Robert E. Howard and Materialism

[Ancient History]

In December 1930, H. P. Lovecraft sent a letter to Robert E. Howard, and also enclosed a "philosophical article" by HPL—which one, exactly, isn't named and the letter is no longer extant, but from Howard's response it seems very likely that it was "Idealism and Materialism." Howard's response:

Quote

And I enjoyed your philosophical article very much. I am hardly capable of judging it, since I never devoted any study to theology, philosophy or science, but I do not think that anyone could have handled the subject in a more masterly manner. I particularly like the point you made in that truth and necessity not always coinciding, some religion is necessary for the masses. I have always maintained this, myself. As for myself, neither idealism nor materialism appeals to me greatly. That life is chaotic, unjust and apparently blind and without reason or direction any one can see; if the universe leans either way it is toward evil rather than good, as regards life and humanity. That there is any eventual goal for the human race rather than extinction, I do not believe nor do I have any faith in the eventual super-man. Yet the trend of so many materialists to suppress all primitive emotions is against my every instinct. Civilization, no doubt, requires it, and peace of mind demands it, yet for myself I had rather be dead than to live in an emotionless world. The clear white lap of science and the passionless pursuit of knowledge are not enough for me; I must live deeply and listen to the all of the common clay in me, if I am to live at all. Without emotion and instinct I would be a dead, stagnant thing. A materialistic resignation to unalterable laws is sensible but repellent to me. I will freely admit the necessity and desirability of such a resignation which is no more than recognizing natural laws—if such things be. A man who does not resign himself is like a caged wolf who breaks his heart and beats his brains out against the bars of his cage. Yet I must admit that such a course appeals to me more than that of calm submission. Foredoomed to failure, a man can still snarl and tear. Many and many a time, when one is reeling and dizzy and sick at heart and soul, broken and tossed by the blows of fate or destiny or whatever is is that makes life a hell on earth, one may wish for the ability of philosophic resignation; but with a slight renewal of strength the old blind fighting lust comes surging back and makes him break his fangs on the iron bars anew. I'm no philosopher, but resignation isnt in my blood. I wish it was. It isn't necessarily a hope to win that makes a man rebel against the infamies of life, vainly. Defeat is the lot of all men, and I come of a breed that never won a war. Men and women too, of my line have fought for hopeless lost causes for a thousand years. Defeat waits for us all, but some of us, worse luck, cant accept it quietly.

—Robert E. Howard to H. P. Lovecraft, Dec 1930, A Means to Freedom: The Letters of H. P. Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard 1.112-113

[Zaharoff]

More of the general populace may think they "know" Howard because of the Conan movies and TV.
Does REH have any critical champions? Glenn Lord comes to mind, though I think he is dead.
I used to drive through Cross Plains twice a year, there were never any markers about Two-Gun Bob.
Now there is a museum, though I no longer drive cross country.
I still read Howard once a year (Donald M Grant editions), but it is a pulpier experience than Lovecraft.

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

I thought there were more RE Howard scholars than Lovecraft Scholars?

[Ancient History]

Quote Originally Posted by Robert Adam Gilmour

I thought there were more RE Howard scholars than Lovecraft Scholars?

Depends on your definition of each. There are more bodies writing about Lovecraft, and they get the wider press and distribution. NecronomiCon is a couple orders of magnitude bigger than Howard Days.

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

I'm getting deja vu about this so I might have had this discussion before. Everybody and their dog has written about Lovecraft but it seemed like there was fewer actual committed specialists, with a few people dominating. When I see Howard blogs and get-togethers it seems like there's more people who've been doing it for a long time.
The REH Foundation Awards also created this impression in me.

[Ancient History]

As with any author, you've got a relatively small, dedicated group of researchers that do the real on-the-ground legwork stuff - visiting archives, transcribing ledgers and manuscripts, etc. On the HPL side that is people like S. T. Joshi, Darrell E. Schweitzer, Kenneth W. Faig, Jr., etc. On the REH side is people like Rob Roehm, Rusty Burke, and Patrice Louinet. Beyond that, you have the ever-expansive number of biographers, critics, analysts, commenters, etc. - with much overlap. And some people take breaks from the scholarship for a while, and some of us focus on useful-but-noncritical secondary tasks (like when I compiled the index to REH's Collected Letters) and even just fun stuff (like when I put the Robert E. Howard Bar Guide together). So it can be tricky to keep track of who-is-doing-what except when they publish. I'd still say there are more people writing academically about Lovecraft, although few are devoted solely to his study - even Joshi works on other stuff on occasion.

[Ucasuni]

Quote Originally Posted by Ancient History

Quote Originally Posted by Robert Adam Gilmour I thought there were more RE Howard scholars than Lovecraft Scholars? Depends on your definition of each. There are more bodies writing about Lovecraft, and they get the wider press and distribution. NecronomiCon is a couple orders of magnitude bigger than Howard Days.

Unless Howard Days only has, like, 15 attendees, I think you may be overstating NecronomiCon's attendance...

[Druidic]

My pet peeve?

Lovecraft at least gets grudging respect from some academics outside the field of weird fiction; but Howard is still regarded by most serious critics as a pulp hack. Even in the weird field, a usually perceptive critic like Joshi still holds that view.

It's a pity. "Pigeons From Hell," "Worms of the Earth," "The Valley of the Worm" and "Beyond the Black River" are among the best stories of their kind. And some of Howard's prose is breathtakingly brilliant. I've never found it hard to understand what Lovecraft and Leiber loved in Howard's fictions.

[Ancient History]

Quote Originally Posted by Ucasuni

Quote Originally Posted by Ancient History Quote Originally Posted by Robert Adam Gilmour I thought there were more RE Howard scholars than Lovecraft Scholars? Depends on your definition of each. There are more bodies writing about Lovecraft, and they get the wider press and distribution. NecronomiCon is a couple orders of magnitude bigger than Howard Days. Unless Howard Days only has, like, 15 attendees, I think you may be overstating NecronomiCon's attendance...

Okay, okay, one order of magnitude. Still. Howard Days might get 130-200 people, NecronomiCon gets 1,300-2,000 people.

Quote Originally Posted by Druidic

My pet peeve? Lovecraft at least gets grudging respect from some academics outside the field of weird fiction; but Howard is still regarded by most serious critics as a pulp hack. Even in the weird field, a usually perceptive critic like Joshi still holds that view.

There is a serious disconnect between the perception of him among artists and the perception of him among critics. The modern fantasy authors I respect most (Wagner, Moorcock, GRRM) have all treated Howard with due reverence as a giant in the field.

Solomon Kane is my favourite of Howard's heroes. Wish he had written more of him.