Part of being an aficionado of fantasy, science-fiction and adventure, is that I spend quite a bit of my week wandering the ethereal plane of the internet. On such a trawl, I was helpfully directed to this website, Great Science-Fiction & Fantasy Works, Eric Walker’s personal site–a digital library of Alexandrian proportions.

Let’s face reality: for the civilized reader, too many–most–web sites about science-fiction or fantasy literature recall American Bandstand: “Uh, wull, Dick, I give it a 86 ’cause it had a good beat an’ yuh could dance to it.” What one might charitably call “naive enthusiasm” abounds.

If your sensibilities suggest to you that Eric Eddison and Ernest Bramah have written better fantasy than Piers Anthony and Katherine Kurtz, or that Cordwainer Smith and M. John Harrison have written better science fiction than Robert Heinlein and Isaac Asimov, this site should be of real interest to you; if not, you are in the wrong place.

No one disparages authors who lack greatness if they possess competence. But, while a cold spritzer is often welcome refreshment, when we go into a restaurant of quality and ask for the wine card, we do not expect to see Gallo Chablis or Annie Greensprings among the listings. This site seeks to be a wine card of science-fiction and fantasy literature.

For long now the literati have scorned both science-fiction and fantasy books, when they have deigned to notice them at all; sad to say, the responses from within the community of science-fiction and fantasy readers (and writers) almost invariably call to mind an old saying: “I can save myself from my enemies, but only God can save me from my friends.” Another aim of this site is to be a place to which science-fiction and fantasy aficionados can fearlessly send intelligent, civilized readers not familiar with the field.

Erik Walker, Site Front Page

This site is a massive undertaking, all the more impressive given that it essentially is the creation of one man. Walker is, from what I have read of the site and his forum posts, an exceedingly well read person. His desire to celebrate the true elite of science fiction and fantasy in the scope of literature, rather than compared to the confines of their own genres, is something I applaud, and a practice I wish more would do. I am of the same opinion as him, in that I enjoy the books I read not because they are fantasy or science fiction, but because they are good literature in themselves. Walker also spends a great deal of time explaining his personal views on what qualifies an author’s work for the site in his apologia, and though I feel most reasonable people would have come to the conclusions he arrives at regarding the nature of criticism and subjectivity, it’s still helpful of him to do so.

There are many familiar names represented on the site: Lord Dunsany is rightly hailed as a master, which is most refreshing given the propensity to consider Tolkien the beginning of fantasy fiction. Tolkien himself is featured, which should be no surprise, as is Lewis, MacDonald, Peake, Eddison, Hodgson, Machen, Wolfe and Vance. Even Andrew J. Offutt warrants a place, courtesy of his “War of the Gods on Earth” trilogy.

However, there are more than a few very profound omissions, one of which happens to be Robert E. Howard.

At first, I had put it down to Walker simply not having read his work. Given the fact that books containing Howard’s true, unabridged work are fairly recent, it might be fair to assume that Walker was simply turned off by the plethora of pastiches and the mantra of “big dumb barbarian” that Conan exuded at the time. However, after a bit of searching and some assistance, REH is indeed listed on his site, but depressingly, under a list of guilty pleasures referred to as “The Campy Stuff” (not to be confused with “De Campy Stuff”):

I have tried to limit this sub-list–which could easily have gotten out of hand–to just those works that can bear adult re-reading. I do not claim to have included all writers in our fields who are “so bad they’re good,” but I think I have included enough to point any curious readers toward the better samples of the type.

The “so bad” part may deceive: given the right spirit–or spirits–in one’s approach, this lot can be quite entertaining. They are, one might say, beers to the wines I have attempted to list on this site. But I, at least, like beer, too.

…

Howard, Robert E.: Conan! Need one say more?

“Need one say more?” Certainly one does: Kull, Solomon Kane, Bran Mak Morn, James Allison, Turlogh O’Brien, “Skull-Face,” “Old Garfield’s Heart,” “The Black Stone,” “Nekht Semerkhet”… but I digress.

As would be expected from someone who contributes to one of many scholarly websites discussing Howard, this is most perplexing. Conan, campy? Such a description is fit only for the Bruce Jones comics, the poorer pastiches, the inglorious Boris Vallejo illustrations with their featuring shaven-chested baby-oil lathered Adonises, or the particularly poor Conan the Destroyer and Kull the Conqueror. But to even suggest that this is the state of Howard’s Conan is simply anathema to me.

Camp, as I understand it, is an aesthetic which is ultimately defined by its irony. It is because it is mediocre, banal, and ostentatious that it is enjoyed in an “ironic” sense: ie, to enjoy the sheer pretentiousness of it, rather than enjoy it on face value. Things such as the 1960’s Batman series and 1980’s Flash Gordon film, the movies of John Waters and Russ Meyer, and the excesses of Eurotrash are thus camp. It isn’t viewed as being of any quality or relevence, or held to have any attractions other than a post-modern enjoyment of its deficiencies. It’s therefore natural that I take issue with this.

How could one possibly describe such atmospheric, relentlessly dark tales as “Beyond the Black River,” “Worms of the Earth,” and “The Grey God Passes” as camp? Where is the kitch in the thoughtful, intelligent fables of “The Tower of the Elephant,” “The Mirrors of Tuzun Thune,” and “The Valley of the Worm”? Is there even a trace of the tongue-in-cheek in “The Dark Man,” “The Shadow Kingdom” or “Marchers of Valhalla”? Hell, even the more rousing adventure tales of “The People of the Black Circle,” “Red Nails,” and “The Gods of Bal-Sagoth” are imbued with so much philosophical depth, sobering cynicism and psychological subtext that they simply cannot be dismissed as camp. Anyone who reads the likes of “Rogues in the House” purely from the comic aspect of an ape dressing up as a sorcerer is missing a great deal of the story’s appeal, as much as reading The Lord of the Rings to chortle smugly at the poems and songs is failing to see the point of Tolkien’s masterwork.

Perhaps as bewildering as Howard’s absence is that of his associates and influences. Burroughs, Haggard, Mundy (whose first name, I note, is misspelled) and even Lovecraft are similarly placed in the “campy” doldrums. I can almost, at a very great stretch, understand the reasoning behind the dismissal of the first three without necessarily agreeing with it, but Lovecraft? The forger of such incredible pieces of prose as “The Colour Out of Space,” “The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath,” and “The Dreams in the Witch-House”? Even more strange is the complete absence of Clark Ashton Smith, Karl Edward Wagner, C. L. Moore, Leigh Brackett and others, either in the main body, or even in the Dungeons of Camp. Frankly, I’m almost glad: I’d rather see Smith’s absence be an oversight than see one of the greatest wordsmiths since Dunsany placed alongside the likes of E. E. Smith and A. E. Van Vogt, who are surely more deserving of the badge of camp than any I mentioned.

Perhaps I would be more accommodating if certain authors who I consider to be as as good, even inferior, to Howard did not pip him to the post. Moorcock and Leiber are fine authors whose fantasy work is somewhat comparable to Howard’s in genre, but if they have a place, then surely Howard does. Even Stephen King and Clive Barker are granted a spot. There’s simply no way you can tell me that Stephen King and Clive Barker are inherently superior authors to Howard, especially in the field of fantasy.

Yet that’s the rub, isn’t it? His is a personal site, where the author displays his personal tastes. Walker is never failing in reminding that the nature of his site is inherently subjective. There are bound to be disagreements with other fantasy aficionados. Perhaps this is exactly why the brushoff of Howard, Lovecraft and others bothers me so: outside such omissions, there is much to recommend. His appreciation of the greats of early fantasy in particular makes it a good resource for those who want to look beyond the endless door-stopper volumes of “epic fantasy” that plague the shelves of Borders and Waterstones. There are legions of fantasy authors I’ve never read, with many recommendations and discussions of the books, inspiring me to seek them out in future.

I guess what’s eating at me is this question: how can one proclaim their love of Dunsany, Vance, Tolkien, Eddison and the other authors he gives five stars to, and yet not also appreciate Howard? It isn’t so much a matter of feeling scandalized that my favourite author is ignored, it’s the fact that, given his tastes and appreciation of fantasy authors who many Howard fans I know of also enjoy, he should like him. It’s a case of trying to get into such a mindset to understand how he came to such a conclusion, especially one that has room for hundreds upon hundreds of fantasy authors, only to shut out Howard. I can get over not including Howard in a list of top ten, or even top twenty-five speculative fiction authors, but to think that out of over fifteen hundred works, not a single Howard work is listed is… well, unthinkable.

It’s a question I have put to him on his forums, and as of the writing of this post he has not yet answered. Still, for all my confounded befuddlement at the dearth of Howard, it’s a site I recommend others to read, enjoy and explore. Not everyone, even fantasy fans, are required by some law to like Robert E. Howard, and I hold no ill will towards him for it, as long as he gives Howard a chance. Discussion of great fantasy is always an important and worthwhile endeavour, even if some of it consists of indignation of a favourite author’s nonappearance: it leads to interaction, discovery and, hopefully, learning.

Who could find fault in that?