Anna vs. Conan
In a straight-up fight, who would win: Conan . . . or Anna Karenina?
OK, that was a trick question: Conan's sense of barbaric chivalry prevents him from taking arms against women (unless, of course, they are angry Amazons out to flay the skin from his bones), so the fight I proposed in the first sentence would never actually happen, especially since Anna would be too caught up in her doomed love affair with Vronsky to take Conan seriously.
Still, when it comes to which character wins when I want a little comfort reading, you'd think it would be Conan--the stories are straightforward, uncomplicated adventure yarns; "Anna Karenina" is a profound tale of a passionate love so intense it consumes its participants.
But lately, Anna is winning.
I don't just like a story for its plot--I also pay attention to the style of the writing. I notice how long the paragraphs are, how detailed the descriptions are, how deep into the characters's thoughts we get to delve, and a million other minute details of authorial signature. Tolstoy and Howard both have styles appropriate to their subject matter: Tolsoty paints detailed, psychologically nuanced pictures of his characters and their surroundings; Howard's prose is as lithe and sinewy as his massively-muscled main character.
My problem with the Conan book I just finished, Conan the Buccaneer, is that Robert E. Howard didn't write it. L. Sprague DeCamp and Lin Carter collaborated on this novel as a way of filling in some gaps in the timeline left by Howard's original stories. It has all of the trappings of Conan--a beautiful and strong-willed princess in peril, sinister socerers, dark magic, fearsome creatures, stunning swordplay, and magnificent displays of machismo . . . but the prose just doesn't have the same resonance as Howard's. The tale is all action, no heart. Sure, I still read it. I have a weakness for heroic fantasy. But lately, "Anna Karenina" has been the more satisfying read--even as an escape.
OK, that was a trick question: Conan's sense of barbaric chivalry prevents him from taking arms against women (unless, of course, they are angry Amazons out to flay the skin from his bones), so the fight I proposed in the first sentence would never actually happen, especially since Anna would be too caught up in her doomed love affair with Vronsky to take Conan seriously.
Still, when it comes to which character wins when I want a little comfort reading, you'd think it would be Conan--the stories are straightforward, uncomplicated adventure yarns; "Anna Karenina" is a profound tale of a passionate love so intense it consumes its participants.
But lately, Anna is winning.
I don't just like a story for its plot--I also pay attention to the style of the writing. I notice how long the paragraphs are, how detailed the descriptions are, how deep into the characters's thoughts we get to delve, and a million other minute details of authorial signature. Tolstoy and Howard both have styles appropriate to their subject matter: Tolsoty paints detailed, psychologically nuanced pictures of his characters and their surroundings; Howard's prose is as lithe and sinewy as his massively-muscled main character.
My problem with the Conan book I just finished, Conan the Buccaneer, is that Robert E. Howard didn't write it. L. Sprague DeCamp and Lin Carter collaborated on this novel as a way of filling in some gaps in the timeline left by Howard's original stories. It has all of the trappings of Conan--a beautiful and strong-willed princess in peril, sinister socerers, dark magic, fearsome creatures, stunning swordplay, and magnificent displays of machismo . . . but the prose just doesn't have the same resonance as Howard's. The tale is all action, no heart. Sure, I still read it. I have a weakness for heroic fantasy. But lately, "Anna Karenina" has been the more satisfying read--even as an escape.
posted by Christopher at 7:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home