Worst. Swords and Sorcery. Ever.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Old Man

He was finishing up his contract to do three Conan films so that he could get on with the Terminator. The Conan series threatened to typecast him, so he wanted out as quickly as possible.

 

While Sonja was also a Howard creation I don't think they really had much to do with each other. I don't even think Sonja was set in the Hyborian Age. If so, it would have been really strange for Conan himself to show up in the film. But I could be wrong.

 

I know that didn't really answer your rhetorical question, but hey.

 

You are essentially correct. Red Sonya of Rogatino was created by Robert E. Howard in the story "The Shadow of the Vulture." His Red Sonya was very different from the Red Sonja most of us know and love. She lived in an age of gunpowder and lived on our Earth (and starred in six of her own books). Writer Roy Thomas thought she would make a suitable companion for Conan in Marvel Comics, so he reinvented her and made her a Hyborian age heroine. He changed the y to a j and gave her a chainmail bikini (he also replaced her rapier with a broadsword and added weird "goddess crap").

[keithcurtis]

Drat Marvel comics! Next thing you're going to tell me is that Loki isn't Thor's brother

 

Keith "Everything I know about Red Sonja I learned from Marvel Comics" Curtis

 

PS. How many of you, when you were kids, pronounced Sonja and Mjolnir with hard "J"s? Don't be ashamed, now.

[lemming]

Originally posted by keithcurtis

PS. How many of you, when you were kids, pronounced Sonja and Mjolnir with hard "J"s? Don't be ashamed, now.

Definitly. Then again my pronuciation has always been poor.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by keithcurtis

 

PS. How many of you, when you were kids, pronounced Sonja and Mjolnir with hard "J"s? Don't be ashamed, now.

 

I did.

 

Appaerently Howard did it as an adult too

[ZootSoot]

Originally posted by keithcurtis

Drat Marvel comics! Next thing you're going to tell me is that Loki isn't Thor's brother

 

Keith "Everything I know about Red Sonja I learned from Marvel Comics" Curtis

 

PS. How many of you, when you were kids, pronounced Sonja and Mjolnir with hard "J"s? Don't be ashamed, now.

 

Norse mythology is not of the same kind as Greek. The relationships of the gods varies more from place to place, because Scandinavia never had the history of being conquered that Greece had (Poseidon is god of the sea,and the creator of horses!!!), so a dominant deity matcing the patron of the dominant race never emerged. While the most common (Snorri Sturlison's?) version has Loki bneing Odin's adopted brother, his being Thor's brother is certainly possible insome of the myths. Similarly Odin All-father seems to have been cobbled up as an answer to the Christian singular god; in many myths Thor is the ruler of the gods of Asgard and is clearly, overall, more powerful than all the others. The worst thing Marvel did with Norse mythology was the demonization of Loki who, as the Norse face of the trickster archetype, moved freely from good to evil and back again with relative ease.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Old Man

That scene might have been good except for the evil sorcerer's Wonder Woman ringing bracelet schtick. What was up with that? Plus it amounted to another telekinetic duel between wizards, which is so common in Hollywood films it really annoys me.

 

Was that kind of battle really that common in those days? I don't seem to remember it was. Telekinetic battles may be common nowaday, but back in the eighties, it was new stuff.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Old Man

He was finishing up his contract to do three Conan films so that he could get on with the Terminator. The Conan series threatened to typecast him, so he wanted out as quickly as possible.

 

While Sonja was also a Howard creation I don't think they really had much to do with each other. I don't even think Sonja was set in the Hyborian Age. If so, it would have been really strange for Conan himself to show up in the film. But I could be wrong.

 

Actually, in the comics, Sonja and Conan knew each other. I seem to remember there was some link between them in the books as well - but Conan was older?

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Galadorn

Actually, in the comics, Sonja and Conan knew each other. I seem to remember there was some link between them in the books as well - but Conan was older?

 

I haven't encountered any such link but my REH collection is far from complete. I can tell you this, though--regardless of whether Arnold was or was not Conan, the Red Sonja movie sucked.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Old Man

I haven't encountered any such link but my REH collection is far from complete. I can tell you this, though--regardless of whether Arnold was or was not Conan, the Red Sonja movie sucked.

 

Yes, I don't think I said different. I was just exploring another side of the discussion.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by ZootSoot

Norse mythology is not of the same kind as Greek.

 

I agree.

 

The relationships of the gods varies more from place to place, because Scandinavia never had the history of being conquered that Greece had (Poseidon is god of the sea,and the creator of horses!!!), so a dominant deity matching the patron of the dominant race never emerged. While the most common (Snorri Sturlison's?) version has Loki being Odin's adopted brother, his being Thor's brother is certainly possible insome of the myths. Similarly Odin All-father seems to have been cobbled up as an answer to the Christian singular god; in many myths Thor is the ruler of the gods of Asgard and is clearly, overall, more powerful than all the others.

 

Actually if you read the Edda, which seems to be the authoritative text on the Norse pantheon - the last paragraph talks about something like "one who is greater will come, to replace all the Asgard." So Thor was not the answer to the Christian God, he was less then the Christian God - so the Edda hints at.

 

Thirdly, the Edda was finished around the 10 Century A.D., and Christians were all over the place in the Deutschlands. Thus it was likely that the passage was referring to the Christian God. So again, historical criticism seems to make it plain who the Edda was talking about - The One God of the Christians.

[Markdoc]

Actually the Edda is composed of two parts. The poetic edda - sometimes called Saemund's Edda, after the apocryphal compiler, contains 15 poems dealing (mostly) with incidents from norse myth. Its date of compilation is unknown, but it is thought to be about 1250.

 

The prose edda was compiled - not written - by Snorri Sturlsson about 1200. We assume the material is much older, but we have no way of knowing how much. Snorri was both a christian and a churchman - it is known that he altered some of the stories, but we don't know how much or precisely where.

 

Since both collections were compiled long after the adoption of christianity, it is quite possible that the "christian" elements were added to make them more palatable to the authorities. As far as we can tell, the largest part of the prose edda (The Deluding of Gylfi) took fragments of norse lore and set them within a wholly made-up frame story specifically to make them acceptable to the church elders - and it is The Deluding of Gylfi which includes the references to a new world after Ragnarok.

 

cheers, Mark

[Catseye]

Originally posted by D-Man

Y Writer Roy Thomas thought she would make a suitable companion for Conan in Marvel Comics, so he reinvented her and made her a Hyborian age heroine.

 

That was ofcourse followed by "Red Sophia" in Cerebus the Aardvark. One of my two most favorite Cerebus lines stems from meeting her...

 

Red Sophia: "What do you think of.... these!" (Ripping of her chainmail bikini)

Cerebus: "Cerebus thinks they would heal if you stopped wearing that chainmail bikini."

[Catseye]

Originally posted by lemming

Definitly. Then again my pronuciation has always been poor.

 

Not me, but I grew up around Norskis.

[Catseye]

So again, historical criticism seems to make it plain who the Edda was talking about - The One God of the Christians. [/b]

 

Don't you mean the three gods of the christians??

 

Sorry, couldn't resist, and I DON'T want to take this subject back to any one persons particular beliefs.

 

But, historically, the One God concept in christianity is the One God of the jews, made 3. I find it odd that so many Christians seem to think they invented monotheism. From a purely philosophical point of view, without debating Truth of religious points of view, they actually took a half step back away from it. As they spread Chrsitianity to places that were traditionally polytheistic it took further steps away (Existing gods became Saints in places like Ireland,

Jesus became one of the Loa in the Caribbean.)

 

Actually, monotheism clearly dates back at LEAST to Egypt (the cult of Aten), that can be shown historically. And if you are a believer in the bible as literal fact, or at least embellished history, then you'd have to say it dates back further then that.

 

And the Diaspora predates Christianity by a long time, so Jews were spreading their particular brand of monotheism around the world well before the christians. They just didn't actively convert.

 

'nuff said.

[shadowcat1313]

Spider Robinson talked in Callahans Crosstime Saloon about a bet where somebody said they could write the worst hackneyed and just plain bad novel ever written... wrote it... and then it was so popular they wrote over a dozen sequels...

 

Spider never identifies who actually said this, does anybody else have a clue who hes talking about? I asked Spider in person and he wouldnt say

 

my vote would be for either the Gor books or the Battlefield Earth series... Spiders quote dates to the mid seventies

[Catseye]

Who was it who wrote the Kilgore Trout novel, "Venus of a Half-Shell"?

 

I always assumed it was Vonnegut but recently I heard it was actually another famous old-guard sci fi writer paying homage, and now I can't remember who.

 

Anyway it seems like that would be a contender for the worst novel ever written. It was, however SUPPOSED to be bad as he was writing in the persona of Vonnegut's Kilgore Trout character, whom Vonnegut described as a terrible writer with some great ideas.

 

(Frankly, I always thought KT was a stand-in for Vonnegut himself and his descriptions of KT were how he honestly saw himself. But I could be wrong.)

[shadowcat1313]

I'd heard it was Phillip Jose Farmer

but I dont remember where I saw it

[shadowcat1313]

I'd heard it was Phillip Jose Farmer

but I dont remember where I saw it

[ZootSoot]

Originally posted by shadowcat1313

I'd heard it was Phillip Jose Farmer

but I dont remember where I saw it

 

It was Farmer, he even posed for the author's photograph wearing an unkempt white wig. I have read it in many placs but in farmer's own works he mentions doing this several times. Besides, anyone familiar with Farmer can see the hack at work in the book.

[ZootSoot]

Originally posted by shadowcat1313

I'd heard it was Phillip Jose Farmer

but I dont remember where I saw it

 

It was Farmer, he even posed for the author's photograph wearing an unkempt white wig. I have read it in many placs but in farmer's own works he mentions doing this several times. Besides, anyone familiar with Farmer can see the hack at work in the book.

[FenrisUlf]

Originally posted by shadowcat1313

Spider Robinson talked in Callahans Crosstime Saloon about a bet where somebody said they could write the worst hackneyed and just plain bad novel ever written... wrote it... and then it was so popular they wrote over a dozen sequels...

 

Spider never identifies who actually said this, does anybody else have a clue who hes talking about? I asked Spider in person and he wouldnt say

 

my vote would be for either the Gor books or the Battlefield Earth series... Spiders quote dates to the mid seventies

 

I've been told by some of the old guard SF fans that it was the Gor books. And I can understand why, too... How many ways can you depict sadistic rape/domination, after all? (Note: If you know, do us a favor and don't answer!)

[AnotherSkip]

30+ books worth of tawdry bdsm?

 

yeah it's definately a good option on the betting poll.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Catseye

Don't you mean the three gods of the christians??

 

Sorry, couldn't resist, and I DON'T want to take this subject back to any one persons particular beliefs.

 

But, historically, the One God concept in christianity is the One God of the jews, made 3.

 

This is incorrect, I invite you to study more. One God and three divine persons.

 

If you don't understand the difference between the word God and the word persons then try this out: http://www.dictionary.com and do a word study.

 

This is not an insult on your intelligence, people just assume they know the meaning of words, but when they get into the nitty gritty, they really don't have the depth of knowledge they need. I do word studies all the time.

 

I find it odd that so many Christians seem to think they invented monotheism. From a purely philosophical point of view, without debating Truth of religious points of view, they actually took a half step back away from it.

 

I'm going to be precise with a critique of your choice of words. At no time did anyone "invent" monotheism. If you have true faith then you would believe that it is a truth that simply is. No invention is required, but revelation is necessary to know this universal, objective truth.

 

As they spread Christianity to places that were traditionally polytheistic it took further steps away (Existing gods became Saints in places like Ireland, Jesus became one of the Loa in the Caribbean.)

 

This is completely untrue, but it is probably more appropriate to continue this dicussion in the NGD section.

 

Actually, monotheism clearly dates back at LEAST to Egypt (the cult of Aten), that can be shown historically. And if you are a believer in the bible as literal fact, or at least embellished history, then you'd have to say it dates back further then that.

 

At least is true, but it actually dates back farther then Aton. The bible itself was written in 3,500 B.C. Aten was created in 1500 B.C. Aten worship is a little late as an entry in the monotheism debate.

 

And the Diaspora predates Christianity by a long time, so Jews were spreading their particular brand of monotheism around the world well before the Christians. They just didn't actively convert.

 

The time of origin of a teaching in human history, is not a proof of authenticity of that teaching. Rather it rests on the one giving the testimony. And, you are putting words in my mouth- I never said that the teaching of monotheism started with the Christians. I said and I'll quote:

 

Thirdly, the Edda was finished around the 10 Century A.D., and Christians were all over the place in the Deutschlands. Thus it was likely that the passage was referring to the Christian God.

 

Just think about what you said:

 

But, historically, the One God concept in christianity is the One God of the jews, made 3.

 

1. When did I say Christians originated the teaching of monotheism?

2. When did I imply that Christians originated the teaching of monotheism?

 

I'll quote myself again:

 

Thirdly, the Edda was finished around the 10 Century A.D., and Christians were all over the place in the Deutschlands.

 

I only said that Christians were "all over the place" at the time. I didn't say anything about them being the originators of monotheism. I only referred to the time of the authorship of the Edda, and the culture, geography, and society in which it was written; about the 10th century. I invite you to read more closely, and stick to what I said.

 

Let's take this to the NGD Section please, thank you.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Markdoc

As far as we can tell, the largest part of the prose edda (The Deluding of Gylfi) took fragments of norse lore and set them within a wholly made-up frame story specifically to make them acceptable to the church elders - and it is The Deluding of Gylfi which includes the references to a new world after Ragnarok.

 

It's still part of the work, and you can't prove otherwise.

[ZootSoot]

Originally posted by Galadorn

 

This is incorrect, I invite you to study more. One God and three divine persons.

 

If you don't understand the difference between the word God and the word persons then try this out: http://www.dictionary.com and do a word study.

 

This is not an insult on your intelligence, people just assume they know the meaning of words, but when they get into the nitty gritty, they really don't have the depth of knowledge they need. I do word studies all the time.

 

[/b]

 

I'm going to be precise with a critique of your choice of words. At no time did anyone "invent" monotheism. If you have true faith then you would believe that it is a truth that simply is. No invention is required, but revelation is necessary to know this universal, objective truth.

 

[/b]

 

This is completely untrue, but it is probably more appropriate to continue this dicussion in the NGD section.

 

[/b]

 

At least is true, but it actually dates back farther then Aton. The bible itself was written in 3,500 B.C. Aten was created in 1500 B.C. Aten worship is a little late as an entry in the monotheism debate.

 

[/b]

 

The time of origin of a teaching in human history, is not a proof of authenticity of that teaching. Rather it rests on the one giving the testimony. And, you are putting words in my mouth- I never said that the teaching of monotheism started with the Christians. I said and I'll quote:

 

[/b]

 

Just think about what you said:

 

[/b]

 

1. When did I say Christians originated the teaching of monotheism?

2. When did I imply that Christians originated the teaching of monotheism?

 

I'll quote myself again:

 

[/b]

 

I only said that Christians were "all over the place" at the time. I didn't say anything about them being the originators of monotheism. I only referred to the time of the authorship of the Edda, and the culture, geography, and society in which it was written; about the 10th century. I invite you to read more closely, and stick to what I said.

 

Let's take this to the NGD Section please, thank you. [/b]

 

You cannot show that the earliest works included in the bible support a notion of monotheism. If you are reduced to arguing for revelation then you really need to take a step back. Revelation is far too personal a experience for you to ever be able to communicate its nature to anyone other than yourself.