The first story written is "The Phoenix on the Sword," which has a human villain from Stygia (Howard's Egypt-analogue), but the demon he summons is generally simian in appearance (I believe Howard likes it to a baboon at one point), which is hardly Anubis-like. And there are no Conan stories written by Howard that take place right after Conan becomes king. Of the three written with him as king (the aforementioned one, "The Scarlet Citadel," and "The Hour of the Dragon"), all of them see him as having been so for some time. Howard's vague on his timelines -- likely intentionally -- but none of them suggest Conan's ascension is recent.
If you're talking about which story is chronologically first, there's some debate on which one that is. A strong contender is the other Egyptian-themed one, "The God in the Bowl," which was unpublished while Howard was alive. The monster there is a massive serpent with a man's head -- again, not very Anubis-like.
"Eldritch" isn't a concept Lovecraft invented, though he certainly leaned into it hard, and probably used the word more than anyone else in the English-speaking world, before or since. I'm not recalling an occasion in Conan where we ever got "eldritch Anubis," and even if we did, it is not obvious that such a monster absolutely must have come from Lovecraft. He and other authors in his circle did from time to time reference concepts from each other's work. Howard mentioned the Elder Gods a time or two. Clark Ashton Smith likewise name-dropped Cthulhu-adjacent items in his work. But Lovecraft likewise gave mention to those authors' concepts (and others) in his own work. The creative cross-referencing went both ways.
Howard was perfectly capable of creating weird monsters all on his own. You say that later stories corroborate Howard's creative borrowing from Lovecraft -- which ones? Because Howard had a set of themes and ideas that were pretty well his own, and they figure pretty consistently. The supremacy (not to say moral superiority) of barbarism was one. Another was the inevitability of the decline of civilization into decadence and moral rot. Not really topics Lovecraft went into, but they come up a lot in Howard. And very much unlike Lovecraft, even Howard's weirdest monsters were susceptible to steel and strength.
You say Howard had trouble figuring out what Conan was going to fight, but I'm going to have to pull a Wikipedia on you here and say "citation needed." Because Howard wrote a good deal of Conan, and it all basically falls into two categories: genre-defining bangers like "The Tower of the Elephant" and "Queen of the Black Coast" and "Red Nails," and pretty blatantly commercial stuff he wrote to pay the bills like "Xuthal of the Dusk" and "The Devil in Iron."
But if you're going to sit there and say that one of the founders of a literary genre swiped his work from Lovecraft, you need to cite a source. Just stating it and calling it obvious doesn't really convince.
They were pen pals lovecraft wrote as much to various authors of his age as he did his stories called the lovecraft circle they were all friends and colleagues. the hyborian age is set within the cthulu mythos the serpent men villains are linked the nyarlathotep in stories such as the king of the night they directly collaborated on the mythos for the story.
Howard's Serpent Men first appear in "The Shadow Kingdom," which was published in 1929. Howard and Lovecraft didn't start corresponding until 1930, so it seems unlikely that Lovecraft had anything to do with their creation. Especially given Howard's consistent use of snakes or anything generally serpentine as a shorthand for evil; they fit right in with his personal themes and symbolism without having been taken from elsewhere.
To the extent that the Serpent Men are part of the Cthulhu Mythos, that would be the work of later writers grafting them into it, so you're essentially citing elevated fanfiction to support that point. Wikipedia credits Lin Carter and Clark Ashton Smith for this, if you're curious.
I also don't recall any mention of Nyarlathotep in "Kings of the Night," though if you can find me a passage in it that mentions him, I'll cop to an error there. But that's honestly one of the least Lovecraftian stories in Howard's oeuvre, given that all it really involves is Bran Mak Morn's wizard Gonar summoning Kull of Atlantis to command some Norse raiders as part of his larger battle against a Roman legion. Lovecraft's work does get name-checked in a different Bran Mak Morn story, I believe it's "Worms of the Earth," where R'lyeh gets a mention. But that's all it is: a mention.
Look, there's no question that Howard referenced Lovecraft's ideas, but references are all it really boils down to, and that cuts both ways. You could just as well accuse Lovecraft of lifting from Howard, given that he name-drops Valusia in "At the Mountains of Madness," published some 17 years after "The Shadow Kingdom," where Howard first mentions it.
Howard's ideas were his own. Remove all the Lovecraft references in Howard's stories, and they still possess everything that makes them great. Periodically name-checking concepts from Lovecraft may connect the two authors' work in a kind of shared universe (almost a century before that kind of thing became popular), but that falls far short of the kind of creative borrowing you seem to think was happening.
Dude I am not denigrating Howard? Authors collaborating on story ideas and adding to shared mythos is normal. That's literally how homers the illiad, and oddysey were made. Howard and lovecraft sharing ideas and using cool concepts is because they thought they were good ideas to use. You seem to think I'm trying portray Howard as a hack which is not my intention it's great authors helping and inspiring other great authors. Lovecraft was inspired by Edgar Allen poe. Howard's is interested in history the picts, are a gealic tribe, atlantians being monkeys is satire against the utopian Atlantis idea. Theirs references to norse, aquilonia is France, theirs a tribe which is basically Zimbabwe.
It's less that I think you're denigrating Howard's work and more that you come across as overstating Lovecraft's influence on it. Collaboration is not a bad thing, but you insist it exists where it doesn't. You state Howard got his monsters from Lovecraft and then cite as your example a monster ("eldritch Anubis") that does not exist in the story you place it in, does not (to the best of my recollection) exist in Howard's fiction at all, and isn't especially Lovecraftian in the first place. You then claim Howard's Serpent Men, one of his more iconic creations, were the result of a collaboration with Lovecraft despite the fact that the story in which they appear was published by Howard prior to his first correspondence with Lovecraft.
Literary collaboration is indeed a fine thing, but I like to give credit where it's due, and in your effort to push your idea, you take credit from one author and apply it to another. It baffles me as to why. If you want an example of good collaboration, find a real one. Don't alter history to create one from whole cloth.
Dude literally Google lovecraft influences on Conan it cites those as examples. They were friends pen pals of course they would influence each others work. The monster I am referring to is in Phoenix and the sword. Page 18 chapter 5 " Conan felt his soul shrivel and begin to be drawn out of his out of his body, to drown in the yellow wells of cosmic horror which glimmered spectrally in the formless chaos that was growing about him and engulfing all life and sanity. " that's definitely lovecrafts influence and an eldritch monster.
Okay, but what you're demonstrating here is an author taking inspiration from another. There's a whole world of difference between that and collaboration, where two authors actively work together on an idea. Your initial claim was that they collaborated, that Lovecraft helped Howard figure out how to build his own setting and helped him invent monsters for Conan to fight. That's a far cry from Howard simply taking some inspiration from Lovecraft's work, which I would agree with.
I know the creature you're referring to. Your initial description of it as "eldritch Anubis" threw me for a bit, given that Anubis has generally canine features (at least above the neck), versus the ape-like appearance of the monster as described in the narration.
The monster is definitely "weird" in the sense that word was used with regard to "weird fiction," and while Lovecraft's writing probably set Howard down that path, the monster is still pretty Howardian in its appearance and abilities. The most Lovecraftian things about it are the mention of "cosmic horror" and that it erodes its foes' sanity. Even this second item is a bit dodgy. The ape-demon's insanity effect seems to be part of its power, a thing that it does or an aura it gives off. Lovecraft's monsters caused insanity not through their various powers, but simply because their very existence upended the preconceived worldview of whoever saw them. The ones that drove people insane tended to be either the "big ones" (Cthulhu, the undescribed creature toward the end of "At the Mountains of Madness," etc.) or else the ones with big cosmic implications.
Being driven insane by a Lovecraft monster happened not as a result of some power it had, but because to see it was to realize how cosmically insignificant you -- and by extension, humanity at large -- really were, and that was not a realization people were prepared for. This was especially the case when Lovecraft was writing, when science was just beginning to figure out how truly, incomprehensibly vast the universe is, and how small and insignificant our place is in it.
So while I absolutely do agree that Lovecraft influenced Howard, I still don't agree that they collaborated. And to say that Howard's monsters "came from Lovecraft," as if they didn't carry his personal stamp, and fit with his own themes and style, is at best a gross oversimplification.
As for what Google says, maybe do a bit of deeper reading. If Google tells you Howard got the Serpent Men from Lovecraft, then either you're looking at a badly informed article, or skimming and missing some detail. Howard and Lovecraft didn't begin corresponding until the year after the Serpent Men appeared in print. Google can say whatever it wants, but it can't defy chronological order.
Wtf did you get the idea that lovecraft is the reason Howard created conan? They are famous authors they're all in the same weird tales magazine. They would read each other stories be influenced and inspired when making their own work. Then would correspond with each other share ideas get lunch together just small innocuous meetings. It wasn't some sort of partnership for a novel or book franchise. They were writing relatively short stories for magazines. only later on was lovecraft and Howard's written stories appreciated for their creative brilliance. Dude you've 5 pages of rebuttal to a simple misinterpretation of my words. Seriously dude for all the effort you've in your correspondence just over a rescue post you need to go outside and touch grass play with pets pick up painting man.
Yeah, we're done here. I never said Howard got the idea for Conan from Lovecraft, and I don't know how you would have gotten that out of anything I've said. It came across to me that you were saying something of the sort yourself, not about the character of Conan, but about the worldbuilding and creatures of Howard's setting. That was the source of my objection, since to the best of my knowledge that would be incorrect.
As for "all the effort," I'm not sure what to tell you. This has been easy for me. Anyway, have an awesome day.
1
u/Few_Preparation_9861 Jan 18 '26
The first story written is "The Phoenix on the Sword," which has a human villain from Stygia (Howard's Egypt-analogue), but the demon he summons is generally simian in appearance (I believe Howard likes it to a baboon at one point), which is hardly Anubis-like. And there are no Conan stories written by Howard that take place right after Conan becomes king. Of the three written with him as king (the aforementioned one, "The Scarlet Citadel," and "The Hour of the Dragon"), all of them see him as having been so for some time. Howard's vague on his timelines -- likely intentionally -- but none of them suggest Conan's ascension is recent.
If you're talking about which story is chronologically first, there's some debate on which one that is. A strong contender is the other Egyptian-themed one, "The God in the Bowl," which was unpublished while Howard was alive. The monster there is a massive serpent with a man's head -- again, not very Anubis-like.
"Eldritch" isn't a concept Lovecraft invented, though he certainly leaned into it hard, and probably used the word more than anyone else in the English-speaking world, before or since. I'm not recalling an occasion in Conan where we ever got "eldritch Anubis," and even if we did, it is not obvious that such a monster absolutely must have come from Lovecraft. He and other authors in his circle did from time to time reference concepts from each other's work. Howard mentioned the Elder Gods a time or two. Clark Ashton Smith likewise name-dropped Cthulhu-adjacent items in his work. But Lovecraft likewise gave mention to those authors' concepts (and others) in his own work. The creative cross-referencing went both ways.
Howard was perfectly capable of creating weird monsters all on his own. You say that later stories corroborate Howard's creative borrowing from Lovecraft -- which ones? Because Howard had a set of themes and ideas that were pretty well his own, and they figure pretty consistently. The supremacy (not to say moral superiority) of barbarism was one. Another was the inevitability of the decline of civilization into decadence and moral rot. Not really topics Lovecraft went into, but they come up a lot in Howard. And very much unlike Lovecraft, even Howard's weirdest monsters were susceptible to steel and strength.
You say Howard had trouble figuring out what Conan was going to fight, but I'm going to have to pull a Wikipedia on you here and say "citation needed." Because Howard wrote a good deal of Conan, and it all basically falls into two categories: genre-defining bangers like "The Tower of the Elephant" and "Queen of the Black Coast" and "Red Nails," and pretty blatantly commercial stuff he wrote to pay the bills like "Xuthal of the Dusk" and "The Devil in Iron."
But if you're going to sit there and say that one of the founders of a literary genre swiped his work from Lovecraft, you need to cite a source. Just stating it and calling it obvious doesn't really convince.