Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 3847178" data-attributes="member: 2205">I have read those works, and they're not Sword &amp; Sorcery either.And well,that's not the position I'm taking.&nbsp; I'm just taking the position that you are ignorant, not everyone.&nbsp; Or at least guilty of conflating definitions and over-generalizing.&nbsp; Maybe you're not ignorant and you're just ignoring the differences between S&amp;S and high fantasy, but I think that's really at the heart of the topic, unless I've completely misunderstood what we're talking about, so doing so does nothing but sow confusion and misinformation rather than allowing us to find some common ground on which we can build a discussion.Agreed on all fronts.&nbsp; Tolkien blazed the trail with what it means to be modern high fantasy, and authors following in his footsteps largely don't have his devotion (or time) nor his unusual training, and therefore compare unfavorably if they try to hew too closely to what he did.That said, there are plenty of other directions high fantasy could have gone.&nbsp; E. R. Eddison and William Morris, for example, blaze a more &quot;High Medieval&quot; trail with a different feel that doesn't rely on things like elves and dwarves, and draws from different sources entirely---much less Germanic mythology and much more classic Arthurian in feel.Personally, my favorite type of fantasy involves the Dallas Cowboy's cheerleaders and reads like a Penthouse letter.&nbsp; But I think the distinction and unique particulars of S&amp;S specifically are pretty relevent to the discussion.&nbsp; I agree that D&amp;D is more S&amp;S with an overlay of high fantasy, but what you're really saying---in so many words, if I can be so bold as to attempt to paraphrase for you---is that you want to minimize the actual S&amp;S elements in D&amp;D and go for something more like high fantasy.&nbsp; The unique D&amp;Disms are usually the elements that most strongly correllate D&amp;D to the S&amp;S subgenre.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 3847178, member: 2205"] I have read those works, and they're not Sword & Sorcery either. And well,that's not the position I'm taking. I'm just taking the position that [i]you[/i] are ignorant, not everyone. Or at least guilty of conflating definitions and over-generalizing. Maybe you're not ignorant and you're just ignoring the differences between S&S and high fantasy, but I think that's really at the heart of the topic, unless I've completely misunderstood what we're talking about, so doing so does nothing but sow confusion and misinformation rather than allowing us to find some common ground on which we can build a discussion. Agreed on all fronts. Tolkien blazed the trail with what it means to be modern high fantasy, and authors following in his footsteps largely don't have his devotion (or time) nor his unusual training, and therefore compare unfavorably if they try to hew too closely to what he did. That said, there are plenty of other directions high fantasy could have gone. E. R. Eddison and William Morris, for example, blaze a more "High Medieval" trail with a different feel that doesn't rely on things like elves and dwarves, and draws from different sources entirely---much less Germanic mythology and much more classic Arthurian in feel. Personally, my favorite type of fantasy involves the Dallas Cowboy's cheerleaders and reads like a Penthouse letter. But I think the distinction and unique particulars of S&S specifically are pretty relevent to the discussion. I agree that D&D is more S&S with an overlay of high fantasy, but what you're really saying---in so many words, if I can be so bold as to attempt to paraphrase for you---is that you want to minimize the actual S&S elements in D&D and go for something more like high fantasy. The unique D&Disms are usually the elements that most strongly correllate D&D to the S&S subgenre. [/QUOTE]

Verification