Talk:Sword and sorcery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Merge with Heroic Fantasy 2 Gender 3 Red Sonjya 4 Can we get some LOTR? 5 Elric 6 Ouroboros Spoilers?

[edit] Merge with Heroic Fantasy

Encyclopedia reference should expand not diminish. Deleting an already existing entry goes totally against the nature of encyclopedias, and knowledge in general. Unless two entries everlap 100%, of course, which is not the case. Heroic fantasy could mean a lot more than just Sword&Sorcery, the latter being a fairly specific and recent genre, while the former could also be link with traditional folk epic themes. So, the two entries are not the same and should not be merged. Stanislav

Note that above comment was entered after the comments below.

Deleting useless entries from an encyclopedia, so far from going against their natures, supports it by making them more useful.

Finally, it does not matter what they could mean; it matters what they do, in fact, mean. Goldfritha 21:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any difference between the S&S genre and HF? I can't see any. If there are, they probably should be listed in the article(s).--SidiLemine 12:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Heroic fantasy" is often regarded as a high-falutin' way to say "sword and sorcery." Heroic fantasy should be merged with this, really. Goldfritha 00:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that "Sword and Sorcery" is, perhaps, a subgenre of "Heroic Fantasy," a larger category that could easily include Epic and High Fantasy. In tone and feel, S&S is "gritter" than other works that could be considered "Heroic Fantasy." In addition, much Heroic Fantasy includes moral themes of "Good and Evil" (often "Good vs. Evil"), whereas questions of morality are far less a concern in S&S; rather, the characters in S&S have their own individualistic codes of behavior that they adhere to, though these may vary from what is conventionally considered "Good" or "Evil." In fact, many S&S characters find employment with patrons who are not much more "moral" than the protagonists' foes. Finally, I would argue that while Heroic Fantasy might include epic battles and grand, world-changing events, S&S rarely does; events in S&S tend to be on a smaller scale, and have more to do with the protagonists' self-centered goals and needs, typically their own survival or filling their money pouch. These S&S protagonists rarely set out with the conscious desires to become great heroes that will change their worlds; they just want to make a buck to fill their stomachs, they may be out for vengeance, or they may simply have a wanderlust that leads them into adventures. EpicReader 11:10, 6 November 2006

Nevermind "could." The question is whether, as used, the term does include Epic and High Fantasy. In fact, your description seems to argue that epic and heroic fantasy are synonyms. If the term can mean either or both, it's not a useful term. Goldfritha 02:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to think there is a difference, but as with many terms of genre, people decide upon one interpretation and stick to it. From what I have been taught, Sword and Sorcery is a genre that depicts generally average non-fantastic figures moving through a fantastic world - i.e. a hero who, while being strong, fierce, etc, has no mystical powers, yet still must fight in a world filled with magic. Heroic Fantasy, on the other hand, has no such restrictions - and often features magical characters in lead (non-villian) roles. Conan is best described as Sword and Sorcery, while Record of Lodoss War is a Heroic Fantasy. I think the articles need work, not a merge. ParticularlyEvil 21:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The question is -- is what you have been taught the standard usage? Goldfritha 23:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd tend to agree with ParticularlyEvil. It's true that S&S implies there"s going to be swords, whereas HF doesn't, and is thus freer in style. I'd like to see articles on both, if only we could find a reference to define both separately...--SidiLemine 10:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather, the Heroic Fantasy article should be deleted. The difference between the two subjects is very subtle, and the quality of the Heroic Fantasy article is very poor. It reflects poor education on the history of the subject, defines and describes Heroic Fantasy poorly (and innaccurately), and focuses far too much on obscure or unimportant writers. Martin is the exception, but his contributions to fantasy are not specifically associated with 'Heroic fantasy.' The Sword and Sorcery article covers the subject tolerably well. The low quality of the article on 'Heroic Fantasy,' its redundancy with the other, and significant lack of consensus for the meaning of the term 'Heroic Fantasy' are all arguments for removing it, or else making it a stub reference that defines itself by its relation to Sword and Sorcery.

Otherwise, it should be completely rewritten.

I agree with Epic Reader whose comment I saw after writing this. He/She was dead on. The Sword and Sorcery genre is derived from Tolkien and Lewis so why should either author define themselves by their relation to Sword and Sorcery. It should be the genre that identifies with them. Also Tolkien and Lewis and possibly the other authors in the Heroic Fantasy article (who I am unfamiliar with) listed did not predominantly write "Sword and Sorcery." Just because their more popular works might have helped spawn the genre doesn't mean that they should be identified with a genre that might have connotations that are not reflected in their work (in my opinion). My longer argument follows below:

My main objection is that it is arguable that Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings spawned the genre at least in D&D's case. And as much as I love the D&D novels, I think that Tolkien and many of the other author's works are written in a much more literary-based tradition whereas the Sword and Sorcery genre which is deeply written in the pulp traditions. Thats not to take away from the pulp genre. It has great merits and traditions and is a formidable genre by itself.

I would find it slightly offensive to see Tolkien and Lewis labeled as Sword and Sorcery authors. Sword and Sorcery does not reflect even a small portion of either author's body of work but just their more "popular pieces". Also their "Sword and Sorcery" work was far more allegorical (Sorry JRR) than the pulp tradition that followed. They do more than tell a quest or swashbuckling tale, they tell us very real things about the nature of life and existence. The creature Gollum was an essay on addiction whether to technology or substances. Authors that transcend the sub-genre should not be listed with ones that don't. Also it might be helpful to read "The Demarcation of Sword and Sorcery" by Joseph A. McCullough V which can be found on the Sword and Sorcery E-Zine that is linked on the S&S page. The E-Zine does states the similarities of the two genres but does not believe that they are one entity and I agree with them at least in the case of the LOTR Blueskelton 11:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Blue Skelton

I strongly urge that heroic fiction not be merged with sword and sorcery. Heroic fiction is a broader umbrella -- sword and sorcery is particularly specific. Look here, at www.swordandsorcery.org:

http://www.swordandsorcery.org/defining-sword-and-sorcery.htm

And here, another article from the same site. Both are annotated and well-researched and seemingly argue against combining heroic fiction and sword and sorcery. Clearly they state that LOTR is NOT, strictly speaking, sword and sorcery.

http://www.swordandsorcery.org/demarcation-of-sword-and-sorcery.htm

As the author of the first of these articles, and the primary writer of an article for the forthcoming Greenwood genre encyclopedia that defines sword and sorcery, I'd like to vote firmly that there's a difference and that they should not be merted. Given time, I'll update this entry myself. (Howard A. Jones74.137.230.69 19:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

Keep 'em separate. Sword and sorcery refers to a specific flavor of storytelling, usually but not always heroic fantasy. HF, on the other hand, refers to a wide range of stories, some of which qualify as S&S. There is overlap, and a good many stories which belong to both groups, but they're still two different terms with different implications. Heroic fantasy is more about the story structure, while Sword & Sorcery generally refers to the style of storytelling. Noclevername 01:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gender

I object to "muscular heroes in violent conflict with a variety of villains" -- especially n the "Chicks in Chain Mail" series, and other female and feminist authors, there are many, many, many female protaganists in the genre, and many of them avoid violent conflict altogether. -- Zoe

Why objectionable? The text to which you seem to object ("muscular heroes in violent conflict with a variety of villains") says nothing about the gender of the hero. I think that it refers to muscular heroes of both genders. I suppose you could instead say "muscular heroes and heroines in violent conflict" but why use the sexist "heroine"? Even "muscular heroines and heroes in violent conflict" is less satisfactory to me than the original.

By the way, I think the issue of gender in S&S is handled quite well at the end of the article. What do you think?

Zoe, I suggest you propose an alternative that would improve the entry -- or just change the entry. Thanks! -- User:Cayzle

Seconded. If you think that there is important information being left out of this article, then go ahead and add it! People can only write what they know, and the only real femininist S&S I was aware of is MZBs... I'm sure that there's more out there in this day and age, but I haven't come across it. ~ KJ

Ant: It's implicit in my source for this that the phrasing of this definition is due to Moorcock in 1961. But not explicit... Certainly, in the 1960s, the perception was that it was very much a "masculine" subgenre, written by men, about men, for men... well, adolescent boys mostly?

If the protagonists, male or female, "avoid violent conflict altogether", then it's not sword and sorcery, it's diplomacy and sorcery; still fantasy, and possibly heroic, but technically not covered by this article. Noclevername 20:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Why can't the word "heroes" refer to female heroes? "Heroines" sounds somewhat archaic. Noclevername

[edit] Red Sonjya

Red Sonja never appeared in a Howard Conan story, and the character is almost wholly a creation of Roy Thomas. I'm correcting the article as-such, but I wanted to let people know why I was doing it. 172.148.61.63 16:08, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The above corrections were apparently not made, so I went ahead and did them. "Red Sonya" appeared in a non-Conan adventure story (not a fantasy story) by Howard called "The Shadow of the Vulture." The character created by Thomas and Windsor-Smith was called "Red Sonja" (note the 'j') and is only inspired by the 16th-century Spanish heroine of Howard’s tale. 24 July 2005

Should mention be made here of "The Eye of Argon", arguably the worst story ever written? I'm pretty sure it has its own article somewhere as well. 203.26.177.2 18:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It certainly does! See The Eye of Argon, right here on wikipedia!

BPK 18:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we get some LOTR?

This article needs some references to Tolkien and Lord of the Rings. 129.21.109.54 02:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? Lord of the Rings is just about the canonical example of high fantasy. Goldfritha 23:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elric

Does Elric count as sword-and-sorcery? It violates one of the central rules the article lays out, in that there are consistently kingdom- and world-changing events, up to the point of the entire universe being destroyed by the end of the series, IIRC. 69.225.161.57 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though I've heard of it referred to as S&S, it has all the hallmarks of high fantasy: fantastical magical feats that are hardly explained or even considered, fast pacing, end of the world story arc. I would be interested to know why people consider it to be S&S? 66.152.196.34 17:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Elric counts because the "rules" laid out aren't really rules, merely an observation of what most sword and sorcery is like. In other words they're descriptive, not prescriptive; the focus on personal ends rather than world changing events is a matter of emphasis, not exclusion.

The possibility (and sometimes actuality) of world changing events is quite common in sword and sorcery. Protagonists in selfish pursuit of their own ends are often at the same time the unwitting (and occasionally) witting champions of higher powers. For instance, Robert E. Howard portrays Conan, after he becomes king, as the chosen champion of the god Mitra against the forces of the dark god Set. (Though Conan isn't crazy about the idea and is more than a little creeped out by it.) In Andre Norton's Witch World, the witches of Estcarp finally defeat their enemies by literally changing the world with a great feat of magic (despite which Norton's focus remains on the mundane concerns of her protagonists). Thongor wars against the Dragon Kings because his personal success at climbing to the top of the heap makes him de facto leader of the human side in an age-old race war. One could go on and on.

As for Elric, the whole focus of his saga is on his his attempt to find a little personal happiness and escape his fate as a major player in the destiny of the universe. In his story, world changing events are a mark of his failure. The fact that they happen doesn't negate the fact that emphasis of the saga is on his personal story.

The ways in which S&S heroes affect their world tend to be small, but aren't always.

BPK 18:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ouroboros Spoilers?

Don't know what wikipedia's rules are on spoilers, but this article contains a major spoiler for the book The Worm Ouroboros, by E.R. Eddison. Granted, it's topical, and I knew about the ending before I finished the book. But, some people hold this book in nearly religious regard, and I could see this spoiler really ruining someone's day. 66.152.196.34 17:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Anybody who decides to read about something runs the risk of actually finding out about it. Personally, I've never known a "spoiler" to have actually spoiled a particular story for me. People used to regularly put spoiler alerts in the material they posted to wikipedia. The policy now seems to be that they're unnecessary.

BPK 18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)