|
|
Post by Knygathin on Aug 30, 2020 6:52:19 GMT
I had the Baen edition of SOLOMON KANE, but gave it away after I got the Wordsworth edition which was aesthetically a much more pleasant trade paperback.
Then I also have the Ace Books edition of WORMS OF THE EARTH (with the beautiful Sanjulian cover art). I suppose Donald Grant laid his anxiously fumbling paws on those stories too? I have read it once, many years ago, but did not connect with the Bran Mak Morn series. I would like to read them again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Aug 30, 2020 8:11:30 GMT
... 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. ... Merely of clauses and syntax? Or intentionally downplaying other aspects of R. E. Howard's voice, such as easing up on the violence, or perhaps changing his descriptions of voluptuous women and masculine men, scaling them down to fair equality? |
|
|
|
Post by cromagnonman on Aug 30, 2020 10:16:05 GMT
I had the Baen edition of SOLOMON KANE, but gave it away after I got the Wordsworth edition which was aesthetically a much more pleasant trade paperback. Then I also have the Ace Books edition of WORMS OF THE EARTH (with the beautiful Sanjulian cover art). I suppose Donald Grant laid his anxiously fumbling paws on those stories too? I have read it once, many years ago, but did not connect with the Bran Mak Morn series. I would like to read them again. Offhand I'm not aware of any particular censorship issues relating to the Bran stories. But, of course, based upon his track record with relation to Kane and Conan anything that has Grant's dabs upon it is intinsically suspect and unreliable. And as the Ace paperback - in common with most other versions published between the mid 70s and late 80s - has the Grant hardback as its source its textual authenticity cannot be guaranteed. Yet again, for texts you can trust you're best advised to invest in the Del Rey trade [and I'm not getting paid for these endorsements, I promise]. Alternatively there is the Dell paperback BRAN MAK MORN from 1969, as well as the Baen edition from 1996. |
|
|
|
Post by cromagnonman on Aug 30, 2020 10:30:42 GMT
... 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. ... Merely of clauses and syntax? Or intentionally downplaying other aspects of R. E. Howard's voice, such as easing up on the violence, or perhaps changing his descriptions of voluptuous women and masculine men, scaling them down to fair equality? No, it was just the racial descriptions that got Grant's knickers in a twist. Perverting the underlying philosophy of Howard's creative ethos, diluting its viscerality, transducing its characters and skewering its gender politics: that was entirely De Camp's achievement. |
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Aug 30, 2020 10:53:22 GMT
Then I also have the Ace Books edition of WORMS OF THE EARTH (with the beautiful Sanjulian cover art). I suppose Donald Grant laid his anxiously fumbling paws on those stories too? I have read it once, many years ago, but did not connect with the Bran Mak Morn series. I would like to read them again. The Bantam edition of KANE from 1978 also has the Grant text.
I have the same problem with Bran Mak Morn. While Worms of the Earth is a great story, one of Howard's best, the rest of the Bran stories are a bit meh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Aug 30, 2020 17:00:00 GMT
Merely of clauses and syntax? Or intentionally downplaying other aspects of R. E. Howard's voice, such as easing up on the violence, or perhaps changing his descriptions of voluptuous women and masculine men, scaling them down to fair equality? No, it was just the racial descriptions that got Grant's knickers in a twist. Perverting the underlying philosophy of Howard's creative ethos, diluting its viscerality, transducing its characters and skewering its gender politics: that was entirely De Camp's achievement. And the new changes that Wordsworth elected to introduce to SOLOMON KANE (after restoring Grant's changes), what was the nature of those? |
|
|
|
Post by helrunar on Aug 30, 2020 17:34:07 GMT
Maybe I'm misreading what Richard is saying--but if I understand correctly, it seems horribly ironic that the only accurate edition of these stories that appear AS THE AUTHOR WROTE THEM are cheap trade paperback editions from the 1970s (or whenever).
I really wonder why that is? I've never found Howard all that interesting an author, but the internet is loaded with pages praising his achievement. Yet seemingly all the available editions are somehow censored or bowdlerized.
Horribly ironic and unjust, especially given that like Lovecraft, he had a hard life and never saw any of the millions (in Howard's case, might be billions at this point) that have been made by others off his work.
H.
|
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Aug 30, 2020 18:17:48 GMT
Maybe I'm misreading what Richard is saying--but if I understand correctly, it seems horribly ironic that the only accurate edition of these stories that appear AS THE AUTHOR WROTE THEM are cheap trade paperback editions from the 1970s (or whenever). I really wonder why that is? I've never found Howard all that interesting an author, but the internet is loaded with pages praising his achievement. Yet seemingly all the available editions are somehow censored or bowdlerized. Horribly ironic and unjust, especially given that like Lovecraft, he had a hard life and never saw any of the millions (in Howard's case, might be billions at this point) that have been made by others off his work. H. Don't forget the even cheaper Ebooks :-) Both Howard's and Lovecraft's tales are unique in this regard. Neither in crime fiction nor mainstream or YA writers come to mind, whose work after their death founded franchises, because enterprising strangers made themselves their executors. And if they had lived to old age, chances are that they and their work would be forgotten for the general public like all Weird Tales writers. Horribly ironic and unjust indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by cromagnonman on Aug 30, 2020 18:19:34 GMT
No, it was just the racial descriptions that got Grant's knickers in a twist. Perverting the underlying philosophy of Howard's creative ethos, diluting its viscerality, transducing its characters and skewering its gender politics: that was entirely De Camp's achievement. And the new changes that Wordsworth elected to introduce to SOLOMON KANE (after restoring Grant's changes), what was the nature of those? A comprehensive comparison of texts would keep me occupied for a month of sundays. But in essence it follows the same line in racial sensitivity, excising many descriptive qualifications which are colour based and rewriting lines to remove contentious terminology. As I say, while it restores some of Grant's changes - which bizarrely extended to even changing the description of a silhouette from "black" to "dark" - it actually exceeds him in some respects by removing entire sentences altogether. |
|
|
|
Post by helrunar on Aug 30, 2020 18:35:28 GMT
That sounds really ghastly, Richard. I hate the imposition of ideological rectitude into literature and the arts.
Just for possible future reference, Andreas, can you specify the e-book versions that have the texts as Robert E. Howard wrote them? I don't know about REH, but for Lovecraft and some other authors, there are seemingly endless knockoff e-book editions of every text or collection of texts.
Maybe I'll put a proper Conan book onto my "device" for possible commute reading someday. After all this morning I added a novel by Iris Murdoch, The Sandcastle, said to feature numerous references to Witchcraft, magic and folklore.
Thanks in advance,
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Aug 30, 2020 20:39:20 GMT
Just for possible future reference, Andreas, can you specify the e-book versions that have the texts as Robert E. Howard wrote them? I don't know about REH, but for Lovecraft and some other authors, there are seemingly endless knockoff e-book editions of every text or collection of texts. Maybe I'll put a proper Conan book onto my "device" for possible commute reading someday. After all this morning I added a novel by Iris Murdoch, The Sandcastle, said to feature numerous references to Witchcraft, magic and folklore. Thanks in advance, Steve I have one of those "Ultimate Collection" editions for .99 cents by an outfit called e-artnow. But seems this is no longer avaiable in the US. (Or maybe never was, could be an European "publisher".) As I discovered today it has the Grant text in parts, but it really contains even the boxing stories, which I never read, the western stories, dito, the pirate stuff and so on. For fast research purposes this is great. There a few other of those around, but I am not sure how complete they are or what texts they use. Frankly if I see the format they use and the cluttered content lists I have already enough, but it seems small-minded to complain about this regarding the price. Then I have the first five of the ten Wildside editions, which are very well done and recommended. "The Weird Works of Robert E. Howard". They are 3 dollars or less each and present the stories in their chronological order appearing in Weird Tales. (Which excludes the historic stories of the crusades or the oriental stuff like El Borak.) So the first Conan is in vol.4. You get the fantasy stories and the horror stories, from 1925 onward. And the poetry. So for the casual reader there are a few - or many, depending on your taste or patience - not well regarded stories, before you get to the better known material. |
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Aug 31, 2020 6:52:26 GMT
And the new changes that Wordsworth elected to introduce to SOLOMON KANE (after restoring Grant's changes), what was the nature of those? ... in essence it follows the same line in racial sensitivity, excising many descriptive qualifications which are colour based and rewriting lines to remove contentious terminology. As I say, while it restores some of Grant's changes - which bizarrely extended to even changing the description of a silhouette from "black" to "dark" - it actually exceeds him in some respects by removing entire sentences altogether. I see - that is disheartening - then their restoration of Grants's messy censorship didn't do much good. I misinterpreted your earlier post, and had hoped that the new changes Wordsworth elected to introduce to SOLOMON KANE had only been of more inconspicuous nature such as clauses and syntax. But apparently they too just eagerly had to go in and moralize as judges over Howard, and change the documents of past history. It doesn't at all surprise me, because this tendency towards insincerity and complete denial permeates modern society (by incitements from the top of the pyramid) - but still, it is gravely unjustifiable. Well, it seems I shall have to replace my entire Howard collection. I understand that the contents of the Del Rey CONAN is exactly the same as the Wandering Star edition. Wandering Star must surely be the most dedicated and sincere CONAN (SOLOMON KANE, BRAN MAK MORN) edition ever conceived, but as a collector's item it is impossibly expensive. |
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Aug 31, 2020 20:26:53 GMT
Many thick trade paperbacks look like crap after a read through, spines curving and cracking. A few are really well glued, and stay tight and excellent even after much reading; I like those about as much as a hardback. How is the spine quality of the Del Rey CONAN trade paperbacks?
|
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Sept 1, 2020 8:47:15 GMT
Many thick trade paperbacks look like crap after a read through, spines curving and cracking. A few are really well glued, and stay tight and excellent even after much reading; I like those about as much as a hardback. How is the spine quality of the Del Rey CONAN trade paperbacks? I have all of them and never had a problem. The spine looks tight. The paper is thin.
But I have to say that I always read them very carefully, and never read the whole book. Here and there a tale. Browsing the many often small illustrations. But I wouldn't put the thicker volumes to the test. Nowadays the overall quality of such products is not like it used to be. El Borak, the one with all the oriental tales is I think with 560 pages the biggest volume - they vary in size, Kull only has 317 pages - , and I wouldn't lay it opened in the middle on the table. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Sept 1, 2020 11:10:45 GMT
On the topic of expurgation, I was just using the "Look Inside" function at you-know-where to check out the contents for the BL Weird Woods collection and spotted this on the copyright page, immediately after the standard "Every effort has been made to trace copyright holders..." statement -
These stories are presented as they were originally published and as such contain language in common usage at the time of their writing. Neither the publisher nor the editor endorses any language that would now be considered xenophobic or offensive.
I don't think I have ever seen this before, and it isn't in any of the other BL Tales of The Weird books I have. I don't know if there's something especially problematic lurking in the woods, or if it's just how some publishers are now choosing to deal with the issue in general - either way, I think it's the right approach to take.
|
|
