D&D General No One Reads Conan Now -- So What Are They Reading?

[nyvinter]

There is a market for sword and sorcery: New Edge is the proof of that, same with Beneath Ceaseless Skies. As with sword and sorcery of old, magazines is where it's at, not novels.

But if you want explicitly S&S like Robert E Howard, then they might not work for you because it's 2025 and not the 1930s.

 

[overgeeked]

I didn't want to quote your whole post, but I think this is the issue right here. I don't read Larry's books for politics.

I don’t read his stuff because of his politics. I choose not to support hateful, bigoted people. I don’t care how good the read is. I can justify reading the likes of H. P. Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard despite their politics because they’re dead. Me spending money on their works won’t enrich a living bigot who might use that money to pursue hateful ends. That’s clearly not the case here. It’s also why I don’t read J. K. Rowling, Orson Scott Card, and dozens of others. Sorry that’s so hard for you to understand. Though for the life of me I cannot fathom why it’s so hard for you and others to understand.

Author: “I think you and people like you shouldn’t have basic human rights. Please buy my book.”

Reader: “No thanks. I’ll find a less hateful author to support.”

Author: “Discrimination!”

Come off it.

 

[overgeeked]

My apologies for misreading you and for mischaracterizing your position.

I took "Big publishing houses not risking money on genres that don’t sell isn’t some kind of conspiracy" to imply that if there were demand for (e.g.) S&S, then the publishers would be there. Therefore, the fact that they weren't publishing S&S demonstrates that there wasn't demand. Is that not what you meant by it? Or did I overgeneralize in jumping from that to a general statement about markets?

There’s a vast excluded middle between what I said (publishing is a business) and what you took that to mean (the market is so awesome it can do no wrong and prevents discrimination).

 

[Belen]

I think this 'the market will always ensure there is no discrimination' take is very naive given the history of discrimination. The market is not always right, and it can lock into certain preferences that are not the best for ideological reasons. This is most obvious in sport (because easiest to objectively measure), where whole leagues were not taking advantage of talent for decades on end. Eventually the market may win out, especially if the incentives become extreme, but this can take a long time. Not relying on the market to do this motivated all sorts of nondiscrimination law in the US.

This.

I have worked in publishing for 25 years (and now I feel old) and bias has been a constant companion. People and businesses do not always make rational choices. It is not limited to the biases we see every day such as racial, gender, political. We also have institutional, implicit, and assumption biases. I speak on these topics quite a bit and it has taken years to get many folks to even see or acknowledge them.

 

[Imaro]

I find it ironic that D&D is called out for kidifying and superhero-fying (or whatever derogatory term you want to use for it's direction) in contrast to many of the tropes of older pulp sword and sorcery when the poster boy for that genre is literally being made into a superhero on a superheroteam in a comic for kids... This is the Conan that is probably most relevant at this point. I believe he is more well known through Marvel than as a creation of REH.

 

[The Firebird]

There’s a vast excluded middle between what I said (publishing is a business) and what you took that to mean (the market is so awesome it can do no wrong and prevents discrimination).

Maybe you can rephrase your point? I understand that publishing is a business. I think we agree that that does not imply there is no discrimination in the publishing.

That was my point, that market mechanisms don't prevent discrimination.

But then I don't understand why you expressed disagreement with me in the first place? What did you think was wrong about my post?

 

[myrkulyte]

Sigh. Publishers picking which books they want to risk gobs of money on is not discrimination, nor is it censorship, nor is it a structural barrier. Publishers chase sales. They’re in the business of printing books that sell, if the books don’t sell well enough they go out of business. So yes, they chase trends, prefer authors with a platform, prefer authors with a good track record, etc. If they don’t they close. It’s simple as that. Markets and audiences change. No matter how much you love a given genre it will not stay popular forever. Sword & sorcery hasn’t been widely popular in decades. That’s not the fault of the publishers. Tastes change. We also have indie authors on platforms like Amazon self-publishing their work. If there’s a niche genre you like, you can find it there. Big publishing house not risking money on genres that don’t sell isn’t some kind of conspiracy.

Sorry but this is just wrong. Publishers absolutely create discriminatory barriers around what gets published. They're just not directed at white men but at minority groups. Publishers don't just read the market they also, in some small part, dictate it. Publishers decide what gets put to market in the first place and their decisions about what a marketable novel is are as biased as the people and institutions making them.

 

[overgeeked]

There is a market for sword and sorcery: New Edge is the proof of that, same with Beneath Ceaseless Skies. As with sword and sorcery of old, magazines is where it's at, not novels.

But if you want explicitly S&S like Robert E Howard, then they might not work for you because it's 2025 and not the 1930s.

You can find that stuff, too. Again, just check indie authors.

The niche stuff just isn’t on the shelves in national bookstore chains. It’s neither suppressed or excluded. It just doesn’t sell well enough to justify the shelf space or printing costs.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There is a market for sword and sorcery: New Edge is the proof of that, same with Beneath Ceaseless Skies. As with sword and sorcery of old, magazines is where it's at, not novels.

But if you want explicitly S&S like Robert E Howard, then they might not work for you because it's 2025 and not the 1930s.

What does Sword & Sorcery actually mean? Does it mean swashbuckling adventure? Because there is plenty of that around. I’m currently reading Jim Butcher’s Olympian Affair, and that certainly qualifies (even if it is more Hornblower).

Or does it mean “promotes fascist values”?

 

[nyvinter]

What does Sword & Sorcery actually mean? Does it mean swashbuckling adventure? Because there is plenty of that around. I’m currently reading Jim Butcher’s Olympian Affair, a that certainly qualifies (even if it is more Hornblower).

Or does it mean “promotes fascist values”?

For me, it tends to be gritty fantasy adventures where outright magic is rare but weirdness and sense of wonder isn't.

If something promotes fascist values, then that work's genre is "trash" no matter what shelf it's sorted on.

(I personally is far more of a Elric person than Conan.)