The original version of this page can be found at : http://forum.sfreader.com/default.aspx?f=5&m=5088
| Posted By : J Harper - 7/13/2005 9:00 PM | Hey all,
Can someone post some links to the sites where Howard Jones' current editorial is being discussed? I'm a bit curious to read what people are saying about it, good or bad.
Cheers,
Jeremy Harper
I am staunch and black and have one mood, and this - to defend my masters and their green earth.
Tintaggon
The Coming of the Sea by Lord Dunsany
|
| Posted By : jonesha - 7/14/2005 3:19 AM | Dear Jeremy,
You REALLY don't want to see them. Aside from a few "way to go" type lines on a couple of sites, by far the most energy has been expended with great vitriol by bloggers and their disciples who have already arrayed themselves as enemies. Many of them foster deliberate mis-reads; others have uninformed opinions based on their limited knowledge of s and s.
Most don't trouble to be polite and are more than just generally insulting (you'd never speak to a person face-to-face with whom you disagree the way some of these people type spittle-flecked lines of prose, unless, say, you met someone who was rabidly endorsing the cannibalization of children or something). Being polite to people with whom you disagree seems to me a simple enough thing to do. I know Nathan spent some time talking with some of these people (I followed his efforts for a bit) and I haven't seen him since. Hope he's still alive and well! I fear considering their outrage or trying to respond to it is a worthless exercise that will only frustrate: most (and I do say most, NOT all, please note) are unlikely to be convinced by anything we might say on the subject. Our energy is better spent promoting what we're trying to do to parties who actually would care.
Best wishes,
Howard
Managing Editor
www.swordandsorcery.org
Flashing Swords E-Zine |
| Posted By : John Hocking - 7/14/2005 3:41 AM | A couple outspoken denizens of the net did indeed take issue with Howard's impassioned editorial.
I think they missed the point, primarily by focusing on our dissatisfaction with much current fantasy.
At a nuts-&-bolts level, the editorial simply describes the kind of fiction Howard wants for 'Flashing Swords'.
But it's more than that-- Howard's New Edge is an attempt to define and hew to a set of literary ideals within the confines of his e-zine, and in the essay Howard has the courage to declare both his ideals and his hopes for them.
Is it absurd that a small, fledgling e-zine like 'Flashing Swords' would set such goals? I don't think so, but it's always easy to mock the fellow brave enough to tell you of his vision.
|
| Posted By : baritsu6 - 7/14/2005 4:43 AM | Gents, If they do not like what is going on over here, they have a choice. do not come! I have been reading horror, sci-fi, fantasy for 32 years[ collecting it as well!] . This group is one of the finest collection of people in the field [ writers, readers, collectors] and I am proud to be accepted here! As for Howard, as we say in Brooklyn, he is chill!--Ralph
ralph grasso |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/14/2005 4:59 AM | Is it absurd that a small, fledgling e-zine like 'Flashing Swords' would set such goals?
***
No, but it is surprising to see that a small, fledgling e-zine like Flashing Swords could provoke such extensive controversy with a short editorial and a couple three issues and no advertising or hard PR.
This, as they say, is merely the dragon's breath -- we're ready to let the dragon OUT.
Daniel
www.pitchblackbooks.com |
| Posted By : Rob Santa - 7/14/2005 5:05 AM | It does seem odd that people would take umbrage with an editor establishing goals for his publication. Just about all of them do. With the exception of the standard "purchase a copy of the magazine to see what we're all about," many submissions guidelines include a few lines about what the editor likes and dislikes. I have written guidelines for two of my pretend magazines; both times I've included such preferences. It seems a simple way to lessen the slushpile. After all, I would never submit a vampire story to a horror market that specifically states it doesn't want to see any. And when I run across editors that express fondnesses for certain storylines, well, I obviously send those stories that way.
Ralph's comments are right on, but it is a practice few people perform. There was a hullabaloo last year about Maxim magazine being in Wal-mart (or some other such store), that Maxim was veiled soft porn. Guess what folks? Don't buy it. Don't pick it up off the shelf, don't flip through the pages. The same concept applies to just about everything. People that choose to enjoy S&S for its contrast to other fantasy fiction will find their way to Flashing Swords (and hopefully be pleased by what they find). People that choose other forms of fiction won't come. So what?
Rob
|
| Posted By : joe5mc - 7/14/2005 5:10 AM | If you are dead set on reading them, a search engine will get you there, but really, don't bother. I spent a couple hours reading them yesterday and all I really got for my time was bored. Just a bunch of people talking around each other.
For me, Howard's editorial was read as a call to arms. "Come on people, lets write good stores the way they used to." If somepeople consider this an attack on them or their favorite kind of writing, so be it. You can't please everyone.
There was only one point out of the pages and pages of junk I read that I thought work noting. I think it was made by Nathan. Only someone who has written S&S for awhile knows the frustration of looking through the guidelines to all the current SF/F publications and seeing "No S&S" again and again and again. I'll even take it one step further, I'm tired of seeing "No S&S" writen next to "No child-abuse" and "No Porn". If us S&S fans can be a little defensive sometimes it is because we are tired of being snickered at lumped in the story trash bin.
Howard, I believe, was trying to get us to stand up and be proud of what we write, of what we read, and if somepeople don't like that, the hell with them.
Joe
|
| Posted By : Red Viper - 7/14/2005 5:49 AM | Howard: In regards to your not seeing Nathan for a while and hoping he's alive and well ... the man's on vacation. And he's still alive and well enough to be giving me the devil of a time on the virtual chessboard!
Red Viper, aka Steve Goble |
| Posted By : Supr - 7/14/2005 6:00 AM | | I'm also proud to read and write S&S! And - like Bruce said on conan.com - pox on our enemies! |
| Posted By : PaulMc - 7/14/2005 6:09 AM | I'm just waiting for Howard to top himself with the editorial in Issue #4 [:D]
-- Paul McNamee
http://writer.paulmcnamee.net
http://www.dorancoyle.net |
| Posted By : Kuroboshii - 7/14/2005 6:12 AM | Ugh. I see Nathan encountered Nick Mamatas. I'm sure he seems brilliant to people who already agree with him, but...he can't seem to argue without resorting to obscenities, obfustication, and various varieties of insult. Nor will he ever admit to being wrong about anything, and his style of argument seems to be to demand facts and links, even in arguments where such "facts" as statistics aren't terribly relevant. He's never satisfied with the ones he gets, either, and seems determined to interpret the statements of others in the most negative way possible.
Still, in the one argument I read, Ben Rosenbaum was very fair. Not all the "lit spec-fic" type writers are as hostile as Mr. Mamatas.
Howard, I can't say that I'm particularly into S&S more than other kinds of fantasy--I enjoy high fantasy a great deal, and I'd argue that there's plenty of great stuff there which isn't overly Tolkien derivative. I also like some science fiction. Still, to the extent that the New Edge produces well-written, exciting stories which don't shy away from a good fight, I'm with you. I greatly enjoy Lords of Swords and many of the stories in Flashing Swords. I'm also just starting into Swords Against Death, and I'm greatly enjoying it thus far.
Keep it up! (And could you twist D. K. Latta's arm for another Zargatha story, please [;)]?)
Sean T. M. Stiennon (AKA Suuran Songforge)
For information about me, see my author page at www.sfreader.com/authors/seanstiennon. |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/14/2005 6:29 AM | And he's still alive and well enough to be giving me the devil of a time on the virtual chessboard!
***
Thanks for the reminder!! I'm supposed to be playing both of you....
Daniel
www.pitchblackbooks.com |
| Posted By : jonesha - 7/14/2005 6:36 AM | Fear not, Sean, D.K. is tweaking anothe Zargatha story, probably as we speak.
And let me reiterate that I am not down on other people liking other sorts of fiction; I know what I like to read and what I hope to publish in the zine. My brilliant sister digs "chick lit" novels, the thrill of which escapes me, but more power to her if it brings her pleasure and isn't hurting anyone. Joseph Campbell wrote to "follow your bliss."
As to the words in the editorial: Hocking and William King have raised far more articulate commentary about it than I have, and Tom Floyd has made excellent points about s and s representing the freedom of the common man, or lack thereof. C.L. Werner has articulated the hard boiled point better than I could ever have done, in another thread here on the forum.
If there's one thing I wish I had made more clear, it was that the attempt was to address something that Bill and Hocking and the rest of us feel has been underway for a while. We were trying to codify what we wanted to do with s and s ourselves, but had all been striving toward individually. Others who have no knowledge of what we've written or what we're discussing here seem to have been doing similar things on their own. (Joe McCullough and I had discussed hoping for something new for years, and likely some of you also have had talks with sword and sorcery fans about what you wanted to see in modern s and s.) As one of the bloggers ranted, Warhammer's been doing a type of s and s for a while. Well, yes, which is probably why two Warhammer writers are "signed on" to what we're striving for and one of them, Bill King, started the whole ball rolling. Here, at this forum and on the s and s site, is a place for any of those s and s writers and fans who wish to do so to gather strength and find like-minded comrades.
Rob and Joe are both correct: Rob points out that the editorial was an attempt to lay down what I wished to see in my submissions pile as well as to explain the philosophy behind what the 'zine is doing. Joe points out that the editorial was intended as a rallying cry. Darned right it was.
In any case, thank you all for your support, insights, and comments. It seems like you "get" what we're going for, which is heartening. If you like what you see, I do hope you'll support Pitch-Black and all its ventures. A fledgling company needs all kinds of nurturing, and if you like s and s as much as I do I hope you'll back them so that they can bring us more (and so maybe we can spend less time on our day jobs and more time with s and s stuff--speaking of which... I'd best run).
Swords Together,
Howard
Managing Editor
www.swordandsorcery.org
Flashing Swords E-Zine |
| Posted By : Red Viper - 7/14/2005 9:31 AM | Howard: I've written opinion pieces for newspapers off and on for many years now, and one thing I can tell you for certain. even if you write something as simple as "The sky was a brilliant blue yesterday," you will here from readers who insist it was azure, not blue; or who condemn you for being happy when the world is such a miserable place; or who point out that your piece should have carried a warning about exposure to ultraviolet radiation; or who want to argue temporal physics involving your use of the word "yesterday" and the half of the world on the other side of the International Date Line. You can't win with people like that: All you can do is precisely what you did -- you made your points clearly, and eloquently, and fairly. Some people just won't ever get it, but that's OK. Others will.
Keep swinging the sword.
Red Viper, aka Steve Goble |
| Posted By : PaulMc - 7/14/2005 10:20 AM | quote:
Originally posted by nathan meyer
Still if S King can shrug this: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/24/dumbing_down_american_readers/#
off then I'll be okay[:p]
That's funny.
My Shakespeare professor in college considered "Children of the Corn" to be the finest piece of American horror literature since Edgar Allan Poe.
I'm tempted to agree with my professor.
Hey, King readily admits he writes "Big Macs" of literature. He's probably surprised by the laurels, too.
I would be *far* more concerned with television as being a main culprit of the U.S. dumbing down. Even if someone is reading King - at least they are reading. Nowadays, I don't think that is a bad thing.
And I am referring to the original "Children of the Corn" short story, not that awful movie. (awful in my opinion)
-- Paul McNamee
http://writer.paulmcnamee.net
http://www.dorancoyle.net |
| Posted By : erazmus - 7/14/2005 10:36 AM | I'll add one quick comment.
I've long since come to the conclusion that much of the 'public forum' boards on the internet serve only to let shut-ins vent their spleens. People who work for a living and try to find time in their lives to create something from passion and joy for the benifit of others will find F***-all to encourage them there.
Sometimes one must venture there, in desparation to promote a new product perhaps. But don't expect anything, the place is a nest of sad wanna-be vipers. Unless you use your options to block out many of the residents you'll be stuck with useless vitrol drowning out anything anyone of integrity might have to say.
Mike
Michael D. Turner
"Psyched Up" in _Turn the other Chick_-ed. E. Friesner-Baen books
www.baen.com |
| Posted By : jonesha - 7/14/2005 11:41 AM | Thank you everyone.
Now let's turn the discussion away from THEM and start talking about the focus of the editorial. What to do with modern s and s. In another thread Daniel wrote:
---------------------
... the movement existed before anyone named it and it will continue to exist no matter how many object to its present designation or name.
I'd agree, though, with the idea that heroic fantasy and S&S is quite compatible with more excessive (or ornate) narrative writing styles; what Howard is trying to avoid is "style over substance," and that's an affectation spreading like a wildfire throughout much of the "slipstream" or spec-lit community.
--------
And Jeremy Harper wrote:
------
No, Conan isn't Sam Spade, but R.E. Howard was to fantasy what Hammett and Chandler were to detective fiction. Moorcock has pointed that out. So has Don Herron, one of the leading figures in Howard studies. Howard's prose does not read anything like Hammett's or Chandler's, but is similar in spirit. He does not couch his action and plots in a genteel style - he is as direct and straight as a sword's blade. His writing and descriptions can be beautiful and haunting, but unlike Dunsany, or Peake, or his great friend and contemporary Clark Ashton Smith, he does not try to dazzle you with word-witchery. His way, to quote Stephen King, is to pull on his combat boots and assault your senses. This is what I feel Howard Jones meant by wanting stories with a hard-boiled style.
--------
Let's hear from more of you on the four points! AND I do hope that if you like the stories you'll post and let the authors know, especially if they happened to have been dissed by any reviewers.
best,
Howard
Managing Editor
www.swordandsorcery.org
Flashing Swords E-Zine |
| Posted By : PaulMc - 7/14/2005 11:57 AM | quote:
Originally posted by jonesha
Thank you everyone.
Now let's turn the discussion away from THEM and start talking about the focus of the editorial. What to do with modern s and s.
1. A hardboiled tone - as in terse and unsentimental
I'm not sure on this one anymore. Was Leiber terse and unsentimental?
Do we want to declare the tone? Conan is grim in a manner of survival while Elric is grim in a matter of tragedy and doom to come.
Maybe we should leave tone out of it. It's a bit intangible and is bound to vary from writer to writer. As long as the story doesn't contain dancing pixies, the choices made for the magazine will probably define the tone.
(I think one of the vitrol people actually posted something along this line, but it was easy to miss the wheat for the chafe)
2. Exotic settings and/or settings that live - as in NOT faux Tolkien (if the settings echo Tolkien or other writers then they must be twisted or seen from some new perspective)
How about dropping the Tolkien part? Let's work from what s-and-s is rather than what it isn't.
3. Evoking a sense of wonder - magic is never banal or easy, the fantastic should not be mundane
This one is fine by me! I think our thread on magic covered alot of what magic can/should be and what is shouldn't be in the context of s-and-s.
4. High energy storytelling - as in fast and without padding
That definitely separates s-and-s from fantasy and high-fantasy and I think it's a good point to include.
-- Paul McNamee
http://writer.paulmcnamee.net
http://www.dorancoyle.net |
| Posted By : ragemachine - 7/14/2005 3:23 PM | I think I've tackled this topic before in my article: "Is the Lord of the Rings sword & Sorcery".
http://kingsofthenight0.tripod.com/lordoftherings.htm
GW
G. W. Thomas has appeared in over 350 different books, magazines and ezines including Black October Magazine, Writer's Digest and The Armchair Detective.
http://ragemachinemag.tripod.com |
| Posted By : Kuroboshii - 7/14/2005 5:42 PM | Right on, Nathan. Mr. Mamatas isn't worth worrying about. He once hammered Deep Magic and Flinteye (which he managed to compare with D&D, somehow), and I'm still continuing with both.
Sean T. M. Stiennon (AKA Suuran Songforge)
For information about me, see my author page at www.sfreader.com/authors/seanstiennon. |
| Posted By : erazmus - 7/14/2005 7:11 PM | I think its important to me, as a writer, to know that Howard prefers a terse and unsentimental tone in the stories he selects for Flashing Swords. Certainly if I ever expect to have something to send him that he'll want to buy.
I'd also remove the references to Tolkien, unless that seems to be a major point of confusion to the people who submit to FS. I would guess that Howard probably put that specific point in for a good reason.
The magic stuff seems clear enough and has been discussed elsewhere.
As I said elsewhere as well, its the energy (along with other things) that seperates S&S from other fantasy. Good S&S should never plod.
So much for Howard's guidelines. Is that all there is to the new edge S&S? How much room does the genre have for humor? Does it deal differently with anything as compared to, for lack of a better term, the old edge? What do we hope to see here from it? What do we fear finding in it?
Mike
Michael D. Turner
"Psyched Up" in _Turn the other Chick_-ed. E. Friesner-Baen books
www.baen.com |
| Posted By : Bruce Durham - 7/14/2005 7:42 PM | Humour? My story had a fair amount of it, but it was so subtle, so Canadian, it was probably missed, especially by self-important reviewers.
Frankly, I don't think Howard has to apologize for anything. To change his mission statement means he is succumbing to the very elements he wishes to distance himself from. Why should he budge under so-called pressure? And by distance, I mean he shouldn't have to conform to the complainers (and I don't mean anyone here. God knows, I've drawn enough unwarrented crap from people I don't even know) who don't understand the legacy of the Howards and Leibers and Wagners. Howard wishes to establish that S&S is a genre unto itself, nothing more, and nothing less. It's old, original, classic, and predates most of the pablum we have to put up with today. What's there to apologize for?
Sword's Together,
Bruce
-------------------------
Admin: Community Forums for the Official Site of Conan the Barbarian
Contributing Editor for Flashing Swords. The leading edge in fantasy: Guaranteed Oprah Free!
Moderator for Paradox Interactive Games AAR and Fanfiction Forums
|
| Posted By : erazmus - 7/14/2005 7:58 PM | Bruce,
Well said.
I meant to disrespect to Howard or what he's trying to do. I just found Flashing Swords and I love it. Howard is not quite a lone voice in the wilderness but as a tribe were still mighty small. In the end readership is going to decide these issues, not criticism or editorial policy or even writer's creativity. An audience will develope or it won't. I hope it does and I think it will.
One thing I do know for sure, Howard can only print the stories he's sent. I think he's been pretty clear as to what he wants and by what he's asked for I expect to see a lot of stories I will want to read.
And I thought your story was hilarious and I've never been farther into Canada than the Niagra museum.
Mike
Michael D. Turner
"Psyched Up" in _Turn the other Chick_-ed. E. Friesner-Baen books
www.baen.com |
| Posted By : PaulMc - 7/15/2005 4:06 AM | quote:
Originally posted by bdurham
Frankly, I don't think Howard has to apologize for anything. To change his mission statement means he is succumbing to the very elements he wishes to distance himself from.
Bruce, fair point. I didn't mean to sound like I thought Howard should retract anything. I just wanted to discuss the four points as he requested. [:)]
G.W. - excellent notes on the differences between fantasy and s-&-s. Selfish heroes vs. world savers is a very good way of distinguishing. Thanks.
-- Paul McNamee
http://writer.paulmcnamee.net
http://www.dorancoyle.net |
| Posted By : jonesha - 7/15/2005 5:41 AM | Paul, I don't mind reasoned criticism. Expletive rich, spittle-drenched attacks--those I mind. Let us set aside the critiquers who are offended because a movement is dared suggested (one that is already underway and has been, like it or not, prior to a label) and move on to talking about these points.
Legitimate questions have been raised about the expression "hardboiled." The ranting bloggers seized upon this as well. I'd hoped to go into more detail in an upcoming editorial about the points, never expecting the wider world to pay much attention, not yet. The editorial was long enough already without me spending a page or two on each point.
As to Tolkien, well, I see a LOT of Tolkien and D and D influenced fiction in the submissions. Some of it I take, as with William King's Kormak tale. He's put a new spin on some older ideas. I wanted to clarify why I take some material influenced by LoTR and why I will reject others.
But returning to the hardboiled tone--earlier in this thread I cited Jeremy, who described what I meant quite well. Jeremy, I may well ask your permission to quote you when I write the next editorial. Daniel also touched on something important. And in another thread, Hocking has just written:
-----
Back before hardboiled was universally equated with trenchcoats, fedoras and lonely saxaphones playing in the rain, it was a broader term for clear, unsentimental prose that didn't tell the reader how to feel, but showed him. Back in the day Hemingway, Dos Passos and John O'Hara were considered "hardboiled", believe it or not.
The prime dictum of "hardboiled writing" is still around--- every working writer has heard "show, don't tell". But you don't see much of that style in modern fantasy, and I think its undervalued in all fiction today.
--------------
Anyone else?
Managing Editor
www.swordandsorcery.org
Flashing Swords E-Zine |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/15/2005 7:24 AM | Some of the blogger-responses to Howard Andrew Jones' recent editorial in Flashing Swords E-zine #3 have been overtly critical, if not downright hostile, to the announcement of the "New Edge" of Sword and Sorcery fiction.
Whether or not valid points are buried within the invective and vulgar language employed by some of these bloggers, certain assumptions made among the responders seem inaccurate and I'd like to take a moment to elaborate on Pitch-Black's editorial vision.
A couple of points:
1) Pitch-Black LLC is the publishing group associated with the "New Edge."
This is true in that we sponsor Flashing Swords E-zine and Sword and Sorcery.org; however, the content of the e-zine and of the website is determined by the sword and sorcery.org editorial staff, and has no bearing on the editorial practices and standards at Pitch-Black LLC. While the editorial staff at Pitch-Black endorses and wholly supports the content of sword and sorcery.org and Flashing Swords E-zine, we have no active role in determining editorial vision or policy; preferring to leave control in the hands of the quite capable and creative staff and writers under Howard Jones' direction.
2) The Lords of Swords anthology is the print anthology for the "New Edge" Sword and Sorcery writers.
This is not the case. Lords of Swords is an anthology of heroic fantasy featuring the best of today's writers and fantasy works throughout the spectrum of fantasy sub-genres. While Lords of Swords features some of the best Sword and Sorcery stories you're apt to find -- we also feature other types of fantasy. The contributors to Lords of Swords and Pitch-Black LLC do not necessarily vow allegiance to the "New Edge" nor to the principles noted in Howard Jones' editorial.
I will state, for the record, that I personally support the "New Edge" Sword and Sorcery movement and respect the edicts enumerated in the editorial, but these do not comprise my personal editorial convictions, purely; nor do they define the editorial standards, purely, of Pitch-Black, LLC.
I mention these facts, not only to prevent confusion for possible submitters to our heroic fantasy publications, but to clarify what some may have misunderstood having read only a blog in passing.
Best
Daniel E. Blackston, Senior Editor
Pitch-Black LLC.
www.pitchblackbooks.com
*priot rant edited for decorum, with applicable apologies*
*crossposted in the Pitch-Black forums*
|
| Posted By : Rob Santa - 7/15/2005 7:29 AM | What I took away from the term "hard-boiled" was that you were expecting S&S stories in Flashing Swords to be stripped down to their bare bones. Instead of overly filling in backstory and world history, the story itself should take center stage. What is happening *now* compared to how all the forces traveling their different paths converged on the one point where the action takes place.
I do this all the time with my writing (and get criticized some times by fellow Critters for not revealing enough), and Orson Scott Card called it "begin the story at the beginning of the story." Sure, there's plenty of world-building that can add dimension to your piece. But if you put in the effort, you can show the reader how all the forces came to be without telling them with pages and pages of needless prose.
That's what I thought Howard meant. Show the story. Let the characters be themselves within the story. There's usually not much more needed than that.
Rob
|
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/15/2005 8:34 AM | I've long since come to the conclusion that much of the 'public forum' boards on the internet serve only to let shut-ins vent their spleens.
***
Boy does this ever give me an idea.
Stay tuned, folks.
Daniel
www.pitchblackbooks.com |
| Posted By : Rob Santa - 7/15/2005 9:40 AM | Nathan, I believe that's what Orson Scott Card was trying to say, that a writer needed to eliminate everything that did not directly apply to the story and begin as close to the "real" beginning of the story as possible. This is also beginning as close to the end of the story as possible. Just two different ways to express the same idea.
And I am all for tighter stories compared to longer ones. Don't get me wrong, I've written two novels in the 125,000 word neighborhood and two around 90,000. I've written more 10,000+ short stories (can they still be called short at that length?) than I have flash fiction. But I try to edit my pieces down to their minimum as much as I can. My first edit is always to take 10% off the top, regardless of the story's length. If the first draft is 5,000 words, the second draft has to be under 4,500 and I'll keep chopping until it happens. I know myself, and I know there's always more tightening up that can happen.
This is part of that S&S design I believe Howard is searching for. Lean and mean, like the sinewy warriors in the tales themselves. While I still prefer to describe combat in intmiate detail instead of glossing over all the action, I will skip the parts about "azure skies kissed by watercolor brushstrokes of clouds." I'll save phrases like that for other stories. I may not know as much as the next guy about true S&S, but I do know what I like. And I like this new style with which I've been challenged. Tight, focused, action-oriented. It's great to be a writer.
Rob
|
| Posted By : J Harper - 7/15/2005 2:05 PM | Howard,
Feel free to quote me if you wish. I don't mind. It actually makes me feel important. [;)]
Cheers!
Jeremy Harper
I am staunch and black and have one mood, and this - to defend my masters and their green earth.
Tintaggon
The Coming of the Sea by Lord Dunsany
|
| Posted By : Jay Stevol - 7/15/2005 4:29 PM | quote:
Originally posted by Rob Santa
This is part of that S&S design I believe Howard is searching for. Lean and mean, like the sinewy warriors in the tales themselves. While I still prefer to describe combat in intmiate detail instead of glossing over all the action, I will skip the parts about "azure skies kissed by watercolor brushstrokes of clouds." I'll save phrases like that for other stories. I may not know as much as the next guy about true S&S, but I do know what I like. And I like this new style with which I've been challenged. Tight, focused, action-oriented. It's great to be a writer.
Rob
I totally agree. I'm one of those writers that naturally ends up writing long, drawn-out, purple prose-ridden tales if I'm not kept on a leash. It's a real thrill (and challenge) to write S&S within such a relatively small word limit, forcing every word to count, every scene to have maximum impact. To tell a story in a few pages where others take books is a great skill, in my opinion. I'm glad others feel the same way. |
| Posted By : nikolai - 7/16/2005 10:06 AM | | I've tried googling for the New Edge responses, and haven't had much luck. Could someone post some links? I appreciate the responses may be wrongheaded and nasty, but I'd be interesting to see how exactly they've got it wrong. |
| Posted By : Dragon Angel - 7/16/2005 7:20 PM | I found Vera's response to be quite amusing. (and a little sad)
http://www.sff.net/people/vera.nazarian/news.htp
The fight at the next place is a bit amusing.
http://www.chrononaut.org/log/archives/000613.html
That's all I found. |
| Posted By : Bruce Durham - 7/16/2005 7:55 PM | Veras? How pathetic. As soon as I read Tilton's name I lost all interest. BTW, I mentioned her 'hatchet' method of reviewing at the lastest Toronto Trek Con and it was for all intents and purposes met with derision. The feeling is, she's a legend in her own mind. That's good enough for me.
The next guy just doesn't know where his roots came from. Why do these people spend so much time denying the past? Is the present really that rosy? If so, why are there so many clones?
-------------------------
Admin: Community Forums for the Official Site of Conan the Barbarian
Contributing Editor for Flashing Swords. The leading edge in fantasy: Guaranteed Oprah Free!
Moderator for Paradox Interactive Games AAR and Fanfiction Forums
|
| Posted By : Dragon Angel - 7/16/2005 8:24 PM | | Bruce, why so angry? |
| Posted By : jonesha - 7/17/2005 4:47 AM | Here are the worst of them. Not for the faint of heart. There's certainly a lot of foul-mouthed spittle flying about here. And this from a person who obviously prides themselves on being an intellectual. You have to scroll a little over halfway down, to early July. When the cursing begins in earnest, you've hit the spot. This fellow already took issue with S.C. Bryce's article which dared suggest that Michael Moorock, talented as he is, might not be absolutely right all the time.
http://relocatedfictions.blogspot.com/
Here's another:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/benpeek/#item340984
And yet one more:
http://bodhisattvafiction.blogspot.com/
Stay clear, people. And don't let them get to you. These folks are mis-reading right and left just to be snarky. (Not all of them, though.) They're entitled to disagree. One wishes they could be more civil about it, but then the lack of civility is what makes some of them look ridiculous. I would prefer that if anyone here disagrees with anything said that we discuss it here, and keep it above expletive and spittle-drenched.
best,
Howard
Managing Editor
www.swordandsorcery.org
Flashing Swords E-Zine |
| Posted By : jonesha - 7/17/2005 5:46 AM | ...actually, I'd prefer we not bother discussing it because these opinions are irrelevant and we can put our energy to better use. Like most "negative generators" these folks have spewed their dark clouds and moved on to other topics. We can either stand under and be mad about being soaked, or we can step away and get back to what we were doing.
best,
Howard
Managing Editor
www.swordandsorcery.org
Flashing Swords E-Zine |
| Posted By : jonesha - 7/17/2005 6:31 AM | ...and let me also say that people should be perfectly entitled to disagree with us. The mere fact that someone disagrees shouldn't upset us. Case in point is Vera. We can read various implications into her essay, but she's not being rude about it. We should all be okay with that!
We have to continue to write what we want to write, and building up the available markets for it. There is strength in numbers. Refer to the new thread Charles R. started this morning.
Swords together!
Howard
Managing Editor
www.swordandsorcery.org
Flashing Swords E-Zine |
| Posted By : Supr - 7/17/2005 6:38 AM | Well, it's no bad idea not to answer to unconstructive critic.
But lemme just add smh: I think that Love/Hate opinions are better than no opinions. [8D] |
| Posted By : Vera_Nazarian - 7/20/2005 7:41 PM | quote:
Originally posted by davidolson22
I found Vera's response to be quite amusing. (and a little sad)
http://www.sff.net/people/vera.nazarian/news.htp
As well you should find it sad. It's hard not belonging to any group or subset of writers, and that's the point of my rant. An Island in the Stream stands alone.
Vera
----------------------------
http://www.veranazarian.com/
|
| Posted By : Vera_Nazarian - 7/20/2005 7:44 PM | quote:
Originally posted by bdurham
Veras? How pathetic. As soon as I read Tilton's name I lost all interest. BTW, I mentioned her 'hatchet' method of reviewing at the lastest Toronto Trek Con and it was for all intents and purposes met with derision. The feeling is, she's a legend in her own mind. That's good enough for me.
Not sure if pathetic is the right word, but standing alone is not a happy place to be.
Curious, why did the mention of Lois Tilton made you stop reading? Her mention really had nothing to do with what I said, only a tiny tangental aside.
Vera
----------------------------
http://www.veranazarian.com/
|
| Posted By : Vera_Nazarian - 7/20/2005 7:49 PM | quote:
Originally posted by jonesha
...and let me also say that people should be perfectly entitled to disagree with us. The mere fact that someone disagrees shouldn't upset us. Case in point is Vera. We can read various implications into her essay, but she's not being rude about it. We should all be okay with that!
Thanks for giving me the benefit of a doubt, Howard. :-)
And yes, you understood exactly what I intended -- I really was not addressing New Edge itself, only mentioned it specifically as the latest new arrival on the movement scene, and used the example as a springboard to discuss my own point. What I was reacting to was the notion of movements in general and the act of belonging -- or not.
No offense to New Edge, at all. Or to any other movement.
Vera
----------------------------
http://www.veranazarian.com/
|
| Posted By : Vera_Nazarian - 7/20/2005 8:18 PM | Here is my general take on the New Edge and sword & sorcvery in general.
I've been writing various flavors of sword & sorcery and high/heroic fantasy since 1985. And believe me, I know what it's like being in the despised ghetto within a ghetto of general fantasy.
Let me say upfront: I LOVE high fantasy. I LOVE sword & sorcery. And boy do I know how hard it has been to sell s&s fiction anywhere. I managed, for many years in over a dozen of Marion Zimmer Bradley's Sword and Sorceress anthologies. But that was about it. And part of the reason for my journal rant is indeed an accumulation of many years' rage and disappointment at not having a place for my short fiction which is heroic fantasy, sword & sorcery, traditional, lyrical, whatsit. It is decidedly not what Lois Tilton calls "Hot and Now."
Now, I do not consider my personal flavor of s&s to be New Edge. I would call it "soft" sword & sorcery -- maybe let's call it "Lace and Blade" -- where mythic high fantasy has been put in a blender together with strict old-fashioned Conan-style s&s action adventure, and what has emerged is romantic lyrical fantasy with swords and wonder and a bit of "girl cooties." :-)
So, I write Lace and Blade, for the most part, and I have respect for New Edge as the more "hard" flavor of s&s.
Personally I can enjoy both, (and yes, I can write both) and I don't see why not some of you might enjoy both also. There is much of good in each.
Now, on the other hand, I can see why some might prefer one to the other. And there is nothing wrong with that! :-)
I say the goal of all of us here and wherever there are people who can appreciate sword and sorcery in all its flavors, is to rally in a positive way, and by positive example show the critics where they are wrong.
Just saying they are full of sh*t is infantile of us and only makes them laugh harder at those lame "sword and sorcery geeks."
Let's blow their minds instead by showing that sword & sorcery is back in a big way, and it is Damn Good.
:-)
Vera
----------------------------
http://www.veranazarian.com/
|
| Posted By : jonesha - 7/21/2005 2:34 AM | "I say the goal of all of us here and wherever there are people who can appreciate sword and sorcery in all its flavors, is to rally in a positive way, and by positive example show the critics where they are wrong.
Just saying they are full of sh*t is infantile of us and only makes them laugh harder at those lame "sword and sorcery geeks."
Let's blow their minds instead by showing that sword & sorcery is back in a big way, and it is Damn Good."
Well said, Vera. Thank you. I couldn't agree more.
Right now the ball is in our court, although there are some who can never be convinced no matter how many points we score. At least none of us, so far as I know, has yet posted back to these spittle-dripping people with the same expletive-drenched fervor with which some of them have written of what we're trying to do. I hope that it stays that way. Civil discourse can be answered--other discourse can be ignored. We should not descend to that level.
But it's more important to "do" than to talk about it, meaning, write, and for me, to publish and write. And if you thought issue 3 had some good stuff, just wait until you see issue 4...
best wishes,
Howard
Managing Editor
www.swordandsorcery.org
Flashing Swords E-Zine |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/21/2005 5:16 AM | Just saying they are full of sh*t is infantile of us and only makes them laugh harder at those lame "sword and sorcery geeks."
Let's blow their minds instead by showing that sword & sorcery is back in a big way, and it is Damn Good.
:-)
***
Vera,
Nobody could possibly be lauging any harder than myself when I bothered to look at some of these blogs. This is a riot! There are people out there who are so sad they are actually funny. I'm now thinking that the "mad blogger" represents a great comic/ironic personality type for the 21st century, kind of like "Taxi Driver" was for the 70's. Not that there's anything wrong with blogs or bloggers, I think they are great; it's just (with some of the more vile-spewing crazy-sounding ones Howard referred to) hard not to imagine someone in their underwear living in their mother's basement, plotting to overthrow the "New Edge" movement... LOL. I'm getting tears I'm laughing so hard.
If you turn a live microphone on in an empty room, some fool would wander in and start giving a speech. So, no big deal.
I liked your journal entry, BTW, and have a good appreciation for "Lace and Blade." That doesn't also mean that I don't like New Edge, or all manner of fantasy in between.
As far as blowing minds -- as I was making arrangements yesterday to have Pitch-Black titles displayed at the Frankfurt book fair this year, I realized: the world is a very large place and it is home to MILLIONS of fantasy fans. What a few disturbed people think or say on an obscure blog site is utterly meaningless compared to worldwide distribution of Pitch-Black's heroic fantasy titles.
I've seen the excitement on people's faces when they buy the antho; I've read pages of positive (and unsolicited) feedback, and I've seen the sales figures (direct marketing ONLY) for the first antho so far.
We may not have "Travis Bickle" or his equivalent as a supporter, but who needs 'em?
We've got thousands and potentially millions of readers waiting that have no idea that heroic fantasy short fiction is passe. We also have the resources and supporters to see our book through onto retail shelves all over the world.
I could start a blog two minutes from now; I do wonder, though: are there any "mad bloggers' who are willing to match my efforts by starting their own publishing company?
Swords together!
Daniel
www.pitchblackbooks.com |
| Posted By : BethS - 7/21/2005 7:32 AM | quote:
Originally posted by Vera_Nazarian
Now, I do not consider my personal flavor of s&s to be New Edge. I would call it "soft" sword & sorcery -- maybe let's call it "Lace and Blade" -- where mythic high fantasy has been put in a blender together with strict old-fashioned Conan-style s&s action adventure, and what has emerged is romantic lyrical fantasy with swords and wonder and a bit of "girl cooties." :-)
Lace & Blade. I like that. :)
Beth
|
| Posted By : Vera_Nazarian - 7/21/2005 10:41 AM | quote:
Originally posted by BethS
Lace & Blade. I like that. :)
Beth
Beth,
I think your story "Dragon's Eye" falls in the Lace & Blade camp. Just my feeling, of course. In any case it is a fabulous story.
Vera
----------------------------
http://www.veranazarian.com/
|
| Posted By : BethS - 7/21/2005 11:22 AM | quote:
Originally posted by Vera_Nazarian
I think your story "Dragon's Eye" falls in the Lace & Blade camp.
Possibly--if one allows that it's not always the woman who wears the lace or the man who bears the blade.
[:D]
Beth |
| Posted By : erazmus - 7/21/2005 11:33 AM |
Possibly--if one allows that it's not always the woman who wears the lace or the man who bears the blade.
[:D]
Beth
Of course not! Foppish refinement is appropriate for all, and any fool can stick a sword into someone.[:D]
Mike
Michael D. Turner
"Psyched Up" in _Turn the other Chick_-ed. E. Friesner-Baen books
www.baen.com |
| Posted By : Vera_Nazarian - 7/21/2005 1:13 PM | quote:
Originally posted by BethS
quote:
Originally posted by Vera_Nazarian
I think your story "Dragon's Eye" falls in the Lace & Blade camp.
Possibly--if one allows that it's not always the woman who wears the lace or the man who bears the blade.
[:D]
Beth
But of coisse! :-)
Lace & Blade is definitely women kicking ass -- but with flair -- and men wearing lace and looking great while they duel, demolish, conquer and charm with their rapier wit as much as with actual rapiers.
Sounds like a dream to me.
Vera
----------------------------
http://www.veranazarian.com/
|
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/22/2005 5:52 AM | and men wearing lace and looking great while they duel, demolish, conquer and charm with their rapier wit as much as with actual rapiers.
Sounds like a dream to me.
***
Or like a Pitch-Black Books Icon. Quill is his name, I believe.
LOL
We've got the color Icons from Storn now and a new B&W sketch and they look awesome. I'll see about getting the new B&W illo posted up, it has a bit more detail.
Meanwhile, Vera, I hope you will be ready to submit something to LoS 2 when the invitations go out (very soon).
Daniel
www.pitchblackbooks.com |
| Posted By : Vera_Nazarian - 7/22/2005 6:42 AM | quote:
Originally posted by Daniel
and men wearing lace and looking great while they duel, demolish, conquer and charm with their rapier wit as much as with actual rapiers.
Sounds like a dream to me.
***
Or like a Pitch-Black Books Icon. Quill is his name, I believe.
LOL
We've got the color Icons from Storn now and a new B&W sketch and they look awesome. I'll see about getting the new B&W illo posted up, it has a bit more detail.
Meanwhile, Vera, I hope you will be ready to submit something to LoS 2 when the invitations go out (very soon).
Daniel
www.pitchblackbooks.com
Dan,
I certainly plan on doing a story for LoS 2, and also expect to try my hand at Quill (and possibly Quen) in that story. :-) I am thinking of Tanith Lee's Cyrion as a bit of inspiration for Quill -- but of course he will be a unique character with his own memorable details.
*examining the icons now*
It would be great to see the larger versions and the color versions.
:-)
Vera
----------------------------
http://www.veranazarian.com/
|
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/23/2005 4:01 PM | Color versions are up at the contest page.
Daniel
www.pitchblackbooks.com |
| Posted By : Bruce Durham - 7/23/2005 7:36 PM | quote:
Originally posted by Vera_Nazarian
quote:
Originally posted by bdurham
Veras? How pathetic. As soon as I read Tilton's name I lost all interest. BTW, I mentioned her 'hatchet' method of reviewing at the lastest Toronto Trek Con and it was for all intents and purposes met with derision. The feeling is, she's a legend in her own mind. That's good enough for me.
Not sure if pathetic is the right word, but standing alone is not a happy place to be.
Curious, why did the mention of Lois Tilton made you stop reading? Her mention really had nothing to do with what I said, only a tiny tangental aside.
Vera
----------------------------
http://www.veranazarian.com/
Sorry Vera. Nothing personal. It was a 'Pavlov's Dog' reaction to the name. I wrote it in the heat of the moment and I apologize. The 'Lace and Blade' moniker is rather cool. [:)]
B.
-------------------------
Admin: Community Forums for the Official Site of Conan the Barbarian
Contributing Editor for Flashing Swords. The leading edge in fantasy: Guaranteed Oprah Free!
Moderator for Paradox Interactive Games AAR and Fanfiction Forums
|
| Posted By : PaulMc - 7/24/2005 4:24 AM | quote:
Originally posted by Daniel
Color versions are up at the contest page.
www.pitchblackbooks.com
Very nice. But - you haven't linked to the contest from your main page yet - were you aware of that?
If anyone wants to get to the contest it is at;
http://www.pitchblackbooks.com/contest.htm
-- Paul McNamee
http://writer.paulmcnamee.net
http://www.dorancoyle.net |
| Posted By : Shrews - 7/24/2005 4:33 AM | If NEW EDGE means S&S or fantasy with some guts and balls, yeah, that is a good thing.
Put the sword back into S&S...root around around a while while yer at it. It ain't supposed to be so clean, pristine and whatever it is that makes me wretch these days.
Gimme a good story. Gimme some realism.
For all the works of cultured man
Must fare and fade and fall.
I am the Dark Barbarian
That towers over all.
-Robert E. Howard |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/24/2005 6:38 AM | Very nice. But - you haven't linked to the contest from your main page yet - were you aware of that?
***
Thanks. It is linked on the main page, but not very obviously, I suppose.
Top left-hand corner says "new contest" in red letters. I'm not webmaster for the PB site, but I'll shoot an email over to Pitch and see if he can get something a little more visible put into place.
We should have some major website updates (a complete reconfiguration) ready to launch in a matter of days. We'll be sure to include a visible link to the contest, there's also one at www.swordandsorcery.org.
Thanks for your interest!
Daniel
www.pitchblackbooks.com |
|