Did Robert E. Howard seriously think that Barbarism is the superior and most natural state of humanity?

Question

I've read Conan stories for the first time a long while ago, and one of the things that struck me was the focus in writing on showcasing how great and ultimately succesful barbarism is and how meek the civilised people are. To illustrate, from The Phoenix on the Sword:

Conan put his back against the wall and lifted his ax. He stood like an image of the unconquerable primordial—legs braced far apart, head thrust forward, one hand clutching the wall for support, the other gripping the ax on high, with the great corded muscles standing out in iron ridges, and his features frozen in a death snarl of fury—his eyes blazing terribly through the mist of blood which veiled them. The men faltered—wild, criminal and dissolute though they were, yet they came of a breed men called civilized, with a civilized background; here was the barbarian—the natural killer. They shrank back—the dying tiger could still deal death.

Or, from The Scarlet Citadel:

Now he grinned bleakly as the kings reined back a safe distance from the grim iron-clad figure looming among the dead. Before the savage blue eyes blazing murderously from beneath the crested, dented helmet, the boldest shrank. Conan's dark scarred face was darker yet with passion; his black armor was hacked to tatters and splashed with blood; his great sword red to the cross- piece. In this stress all the veneer of civilization had faded; it was a barbarian who faced his conquerors. Conan was a Cimmerian by birth, one of those fierce moody hillmen who dwelt in their gloomy, cloudy land in the north. His saga, which had led him to the throne of Aquilonia, was the basis of a whole cycle of hero-tales.

It's a common theme of the stories, one I would say the entire series of stories was built upon.

What I wonder, though, was if this was representing actual thoughts and opinions of the author, Robert E. Howard? Author tracts are far from uncommon in fiction, especially scifi&fantasy, and those bits certainly read like that... But the idea of believing in it sounds so cartoonishly detached from reality that I can't just take it at face value. Was it a literary method done to better express the world of Conan, or was it an actual agenda that REH was trying to push? Looking at his photographs he certainly doesn't look like the type, but, well, who knows? I know I'd really like to.

Answer 1

It seems unlikely Howard is using Conan as a mouth-piece for his true beliefs. The REH wikipedia page isn't too bad, and a careful reading gives several reasons why not.

Robert E. Howard was never famous enough to write whatever he wanted. He started and ended his career, at his death at only 30, writing for magazines. The process was to pick a magazine and write a tailored story they might buy for an issue. That sort of thing puts you very close to the customer. There were no long-term contracts -- each story had to be accepted on it's own. Like most writers, Howard had to work finding what would sell. Compare to Robert Heinlein ("indulgent heinlein" is a fun search). He also started out in magazines, but then became a household name and got into books. That was when he wrote a few that may have been his thinly disguised personal views but would automatically be best-sellers. Howard never approached that.

Conan also wasn't Howard's first or last character. The last thing he did was quit writing Conan and switch to Westerns. Before Conan, he wrote several with Soloman Kane (basically a vampire hunter), and boxing stories, and a Scottish king, and a modern tall-tale-telling sailor. A strong morality which could only live in an untamed barbarian spirit seems to be a gimmick just for Conan.

It also works in the stories. Reread that Pheonix in the Sword description. That frozen pause in the action is a terrific picture. It's also how he survives. His uncivilized attitude towards dying has backed them off and made them a little scared. The next line is 'Who dies first?' he mumbled through smashed and bloody lips. They gradually regain the nerve to attack, but only 1 or 2 at a time until a demon bursts into the room. slaughtering the survivors to get to Conan. It's not a shoehorned in lecture -- it's part of the action.

Likewise being uncivilized moves the plot ahead in a fun way in The Hour of the Dragon (aka Conan the Conqueror). King Conan is hiding at a subject's house, getting filled in on how the kingdom has been invaded, plus sorcery, and things are hopeless:

"Many of your loyal subjects have been put to death. Tonight, for instance, the Countess Albiona dies under the headman's axe. [...] flee before you are discovered [...] If you make yourself known to your subjects it will only end in your capture or death" [.....] Servius was then aware [...] of something alien about the king [...] [...] He did not act as a civilized man would act under the same conditions [.....] "I'm going into Tarantia after Albonia tonight." [...] "This is madness!" cried Servius staggering up and clutching his throat

I can't read this as expressing Howard's opinion on civilization. He's lulling us that Conan might do the smart, cautious, boring thing, only to suprise us with upcoming bloody action. Servius, a brave man, is shocked! But Conan has no choice except to sneak back to his castle and rescue the girl.

Answer 2

As noted in several sources, including the biography Blood and Thunder (Finn, Mark (2006), Monkeybrain, Inc., ISBN 1-932265-21-X), Howard generally was of the opinion that history was cyclic, that cultures and civilizations arose, became decadent and corrupt, and then fell as they were conquered by another people, typically "the barbarians" from the fringes, who would themselves eventually grow complacent and corrupt. As noted in his Wikipedia page, Howard had been influenced by growing up in a Texas oil boom town.

By now his hatred of this sense of progress was clearly defined. He saw the hypocrisies of the boom clearly, an ironic state of affairs that allowed for "progress" and "civilization" to come with its own predators and brigands. (Finn, p 54)

The oil boom brought "civilization" to the small community, but with it the associated corruption boom money represented, followed by the apparent loss of everything when the boom dried up, many people who'd flocked to the town moved on, services left, and what was left was a husk of a community, socially torn from its roots as a hardy, standalone community of (in Howard's mind) rugged pioneers who'd led a good, if "primitive" life.

And so Conan represented that idea: the outsider, the one who wasn't yet corrupted and weakened by living in a "civilized" society, a society destined to fall to people like Conan, but those people would, in their own time, also become corrupt and weak and fall prey to the next group of outsiders.

Addendum

To quote the Wiki page on Howard's styles and themes:

Direct experience of the oil booms in early twentieth century Texas tainted Howard's view of civilization. The benefits of progress came with lawlessness and corruption.[26] One of the most common themes in Howard's writing is based on his view of history, a repeating pattern of civilizations reaching their peak, becoming decadent, decaying and then being conquered by another people. Many of his works are set in the period of decay or among the ruins the dead civilization leaves behind.[27] Despite this, Howard was in favour of civilisation; he simply believed it was too fragile to survive for long.[28]

Answer 3

Howard clearly preferred barbarism.

He had seen civilization's handiwork during the Great Depression and preferred a more honest form of criminal than the bankers that were stealing his neighbors' homes. Just before that, civilization provided the Great War. Before that, the Age of Imperialism.

There's a nice overview here and some quotes from Howard's letters to H.P. Lovecraft, collected from A Means to Freedom: The Letters of H.P. Lovecraft & Robert E. Howard.

"I am unable to rouse much interest in any highly civilized race, country or epoch, including this one. When a race – almost any race – is emerging from barbarism, or not yet emerged, they hold my interest. I can seem to understand them, and to write intelligently of them. But as they progress toward civilization, my grip on them begins to weaken, until at last it vanishes entirely, and I find their ways and thoughts and ambitions perfectly alien and baffling."

_{^{Letter from REH to HPL dated 8/9/32}}

and

"Given the chance to be born in an earlier time, with no memory of this life, Howard would choose to be a barbarian, "to grow up hard and lean and wolfish, worshiping barbarian gods and living the hard barren life of a barbarian" -

_{^{Letter from REH to HPL dated 9/22/32}}

and

"I realize the object of ‘good government' is not to fulfill what you call the catch slogan of liberty. No; its object is to emasculate all men, and make good little rabbits and guinea pigs out of them that will fit into the nooks designed for them, and stay there contentedly nibbling their fodder until they die of inanition. Liberty of action, is of course, impossible under these ideal conditions"

_{^{Letter from REH to HPL dated 3/6/33}}