TIME's 100 Best Fantasy Books of All Time

[Dioltach]

Does Joe Abercrombie count as S&S? Or perhaps Scott Lynch, although that's more Wits & Sorcery.

There's also an argument to be made for Conan: he dislikes everyone equally, regardless of sex or race, until they prove their worth and gain his respect. (Note that this is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, and that yes, I do understand how Conan is problematic.)

 

[Eltab]

The thing is- is that the best inclusive S&S stuff is similar in nature to the best S&S stuff in general - it's all anthologies of short stories and novellas rather than the types of novels that would show up on a list like this.

The Sword and Sorceress series is the example that tends to come up the most, being primarily female led S&S stories that attempt to subvert the more classically sexist tropes found in a lot of older S&S. Then again, that series' editor, Marion Zimmer Bradley, turned out to have been a horrific monster in her own right (you'll note her very well-acclaimed novel The Mists of Avalon also don't appear on Time's list either). I'm sure there are better recommendations elsewhere.

i was following MZB's earlier Darkover novels. Her Darkover editor-collections were entertaining, until something happened in her personal life and she put out a whole book of "I hate men" stories. Being a college student at the time, I concluded she did not wish me as a reader or purchaser ... so I stopped.
I later found her "Darkover: The Next Generation" novels (my description) but it seemed like the heart had gone out of her writing. It's been almost 25 years since then; maybe another look is in order.

 

[Gradine]

Does Joe Abercrombie count as S&S? Or perhaps Scott Lynch, although that's more Wits & Sorcery.

There's also an argument to be made for Conan: he dislikes everyone equally, regardless of sex or race, until they prove their worth and gain his respect. (Note that this is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, and that yes, I do understand how Conan is problematic.)

For all of issues involved in Conan (and remember Howard cut his teeth as a Lovecraft fanboy) he was actually fairly progressive among his contemporaries regarding womens' rights. For as much as the stereotypical "strong female character" is a problematic cliche in fantasy literature these days, all clichés start out as subversions and Howard certainly played a role in popularizing it.

This, by the way, is why I think it's a good thing when "best of all time" lists contain more modern entries than you would otherwise expect. Some tropes hold up better than others as our fields of literature and storytelling advance. It's a somewhat sad fact that many of the tropes that tended to define S&S back in its day (male power fantasies, women as damsel/reward, otherized racial caricatures) are... not okay. And it's okay to acknowledge we've moved on.

It would be interesting to see what a modern-day, inclusive take on the S&S genre would look like, and if the end result would still be recognizable as S&S.

 

[Dioltach]

It would be interesting to see what a modern-day, inclusive take on the S&S genre would look like, and if the end result would still be recognizable as S&S.

I don't see why not. To me, the "male power fantasies, women as damsel/reward, otherized racial caricatures" that you mention are less defining features of the genre, and more a reflection of prevailing attitudes in the heyday of S&S. It's been a while since I read Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser, but I don't recall much of those elements.

I think that S&S is defined more by its protagonists and its antagonists. Protagonists are humans, without supernatural powers (or only very limited powers, for example the Grey Mouser's minor magical abilities). The antagonists are supernatural, either inherently or through acquired abilities, and as a result of their supernatural -- and therefore unnatural -- powers are evil. (This definition actually rules out, say, "Beyond the Black River", but strictly speaking that's more of an adventure story than S&S: take out Conan, and it could just as easily take place along the Roman-German frontier.)

 

[Haffrung]

I don't see why not. To me, the "male power fantasies, women as damsel/reward, otherized racial caricatures" that you mention are less defining features of the genre, and more a reflection of prevailing attitudes in the heyday of S&S. It's been a while since I read Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser, but I don't recall much of those elements.

Yes, S&S was a product of its time, but there's nothing about the genre itself that leaned on retrograde attitudes. You would find those same stereotypes in all popular fiction from the 40s through the 60s.

The decline in prominence of S&S over the last 40 years isn't due to more enlightened attitudes about gender, race, etc. Those elements can be modernized without losing anything essential to S&S. The reason the sub-genre fell out of favour is because it tends to present a jaundiced view of humanity. And the modern audience for fantasy fiction looks for comforting escapism. Most readers today want to live in the setting the authors create. Whereas the worlds depicted by S&S authors are places I wouldn't want to spend 15 minutes in, let alone live.

I think that's where some of the modern criticism of the sensibilities in S&S fiction is misplaced. The authors weren't advocating for the kinds of worlds and people depicted - they just thought they'd make fantastic and exciting vehicles for adventure stories.

 

[Cadence]

The reason the sub-genre fell out of favour is because it tends to present a jaundiced view of humanity. And the modern audience for fantasy fiction looks for comforting escapism. Most readers today want to live in the setting the authors create. Whereas the worlds depicted by S&S authors are places I wouldn't want to spend 15 minutes in, let alone live.

That kind of suprises me. Over the previous two decades, haven't Hunger Games and Divergent and similar books been really popular as far as grim and non-comforting settings, and a lot of the monster-urban horror fiction been popular in terms of non-heroic main characters?

 

[Gradine]

That kind of suprises me. Over the previous two decades, haven't Hunger Games and Divergent and similar books been really popular as far as grim and non-comforting settings, and a lot of the monster-urban horror fiction been popular in terms of non-heroic main characters?

These are still somewhat aspirational, especially when we're talking about YA dystopian fiction. The idea is to crystallize the unease younger readers feel within our modern world and magnify it to literal apocalyptic proportions, then present reader-insert heroes and heroines who go about fighting for and then building a better world.

Whereas Sword & Sorcery is sort of primarily about the power fantasy; a larger-than-life powerful figure who can exist in and dominate a dying and unforgiving world. There's an exploration-of-the-unknown feel there also which I imagine garners less demand among today's readers (what with the constant barrage of cable and internet history & travel series taking the mystery out of "exotic" locales the world over). It's more about survival than building a better world.

But then that basically just describes one of the primary differences between heroic fantasy and S&S.

 

[Haffrung]

At the risk of tangenting things: what's the best sword & sorcery out there, old or new? - with (like the Time list) a bias toward diversity/representation, and therefore probably newer stuff.

The Gate of Ivrel by CJ Cherryh qualifies as sword and sorcery in my eyes (though it's technically science fiction). It's definitely not 'white dude saves damsel in distress.'

Two classics of the genre (and personal favourites of mine) are The Broken Sword by Poul Anderson, and The Swords Trilogy by Michael Moorcock. If you overlook the cheesy 70s cover art, there's nothing retrograde or crude about either. In both cases, humans are the bad guys.

 

[Haffrung]

That kind of suprises me. Over the previous two decades, haven't Hunger Games and Divergent and similar books been really popular as far as grim and non-comforting settings, and a lot of the monster-urban horror fiction been popular in terms of non-heroic main characters?

But in YA dystopias like the Hunger Games, the protagonists are striving to overthrow the oppressive regimes and restore freedom. In S&S stories, pretty much all civilizations are decadent by their very nature. The protagonists don't overthrow oppressive regimes, except incidentally in pursuit of their own goals. I can't speak to monster-urban horror fiction.

 

[Haffrung]

Whereas Sword & Sorcery is sort of primarily about the power fantasy; a larger-than-life powerful figure who can exist in and dominate a dying and unforgiving world. There's an exploration-of-the-unknown feel there also which I imagine garners less demand among today's readers (what with the constant barrage of cable and internet history & travel series taking the mystery out of "exotic" locales the world over). It's more about survival than building a better world.

The move away from fiction about exploring exotic realms is strange to me. Even Star Trek - whose entire premise was about exploring 'strange new worlds' - has abandoned exploration. For reasons I don't quite understand, it doesn't appeal to younger audiences.