Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8338168" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Well, if you're puzzled as to why your assertions would be questioned, on the internet, on a forum of geeks known for <s>arguing</s> discussing anything, including the smallest things ... well, I can't help you there!If you are wondering why an attempt to define a specific genre would be controversial, it is for the same reason that all attempts are- and as I already outlined.S&amp;S came up due to an exchange between Lieber (who is S&amp;S) and Moorcock (who is S&amp;S) discussing Howard (who is S&amp;S). However, despite similarities, even those three quintessential examples (Conan, Gray Mouser &amp; Fafhrd, Elric) are very, very different. Which is why we have a term that is defined both by a grouping of certain works, and by excluding others (the contemporaneous high fantasy, like Tolkien, or the Chronicles of Prydain). More specifically, S&amp;S arose out of a particular time (roughly from Howard through the 70s) and a conception of certain types of pulp literature and archetypes on fantasy fiction; it is very difficult to disentangle what aspects of all those stories are absolutely necessary for S&amp;S, in the same way that (for example) we can discuss aspects of film noir with canonical examples (femme fatale, visual cues such as lack of balance in composition and unconventional lighting, private detective, etc.), and yet never come to a conclusion as to what exact elements constitute the genre in film ... let alone if we attempted to translate it (&quot;I'm doing a film noir in D&amp;D!&quot;).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8338168, member: 7023840"] Well, if you're puzzled as to why your assertions would be [I]questioned[/I], on the internet, on a forum of geeks known for [s]arguing[/s] discussing anything, including the smallest things ... well, I can't help you there! If you are wondering why an attempt to define a specific [I]genre [/I]would be controversial, it is for the same reason that all attempts are- and as I already outlined. S&S came up due to an exchange between Lieber (who is S&S) and Moorcock (who is S&S) discussing Howard (who is S&S). However, despite similarities, even those three quintessential examples (Conan, Gray Mouser & Fafhrd, Elric) are very, very different. Which is why we have a term that is defined both by a grouping of certain works, and by excluding others (the contemporaneous high fantasy, like Tolkien, or the Chronicles of Prydain). More specifically, S&S arose out of a particular time (roughly from Howard through the 70s) and a conception of certain types of pulp literature and archetypes on fantasy fiction; it is very difficult to disentangle what aspects of all those stories are absolutely necessary for S&S, in the same way that (for example) we can discuss aspects of [I]film noir [/I]with canonical examples (femme fatale, visual cues such as lack of balance in composition and unconventional lighting, private detective, etc.), and yet never come to a conclusion as to what exact elements constitute the genre in film ... let alone if we attempted to translate it ("I'm doing a film noir in D&D!"). [/QUOTE]

Verification