|
|
Post by karasuthecrow on Aug 24, 2021 21:45:36 GMT -5
I know that Mark Finns " Blood and Thunder" is considered by most people the best Robert E. Howard biography but for some reason dissapears a lot from Amazon México catalog and while looking for some alternatives I discover this book " Robert E. Howard: A Closer Look" by Charles Hoffman and Marc Cerasini, the preview that Amazon allows looks promising and it has some good reviews on Good Reads. What do you thing about it?, is it worth it?, its good for academic purposes? Good Reads reviews
 |
|
|
|
Post by bartonamra on Aug 27, 2021 15:22:36 GMT -5
I read the older 80s version with a psychadellic cover (Starmont). I liked it a lot. The biography part is not that long, but is well written. Most of the book digs deep into many stories of Conan, Solomone Kane, etc. They have interesting theories. If I remember correctly, the synopsis part of every story was a little too long. That would be a downside. Same with David C. Smith’s bio. I prefered that one because Smith had a lot to say about Howard’s Historical stories. I am glad I read both. I might read A Closer Look to see what they added in there.
Mathieu
|
|
|
|
Post by karasuthecrow on Aug 27, 2021 18:04:55 GMT -5
I read the older 80s version with a psychadellic cover (Starmont). I liked it a lot. The biography part is not that long, but is well written. Most of the book digs deep into many stories of Conan, Solomone Kane, etc. They have interesting theories. If I remember correctly, the synopsis part of every story was a little too long. That would be a downside. Same with David C. Smith’s bio. I prefered that one because Smith had a lot to say about Howard’s Historical stories. I am glad I read both. I might read A Closer Look to see what they added in there. Mathieu Thanks, am currently writting my own Howardian pastiches but first I want to know all that I can about Howard. |
|
|
|
Post by bobbyderie on Aug 28, 2021 21:44:31 GMT -5
The book is largely the longer version of the 80s text. Unfortunately, they didn't really update everything they should have. There's a few takes in there which weren't good in the 1980s - regarding female characters, LGBTQ+ characters, "The Vale of Lost Women," etc. - and they're really not good now. Other than that, it's okay literary analysis. Nothing earth-shattering, but generally solid. I feel the book is probably a couple decades past its sell-by date in terms of scholarship, but literary criticism is largely evergreen, except for the shift in cultural syntax I mentioned above.
|
|
|
|
Post by karasuthecrow on Aug 28, 2021 22:25:16 GMT -5
The book is largely the longer version of the 80s text. Unfortunately, they didn't really update everything they should have. There's a few takes in there which weren't good in the 1980s - regarding female characters, LGBTQ+ characters, "The Vale of Lost Women," etc. - and they're really not good now. Other than that, it's okay literary analysis. Nothing earth-shattering, but generally solid. I feel the book is probably a couple decades past its sell-by date in terms of scholarship, but literary criticism is largely evergreen, except for the shift in cultural syntax I mentioned above. I liked your review, thanks for it but for the prize, I prefer to spend a little more on "Blood and Thunder". |
|
