Robert E. Howard

Most people probably don't recognize the name of Robert E. Howard. He was the creator of the character Conan the barbarian and I saw a film telling his story tonight. The basic plot is that he was a man in Texas in the 1930's who came up with the idea of Conan. The film portrayed him as this loner kind of guy who lived at home with his parents and wrote stories for pulp magazines. I guess I was a little disappointed that he met the stereotype so well, but that might just be the way the movie was made to show him.

There was a woman in the film who tried to draw him out of his world. She saw him as combating the world and wanted to help him. Her attempt to help him failed. What happened instead was that he took his own life.

Her intentions may not have been successful, but she did care enough about him to write a book about him. The film is based on the book that she wrote, which supports my idea that maybe Howard wasn't as extreme as he was in the film, because I doubt that she was completely objective in her viewpoint. We are getting the story from her and not Howard, who probably saw everything a little differently.

I guess I question why she cared about him then if he was so disturbed. Doesn't that reflect poorly on her? Doesn't this mean that she could only love someone who was strange? Why bother to write a book about him then, if he was so pathetic? I'm not sure why I am defending Howard so much. Its not as though his stuff was literary gold, but at least he was doing what he liked to do. At least he believed in himself. Maybe I just identify too much with the underdog or maybe I missed the point of the film entirely. Was I meant to pity Howard or feel that he was misunderstood?

The negative thought pattern about writers goes something along these lines. A writer creates a world that makes more sense to them, because they can not deal with reality. The world that they write about is a world that they can control and it makes them feel better about themselves. They are the ones who create the dialogue. In the written world people act the way that they want them to act. Once again this is saying that all creativity comes from some mental problem, but I'm not sure if I really agree with this concept.

Most of these attacks are made on fantasy writers which is understandable to a degree, but sometimes other writers fall under the same umbrella and I think that this is unfair. I like to think that most writers are able to discern fiction from reality. Not every writer is a prisoner of fantasy or a victim of delusions. I like to think that a person doesn't have to be socially inept to create a good piece of fiction, but society today likes to say the opposite.

One final note that might just overturn everything that I have just said. I do not read much if any fantasy writing. For the most part the genre does very little for me. Nor have I ever read anything by Howard. I only know of his work secondhand through the movies and comic book adaptations and I find it to be limited. I even have problems with Tolkien, who many consider the master of creating a fictional world. I can, however, admire the amount of effort that they put into their work. Without a doubt, the Silmarillon is a good read.