The Sword & Sorcery appreciation thread

[ShelbyDawn57]

Well, consistency is always a given in fiction. And like you say, it offers countless hooks.

But I don't think consistency should be used as a shortcut for characterisation. If you're going to say that all dwarves have beards, why is that? Do their beards function like a cat's whiskers, like in Artemis Fowl, to help the dwarf sense tremors underground? Or are dwarves actually made of stone, and their beards are lichens that grow on them?

I think, due to there short yet robust stature, and the fact that female dwarves have beards, too, they're actually sex organs.

 

[StillStunned]

I think, due to there short yet robust stature, and the fact that female dwarves have beards, too, they're actually sex organs.

Mountains and hills send dwarves out into the world like the spores of a plant, to reproduce and grow into new mountains and hills...

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Mountains and hills send dwarves out into the world like the spores of a plant, to reproduce and grow into new mountains and hills...

Ooh, Stunned, let me stroke your luscious beard, let us mingle our hair bringing forth new life, new mountains to conquer together...

EDIT: Tell the redhead I'm kidding. I don;t need her hinting me down and kicking my ass.

 

[Wonderer67]

I always preferred the s&s genre over high fantasy. Both in reading and also RPGs.

I preferred the grittiness and “realism” of the genre over some of the more over the top styles. I like Conan and also the grey mouser stories.

From a gaming perspective, hero games put out a great supplement to its fantasy hero line, called The Valdorian Age, which was a great source book for all things swords and sorcery.

Any, and all games I ever ran were always super gritty and as “relaistic” as possible.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I always preferred the s&s genre over high fantasy. Both in reading and also RPGs.

I preferred the grittiness and “realism” of the genre over some of the more over the top styles. I like Conan and also the grey mouser stories.

From a gaming perspective, hero games put out a great supplement to its fantasy hero line, called The Valdorian Age, which was a great source book for all things swords and sorcery.

Any, and all games I ever ran were always super gritty and as “relaistic” as possible.

As a longtime D&D player(I got started on the ADD first edition.), I'm inferring an addendum; "...Until the player group showed up, then all my detailed planning went right out the window."

 

[StillStunned]

Ooh, Stunned, let me stroke your luscious beard, let us mingle our hair bringing forth new life, new mountains to conquer together...

EDIT: Tell the redhead I'm kidding. I don;t need her hinting me down and kicking my ass.

I'll let you explain it to her. I'll be hiding behind the couch until it's sorted.

But back to dwarves and mountains... are giants an intermediate stage? The bigger the giant becomes, the more likely it is to lie down and become dormant and settle into the landscape.

But none of this is very S&S, so I'll abandon this train of thought for now.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I'll let you explain it to her. I'll be hiding behind the couch until it's sorted.

But back to dwarves and mountains... are giants an intermediate stage? The bigger the giant becomes, the more likely it is to lie down and become dormant and settle into the landscape.

But none of this is very S&S, so I'll abandon this train of thought for now.

How is this not S&S, or am I missing something in my obvious ignorance.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Saberhagen's books of swords had a huge impact on me at a young age, along with Lord of the Rings and various others. For magic rather than swords, Lyndon Hardy's trilogy was (and still is) unmatched. In later years, Kate Elliott was a firm favourite.

OMG, Thank you. I have been trying to remember who wrote Empire of the East for over a year, and here you drop Saberhagen's name. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Off to Amazon to re-buy the series.

 

[StillStunned]

How is this not S&S, or am I missing something in my obvious ignorance.

It feels more "high fantasy" to me. Partly because it smacks of grand worldbuilding, as opposed to the localised storytelling of S&S.

Also, most S&S - again, what I feel to be S&S, which I can't define except by giving examples - most S&S doesn't feature your traditional fantasy races like dwarves, elves and so on. It's usually just humans, with individual members of "exotic" peoples showing up now and then. They're mysterious, if not completely unknown, and you don't often find them living side by side with humans.

But again: this is how I understand S&S. One of my reasons for creating this thread was to discuss what other people feel qualifies, or how they define it.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

It feels more "high fantasy" to me. Partly because it smacks of grand worldbuilding, as opposed to the localised storytelling of S&S.

Also, most S&S - again, what I feel to be S&S, which I can't define except by giving examples - most S&S doesn't feature your traditional fantasy races like dwarves, elves and so on. It's usually just humans, with individual members of "exotic" peoples showing up now and then. They're mysterious, if not completely unknown, and you don't often find them living side by side with humans.

But again: this is how I understand S&S. One of my reasons for creating this thread was to discuss what other people feel qualifies, or how they define it.

That's why I ask. I get the locality of the stories and the smaller 'vision', but I also see the Witcher game and movies as S&S, not high fantasy and they have elves and the other Elder Races, so...

I guess i just make the determination at the epic battle of the five armies as opposed to a small band of adventurers going off to raid a dragon's lair. Oh wait, Tolkien did that, too.

I kind of think the two can work together. LOTR is the definition of high fantasy by all counts, but still has elements of S&S. Trolls make good bad guys as do goblins and even giants. I personally think I'd soil my leathers if faced with a Balrog, but again, a small group of orcs; what self respecting band of adventurers would step up and eradicate them from a village willing to pay for the trouble, and then coordinate with the leader of the orc band on which small village will be next on their list? Tolkien would never...

 

[StillStunned]

That's why I ask. I get the locality of the stories and the smaller 'vision', but I also see the Witcher game and movies as S&S, not high fantasy and they have elves and the other Elder Races, so...

With the disclaimer that I've only read the first two books and a couple of the comics and seen the television series: I'd say that The Witcher is dark fantasy, starting out with some parodies of/alternative takes on fairy tales. Perhaps this is a reflection of a more Eastern European take on fantasy, or else of the trend of the past 20-25 years towards grimdark fantasy.

Of course the line between dark/grimdark fantasy and S&S is also very blurred.

I guess i just make the determination at the epic battle of the five armies as opposed to a small band of adventurers going off to raid a dragon's lair. Oh wait, Tolkien did that, too.

I'd still categories The Hobbit as high fantasy. Elaborate worldbuilding, concerns about saving a nation or people, fully developed non-human areas. You could redo it as S&s if Bilbo was after the dragon's gold all along and attaches himself to a roaming band of dwarves as a way to get to the loot.

I kind of think the two can work together. LOTR is the definition of high fantasy by all counts, but still has elements of S&S. Trolls make good bad guys as do goblins and even giants. I personally think I'd soil my leathers if faced with a Balrog, but again, a small group of orcs; what self respecting band of adventurers would step up and eradicate them from a village willing to pay for the trouble, and then coordinate with the leader of the orc band on which small village will be next on their list? Tolkien would never...

I think one of the key differences is attitude and worldview. In my first post in this thread I wrote:

But somewhere in my mid-teens I discovered Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, and then RE Howard's original Conan stories. Perhaps I was becoming a bit jaded with good-v-evil and noble-heroes-and-pure-heroines-overcome-personal-issues-and-still-manage-to-find-happiness-and-save-the-world-along-the-way. Or maybe I was growing up and realising that the world was a pretty nasty place, not like the fantasy worlds that had been my refuge growing up.

Either way, there was something about the simpler, more selfish worlds of the Sword & Sorcery branch of fantasy that's stuck with me. The characters feel more real. You can feel the dirt under their nails, taste the stale wine on their lips, smell the stink of their cities. You can relate to their motives - mostly just wanting to get to the end of the day slightly better off than they were when they woke up.

And even Tolkien's most selfish heroes never come close to this earthiness of S&S.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Did anyone mention Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast trilogy - meandering, maundering melancholia....lol
- Titus Groan, Gormenghast and Titus Alone;

Definitely fantasy, but maybe not strictly swords and sorcery....they got a lot of critical acclaim and they were influential on a few writers - Michael Moorcock and Chine Mieville and George RR Martin amongst them. Personally I found them pretty hard going and easily put downable. More "literary" fiction than anything else, and I've never been big on "literary" lol

 

[Britva415]

people don't care about any part of the setting they're not interacting with.

paradox of fantasy worldbuilding: the less worldbuilding you do, the more real your world will feel.

Nicely said.

 

[Britva415]

But I don't think consistency should be used as a shortcut for characterisation.

If you're going to say that all dwarves have beards, why is that? Do their beards function like a cat's whiskers, like in Artemis Fowl, to help the dwarf sense tremors underground? Or are dwarves actually made of stone, and their beards are lichens that grow on them?

Even more pointedly:

Why is that? Is the beard, or the fact that all dwarves have them, going to become a Chekov's Gun in the plot at some point?

I'm not saying everything has to be a Chekov's Gun. But related to the point above about how people only care about stuff which is directly relevant - maybe characterization of "all dwarves" isn't necessary, and the characterization of any one particular dwarf might be orthogonal to the fact that he and all his kind have beards.

I think we can (often) give dwarves beards "just for consistency," and not scratch at the paint too much.

When that one beardless dwarf is introduced, it had better be a Chekov's Gun, I agree.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Of course the line between dark/grimdark fantasy and S&S is also very blurred.

I'm starting to see this as a massive venn diagram. High fantasy, low fantasy, sword and sorcery, dark fantasy, historical fantasy, urban fantasy, portal fantasy, steampunk, magical realism, fairy tale fantasy, comic fantasy, grimdark fantasy, and young adult fantasy(yes, I got that list from an AI search. Sue me), even sci-fi all interlaced to create a complex blend of genres. I think you can do S&S with fantastical creatures, just not societies or armies of them. It becomes a question of scale; a solo dragon, a wandering troll, that kind of stuff. Sorcerers create nasties all the time, right? No expansive world building, just a random challenge for some sell sword and his cronies to try and deal with to earn a silver or a few coppers to pay the wench at the inn for a night of comfort.

Me using the Smaug as an example was trying to convey that even though there was a larger quest in play, that single story of vanquishing a dragon and claiming its hoard could be offered as an S&S vignette when extracted from the greater world. The specific characters would be irrelevant if not in context as would their ulterior motivation. It's just a robbery with a dragon. It works in both sub genres.

I guess my point is that I don't think the lines are clear cut. There is overlap and it is a spectrum, a gradient and I don't see any reason we can't have dwarves or giants in S&S as long as the story in kept grounded.

EDIT:

Expanding the results of that same search beyond the introductory blurb showed this:

Key points about different fantasy types:

• High Fantasy:
  Set in a completely invented world with complex magical systems and often large-scale epic narratives, like "Lord of the Rings".
  
  
• Low Fantasy:
  Features magical elements integrated into a world resembling our own, with a more grounded feel, like "The Dresden Files".
  
  
• Sword and Sorcery:
  Focuses on action-oriented stories with characters wielding swords and utilizing magic in a more direct way, like Conan the Barbarian.
  • Dark Fantasy:
    Incorporates elements of horror and often features grim themes and morally ambiguous characters, like "A Song of Ice and Fire"
  • Historical Fantasy:
    Blends fantastical elements into a real historical setting, like "The Mists of Avalon"
  • Urban Fantasy:
    Set in a modern city with magical beings and hidden supernatural aspects, like "The Dresden Files"
  • Portal Fantasy:
    Stories where characters travel through a portal to a fantastical world, like "The Chronicles of Narnia"
  • Steampunk:
    Features technology based on steam power with a Victorian aesthetic, often incorporating gears and clockwork mechanisms
  • Magical Realism:
    Blurs the lines between reality and fantasy, where magical elements are accepted as normal in an otherwise familiar world
  • Fairy Tale Fantasy:
    Reimagines classic fairy tales with a fantastical twist
  • Comic Fantasy:
    Emphasizes humor and lightheartedness in the narrative
  • Grimdark Fantasy:
    Characterized by bleak settings, extreme violence, and morally complex characters

 

[Duleigh]

So toss back that cup of wine, leave the comely tavern owner with a handful of silver and a slap on their rump, grab your sword and join me for an adventure!

If you haven't read it yet, I would love to hear your opinion of my Enchantress series.

It's a fan fiction and I love writing fantasy so much that I want to do it again. My first attempt was another fan fiction called The Gate. I would like to "Unfan" these stories, put the characters in my own world and make a romantasy out of it, especially Nick and Octavia, I love those two. If I can work Gaspode in there, I got it made...

 

[ElectricBlue]

Did anyone mention Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast trilogy - meandering, maundering melancholia....lol
- Titus Groan, Gormenghast and Titus Alone;

Not here, but in other threads on the same subject. Peake walks all over Tolkein in my opinion as a writer. I just finished Titus Alone, yesterday, in fact.

It's quite unlike the other two books, and all the more poignant because of the tragedy of Peake and his premature senility. That's a disturbing undercurrent, when you read it. Peake went into Belsen as a war artist - I think that left a horrific, indelible mark that permeates Titus Alone.

 

[StillStunned]

I'm starting to see this as a massive venn diagram. High fantasy, low fantasy, sword and sorcery, dark fantasy, historical fantasy, urban fantasy, portal fantasy, steampunk, magical realism, fairy tale fantasy, comic fantasy, grimdark fantasy, and young adult fantasy(yes, I got that list from an AI search. Sue me), even sci-fi all interlaced to create a complex blend of genres. I think you can do S&S with fantastical creatures, just not societies or armies of them. It becomes a question of scale; a solo dragon, a wandering troll, that kind of stuff. Sorcerers create nasties all the time, right? No expansive world building, just a random challenge for some sell sword and his cronies to try and deal with to earn a silver or a few coppers to pay the wench at the inn for a night of comfort.

You can have fantastical creatures, even as whole races. I have a series of S&S stories (non-erotic, not published anywhere) with elves as murderous fey that the protagonist hates. They're like the Shanka in Joe Abercrombie's books: primitive, vicious, intent on slaughter. No individual personalities to humanise them. Perhaps that's what makes me classify those stories as S&S?

Me using the Smaug as an example was trying to convey that even though there was a larger quest in play, that single story of vanquishing a dragon and claiming its hoard could be offered as an S&S vignette when extracted from the greater world. The specific characters would be irrelevant if not in context as would their ulterior motivation. It's just a robbery with a dragon. It works in both sub genres.

Definitely.

I guess my point is that I don't think the lines are clear cut. There is overlap and it is a spectrum, a gradient and I don't see any reason we can't have dwarves or giants in S&S as long as the story in kept grounded.

And I at least should try to be less snobbish about what might or might not be S&S. Like you say, no clear lines. It probably depends more on the style and tone than on the subject matter.

EDIT:

Expanding the results of that same search beyond the introductory blurb Key points about different fantasy types:

Are all those categories supposed to fall under S&S? Because I disagree strongly.

 

[StillStunned]

If you haven't read it yet, I would love to hear your opinion of my Enchantress series.

I'll try to make time. It's Discworld-based, right? I think Sir Pterry veered more towards S&S, if only because of the earthiness of his characters.

 

[Duleigh]

I'll try to make time. It's Discworld-based, right? I think Sir Pterry veered more towards S&S, if only because of the earthiness of his characters.

He actually did it for the money. In an interview he stated that he started Discworld because S&S was making all the money at the time and he wanted to satirize the genre. In his stories there's very very little sword play and if there is a sword the edge in knicked so bad it's often mistaken for a saw. And as for sorcery, his wizards are beyond incompetence. If you label is work as anything it would be F&F - Fantasy and Farce

 

[lovecraft68]

 

[StillStunned]

He actually did it for the money. In an interview he stated that he started Discworld because S&S was making all the money at the time and he wanted to satirize the genre. In his stories there's very very little sword play and if there is a sword the edge in knicked so bad it's often mistaken for a saw. And as for sorcery, his wizards are beyond incompetence. If you label is work as anything it would be F&F - Fantasy and Farce

I don't claim to be an expert. I read The Colour of Magic and The Light Fantastic back in the summer of 1985, and the rest as they were published, probably up to Night Watch although I might have skipped a few later on. I wouldn't classify him as outright S&S - he satirises too many other genres for that - but I think even as affectionate parodies they fall loosely within the genre. More than high fantasy, for instance, and more than grimdark.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Not here, but in other threads on the same subject. Peake walks all over Tolkein in my opinion as a writer. I just finished Titus Alone, yesterday, in fact.

It's quite unlike the other two books, and all the more poignant because of the tragedy of Peake and his premature senility. That's a disturbing undercurrent, when you read it. Peake went into Belsen as a war artist - I think that left a horrific, indelible mark that permeates Titus Alone.

I'm really going to have to dig it out and read it again. I know its around in my bookcases somewhere.

I picked it up and read it when I was in high school and haven't tried again, but 15 years will probably put an entirely new perspective on it. I did read about his early death from Parkinsons, I think it was, which was sad. He had about 4 pages of a 4th novel finished - his wife finished it, from his notes partly, I think, and it was eventually published, but I've never read it.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

You can have fantastical creatures, even as whole races. I have a series of S&S stories (non-erotic, not published anywhere) with elves as murderous fey that the protagonist hates. They're like the Shanka in Joe Abercrombie's books: primitive, vicious, intent on slaughter. No individual personalities to humanise them. Perhaps that's what makes me classify those stories as S&S?

Definitely.

And I at least should try to be less snobbish about what might or might not be S&S. Like you say, no clear lines. It probably depends more on the style and tone than on the subject matter.

Are all those categories supposed to fall under S&S? Because I disagree strongly.

No. Cut and paste took care of the formatting. My laziness let it stand.

 

[Duleigh]

I don't claim to be an expert. I read The Colour of Magic and The Light Fantastic back in the summer of 1985, and the rest as they were published, probably up to Night Watch although I might have skipped a few later on. I wouldn't classify him as outright S&S - he satirises too many other genres for that - but I think even as affectionate parodies they fall loosely within the genre. More than high fantasy, for instance, and more than grimdark.

He did satirize some interesting things, the Phantom of the Opera (the musical version) was a good shot. I put a couple of characters on the disk that played by pterry's rules for one episode, then the story became theirs, with a few of Terry's characters doing cameo appearances. A great help in writing was the Disc World Almanac which became a piece of Episode #4.