Discussing Sword & Sorcery and RPGs

[Yora]

I recently reread the collected Conan stories over the course of a few months, and what stuck out to me was the complete lack of any irony. Howard really digs his macho, wily protagonist, he really likes forgotten cities and decadent civilizations and evil snakes and wizards, and he doesn't feel the need to be arch or distanced the way, say, writers as early as Leiber occasionally do and modern writers, particularly of literary fiction, do quite often. Memes often include a series of spoofs of jokes about obscure references, but Conan--nah, he's just a dude in great shape with a sword. (Even Elric was supposed to be the anti-Conan.) He lives, he burns with life, he loves, he slays, and that is enough. I wonder if that's some of the appeal?

Yes, exactly. You get the same with Karl Wagner's Kane. And I even see it in Moorcock's Elric. These stories don't approve of everything the protagonists do, but they are absolutely sincere that these are supposed to be serious stories with meaningful messages. Which is notable when you see vast numbers of mainstream creators constantly trying to cover their backs and making sure nobody can accuse them of actually meaning what their stories might imply. That's the "irony is killing our culture" thing.

I think possible the biggest cause for Sword & Sorcery's reputation as being trashy is all the genuinely trashy S&S shlock that tried to cash in on the Conan movie in the 80s. If I recall correctly, Conan never actually wears the bearskin diaper from the posters in the movie outside of a one minute montage of his years as a gladiator slave. But it still became the iconic look for Sword & Sorcery protagonists ever since.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Offense is special in that regard, in that some people take offense in things that are not intended to give it. But if we demand to sanitize everything to a point where nobody could possibly take offense at it, everything just becomes a hollow shell. Nobody has a "right to not be offended", as a famous philosopher once put it.

This doesn't exclude an artist's possible intention to offend, but I think in the case of S&S, that intention is not necessarily clear.

No.

Offense is not "special" in that regard.

Someone falls over and you laugh. Did they mean to fall over (pratfall) or not? Was The Room an intentional comedy?

How someone reacts, and what is intended, are not always the same. Offense is not special in this aspect. Elevating it denigrates the speaker and the audience.

 

[Blue Orange]

Yes, exactly. You get the same with Karl Wagner's Kane. And I even see it in Moorcock's Elric. These stories don't approve of everything the protagonists do, but they are absolutely sincere that these are supposed to be serious stories with meaningful messages. Which is notable when you see vast numbers of mainstream creators constantly trying to cover their backs and making sure nobody can accuse them of actually meaning what their stories might imply. That's the "irony is killing our culture" thing.

I think possible the biggest cause for Sword & Sorcery's reputation as being trashy is all the genuinely trashy S&S shlock that tried to cash in on the Conan movie in the 80s. If I recall correctly, Conan never actually wears the bearskin diaper from the posters in the movie outside of a one minute montage of his years as a gladiator slave. But it still became the iconic look for Sword & Sorcery protagonists ever since.

I don't want to get into the is-itart debate as most people here are fans of genres (TTRPGs at the least and likely some variety of fantasy as well) that are not considered art by, say, the New Yorker or Harvard--you won't see the 1e cover of the PHB at the Met. (I think there's more artistry in a tricked-out lowrider than a Pollock canvas, but that's just me.)

But I do think Sword & Sorcery vis-a-vis, say, Lord of the Rings is considered 'trashy' (and this is my opinion and mine alone) because it was historically enjoyed by the blue-collar consumers of the pulps and, now, is seen as too much of a right-leaning genre. (Ironically Howard, despite his racial views, was actually something of a feminist for his time and most of the sex in his stories was requested by the publishers.) Of course, you can definitely write a game about swordslinging queer people of any ethnic background (Thirsty Sword Lesbians anyone?), but I think that's a big part of it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But I do think Sword & Sorcery vis-a-vis, say, Lord of the Rings is considered 'trashy' (and this is my opinion and mine alone) because it was historically enjoyed by the blue-collar consumers of the pulps and, now, is seen as too much of a right-leaning genre. (Ironically Howard, despite his racial views, was actually something of a feminist for his time and most of the sex in his stories was requested by the publishers.) Of course, you can definitely write a game about swordslinging queer people of any ethnic background (Thirsty Sword Lesbians anyone?), but I think that's a big part of it.

Ugh. This kills me.

Seriously. I mean, think of the big "classic" names of high fantasy. Tolkien. Alexander. Lewis. All small-c (sometimes large-C) conservative.

As I wrote before, high fantasy tropes are so tired. "Oh look, the dude is really a prince. His magic blood and destiny will save us!" Or the ever-popular, "The world as it was is totally awesome, we need to defend it from ... THE OTHER. Oh noes, those dark and swarthy forces that are totally not an allegory for industrialization are totally going to change our idyllic way of pastoral life."

C'mon. As I wrote before, the main difference between S&S and high fantasy is that S&S doesn't suck. S&S might not always be perfect, but I'm certainly not going to take any gruff about trashiness from a bunch of elf-lovers.

 

[Yora]

As the quote goes "It is. And I'm tired of pretending it's not."

 

[Aldarc]

By the way, for those interested in fun alternative takes on Sword & Sorcery, I highly recommend Paleomythic: A Roleplaying Game of Stone and Sorcery.

 

[Blue Orange]

Ugh. This kills me.

Seriously. I mean, think of the big "classic" names of high fantasy. Tolkien. Alexander. Lewis. All small-c (sometimes large-C) conservative.

As I wrote before, high fantasy tropes are so tired. "Oh look, the dude is really a prince. His magic blood and destiny will save us!" Or the ever-popular, "The world as it was is totally awesome, we need to defend it from ... THE OTHER. Oh noes, those dark and swarthy forces that are totally not an allegory for industrialization are totally going to change our idyllic way of pastoral life."

C'mon. As I wrote before, the main difference between S&S and high fantasy is that S&S doesn't suck. S&S might not always be perfect, but I'm certainly not going to take any gruff about trashiness from a bunch of elf-lovers.

Eh, I'm more for S&S than high fantasy now, but I was introduced to the genre by my mom reading me LOTR as a kid and I appreciate Tolkien's artistry, worldbuilding, and more-or-less-singlehanded invention of a genre.

I never got into Mercedes Lackey-style romantic fantasy, but I was happy when Blue Rose came out because now more people had a game they could enjoy playing.

There are lots of cuisines I don't like because they concentrate a lot on spicy food, but I'd never dream of saying they were bad as a result...

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Eh, I'm more for S&S than high fantasy now, but I was introduced to the genre by my mom reading me LOTR as a kid and I appreciate Tolkien's artistry, worldbuilding, and more-or-less-singlehanded invention of a genre.

I never got into Mercedes Lackey-style romantic fantasy, but I was happy when Blue Rose came out because now more people had a game they could enjoy playing.

There are lots of cuisines I don't like because they concentrate a lot on spicy food, but I'd never dream of saying they were bad as a result...

I think you may have mistaken the gist of my comment.

Tolkien is ... fine. The legion of Tolkien imitators that lacked his erudition, facility with languages, and attention to detail when it came to worldbuilding? Meh.

But the real issue is that people mistake an original publication in a pulp magazine (or a pulp genre) as being "trashy." This is the same mistake that is made over and over again throughout history (see, e.g., Hitchcock). What, do we need a Cahiers du Cinema to anoint Lieber as being a decent writer?

S&S, whether it's REH or Lieber or Moocock or any of a number of other variants ... is certainly (IMO) much more interesting, dynamic, and artistic than the stodgy and moribund tropes of high fantasy. There is a reason that it is called "modern." Perhaps it is not modernist (as in Joyce and Eliot) but the sensibility belongs more to a Chandler or an Ellroy than to some non-existent halcyon days of the divine right of kings as exemplified by the protagonists of high fantasy.

In other words- I do not much appreciate the hypocrisy of those who might call out S&S - a genre marked by the individual struggling against corruption, when they would defend the retrograde and unexamined notions inherent in almost all high fantasy.

Or, as I put it more simply- I prefer S&S to high fantasy because S&S doesn't suck.

 

[reelo]

No.

Offense is not "special" in that regard.

Someone falls over and you laugh. Did they mean to fall over (pratfall) or not? Was The Room an intentional comedy?

How someone reacts, and what is intended, are not always the same. Offense is not special in this aspect. Elevating it denigrates the speaker and the audience.

I might have put that wrong, I agree.

But I stand by my statement that "making sure nobody can possibly ever be offended by anything" is not a desireable thing. People who want to will go to great lengths in order to find something to be offended about, even the most trivial things.

 

[reelo]

In other words- I do not much appreciate the hypocrisy of those who might call out S&S - a genre marked by the individual struggling against corruption, when they would defend the retrograde and unexamined notions inherent in almost all high fantasy.

Or, as I put it more simply- I prefer S&S to high fantasy because S&S doesn't suck.

What I like about S&S is that it holds a mirror to modern societies: Civilization inevitably leads to debauchery and degeneration, "savage people" are depicted as much more morally clear-cut: Conan might be a savage barbarian, a pirate, a thief, and a warlord, but he's honest. It's the "civilized" antagonists that are liars, schemers, demonologists, slavers, and morally corrupt.