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

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.

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.”

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

Best,
Miguel

De Camp’s psychologizing in Dark Valley Destiny was based on his acceptance of Freudian concepts, a theory that is outdated in modern psychology.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

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!

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.

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.