|
Post by linefacedscrivener on Jan 2, 2020 14:23:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Grim Wanderer on Jan 2, 2020 16:27:14 GMT -5
Good overview of S&S. Very Howardcentric, but that's good and proper.
|
|
|
Post by linefacedscrivener on Jan 2, 2020 17:07:53 GMT -5
Good overview of S&S. Very Howardcentric, but that's good and proper. I also liked the acknowledgement to those that followed Howard as being imitators of his and the subtitle "Imitation is the Sincerest Form . . ." of flattery. I will have to admit, though I have read much of Henry Kuttner, I have never read his Elak series. I just ordered a copy of the collected stories to rectify that. I am sure it is not even close to Howard, but still, Henry Kuttner is usually pretty good for an enjoyable tale.
|
|
|
Post by Von K on Jan 2, 2020 17:21:26 GMT -5
When he writes: is he implying that he thinks Conan is not three dimensional (ie two-dimensional)? I know Leiber wanted F+GM to be heroes who were as he put it 'closer to true human stature than supermen like Conan and Tarzan.'
Nevertheless that's still a very interesting overview on the whole. Thanks linefacedscrivener.
|
|
|
Post by Grim Wanderer on Jan 2, 2020 18:29:24 GMT -5
When he writes: is he implying that he thinks Conan is not three dimensional (ie two-dimensional)? I know Leiber wanted F+GM to be heroes who were as he put it 'closer to true human stature than supermen like Conan and Tarzan.' Nevertheless that's still a very interesting overview on the whole. Thanks linefacedscrivener. That line seemed odd to me as well. It does seem that he's implying that Conan is not as fully realized as Fafhrd on some level. That may be somewhat true in a single story but taken over his entire career I think Conan shows a surprising depth. Also, I've never seen Conan as superhuman. Certainly he has survived some terrible things but he rarely leaves an encounter unscathed and has run when it was needed. The only thing remotely super, to me, was his will to struggle to live. He accepted death as an inevitability but he would only die fighting.
|
|
|
Post by linefacedscrivener on Jan 2, 2020 18:33:31 GMT -5
When he writes: is he implying that he thinks Conan is not three dimensional (ie two-dimensional)? I know Leiber wanted F+GM to be heroes who were as he put it 'closer to true human stature than supermen like Conan and Tarzan.' Nevertheless that's still a very interesting overview on the whole. Thanks linefacedscrivener. I don't like to put words in people's mouths, but I was thinking he meant to say two-dimensional there. So, the line would read: "'Two Sought Adventure' features two roguish swordsmen, Fafhrd, a red-haired barbarian (a two-dimensional Conan) and Grey Mouser, a wizard’s apprentice-turned-thief, the two best swordsmen in Newhon." If that was the case, I would totally agree. Conan was far more complex than Fafhrd ever was. Still, I liked the Grey Mouser series.
|
|
|
Post by Von K on Jan 2, 2020 19:45:58 GMT -5
Here's the full quote from Fritz himself, just in case my memory is a little on the ramshackle side:
|
|
|
Post by Char-Vell on Jan 3, 2020 7:28:16 GMT -5
Good overview of S&S. Very Howardcentric, but that's good and proper. I also liked the acknowledgement to those that followed Howard as being imitators of his and the subtitle "Imitation is the Sincerest Form . . ." of flattery. I will have to admit, though I have read much of Henry Kuttner, I have never read his Elak series. I just ordered a copy of the collected stories to rectify that. I am sure it is not even close to Howard, but still, Henry Kuttner is usually pretty good for an enjoyable tale. The Elak series is quite good, and it puts me in mind of the aforementioned Fafhrd and Grey Mouser tales.
I really enjoyed F&GM when I was younger. I re-read Stardock , Lean Times in Lankhmar and Bazar of the Bizarre not long ago and while I still enjoyed it overall, some of the cheekiness annoys me a little now. Perhaps I'm becoming a cranky old man.
|
|
|
Post by linefacedscrivener on Jan 3, 2020 8:30:55 GMT -5
Here's the full quote from Fritz himself, just in case my memory is a little on the ramshackle side: Interesting! If he is taking that same tack, than you may very well be right and he is calling Conan a two-dimensional character compared to Fafhrd's three dimensional character, which I would disagree with. I've never seen that quote, but it sure seems to me like pure fantasy. I always thought his characters were derived from Robert Burns' poem "To a Mouse" -- the same place Steinbeck got his famous title -- and a clear reflection of Steinbeck's characters George Milton and Lennie Small. The Gray Mouser is George and Fafhrd is Lennie living in a fantasy realm.
|
|
|
Post by linefacedscrivener on Jan 3, 2020 19:21:42 GMT -5
I also liked the acknowledgement to those that followed Howard as being imitators of his and the subtitle "Imitation is the Sincerest Form . . ." of flattery. I will have to admit, though I have read much of Henry Kuttner, I have never read his Elak series. I just ordered a copy of the collected stories to rectify that. I am sure it is not even close to Howard, but still, Henry Kuttner is usually pretty good for an enjoyable tale. The Elak series is quite good, and it puts me in mind of the aforementioned Fafhrd and Grey Mouser tales.
I really enjoyed F&GM when I was younger. I re-read Stardock , Lean Times in Lankhmar and Bazar of the Bizarre not long ago and while I still enjoyed it overall, some of the cheekiness annoys me a little now. Perhaps I'm becoming a cranky old man.
Great! I'm looking forward to reading it. Yep. I know exactly what you mean. Still, reading the old stuff with slight annoyances is better than reading most of the new stuff. I have found they give me great annoyances. It was James Reasoner that really put it the right way. There is so much of the old stuff still to read, why bother with the new crap (the last word being mine, not his). I am with you on becoming a cranky old man!
|
|
|
Post by linefacedscrivener on Jan 4, 2020 8:20:24 GMT -5
In light of the discussion, I was curious as to the author's viewpoints on Howard's writing, particularly regarding Conan. I only discovered Dark Worlds Quarterly last month, so I have been keeping up with new posts and going back to the beginning and reading through. Instead, I decided to search the magazine's blog and found an article written in November of 2019 (oh so long ago) that seemed pretty pro-Howard, pro-Conan to me. The title was "The Scale of Sword & Sorcery (or Why Conan Doesn't Suck)." Link to it here: darkworldsquarterly.gwthomas.org/the-scale-of-sword-sorcery-or-why-conan-doesnt-suck/
|
|
|
Post by Von K on Jan 4, 2020 15:21:09 GMT -5
In light of the discussion, I was curious as to the author's viewpoints on Howard's writing, particularly regarding Conan. I only discovered Dark Worlds Quarterly last month, so I have been keeping up with new posts and going back to the beginning and reading through. Instead, I decided to search the magazine's blog and found an article written in November of 2019 (oh so long ago) that seemed pretty pro-Howard, pro-Conan to me. The title was "The Scale of Sword & Sorcery (or Why Conan Doesn't Suck)." Link to it here: darkworldsquarterly.gwthomas.org/the-scale-of-sword-sorcery-or-why-conan-doesnt-suck/Thanks linfacedscrivener. That's another cool article and he makes some great points.
|
|
|
Post by Grim Wanderer on Jan 5, 2020 15:16:22 GMT -5
In light of the discussion, I was curious as to the author's viewpoints on Howard's writing, particularly regarding Conan. I only discovered Dark Worlds Quarterly last month, so I have been keeping up with new posts and going back to the beginning and reading through. Instead, I decided to search the magazine's blog and found an article written in November of 2019 (oh so long ago) that seemed pretty pro-Howard, pro-Conan to me. The title was "The Scale of Sword & Sorcery (or Why Conan Doesn't Suck)." Link to it here: darkworldsquarterly.gwthomas.org/the-scale-of-sword-sorcery-or-why-conan-doesnt-suck/Another good article. Well written and reasoned. Thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 15:49:07 GMT -5
Thanks for the links, Linefacedscrivener.
|
|
|
Post by linefacedscrivener on Jan 10, 2020 16:40:40 GMT -5
I am kind of hooked now on exploring the history of Sword & Sorcery - it is, after all, more history! One thing I think important is getting at the roots of what we mean when we say "Sword & Sorcery." I noticed the past two years at Howard Days, that very issue has come up in several panels. Searching around for a good essay on defining Sword & Sorcery, and one that leans heavily on Robert E. Howard and Conan, I came across an article titled "The Demarcation of Sword and Sorcery" by Joseph A. McCullough V on Black Gate: Adventures in Fantasy Literature (which I am sure many of you have already read). I was worried when he showed the cover of Dark Valley Destiny and started talking about de Camp, but the author raised some issues with de Camp, so all was good. What I really like is his delineation between Sword & Sorcery with Heroic Fantasy, which I too have constantly heard being used interchangeably. The most recent example was in the Appendix N podcast interview with Michael Moorcock, who of all people, used them interchangeably. McCullough does not see them that way and really uses Howard and Tolkien to show the differences. I thought his discussion of the insider versus outsider was the most interesting and one aspect I had not considered. You may link to the article here: www.blackgate.com/the-demarcation-of-sword-and-sorcery/And here is a link to the Moorcock Interview, just in case anyone is interested: soundcloud.com/appendixnbookclub/an-interview-with-michael-moorcock
|
|