Back in 1982, when the Conan the Barbarian movie arrived at the Rivoli Theater in New York City, Vincent Canby of The New York Times was there to review it. Canby did not like the film. The New York Times, for better or worse, is still one of the “papers of record.” So, Canby’s review was influential and probably remains at least somewhat so. I disagree with it on most levels. But the review is still available and searchable through The New York Times website. (Facsimile reproductions are available for a small fee.) The review was originally published May 15, 1982. I’m including some small excerpts just for readers to gauge the mood. (I’ll get to the joke in the title in due time.)
As you can see, it was not a positive review. Nevertheless, the film was a hit. Canby, for whatever reason, did a second take on the film for the Sunday May 23rd issue of the Times. I’ll quote some excerpts from it as well. (Again, the entire review is available online, with facsimiles available for purchase.)
Now, I didn’t reproduce these reviews to foment anger. Actually, all this was just the setup for a joke by Isaac Asimov:
Per the notation in the left hand corner, Sprague replied to Asimov via a phone call. Too bad it wasn’t by mail. That might have been a funny conversation. De Camp did send a letter of correction to Mr. Canby. De Camp addresses the misspelling (incorrect capitalization) of his name (this was probably not Canby’s fault, the front cover of the paperback had incorrect capitalization and that mistake carried over to the recent Titan Books reprint as well!) and he addresses the same-sex couple issue in a 1980s way:
Vincent Canby did issue a correction in a subsequent column.
I’m glad to see L. Sprague de Camp and Lin Carter back in print. (Even with the spelling error!) By now most know that Catherine Crook de Camp (Sprague’s wife) actually co-wrote the book and not Lin Carter. I’ll have more on this later.
Every now and then Sprague hate still rears its ugly head. The complaint that he edited REH’s words gets less traction these days as we now know that EVERYBODY (Glenn Lord, August Derleth, Donald M. Grant, numerous fanzine editors, etc.) edited REH’s words. Even the “pure text” Del Rey volumes have edited words:
— Notes on the Original Howard Texts, The Sword Woman, Rusty Burke
Even though the Del Rey editors mirrored Sprague’s reasoning (“I ironed out these inconsistencies”) in this instance (and copied ideas from Dark Valley Destiny in the essay “Hyborian Genesis”) several cannot forgive Sprague his speculations about REH’s suicide. Suicide is looked at somewhat differently these days, but it still isn’t considered a “reasoned choice” for an otherwise healthy 30-year-old man. Even one possibly filled with survivor’s guilt over a dying parent. I honestly can’t understand why some have so much angst over de Camp’s views. He has his opinions, I have mine, you have yours. To hate de Camp and imagine his paperback introductions and Dark Valley Destiny are what keeps Robert E. Howard from being recognized on a level with Proust is maladjusted to the point of psychosis. (Not enjoying his Conan pastiches is perfectly understandable, suum cuique, as a dead language perfectly puts it.)
Anyway, onward… The Conan the Barbarian movie was first scripted by Oliver Stone, then revised by John Milius. Sprague received a copy of the script in early 1980 and sent off a six-page letter to his fellow board members (John Troll, Arthur Lieberman, and Glenn Lord) at Conan Properties, Inc. (CPI) discussing his concerns. (Below are some excerpts.) Sprague comes across as a little prudish which is surprising as his and Carter’s pastiches had sex scenes in their stories. Sprague (who was 72 at the time) was aware of Marvel Comics success with the character and must have thought those fans wouldn’t be able to purchase tickets for a “R” rated film. Sprague was most likely unaware that comic book buyers started skewing older in the 70s and 80s.
De Camp’s main concerns were ignored for the most part. His other concerns were minor. He suggested cutting or renaming a character called Brak because of John Jakes’ S&S hero. He disliked the scene with Conan’s mother being beheaded. He hated the scene with Conan killing a woman pit-fighter (which was filmed but cut). He disliked the camel punching scene (as did I.) He felt “Osric” was an incorrect name for the king of Zamora. He thought too many breaking and entering scenes involved ropes. And he said two black villains (the second villain was Yaro, more on him later) seemed one too many. He made a few other suggestions as well, but none were significant.
He did approach John Milius on the set during the filming with suggestions and Milius resented him for it. De Camp fictionalized his Hollywood experience in his book, The Swords of Zinjaban.
When the movie was previewed by the ratings board, the biggest concern was violence and gore. Producer, Raffaella de Laurentis, writes in John Walsh’s book, Conan the Barbarian: The Official Story of the Film, “Shooting Conan was one battle. Releasing it was another. The big issue was that the first cut of the movie was too violent. Conan got an “X” rating on three submissions to the MPAA before we finally received an “R.” As we all know, the sequel Conan the Destroyer was rated PG13 in an attempt to attract a wider audience and failed to do so. The 2011 remake was rated “R” and a total flop. Modern consensus seems to be that Conan should be a streaming show with sex and violence a la Game of Thrones.
As previously mentioned, Lin Carter did not collaborate with Sprague on this book. Carter, at this point, was drug-addled and unreliable. I can sympathize with whatever demons possessed him and wish he could have overcome them before dying of cancer, but a frustrated Sprague wrote Carter a letter and advised he would do the work on his own if Carter couldn’t:
Sprague got his wife, Catherine to help him complete the book. When the time came to publish it, the publishers did not want Catherine’s name on the book’s cover. They wanted the proven writing team of L. Sprague de Camp and Lin Carter to appear. Frankly I can understand that although I’m sure it upset Catherine. It is mentioned in Sprague’s foreword to the book that “[This book] was written by myself in collaboration with Lin Carter, with additional material by Catherine Crook de Camp.” Since de Camp did end up paying Lin Carter his share of the contract (and their collaborative story, “The Thing in the Crypt” was used in the screenplay), I suppose Sprague felt somewhat justified in giving Lin an undeserved co-writing credit.
Finally, let’s discuss this new edition of de Camp and Carter’s novelization. It has been re-issued as a medium-sized trade paperback with a $15.95 price tag. That is pretty much what used copies of the first printing are going for on eBay. And if you are anything like me, your original copy is dog-eared and worn. So, buy this new copy. It is worth supporting.
There are no extras. (Original US readers often get an extra “u” they haven’t seen before.) 🙂 and perhaps the “About the Authors” afterword is new. It wasn’t in the original US edition but may have been in the UK editions? This is really just a reissue of the original 1982 paperback. Titan Books should have contacted some author or knowledgeable fan (me!) to write a new introduction. Consider the reproduced letters and my above commentary as the new introduction for now. 🙂
The book is a fast read. De Camp and Carter try to emulate REH’s style and succeed for the most part. Most people, I would guess, read a novelization for the added detail it provides and to relive exciting scenes in a textual format. This book does both of those things tremendously well. The book succeeds on its own merits, but it is an adaptation. So, I’ll concentrate on things that are different from the movie.
There are not too many differences between this novelization and the film. I suppose some will appreciate that and others will enjoy that there are the minor differences as something new. The chief difference is the movie eliminated the character of Yaro. Yaro is a Kushite priest of Set whose main function in the novelization is to kill King Osric. Also, most of Thulsa Doom’s minions are “beast-men” who are controlled by the jewel “The Eye of Set” that Conan and crew steal in both the book and film. Another major difference is that the novelization has a “Kallias of Shamar” narrating the adventure and interrupting the story from time to time. (Which I didn’t like.) More detail is given, and Conan’s thoughts are given. De Camp made sure Conan killing the woman pit-fighter upset our hero. Conan’s hate for his captivity is shown much better than in the film. Conan actively escapes his slavery during an earthquake scene that is not in the movie. “The Thing in the Crypt” scene resembles the original story in this novel. I could go on and on detailing the differences, but you should discover them for yourself.
The worst change? “The best of life is to confront your enemy face to face, to see his hot blood spill upon the earth, and to hear the lamentations of his women!” S’ok, but Arnold’s verbalization in the movie works soooooo much better!
I think I’ve covered the most severe changes. Some might consider other changes better or worse. (Feel free to comment on the blog with any differences of opinion, or information I left out.) I know that there are people who have watched the movie more often than me and have more expertise regarding “behind the scenes” knowledge.
In conclusion, I’ll repeat that I’m glad de Camp and Carter are back in print. I expected the Lancer/Ace series to get reprinted first but better this than nothing. De Camp played a significant role in popularizing REH and Conan back in the day. This re-issue stands as a testament to that history.
“Roosters crow all the time—morning, afternoon, and evening! They’ll crow to greet the day, to lead their flocks to forage, to cue a boundary, and to alert about predators.”
Well I saved my pennies and I saved my dimes (Giddy up giddy up 409) For I knew there would be a time (Giddy up giddy up 409) When I would buy a brand new 409 (409, 409)
Apologies to the Beach Boys. We’re not talking about a car here, but we are talking about NOSTALGIA. Fans of the Conan the Barbarian film will want this book. Save your pennies and dimes, it is a bit pricy, even with Amazon’s discount. (Normally $50 but reduced to $45.) But if you are a fan of the movie and want to relive some good memories it is worth the purchase.
It makes for a nice coffee table book, approximately 13″ by 10″ by (only) 3/4″ inches. The cover is a reproduction of the movie poster, which is fine, but I think the book looks more intriguing without the dust jacket.
I’ll briefly cover the contents and try not to criticize the book for what it didn’t do but praise it for what it did well. (But, of course, I’ll ignore that when I want to.)
The “Foreword” by Raffaella De Laurentiis is short but interesting. She briefly recaps her career and states “The fact that I was a woman actually helped me deal with these fiery macho men. Being a woman was never a problem in my career.” She states that director, John Milius, “a great guy, and a fabulous writer … liked to challenge authority figures. It was his style.” Most interesting she states “In the original script, it was the character of Conan who performed the narration. But ultimately we changed it to Mako’s character.” And, to no one’s surprize, “Conan got an “X” rating on three submissions to the MPAA before we finally received an “R”. The picture was unique, and the violence made a real impact in 1982.”
The “Introduction” gives a brief overview of the film, Robert E. Howard, the comic books, and the books. The film is given credit for redefining “the limits of acceptable mainstream filmmaking and, in the process, created one of the world’s biggest film stars.”
The overview on Robert E. Howard is weak and has errors and sometimes just bugs me. The author states “He was considered the father of the sword-and-sorcery genre.” Dammit! That should be “is” not “was.” What the Hell was author John Walsh thinking? And there are a few dubious and incorrect statements: “Robert and his mother would spend many years together helping relatives suffering from tuberculosis” and “In 1928, he revisited some of the Kull stories to create Red Shadows” and he created “the character Turlogh Dubh O’Brien … Unfortunately, he was unable to sell any of these stories.”
The comics section comes before the books section. Probably because the author feels “The comics are arguably, apart from the books, the vehicle that had the most significant influence on the longevity and popularity of the character.” I really can’t argue with that. The comics played a big role in popularizing the character. My own introduction to Conan was from the comics. Lin Carter and L. Sprague de Camp are briefly mentioned, and the Lancer/Ace series is singled out as a highlight. Sadly, non-Conan books are ignored.
The rest of the book deals with aspects of the film. Text is surrounded with nicely reproduced images from the film. A typical page looks like this:
The “Development” section covers: “Putting Conan on Screen” (info about the producers), “Written in Stone” (info about Oliver Stone’s screenplay), “Conan the Unfilmable” (info concerning the budget mostly) “Frank Frazetta’s Art” (a good summary on Frazetta’s influence along with great full page reproductions of his art), “Production Designer Ron Cobb” (comprehensive info about Mr. Cobb with many pages of art), “The Art of William Stout” (another comprehensive look), “Director John Milius” (the master at work).
“Casting” was a favorite part of the book. Arnold, James Earl Jones (his casting makes minced meat of all complaints about race-swapping in films; he was GREAT!), Sandahl Bergman (beautiful), Gerry Lopez, Cassandra Gava, William Smith, Mako, Sven-Ole Thorsen, Ben Davidson, and Max Von Sydow are all covered in depth.
“The Shoot” covers location issues, stunts, swords, various props, wolves, snakes, orgies (no nudity, drat!), and other highlights from the film. “Conan’s World” covers set design, matte paintings, SFX, and other highlights. “Post Production” gets into editing (cutting) the film, the magnificent Basil Poledouris score, poster art, creatures that didn’t make the cut, and other technical issues. It is a thorough look at all aspects of the film.
Finally, there is a bibliography and acknowledgements. All in all, it is a worthy tome for those that loved the 1982 film. Obviously, it isn’t essential for that “purist” who dreads the mention of the film. 🙂 But for the completist and dedicated fan who supports Conan product and would like to see future Conan films it is an obligatory buy.
spraguedecampfan 