I thought a lot like you, when the first pastiches after the original 12 books de Camp put out
started coming out. I said great! I love Conan and I'd love to read more of him. Problem is, after a
few books by Jordan, Anderson, de Camp, Offutt, etc., it became blaringly obvious that these stories
were not Conan in terms of Howard. No one has really come close to capturing Howard's prose style,
and that is part of what makes his Conan tales so great. If you don't see the difference.........? I
gave up, it wasn't worth the effort.
Im not sure that it is necessary to capture Howards prose style to write a good Conan novel. So long as one gets the facts straight from Howards writings and one is not incongruous to his published works, it seems to me that it is just as if another person had seen Conan in his wanderings and told the story in their own way. I see the difference, i just dont mind much that they are in another writers style unless i feel from the story something such as "Conan would never say that! This is incongrous with Howards character!" So far they are still an enjoyable read for the most part unless thay just screw up all the time.
Quixote
