tendencies, and clearly sensationalist agenda, when paired with her own lack of professional credentials in discussing the material she invokes all bear the hallmarks of exceptionally poor scholarship. Even a poor student of the field of writing such as myself can see that is clear — and how much moreso the professional scholars who make Howard the focus of their studies.

Bluntly put, this article is tripe. It obscures legitimate facts through the use of questionable sources at the expense of uninformed readers who have a genuine desire to learn more about Robert E. Howard. That it has achieved any degree of circulation is a blot on the field of literary scholarship.
Scotty Henderson Says:
December 16th, 2009 at 4:57 am
Well, if I hadn’t been so damned busy I would have joined the fray earlier. Lady, you want to dismiss the silliness? It don’t work that way. You took aim at a man that his small cadre of fans love, for reasons that vary all over the map. This was an exceptional man you can’t even come close to comparing yourself with, so like de Camp, who also had the same problem, you denigrate him because you hate to be bested by a man. It’s easy to shoot someone who is dead! There are about a hundred Howard fans who have you lined up in their sights right now, and a few of us aren’t scared to pull the trigger. If you don’t liek the silliness, get the hell out of the kitchen.

Now if this sounds a little like your reasoning in your article, it is on purpose to demonstrate how gross your your “statements of fact” sound. De Camp bested you 26 years ago with Dark Valley Destiny, a book full of statements that are to be taken as facts, when in fact they are merely opinions.

You ask why certain articles are on the REHupa website - they are there because we don’t discriminate against genuine opinion pieces even though we recognize the person is in a strict minority. Like de Camp, you picked over articles that supported your apparent need to fixate on someone you could smear and make yourself self-important.

You state Novalyne Price-Ellis made contributions to de Camp’s DVD. She did not, and refused cooperation with de Camp, and that is exactly why she wrote One Who Walked Alone, to refute the lies and supposition de Camp scattered throughout DVD. I am not suggesting de Camp was all bad, because he did say some good things about Robert’s writings and poetic skill, but in the end he then back-handed Howard by suggesting he himself could never write like Robert because he wasn’t consumed by the mental neuroses that Howard had. Since de Camp was not qualified in any way to say that he was a mental case, as are you, it is bullshit of the first order. Even highly qualified analysts could not diagnose if REH had any problems, because the patient is long dead, and we know precious little about his real life. There are huge gaps, as there is in your logic.

And no, DVD is not the premier biography. Before that Glenn lord wrote The Last Celt, a bio-bibliography of Howard which is still so much more important today than DVD ever was. You ask why de Camp bothered to write DVD. We-e-e-ell, he did it to make money, plain and simple. He was a writer after all, and his history of writing proves that he turned his talent to scripts, commercials, non-fiction, or editing, anything in the writing game that would earn him money to support his family. Nothing wrong in that, but he didn’t reference important letters in private collections because he was too cheap to pay a fee. He wanted information from Novalyne to fit his theories of REH and when she refused, for all intensive purposes responded with what today would be called a threat.

You seem to think one small opinion in DVD on stating why Howard’s writing was great overrides all the other mis-statements, conjectures, amateur psychologicalizing, and fictionalizing. Most people have good and bad mixed through their life. But they are all not bad, or all good. Both you and de Camp before you, paint a mostly bad picture of the Howards and REH in particular. In real life people are simply not like that unless they are a serial rapist or such. You appear to have little understanding of the mores of West Texas and that of the 1920’s and 1930’s.

I’ve been reading Howard for about 50 years now, and studying and researching him since about 1975. I am a member of REHupa for over 10 years and have contributed close to 400 pages of original research, and have been involved with the academic journal The Dark Man: Journal of REH Studies for many years. I’ve made 3 trips to Cross Plains, and researched de Camp at HRC in UTex Austin. I think my credentials carry some weight amongst Howard researchers and scholars - yours basically don’t exist. Maybe when you are dead some day someone will write an equally bitter article about you. This isn’t silly, it is criticism. I’d love to see what Don Herron might say in response. I can assure you, he won’t be as nice as me.

Scotty Henderson
University of BC
Mike Chivers Says:
December 16th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
As a longtime admirer of the works of Robert E. Howard, I am well aware of the the controversy surrounding L. Sprague de Camp’s role in promoting Howard’s fiction and, in particular, his shortcomings as a biographer. I had thought the long shadows these cast over Howard’s legacy and reputation had at last been dispelled but, sadly, this article shows that this is not the case.

It is sad that the author of such a controversial piece should choose to reject all criticism as “silliness”, but at least the many informed posters here have set the record straight and provided pointers for anyone seriously interested in the subject matter.

What does distress me however, and which still needs to be addressed, is the manner in which the author has chosen to depict the mental health difficulties she attributes to the Howard family. Cod psychology and a gloating freakshow approach does nothing to encourage understanding or sympathy for families and individuals coping with suicidal depression.

This condescending piece clearly stems from a superior attitude towards popular “pulp” culture, which once again is out of touch with up-to-date assessments of Howard’s literary stature. His recent publication as a Penguin Classic shows that a reevaluation has taken place and his once-ghettoised talent has at last been recognised by the literary mainstream.

In summary; it is undeniable that Robert E. Howard and his work are worthy of serious consideration and cannot be dismissed lightly in fatuous pieces of hackwork such as this. The “silliness”, Ms. Van Ostrand, is yours alone.
Mike Sellers Says:
December 16th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I think the only thing left to do here, is get a rope.
Patrice Louinet Says:
December 16th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Ms. Von Ostrand,

You made quite a number of mistakes when researching your article on Robert E. Howard. In fact, your essay is almost nothing but a compilation of inventions, deformations and misquotes. Some people have already commented on the fact that you have used Dark Valley Destiny, L. Sprague de Camp’s hopelessly-flawed biography, as your major source. Do take the time to learn more about the current state of Howard scholarship. I am sure your readers would prefer having an accurate version rather than the one you are offering them, which is, frankly, more of an embarrassment for you than an achievement.
I am one of the Directors of the Robert E. Howard Foundation (http://www.rehfoundation.org/), a non-profit organization trying to promote REH and the study of his life and works, have served as an editor for definitive edition of the Conan books for Del Rey, and have been involved in REH scholarship for the past 25 years.
I will only give your readers a few representative examples of the errors found in your essay. If you or your readers are genuinely interested in Robert E. Howard, then I would strongly suggest to visit the websites mentioned in some of the above posts, for an informed and modern view of Robert E. Howard.

“Conan was almost surely based on Howard’s own father”: whatever this statement is, it is certainly “almost surely” false. Howard wrote of his character’s inception, without ever mentioning such an outlandish idea. You are entitled to *think* that, of course, but you should state that it is only that, an opinion, without the slightest hint of evidence. As mentioned above, I have edited the definitive edition of the Conan stories for Del Rey, extensively researching the stories and their inception. The idea that Conan was based on Howard’s father is, simply put, ludicrous.

“Both of REH’s parents were beyond weird” is also quite an inane comment. Unless you have material to back this up. “Robert E. Howard was in love with his mother”. Is it really necessary to go over this? As to his father’s curse and the whippoorwill, I am happy to report that Isaac Howard was, after all, sane: you read De Camp’s biography a bit too quickly, as the whippoorwill incident – which, incidentally, probably never happened – is mentioned to explain Howard’s maternal grandfather’s – not his father’s - move from Dallas in the mid-1870s.

I am very glad to learn that Hester suffered from “an inordinate fear of germs”. I had yet to learn this. Do you have a source for this? “A history of derangement”? Again, references would be needed. I have tracked almost all of Howard’s ancestors and relatives, know who these people were. I can tall you that not one ancestor remotely fits the “deranged” bill you are assigning to this family. In other words, this is pure invention.

Your paragraphs on Doctor Howard are a funny attempt at paraphrasing Sprague de Camp in Dark Valley Destiny. The problem is, this was only de Camp’s speculations, which you “magically” turn into facts.
We do not know that Dr. Howard talked with his little boy about his visionary land schemes. He *may* have had visionary land schemes. We don’t know. He *may* have talked of these to his son. We don’t know. And you don’t either. He never had any “fantasy searches for a fabulous horde of jewels and other treasures”. You made that up.

The rest of your text is nothing but more of the same. “Superstitions derived from his Nordic ancestors:” Invention. “Dr. Howard taught his son that masturbation was evil:” Invention. “Hester Howard chose his books:” Invention. “Even as young as three or four, Robert conjured up visions of monsters, etc:” Invention. “Since had no friends to talk to:” Invention. “During Robert’s adolescence, his father joined in to play variations of his son’s distorted reality:” Invention. Etc, etc.
Brian Leno Says:
December 16th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
One sad thing about this whole article is when you state that you love to find out what writers are like and then you give us information from a very poor biography, written a few decades ago. If you really want to find out what sort of person Robert E. Howard was, read his stories and his letters, and the literary criticism that is out there–Don Herron’s two books and The Cimmerian would be a good place to start. There is no need to make up stories about the man’s life, he was a pretty exceptional character–and a great writer.
Bill Cavalier Says:
December 16th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
I’m wondering to what end did Ms. Van Ostrand even bother to write this article? Robert E. Howard wrote 3 million words on a clunky Underwood #5 typewriter (a hell of a chore in itself), created a fictional genre AND a literary character known all over the world, has been read, talked about and written about for over 80 years - did she want to just show that he’s a crazy man? I just don’t understand that at all. To what end?

And I’ll bet she never expected the response she’s gotten! Howard Brothers and Sisters Unite! She wrote an article based on her interpretations of published opinions and conjecture presented as facts, then to back up her “facts”, cites an internet article of opinions presented as facts that were made on the previous opinions presented as facts…WTF?

Ahhh, my head just exploded!
Charles Gramlich Says:
December 16th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
I am an experimental psychologist and have studied and enjoyed Howard’s work for well over a decade now. Although I never met Howard himself and must rely on his personal letters, the works of others who knew him, and the research of Howard scholars, there just isn’t any evidence to suggest that Howard or his parents were outside the normal range of psychologically healthy human beings. In other words, they were not diagnosable as suffering from any currently recognized mental disorder. Were Howard’s parents perfect? I don’t know any parents that are. Did Robert E. Howard ocassionally show behaviors that might be considered eccentric? Certainly. As has everyone else in the world.

De Camp’s psychologizing in Dark Valley Destiny was based on his acceptance of Freudian concepts, a theory that is outdated in modern psychology. Howard certainly appeared to be badly depressed at the time of his suicide, but the approaching death of his mother and his own physical exhaustion understandably account for his emotional state.

I don’t believe, Ms. Van Ostrand, that you acted maliciously in your essay. You probably just wanted to have a bit of fun and didn’t imagine it could harm anyone. I’m sure if you read some of the other sources that have been suggested here you’ll come to realize how mistaken you were about Howard.

Best,
Charles Gramlich
Miguel Martins Says:
December 16th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Beside highlighting the persistence of L. Sprague de Camp’s character assassination, Mrs Van Ostrand’s article couples sensationalism with ignorance.

I would like to thank Jason Dorough for promptly reacting with his “editor’s note”.

Best,
Miguel
Gary Romeo Says:
December 16th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
There seems to be a little confusion about de Camp’s book. It has not been completely debunked (if someone thinks this is so, then please state where and when this complete debunking was published; there have been minor articles keying in on one or two points here and there but nothing “complete”) and “hopelessy flawed” is definitely an opinion not a fact.

The problem with Maggie’s article is that like Patrice said, she made stuff up. Patrice by the way agrees with de Camp’s central theme that Dark Valley became Cimmeria. So even those who disagree, in the main with de Camp, will agree sometimes.

Some of the responses are full of their own mistakes. Novalyne Price says on page 6 of “Day of the Stranger” Necronomicon Press 1989 that “I was corresponding with Sprague de Camp, and finally I wrote to him and said “Hey I’m going to have to write my own book about Bob.” And he wrote back. “By all means, do that,” because he thought that I would have something to say that no one else would say, or could say. So he encouraged me very much to get started on it.”
Dave Hardy Says:
December 16th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
So the Howards were the limit in dysfunctional? I’m not in the same league as Mark Finn, Rusty Burke, or even L. Sprague de Camp as an REH biographer. However, I know a few things about dysfunctional families and Isaac and Hester don’t quite measure up in that regard. Sensationalizing their flaws (and they had them) is not simply disrespectful to the memory of the Howards, but a disservice to the children who suffer from genuinely abusive and dysfunctional families.

This article seems to take its cues less from de Camp, than Jerry Springer. The reputation of Robert E. Howard and his family should not be subjected to the same tabloid-meat grinder that deluges us with the intimate details of Tiger Woods and Britney Spears.
Amy Kerr Says:
December 17th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Madam,

I am no great author. I will probably never be. However, in my limited experience as a member of the Robert E. Howard United Press Association, even I can tell poorly researched work when I see it.

Shame on you, madam. I sincerely hope you learn from this.

With Great Distain and Disappointment,

Amy Kerr
REHupa Member, REH Foundation Press member

Was Conan the Barbarian Really a Fictional Character?

Related posts

30 Responses to “Was Conan the Barbarian Really a Fictional Character?”