|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > Book, Magazine, and eZine Publishers > Flashing Swords > Sword&Sorcery - A Deeper Meaning? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Supr
Neophyte
      
Date Joined Apr 2005
Total Posts : 107
| Posted 5/11/2005 12:50 PM (GMT -5) |   | S. C. Bryce writes in his excellent Wizardry article about Moorcocks look on Sword&Sorcery:
quote:
Moorcock successfully argues that these portrayals of men and women reflect attitudes that are "frighteningly dangerous," (Wizardry, p. 96) particularly given that a large portion of the audience for such works is adolescent boys and young men.
I disagree with Moorcock on his last words because:
1. I know more elder guys who read S&S than young men do - and this is fact.
2. And IMO he didn't recognized (or in his times it wasn't so seeible) that nowadays S&S should be seen as reply to feministic times. When unmanly behaviour is in and manly patterns of behaviour is fighted. Just look at the corporations: the office workers must be good boys and look like effeminate gays. Otherwise they won't be accepted. The worst thing is that women do like such unmanly model of behaviour because they think that men don't pose a threat for their career through "asexual" way of life. But paradox is that the females are at the same time unhappy of such behaviour of men...
And I think that nowadays the Sword&Sorcery is kind of protest against "killing" of manly models. Sounds unbelievable yet? Well then wait some years hehe. [8D] | | Back to Top | | |
 |
SC Bryce
Aspiring Hammock Tester
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 1106
| Posted 5/11/2005 2:45 PM (GMT -5) | | Interesting points. I'd like to suggest, however, a few things.
1. In my experience, Moorcock's assessment that S&S has a large portion of young males making up its fanbase is correct. I certainly know far more males than females who like the genre, whether in print, game, film, or other form. And the percentage of my friends with interest in the genre definitely has an inverse relationship to my age.
I believe that if the speculative fiction genre in question is changed to "modern fantasy," "fantasy," or even "high fantasy" that the numbers would change. I know more females and older males interested in those genres.
2. I don't see the S&S genre itself as reactionary. I see it as a continuation of older values (some of which I agree with, some of which I don't). Although I'm not sure what you're definition of "manly" is, I will suggest that many of the values of S&S are not necessarily at odds with even the modern ones you decry. For example, honor is not necessarily opposed to "effeminate gays" or "feminism." I, for one, can envision a person who is both effeminate and honorable. It simply takes a more creative writer to work the best of S&S together with the best of the modern world.
I suspect that what attracts some young males to S&S is an oversimplication of what the values of the genre are, and an undue focus on certain values at the expense of others (certainly, this would not be the first time that simplicity has been alluring, just look at partisan politics) -- for example, scantily clad "women as property" (at the expense of well-rounded characterization), brawny men with more sex drive and muscle than cleverness (also at the expense of well-rounded characterization), pointless violence and gore (at the expense of storyline, description, or psychological horror), etc. Also, I suspect there is some confusion among these fans that these values are the same thing as "honor."
But the truth is that both men and women (whether taken as groups or as individuals) are more complicated than that. And, regardless of whether Moorcock's assessment of audience demographics holds true in your case, I suspect that his greater point (against the dangers of simplistic stereotyping, particularly when aimed at young people) still holds. Moreover as I understand Moorcock, these values have taken on a disproportionate importance in some modern incarnations of S&S and, therefore, are the bane of the genre because they stunt creativity, literary merit, and growth.
Incidentally, in my experience, such undue focus on these values alienates many readers, both male and female. This can also been seen in the proliferation of internet communities focusing on "family friendly," "Christian," or "value-based" S&S and other fantasy and are deliberately targeting all ages and both genders. Also interesting: most of the sites I've seen were started by men.
Of course, one of the strengths of www.SwordandSorcery.org and Flashing Swords is that they embrace the best of S&S in its many incarnations while providing us with a forum to discuss both history of the genre and its future.
S.C. Bryce
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Supr
Neophyte
Date Joined Apr 2005
Total Posts : 107
| Posted 5/11/2005 10:44 PM (GMT -5) | | Very interesting and helpful opinions!
My starting-point for this topic was opinion of someone who said that S&S isn't ambitious literature. He said (and the others agreed with smile) that S&S describes only adventures for fun and nothing is hidden inside.
quote:
Originally posted by scbryce
Although I'm not sure what you're definition of "manly" is, I will suggest that many of the values of S&S are not necessarily at odds with even the modern ones you decry. For example, honor is not necessarily opposed to "effeminate gays" or "feminisim." I, for one, can envision a person who is both effeminate and honorable. It simply takes a more creative writer to work the best of S&S together with the best of the modern world.
I've read a very interesting and scientific book Living With Our Genes. The autors describe in it strategies we use in our life. There are people who like risk and are very agressive: they can win much but many of them loose as same. There are also people who live without aggression but can answer to agression - I mean they don't attack but they can defend theirself. These people can mostly survive. There are also people who don't risk and are not agressive - as you may think the chances of them to staying alive are least of all.
This book (and others about behavioral biologic) was help to term observations in life.
Real example from life I observed: Two friends had a business. The one "x" was muscle guy the other "y" was effeminate. Like in life: they quarreled. What is interesting: it was dirty business. And x made straight moves and y made moves by intrigues - probably he was police informer. How ended it: x is now in jail. I must add: both are intelligent.
Well that's it. In my opinion mean:
Sorcerer - guy whos strategy are intrigues (he is effeminate, he can’t use strength so he must be “smart”)
Barbarian/Warrior – He can use his strength like a lion. He can handle straight (with honor)
We can observe it by Conan. And Howard was also strong man with sense of Honor.
To say it in simpler words: I meant rather not manly vs effemeric just honor vs intrigues.
quote:
2. I see (S&S) as a continuation of older values (some of which I agree with, some of which I don't).
I agree totally. In S&S we can find old honor codex (of course not always kept in reality also in medieval times) but what we miss nowadays. It looks like people who read S&S are in some way idealistic.
quote:
1. In my experience, Moorcock's assessment that S&S has a large portion of young males making up its fanbase is correct. I certainly know far more males than females who like the genre, whether in print, game, film, or other form. And the percentage of my friends with interest in the genre definitely has an inverse relationship with my age.
I was reffering the literature only. Maybe because the youth doesn't read as much as earlier we see more of the elder males reading, my error. But on the other hand why the elder people - very often the realistic ones - come back to his old lectures and love it?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Supr
Neophyte
Date Joined Apr 2005
Total Posts : 107
| Posted 5/11/2005 11:54 PM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by nathan meyer
Deep stuff. And I think fair observations. Asimov once wrote an op-ed piece about why he would never publish a S&S piece in his magazine. Greatly simplified he saw the sorceror characters as represneative of intellectualism and civilizations tameing of the mysterious powers while the "barbarian" character was seen as muscle over smarts and an embracing of the fear of change [read progress].
I think to be fair, he and Moorcock are correct.
I think it's also a good trace when we're talking about the meaning of S&S. Good & ambitious literature manifests in many aspects and there are no only righty opinions about it.
quote:
What it can now represent is the idea of dynamic action over the impotent and endless discourse of intellectualism.
I agree totally with it. S&S means to me always life and solving living problems and not endless overintellectual discussions.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Red Viper
Acolyte
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 439
| Posted 5/12/2005 12:57 AM (GMT -5) | | Well, then, let's just cut-and-paste this little discussion and e-mail it to all the snobs who frown on sword-and-sorcery! We'll show them we CAN think, after all!
Seriously, though, I think stereotypes are a problem in S-and-S, not so much for social reasons (I doubt most S-and-S has a great effect on perpetuating stereotypes, although that may happen with some individual readers) but for STORYTELLING reasons. To me, it can kick my attention away from a story very quickly. I see the barbarian coming with his sword, and I instantly fear that's all there is to him. The scantily-clad damsel arrives on stage, and I fear she's there only there to cringe prettily before the monster, be rescued and give our hero his reward.
The writers who really keep my attention are the ones who play against such stereotypes. A barbarian with a sword is fine, but give him a brain and a penchant for introspection, or maybe a sinister past, or perhaps a goal that involves something other than wresting a crown from its owner, killing something big or carrying off the scantily clad beauty. Make the woman a real person, warts and all. Or get inside the villain's head a bit, give me a feel for WHY he is soooooo nasty.
Do these things -- strive to make your characters LIVE -- and the kind of depth that S-and-S snobs say we lack will find its way into the stories. We don't have to hammer readers over the head with moral fiber -- but if our characters are real, then our readers will see something of their own lives in our stories, and perhaps even give them some thought after reading them.
Oh, yeah, and we should smear a lot of blood and stuff all over the page while we're at it. Can't forget this genre is supposed to be FUN!
Red Viper, aka Steve Goble | | Back to Top | | |
|
Supr
Neophyte
Date Joined Apr 2005
Total Posts : 107
| Posted 5/12/2005 4:13 AM (GMT -5) | | | Agree, Steve. Literary craft is surely important thing. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JFCC
Stablehand
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 23
| Posted 5/12/2005 7:31 AM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by nathan meyer
What it can now represent is the idea of dynamic action over the impotent and endless discourse of intellectualism. It can represent a spirit of self-capability in a society that demands group think.
Self-reliance and a realization of the power of the individual is exactly the kind of value I think s&s best promotes, and it's also something that's needed at the moment.
There are countless films showing how a group of misfits can save the world, but usually, they're mutants or superheroes, people endowed with what the writers try to depict are freakish flaws, but are actually marvelous gifts. Superman, Wolverine, Luke Skywalker, Neo--all these people are gifted with supernatural powers--sorcerers, if you will--that allow them to stand up to the forces that threaten them.
But then there's something like Lord of the Rings where, let's face it--for all Gandalf's magic, the Elves' superheroic prowess, and Aragorn's ancient bloodline, they still would have lost if the short little hobbit hadn't dragged his poor butt into the most hellish place on earth to dunk the Ring. Frodo is an ordinary person who prevails in extraordinary circumstances.
Somewhat similarly, Conan is, ultimately, just a human. He has no magic sword; no enchanted necklace; no ancient bloodline. Just an innate cunning and a nice physique. The same goes for Fafhrd, the Gray Mouser, Druss the Legend, and any number of memorable s&s heroes.
It's something that John Milius picked up on and tried to put into Conan the Barbarian, but I think a lot of that theme gets lost (except for the Riddle of Steel).
I don't even think Howard himself was anti-intellectual; I think he was more of an anti-hedonist. Asimov's famous interpretation of s&s is facile, at least in terms of Howard (and certainly in the case of Leiber). What Howard objected to, I think, were "intellectuals" who used their intelligence for their own gain or whims, or squandered their wisdom in folly.
www.biggerboat.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
jonesha
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/12/2005 9:56 AM (GMT -5) | | My friend Tom Floyd feels that sword and sorcery is a stand-in for freedom as well. We are shackled to our jobs and our day-to-day duties, many of which are unpleasant. As Tom pointed out to me, a sword and sorcery hero represents someone who has the power to change things in his or her life.
This came up the other week as we were finalizing the look for the new comic strip we have been working on. Tom sent me a picture of Karn with a manacle dangling a broken chain (you can find a shadowed image of this on the www.swordandsorcery.org web site--the unshadowed version will be revealed as we get closer to release). As I'd written no scenes in either outline or script that showed him escaping from anyone, or being an escaped gladiator or anything, I was a little puzzled.
But I was being thick. Tom said that the manacle and the broken chain was symbolic of the character's FREEDOM. Whereupon I hung my head in shame and acknowledged his superior artistic sense.
I could say a lot more on the deeper meaning of some sword and sorcery pieces and the genre itself--when at its best--but I need to get back to the submissions pile that has built up while I was laboring through the semester's final papers. Fascinating thread--I'm really enjoying reading it. I figure you'd probably rather have me working my way through submissions, though...
best,
Howard | | Back to Top | | |
|
JFCC
Stablehand
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 23
| Posted 5/12/2005 10:06 AM (GMT -5) | | The difference between a sword and sorcery character and a high fantasy character can be exemplified by the difference between Han Solo and Luke Skywalker. One is a cunning, intelligent, skilled, lucky, and jaded rogue who operates under his own code of ethics and survives by his wits. The other is the youthful paladin with incredible powers and a rather narrow conception of Good and Evil who's guided to victory by the gods (or the Force and the spirits of Yoda and Ben, in this case).
Of the two, who would you rather be? Despite his lack of Force powers, I'd rather be Han in a heartbeat.
(And yes, Howard, please get to those submissions! [:p] )
www.biggerboat.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JFCC
Stablehand
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 23
| Posted 5/12/2005 10:39 AM (GMT -5) | | Well, the whole psychological angle has haunted REH scholars for years. My impression is that most of the dedicated REH fans think the psychological readings of his work are at best misguided and at worst offensive.
www.biggerboat.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
captain spectre
Stablehand
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 2
| Posted 5/12/2005 10:46 AM (GMT -5) | | nathan wrote:
Of course Howard also once wrote: "Never get your hero into a situation he can't cut, punch, or shoot his way out of." This would send those writing "literature" in screaming fits.
REH's words would send some people into fits I am sure......but it is in the craft of the words that he could pull this off.....You knew Conan, or Bran, or Cormac was going to get out of the situation, even if they had to punch, and or cut their way out....but the words, the power of those words put together in the right order.....
and thanks to Mr. Jones for throwing in my thoughts on freedom in S and S......it is one of the most powerful themes to me..... the freedom to act and the power to do so is a tremendous thing..... The barbarian represents this freedom to me...... I think alot of writers have given up on why a barbarian would choose his freedom over what civilization represents....the loss of these freedoms......
just another two cents thrown in the pile.....
Join the Lightning Legion, it's free and easy....be the first on your block.
www.captainspectre.com
www.thomasfloyd.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Casca
Stablehand
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 7
| Posted 5/13/2005 5:32 AM (GMT -5) | | Actually, I thought Asimov's argument that S@S is bascially a genre concerned with glorifying neandrathal backwardness, was specious on its face. (Please, no personal insults, I respect Asimov as much as the next guy.)
S@S, like any other genre, can make any sort of point the author wants it to. Myself, I have always thought that wizards and such were representatives of darkness, an expression of man's longing to be comforted by superstition and self delusion. The folks with the swords are the realistis, willing to do the hard, dangerous, thankless work that actually makes the world better.
And I'm not so sure that S@S is, or ever has been, a reaction to feminism either, Red Sonya was pretty good with a sword before Miss become Ms. | | Back to Top | | |
|
captain spectre
Stablehand
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 2
| Posted 5/13/2005 7:42 AM (GMT -5) | | I think that is a natural statement that Asimov would make, since his chosen genre was where science became the hope of mankind, and not really mankind itself......where as like Casca said the people with the swords were the ones willing to do the hard, dangerous, thankless work......holding down the fort, until humanity quit being a supersitious tribe following wizards and dark magic.......
Which reminds me of another point I was talking with Mr. Jones about.....and that is the life experience of the author...... me, I can smell a writer that hasn't much a mile away.....one of the reasons that alot of stories don't do much for me.......hard to convince someone about a battle you are writing if you have never seen a war, and spent all your time reading others descriptions of it, or watched films about it..... unless you have real talent, or at least able to string together the right words..... maybe not a good example, but have you ever been watching a movie or reading a story, and all of a sudden a character does something that almost no one would ever do....seemingly just to get a rise out of the watcher/reader........ seems I close the book or switch channels or turn it off then.....and never go back
another two cents thrown in the pile.....
Join the Lightning Legion, it's free and easy....be the first on your block.
www.captainspectre.com
www.thomasfloyd.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
TRtheJ
Neophyte
Date Joined Apr 2005
Total Posts : 137
| Posted 5/13/2005 9:02 AM (GMT -5) | | I haven't read the Moorcock article, but he is right that a large part of the audience for Sword and Sorcery is adolecent boys and young men, or at least it was way back when. I know that's when I got into it via my eldest brother who got into it when he was young. The difference is, today a lot of we who got into it young are still into it now that we're older. Sword and Sorcery is a dynamic genre filled with action and romance in what can be said is manly -- just the thing for young men/boys to latch onto. My brother and my friends all grew out of it, so to speak, turning to more "adult" style fiction. I, on the other hand, tend to delve into all genres these days which still includes Sword and Sorcery.
As for Sword and Sorcery being a reply to feminism... I disagree. In my opinion, Sword and Sorcery is what it is and has been since Robert E. Howard created it. Men are men and women are women, though in time women have become stronger characters than the whimpering princesses or strong swordswomen who melt at the very look of the Barbarian, as was the way of the Pulps. And that is fine by me, the stronger women characters, as long as it doesn't get overplayed, as was the case with Red Sonja where she could kick any man's bum no matter his size and come out with maybe a li'l scratch. As outworldly as Sword and Sorcery fiction can be, there still needs to be some realism within it.
It was High Fantasy, Tolkien-style, that became very popular with women readers in the late 70's/early 80's, making it far outshine Sword and Sorcery, as well as driving the genre underground. In High Fantasy women can be strong both physically and magically, and thereby be main characters, which explains, I think, women's latching onto it, as well as the sudden abundance of women writing it. And let's not forget the strong romance angle of High Fantasy. I have read my fair share of High Fantasy over the years and find them quite enjoyable, but nothing beats a good, down and dirty Sword and Sorcery. That is, as long as said Sword and Sorcery is well written with strong characters that transcend the stereotypes that curse this genre. A well developed character is a must!
By curse, I mean that Sword and Sorcery to the eyes of those who have not read it is nothing more than a brute barbarian, a weak woman who awaits saving from some demonic creature and blood and guts. That and nothing more. Arnold's Conan, Miles O'Keefe's Ator... All the endless nightmare flick barbarians. And I can tell you from experience it is hard to get people to see beyond that. I have tried! That is what this genre must overcome -- the silly stereotypes that have been hoisted upon it by those who have no clue what it's about. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Supr
Neophyte
Date Joined Apr 2005
Total Posts : 107
| Posted 5/13/2005 12:29 PM (GMT -5) | | To feminism:
It was my error that I didn’t explained what I meant.
quote:
Originally posted by TRtheJ
...the whimpering princesses or strong swordswomen who melt at the very look of the Barbarian, as was the way of the Pulps.
This is stereotype. Tell me how the hell could you call by this the woman slave, who loved Conan and risked her life to help him get out from the prison in “Hour of the Dragon”? Would a weak woman do this? Sure not. I say that woman has character!
Just the fact that she is obedient to Conan can be the reason to call her whimpering. Not luck of character.
We should see S&S as storehouse of honorable behaviour. Howard meant here medieval codex rules. He described also how a woman should be: she should live with man in harmony.
Howard believed man should be always dominant. This can piss nowadays some women off. But on the other hand: what could a woman expect from the barbarian, the real man? Well such a man would defend her to the end.
And it was Howards vision of perfect love: Man does everything for his woman but she must do the same for him.
Now you could ask yourself what are the references to today?
Well nowadays women have more rights but less class.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SC Bryce
Aspiring Hammock Tester
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 1106
| Posted 5/13/2005 1:52 PM (GMT -5) | | Forgive me. I know this is heretical, but I haven’t read “Hour of the Dragon,” so I may be off-base.
Referring back to my and some others comments, I believe that it is precisely this type of over-simplification of both the real world and the genre that are a disservice to the genre’s reputation. This is also, I believe, exactly the danger of certain stereotyping that Moorcock warns against.
Looking at your (Supr's) last posting and others, it seems that you are suggesting that “the barbarian” = “the real man” = physical domination over others, particularly women. I’m also confused by the implication that slavery and obedience are virtues in women. It is a strange argument to suggest that enslaved women are more “classy” than free/liberated/modern women. As I recall from my history lessons, the same rationales (taken to their extreme forms) were used to enslave both Africans and Native Americans following the Age of Exploration and were used to justify why educating non-whites and women would not be beneficial to them or to society. Today, it is a common rationale used by bullies, batterers, Aryan supremacists, and some fundamentalists to validate everything from insults to violence. (Please note that I'm not accusing anyone of being any of these things. But these are the historical results of the extreme form of this logic.)
The idea that S&S represents a misogynistic ideal (and only this ideal) is precisely why so many people (both men and women) have such a low opinion of the genre, its authors, and its fans. And it worries me to think that some people may use an over-simplified understanding of S&S as a platform for their own social intolerance and, worse, call it “honor.”
I prefer to understand S&S (as some others have suggested) as a metaphor for action, freedom, and individuality. This metaphor is not inconsistent with “modern” values and, in my mind, should embrace them. Howard et al should not be penalized for writing with the social values of their times, but given that we have entered a new millennium, I do not feel that modern folk need be bound by them. Look, for example, at how Star Trek: The Next Generation’s Klingons view honor. For them, it’s about personal integrity and loyalty, not domination. They are also committed to action, freedom, and individuality – where such values do not conflict with loyalty.
As for modern examples of perfect, devoted love, I suggest that if you are unable to find satisfactory examples in the type of S&S you are reading, then branch out. Look into other S&S, other types of speculative fiction, other types of fiction, other formats, and of course the real world. Examples are out there. Perhaps you will not find them to be realistic or obtainable. If so, then please remember that S&S isn’t realistic either.
But perhaps I’ve misunderstood you and this rant against tyranny is the product of too much caffeine and sugar.
S.C. Bryce | | Back to Top | | |
|
BarbT
Acolyte
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 392
| Posted 5/13/2005 7:50 PM (GMT -5) | | Then cheers for caffeine and sugar! [:D]
The stereotypical S&S hero challenges the world on a physical level. The sorcerer is the quantum physicist of pre-science; challenging the world through an understanding of how things work.
When the sorcerer in the villan, and the hero's "cut, punch or shoot" approach (of course) works, the physical (good) has triumphed over the rational (evil).
Whoo Hoo! High fives all around! REAL MEN don't have to think or nothin!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BarbT
Acolyte
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 392
| Posted 5/13/2005 8:03 PM (GMT -5) | | | Oops! Sorry! Villain. I didn't have enough caffeine! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Red Viper
Acolyte
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 439
| Posted 5/13/2005 10:44 PM (GMT -5) | | I've heard many S-and-S fans decry the "woman warrior" approach, citing the superior strength of the male. I just have to say a couple of things in response to that:
1) The ability to fight does not always come down to strength. Skill, brains and courage all play a role, and women can be equal or superior to men in all three categories. Perhaps a female warrior lugging around a heavy bastard sword makes little sense, but a female who is highly trained with a rapier or a lighter weapon might well poke a lot of holes in a great big Conan-clone before he could swing that big blade.
2) Diana L. Paxson's "The Dark Mother" is a pretty darned good S-and-S tale, written by a woman and featuring a female protagonist.
None of this is intended as a swipe at anyone here, just as a reminder that the horizons are wider than some people realize. S-and-S, like any genre, is capable of handling virtually any theme so long as the writer has the ability to pull it off. And it can handle any kind of protagonist -- male, female, child, hobbit, ghoul, demon, wizard, whatever -- so long as the writer can put the reader into that character's head.
And a word more on deeper meaning in S-and-S:
Just looking back at my own S-and-S, I've spun stories on the following themes:
1) Parental responsibilities
2) Mandatory retirement
3) Substance abuse
4) Man's place in the universe
5) The responsibility of rulers toward those ruled
6) Animal rights
7) Equal rights for demons
8) Facing mortality
Little of my stuff has been published as of yet, although I've had a couple of sales lately, so whether I've tackled any of those themes successfully or not remains to be seen. But those themes are in there, and each story is a rip-roaring action yarn. I don't even know that most readers would identify the themes in the stories as such until a while after reading; my goal is to first entertain, and the themes just sort of sneak in there primarily through characterization.
There is a lot of stale suff in s-and-s. I don't pick on Howard for creating the archtype barbarian hero, but I do pick on the writers who simply rename Conan and try to rewrite Howard. But I see many good things in the wind. "Lords of Swords" contained a number of good action tales that nonetheless gave me something to chew on later. Discussions like this one in this forum show me that other writers out there want to honor the genre's past while building its future. And ezines like "Flashing Swords" show me that if writers do that, there will be markets and readers.
I'm confident that the genre can move past the stereotypes that plague it, past the stale reliance on mere violence, past the hoary old tropes that get trotted out all the time. You can contemplate the meaning of existance and still smear a lot of guts across the page.
OK, my rant is over. Thanks for this discussion, folks. It is very entertaining.
Red Viper, aka Steve Goble | | Back to Top | | |
|
Supr
Neophyte
Date Joined Apr 2005
Total Posts : 107
| Posted 5/14/2005 3:36 AM (GMT -5) | | BurbT,
I suggest you to read anything of S&S and continue the conversation[8D] | | Back to Top | | |
|
jonesha
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/14/2005 4:26 AM (GMT -5) | | Let's make sure we keep the conversation friendly here--everyone contributing to this thread is well-read in the genre, and some are writing and publishing in it as well. Disagreements of course, are fine, so long as they remain respectful.
I am really enjoying readint this thread. Off to a tournament. this seekend I hope to contribute some thougts of my own.
best,
Howard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Supr
Neophyte
Date Joined Apr 2005
Total Posts : 107
| Posted 5/14/2005 5:26 AM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by scbryce
Forgive me. I know this is heretical, but I haven’t read “Hour of the Dragon,” so I may be off-base.
Lemme tell ya how it ended: Conan as a king wanted no retribution in gold for reparations from the enemy countries. He just wanted the woman who helped him. So that she was at the end by his side when he ruled Aquillonia.
quote:
Originally posted by scbryce
Looking at your (Supr's) last posting and others, it seems that you are suggesting that “the barbarian” = “the real man” = physical domination over others, particularly women.
I was talking about a woman for life. I didn’t care about other women or men. Beside a real friendship is also a honor codex rule and there is no place for domination. You didn’t understand me.
quote:
I’m also confused by the implication that slavery and obedience are virtues in women. It is a strange argument to suggest that enslaved women are more “classy” than free/liberated/modern women.
It's funny to observe couples of intellectuals who always quarrel and get divorce. It's funny too see how intellectual women who are fightning feminists change radical their mind when they give birth to a child.
I think: it’s just not right when women must fight for living and there are no (real) men to defend. But the women are also to blame for this. Some of they think that no men are needed to live. I’m just more for traditional role swaping.
quote:
Looking at your (Supr's) last posting and others, it seems that you are suggesting that “the barbarian” = “the real man” = physical domination over others, particularly women. I’m also confused by the implication that slavery and obedience are virtues in women. It is a strange argument to suggest that enslaved women are more “classy” than free/liberated/modern women. As I recall from my history lessons, the same rationales (taken to their extreme forms) were used to enslave both Africans and Native Americans following the Age of Exploration and were used to justify why educating non-whites and women would not be beneficial to them or to society. Today, it is a common rationale used by bullies, batterers, Aryan supremacists, and some fundamentalists to validate everything from insults to violence. (Please note that I'm not accusing anyone of being any of these things. But these are the historical results of the extreme form of this logic.)
I was always wondering why S&S is positive literature. There is so much blood and gore inside...
Well the S&S hero is just slaying for right things. Rascists and other S*&% are fighting for uncontructive targets. For them are children and old people also enemies. The fascists fight against nations and that fight underlines just cowardness and stench. S&S heroes are fighting against people who symbolise wrong phenomenons.
| | Back to Top | | |
| | |