Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JPL" data-source="post: 7816046" data-attributes="member: 1964">Oh, I'm no Puritan.&nbsp; For my part, I don't think that approaching swords &amp; sorcery from a different gender/racial/social perspective necessarily means &quot;watering it down&quot; . . . I read your post and think, well, what if that wholesome barbarian was an African instead of a Celt or a Norseman?&nbsp; What if that barbarian queen wore appropriate armor (like Conan did in the stories) and was the hero instead of the hero's prize?&nbsp; Are we really losing &quot;all that makes the genre valuable and interesting&quot; by taking those approaches?&nbsp; I guess to me, a big part of the genre is not just the corrupting influence of overcivilization . . . it's the opposite possibility of a culture or bloodline degenerating into bestial savagery.&nbsp; The hero is someone in between --- equal parts strength and cunning, free but answerable to his own code.&nbsp; Lots of different heroes can fit that niche without looking like Conan.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JPL, post: 7816046, member: 1964"] Oh, I'm no Puritan. For my part, I don't think that approaching swords & sorcery from a different gender/racial/social perspective necessarily means "watering it down" . . . I read your post and think, well, what if that wholesome barbarian was an African instead of a Celt or a Norseman? What if that barbarian queen wore appropriate armor (like Conan did in the stories) and was the hero instead of the hero's prize? Are we really losing "all that makes the genre valuable and interesting" by taking those approaches? I guess to me, a big part of the genre is not just the corrupting influence of overcivilization . . . it's the opposite possibility of a culture or bloodline degenerating into bestial savagery. The hero is someone in between --- equal parts strength and cunning, free but answerable to his own code. Lots of different heroes can fit that niche without looking like Conan. [/QUOTE]

Verification