As long as it isn't a rapier. Unless, of course, it is a D&D remake of The Princess Bride. Is that subversive enough?
My guess is that it will either be the sort of thing we'd see a crusader use in a movie, or something closer to a classic "viking sword", ie something very familiar, or something weird and unique and quite fantasy. I would be happy with a rapier, but I don't have the bias against them that some dnd players do. The only thing I'm strongly hoping against is the used of a longsword as if it is a heavy, unwieldy, weapon. I'm very, very, tired of that nonsense.
Sorry, perhaps you can point me in the direction of a critically acclaimed fantasy novel (not critical acclamation from a specific sci-go or fantasy award)
Or perhaps a critically acclaimed fantasy film, other than Lord of the Rings?
Oh dear gods above, you're serious. Firstly, the premise that critical acclaim doesn't count if it is a genre specific award is worthy of nothing more or less than enthusiastic derision. To put it kindly. A more honest and accurate appraisal would pretty much require me to break forum rules, because the line between criticism of an absolutely laughable argument and the person who made it is always fairly thin.
Second, if you are going to argue that Ursula Leguin, Guy Gavriel Kay, Neil Gaiman, among others, are not critically acclaimed, then you're simply proving objectively that you can't be taken seriously on the subject.
Umbran has the movie angle covered. You came into this rather underprepared, for someone so ready to talk down your nose as if an expert to a bunch of people you don't actually know.
Great. An actor as wooden as his name.
This reminds me of the Mandolorian thread. If you think Pine is wooden, you aren't a good judge of the ability to emote of actors, or you might perhaps have trouble reading subtle emotional communication from people you don't know personally.
Ever watched the end of Bullit? Do you think the acting in the bathroom, when the protagonist gets home, is wooden or unemotive?
The only thing wrong with this statement is the implication that anything in it, at all, is specific to fantasy. In the immortal words of Theodore Sturgeon, responding to similar criticisms of science fiction: "90% of science fiction is crud, but 90% of everything is crud."
Your whole statement applies just as well to every genre--very much including "literary" writing. Fantasy is no better nor worse than most others. Pick any style of any art form, and you'll find a scattering of gems amid a mountain of garbage.
That gives them too much credit, and artists too little. Most art that people are confident enough to share isn't even crap. It isn't world changing, but screw any perspective that views the two as a binary dichotomy. There is plenty of good art in the world that isn't ever going to change the world in any big history book sort of way. That's a good thing.
deadline.com
