Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8340383" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I agree wholeheartedly! I already wrote pretty extensively on it (both here, and prior threads). The comment you were responding to was because the OP didn't want further discussion of the trappings or genre of S&S (at the time, apparently), but only on the hook used to start the S&S adventure, which I had trouble understanding for the reasons I explained.[USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] Your thorough knowledge of REH and Conan is, as always, appreciated, but I'd like to throw in a small quibble, and also expand on a very good point you made.First, I think you've acknowledged that you aren't familiar with Lieber et al. ("I've never read Leiber and haven't read much Moorcock.") While REH's Conan is, of course, S&S, we can't single-source a genre. The difficulty in making pronouncements about S&S as a genre is just that- at a minimum, it encompasses REH's Conan, Lieber's Fafhrd & Gray Mouser, and Moorcock's Elric- which have similarities, but also disparate elements. In that sense, S&S is very much like film noir, in that the genre borders are difficult to understand. But I wanted to concentrate on something you said separately which I completely agree with, albeit perhaps I might quibble with a little bit of the phrasing given we are talking about a literary genre:But as I see it the main contrast between S&S and JRRT-ish fantasy is that the former is modernist, even sometime existentialist - it presents the world as inherently lacking in value, and it is the action of the protagonists that imposes truth and meaning on the world - whereas JRRT-ish fantasy is conservative - it posits a world laden with meaning, and the path of heroism is identifying that meaning and having the faith and courage to act in accordance with it.I would start by saying that S&S is not modernist in the literary sense, although it is modern. Just a small definitional quibble, given that I wouldn't want people to confuse the genre and think that Howard and Lieber are writing in the same vein as Joyce and Faulkner. Sure, a person can make the argument that REH, Lieber, Moorcock et al. are part of the pre-war proto-modernist movement (Conrad, et al.) but that's a topic for another time- anyway, I think that it would be better to say modern.And here, I think you are exactly correct. S&S is, essentially, modern fantasy, while high fantasy (Tolkien, et al.) is essentially small-c "conservative" fantasy. Most Tolkien-esque fantasy has, in addition to the usual "high magic," the following:A. A world (way of life) that is either under attack and needs to be defended from outside ("evil") forces, or a world that has succumbed to those evil forces and needs to be restored.B. A protagonist who is a protagonist of right. Whether it's bloodline (Harry Potter), or destiny (Taran), or there's a hidden king somewhere or other (Strider/Aragorn), there is always a protagonist that that is awesome because s/he was just born that way. I think you are 100% correct in noting that S&S tends to eschew these conservative aspects of high fantasy. In fact, if I had to compare it to any genre, I would probably say it is most similar to the "hardboiled," - another pulp genre that is modern, and rejected the older detective approach (Christie, Doyle). In hardboiled, you usually have the characters dealing with a modern and industrial system that choose to operate outside of the system, rendering them morally ambiguous at times (anti-heroes), even when they act in moral fashion.Finally, to move this full circle, the irony of all of this is that D&D started by reflecting, in many ways, the S&S traditions- while Tolkien was undoubtedly an influence, S&S was still a strong and recognized influence in both the game and in fantasy literature. Over time, however, D&D (and the playing groups) incorporated more small-c conservative genre aspects from Tolkien and the glut of Tolkien imitators from the late 70s and 80s in the very fallow fantasy field.</blockquote>

Verification