|
Post by Michael Connolly on Jul 7, 2017 12:16:10 GMT
I didn't realize he even referred to Cthulhu & co. all that often in his work. You can't go wrong with Cthulhu, can you. here is an excellent field guide to Cthulhu monsters, in case you need a quick identification: My favourite must be Flying Polyp: This Cthulhu activity book is also pretty good: I'm not sure what this hideous creature will turn out to be, but I bet it's got tentacles: I had surgery to get polyps removed.
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Jul 7, 2017 12:42:28 GMT
I'm not sure what this hideous creature will turn out to be, but I bet it's got tentacles: I am willing to bet only that it has eyes.
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoig on Jul 7, 2017 21:33:10 GMT
I had surgery to get polyps removed. [/quote] And I bet the resemblance to the Flying Polyp was uncanny.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Jul 8, 2017 12:59:41 GMT
I had surgery to get polyps removed. And I bet the resemblance to the Flying Polyp was uncanny. [/quote] I would have needed a mirror and a torch to see them.
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Aug 29, 2020 13:25:15 GMT
Having read all of The Complete Chronicles of Conan (2006 Gollancz), I thought these were Howard's original unexpurgated texts.
I chanced to compare the first few lines of the draft "Drums of Tombalku" with the version that L. Sprague de Camp revised and finished for CONAN THE ADVENTURER. De Camp's version has very marked racial negro descriptions, while the corresponding words in the original draft are much more undistinguished and vague. Are these "vanilla" descriptions really Howard's original words? Did de Camp change the text to be more racial? Or was the original draft actually censored for the 2006 Gollancz edition (or alternately already so for its first appearance in Donald M. Grant's The Pool of the Black One (1986))?
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Aug 29, 2020 17:09:09 GMT
Having read all of The Complete Chronicles of Conan (2006 Gollancz), I thought these were Howard's original unexpurgated texts. I chanced to compare the first few lines of the draft "Drums of Tombalku" with the version that L. Sprague de Camp revised and finished for CONAN THE ADVENTURER. De Camp's version has very marked racial negro descriptions, while the corresponding words in the original draft are much more undistinguished and vague. Are these "vanilla" descriptions really Howard's original words? Did de Camp change the text to be more racial? Or was the original draft actually censored for the 2006 Gollancz edition (or alternately already so for its first appearance in Donald M. Grant's The Pool of the Black One (1986))? The Gollancz text is edited. I don't have the Grant edition, but the Del Rey edition - the draft is included in The Bloody Crown of Conan - shows that De Camp aside from some minor corrections ( Howard: The men munched dried dates cheerlessly, the black men intent only on the working of their jaws, ... De Camp: The men cheerlessly munched dried dates. The black men were intent only on the working of their jaws, ...) leaves the Howard text mostly intact. It is pretty obvious why Howard never finished the draft. The story is about Amalric and not Conan and treads already covered ground. Also it is not well constructed, the long-winded exposition when Amalric explains his girl the back-story kills any momentum.
|
|
|
Post by cromagnonman on Aug 29, 2020 18:18:26 GMT
Having read all of The Complete Chronicles of Conan (2006 Gollancz), I thought these were Howard's original unexpurgated texts. I chanced to compare the first few lines of the draft "Drums of Tombalku" with the version that L. Sprague de Camp revised and finished for CONAN THE ADVENTURER. De Camp's version has very marked racial negro descriptions, while the corresponding words in the original draft are much more undistinguished and vague. Are these "vanilla" descriptions really Howard's original words? Did de Camp change the text to be more racial? Or was the original draft actually censored for the 2006 Gollancz edition (or alternately already so for its first appearance in Donald M. Grant's The Pool of the Black One (1986))? As Andy notes, De Camp's interventions to the original draft are mainly his usual exasperated schoolmasterly corrections to clauses and syntax. He didn't bowdlerize the racial descriptions. Those are all Howard's own. The censored version is entirely the work of Donald Grant who had an almost pathological aversion to racial description. If you think the "vanillarisation" here is bad then you should check out the Grant edition of RED SHADOWS [1968]. Howard scholar Steve Trout published an article in THE FANTASTIC WORLDS OF ROBERT E HOWARD [James Van Hise 1997] called "The Expurgated Solomon Kane" in which he painstakingly listed all the textual "improvements" imposed on the text by Grant over twelve pages. My advice to anyone who wants to read Conan is always to stick to the Del Rey trades. You can at least be assured that the text is pure. Or the Prion one volume edition which has the Weird Tales texts. The only drawback to each is that they're so Crom-damned unwieldy in size. But sadly the days of proper Sphere sized Conan paperbacks are a thing of the past.
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Aug 29, 2020 18:58:06 GMT
Thanks guys. Really annoying that it should be so darned difficult to find original texts. I thought I had done enough research and sorting when I finally bought The Complete Chronicles of Conan (2006 Gollancz). It seemed like a dedicated and carefully unexpurgated edition of all the stories in one handy volume.
"Here are Howard's definite stories of Conan, exactly as he wrote them." Yeah, right ...
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Aug 29, 2020 19:01:16 GMT
And a collection of mythos stories with a nice bust of Cthulhu, clearly modeled from the life: I think not; Cthulhu has wings.
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Aug 29, 2020 20:01:50 GMT
If you think the "vanillarisation" here is bad then you should check out the Grant edition of RED SHADOWS [1968]. Howard scholar Steve Trout published an article in THE FANTASTIC WORLDS OF ROBERT E HOWARD [James Van Hise 1997] called "The Expurgated Solomon Kane" in which he painstakingly listed all the textual "improvements" imposed on the text by Grant over twelve pages. I almost don't dare to ask, but are the Solomon Kane versions in The Right Hand of Doom & Other Tales of Solomon Kane (Wordsworth Editions 2007) taken from Donald Grant's censored texts? And if that is the extremely sad case, is it again, the Del Rey trade one should look for instead?
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Aug 29, 2020 20:12:28 GMT
What about the Wildside edition The Weird Works of Robert E. Howard in 10 volumes? I never checked the text of edits, but as far as Ebooks are concerned they are well done and quite a bargain.
While I always would recommend the Del Rey edition, even they have their oddities. The introduction of volume 1 thematizes the old question of internal chronology vs original publishing dates, but then it does follow the latter only half-heartedly. In this the Gollancz is more consequent. (Of course it puts the posthumously published tales at the end, which Del Rey does not.)
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Aug 29, 2020 20:18:25 GMT
I almost don't dare to ask, but are the Solomon Kane versions in The Right Hand of Doom & Other Tales of Solomon Kane (Wordsworth Editions 2007) taken from Donald Grant's censored texts? And if that is the extremely sad case, is it again, the Del Rey trade one should look for instead? Good question. I never bothered to check. Will look tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Aug 29, 2020 20:50:21 GMT
What about the Wildside edition The Weird Works of Robert E. Howard in 10 volumes? I never checked the text of edits, but as far as Ebooks are concerned they are well done and quite a bargain. I have them in hardcover!
|
|
|
Post by cromagnonman on Aug 29, 2020 21:50:20 GMT
If you think the "vanillarisation" here is bad then you should check out the Grant edition of RED SHADOWS [1968]. Howard scholar Steve Trout published an article in THE FANTASTIC WORLDS OF ROBERT E HOWARD [James Van Hise 1997] called "The Expurgated Solomon Kane" in which he painstakingly listed all the textual "improvements" imposed on the text by Grant over twelve pages. I almost don't dare to ask, but are the Solomon Kane versions in The Right Hand of Doom & Other Tales of Solomon Kane (Wordsworth Editions 2007) taken from Donald Grant's censored texts? And if that is the extremely sad case, is it again, the Del Rey trade one should look for instead? Yes, the Wordsworth texts are corrupted and untrustworthy, I'm afraid. They are certainly better than those in the Centaur Press Time Lost series which being photo offset from the Grant hardback perpetuated its censorings. In actual fact the Wordsworth edition does do a creditable job in restoring many of Grant's racially sensitised changes. But then elected to introduce new ones of its own devising. So, yes, again the Del Rey trade is the edition of preference. Although in this instance you do also have the alternative of the Baen Books volume SOLOMON KANE from 1995, although that does contain an altered version of "The Footfalls Within" which was included in error.
|
|
|
Post by cromagnonman on Aug 29, 2020 22:12:21 GMT
The Wildside Weird Works texts are all taken from the original pulp magazine printings and so make a fine resource. Its instructive to have a set of books with Howard's stories printed in the order in which his original readership would have encountered them. But of course not all the Conan stories were printed in the order that Farnsworth Wright bought them. Personally I believe the way to get the most out of the Conan stories specifically is to read them in the order that Howard wrote them. And that's the way the Del Reys present them.
|
|