Lately I've been thinking an awful lot about sword & sorcery. I know why too. It goes back to an awesome conversation I had with jplangan about s&s/weird fantasy during Readercon in July. That conversation has stayed with me more than I expected and gotten me thinking about the subgenre as a whole.
On the one hand, you can argue it's making a resurgence. In recent years, Del Rey has put wonderful and comprehensive editions of Robert E. Howard's works, introducing whole new generations of fans to characters such as Conan, Kull, Solomon Kane, and Bran Mak Morn. Now Del Rey has just started doing the same thing with Michael Moorcock's Elric. In recent years, Nightshade has released new editions of the works of Karl Edward Wagner's Kane, Charles Saunders' Imaro, and now they're putting out a very nice collection of the weird works of Clark Ashton Smith. Dark Horse is doing the same for the stories of Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd & Gray Mouser, and I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the way Paizo Publishing is bringing out new editions for many of the illustriious Weird Tales authors who contributed to the magazine during its "golden age" from the mid 1920s through about 1940.
All this is fantastic, as these authors represent many of the most important names to ever pen a sword & sorcery tale. I've read most of REH and sizable chunks of the rest of them except Charles Saunders, though I have one of his Imaro collections in my piles of books. With the exception of Wagner's Kane, I've thoroughly enjoyed all these authors and I fully understand how important it is for future s&s scribes to read such works, so they might learn from the masters.
Which brings me to the other half of the argument. I'm not so convinced that S&S is making a comeback, at least not in a way that I would like to see. Renewed interest in the aforementioned masters is great, but alas, most of them have passed on. Michael Moorcock is still alive, but he's getting on in years and has stated on more than one occasion that he's done with writing Eternal Champion novels, and many of his most enduring s&s represent various incarnations of the Eternal Champion. I know he recently had an Elric story published in Weird Tales and another published in the Logorreah anthology, but those are two individual stories, and Mr. Moorcock isn't as prolific as he used to be. So of everyone I've mentioned above, that leaves Charles Saunders as the only other living author of the bunch. I know he included some new material in those rereleases that Nightshade put out not too long ago, but I don't know how well these books sold (meaning I don' t know if we can expect more) and since I've yet to read these stories personally, I'm not comfortable commenting on the author or his work in further depth. If others can offer their knowledge here, I'd be interested to hear it.
I guess my point in a long meandering sort of way is that until a new enduring world and/or character is introduced to the subgenre, its overall health remains in question. I don't think the names I've mentioned will ever disappear (again, minus Saunders for the purposes of this conversation since I need to learn more in this area), but for the subgenre to truly grow, it needs this to happen in the worst way. The 1920s & 1930s gave us Clark Ashton Smith's darkly lush world of Zothique. It gave us Robert E. Howard's Conan, King Kull, Solomon Kane, Bran Mak Morn, and the original incarnation of Red Sonja (or Sonya, in that particular tale). It gave us C.L. Moore's Jirel of Joiry. 1939 gave us Leiber's first Fafhrd & Gray Mouser tale. Fritz continued to produce tales of his infamous duo well into the 80s, but it was decades before new s&s creations were introduced that became enduring fixtures in the subgenre.
The 1960s brought us Michael Moorcock's Elric along with other subsequent s&s incarantions of his Eternal Champion. The 1970s delivered us Karl Edward Wagner's Kane and Charles Saunders' Imaro.
The 1980s? I can think of but one: David Gemmell's Druss and his Drenai Saga. This was unusual, because Gemmell created some enduring s&s in the form of novels. The best s&s stories tend to be written in the shorter form. I know there are exceptions. Howard's "Hour of the Dragon" was a serialized novel in Weird Tales, for example. And Leiber, Moorcock, Wagner, and Saunders all wrote novels about their protagonists. But just about everyone agrees that Leiber's shorter works for his fabulous duo were better, and you'll notice that most of Moorock's novels about his s&s creations and those of Wagner's Kane were rather short (anyone care to comment on Saunders here?) S&S lends itself to the shorter form. Moorcock did write a trilogy of Elric novels in somewhat recent times that were somewhat thicker than his previous tales of the albino prince, but these were rather unusual books as Moorcock was making a decided effort to once again reinvent the subgenre, just as he did when he first wrote his Elric tales. I enjoyed them, but they're not standard s&s fare.
Gemmell, OTOH, wrote sizable novels that felt like traditional s&s that proved to be commercially viable. That's a very unusual thing. And it was important. There are fantasy readers who don't read the shorts. But Gemmell found a way to take that high octane charge that s&s imparts and channel it into the longer form, into the thicker book that modern readers of secondary world fantasy tend to prefer. And he did it on a consistent and prolific basis. His importantance to sword & sorcery is rather huge, IMO, and I think he did much to heighten interest in this sort of story.
And alas, Gemmell has passed on too, just a couple of years ago and at far too young an age (50s).
So where does that leave sword & sorcery? Well, I believe Gemmell's Legend was first published in 1984. Marion Zimmer Bradley's first Sword & Sorceress anthology was published this year too, which is also a seminal contribution to s&s. Still, while there's no denying its importance to the subgenre, since these are anthologies with different authors writing about different characters in each subsequent volume (though I'd imagine there are the occasional repeats), for the purposes of this conversation I feel like it's comparing apples and oranges.
Either way, my point is that if you take seminal anthologies out of the equation, it seems to me that it's almost been 25 years since something new and enduring has burst upon the s&s scene. This is not to say there haven't been good sword & sorcery tales published in a variety of venues. But how much of it has been enduring, something that continues to be read and actively discussed among s&s fans? Robert E. Howard makes you think Conan. Fritz Leiber may be known for other stuff (and rightly so), but Fafhrd & Gray Mouser are his most enduring works. Same goes for Moorcock and Elric. Clark Ashton Smith may have never delivered that singular character that resonates through the ages, but as a world Zothique continues to fascinate (and it did kind of spawn the whole dying eath subgenre as a result).
See my point? Compared to many of the other subgenres this is an awfully small list, and the lasting creations are few and far between. That's a bit troubling when you take the time to consider that s&s is older than most of the subgenres. And when the short form is what lends itself best to s&s, it starts becoming apparent why it's been a quarter of a century since the last enduring world came about. Short stories aren't nearly as popular as they once were. Conversations about declining magazine sales are a common occurence. Many of the names I mentioned were able to make a living off their creations in the shorter forms. Not so today. And it's also hard to create an enduring s&s character or world in the magazines without enough readers to create a proper word of mouth. That's why Gemmell was so important to s&s. He was helping it evolve. But others haven't really followed in his wake, Moorcock has slowed down with age, and while I respect Saunders' contribution as being hugely important, I'm uncertain how widely he is read and whether he is still actively writing s&s.
We need someone else to pick up the torch. We need another lasting creation, whether it's in the shorter form or in novels. I swear, this whole subgenre is so overdue it's now ten months pregnant. I don't think s&s will ever disappear, but in order for it to grow and thrive it's in dire need of a new master.
I'm pretty rigid in what I define as the best kind of sword & sorcery. Obviously there are swords (or a suitable weapon equivalent) and there is sorcery. There is fast pacing and action/adventure. The writing is usually florid, and there are usually some enduring images. It focuses on a lone adventure or perhaps a pair, generally wandering the earth and getting mixed up in all sorts of nastiness. But most importantly (aside of the whole swords & sorcery part, that is), the best kind of sword and sorcery is usually primal. It taps into the primordial recesses of our subconscious and dredges up things ancient and fiece and terrifying and sometimes beautiful. And then our protagonist is pitted against such forces. Occasionally they team up with such forces as well, usually to down another such force. Either way, there is something elder and primitive and beyond our understanding about the best sword & sorcery. And to down such forces the heroes are forced to revert to something of the primal themselves. It takes a special kind of writer to achieve all of the above and create something lasting in the bargain. Everyone I've mentioned did this to a greater or lesser extent and added their own touches along the way to help expand the subgenre.
Someone else needs to do it again. Besides the concerns of a shrinking short story market, I also imagine that with each enduring s&s creation it becomes harder and harder to suitably reinvent the formula enough to create something that is fresh enough, familiar enough, and engaging enough to make a lasting impression. You don't have the vast canvas of epic fantasy to play with. The formula here is much more rigid, and I think that's why Robert E. Howard casts an even bigger shadow over s&s than Tolkien does over epic fantasy.
Still, I hope someone strikes this mix soon again soon in transcendent terms, because as I said, this subgenre is in desperate need of a new shining beacon ...
All this is fantastic, as these authors represent many of the most important names to ever pen a sword & sorcery tale. I've read most of REH and sizable chunks of the rest of them except Charles Saunders, though I have one of his Imaro collections in my piles of books. With the exception of Wagner's Kane, I've thoroughly enjoyed all these authors and I fully understand how important it is for future s&s scribes to read such works, so they might learn from the masters.
Which brings me to the other half of the argument. I'm not so convinced that S&S is making a comeback, at least not in a way that I would like to see. Renewed interest in the aforementioned masters is great, but alas, most of them have passed on. Michael Moorcock is still alive, but he's getting on in years and has stated on more than one occasion that he's done with writing Eternal Champion novels, and many of his most enduring s&s represent various incarnations of the Eternal Champion. I know he recently had an Elric story published in Weird Tales and another published in the Logorreah anthology, but those are two individual stories, and Mr. Moorcock isn't as prolific as he used to be. So of everyone I've mentioned above, that leaves Charles Saunders as the only other living author of the bunch. I know he included some new material in those rereleases that Nightshade put out not too long ago, but I don't know how well these books sold (meaning I don' t know if we can expect more) and since I've yet to read these stories personally, I'm not comfortable commenting on the author or his work in further depth. If others can offer their knowledge here, I'd be interested to hear it.
I guess my point in a long meandering sort of way is that until a new enduring world and/or character is introduced to the subgenre, its overall health remains in question. I don't think the names I've mentioned will ever disappear (again, minus Saunders for the purposes of this conversation since I need to learn more in this area), but for the subgenre to truly grow, it needs this to happen in the worst way. The 1920s & 1930s gave us Clark Ashton Smith's darkly lush world of Zothique. It gave us Robert E. Howard's Conan, King Kull, Solomon Kane, Bran Mak Morn, and the original incarnation of Red Sonja (or Sonya, in that particular tale). It gave us C.L. Moore's Jirel of Joiry. 1939 gave us Leiber's first Fafhrd & Gray Mouser tale. Fritz continued to produce tales of his infamous duo well into the 80s, but it was decades before new s&s creations were introduced that became enduring fixtures in the subgenre.
The 1960s brought us Michael Moorcock's Elric along with other subsequent s&s incarantions of his Eternal Champion. The 1970s delivered us Karl Edward Wagner's Kane and Charles Saunders' Imaro.
The 1980s? I can think of but one: David Gemmell's Druss and his Drenai Saga. This was unusual, because Gemmell created some enduring s&s in the form of novels. The best s&s stories tend to be written in the shorter form. I know there are exceptions. Howard's "Hour of the Dragon" was a serialized novel in Weird Tales, for example. And Leiber, Moorcock, Wagner, and Saunders all wrote novels about their protagonists. But just about everyone agrees that Leiber's shorter works for his fabulous duo were better, and you'll notice that most of Moorock's novels about his s&s creations and those of Wagner's Kane were rather short (anyone care to comment on Saunders here?) S&S lends itself to the shorter form. Moorcock did write a trilogy of Elric novels in somewhat recent times that were somewhat thicker than his previous tales of the albino prince, but these were rather unusual books as Moorcock was making a decided effort to once again reinvent the subgenre, just as he did when he first wrote his Elric tales. I enjoyed them, but they're not standard s&s fare.
Gemmell, OTOH, wrote sizable novels that felt like traditional s&s that proved to be commercially viable. That's a very unusual thing. And it was important. There are fantasy readers who don't read the shorts. But Gemmell found a way to take that high octane charge that s&s imparts and channel it into the longer form, into the thicker book that modern readers of secondary world fantasy tend to prefer. And he did it on a consistent and prolific basis. His importantance to sword & sorcery is rather huge, IMO, and I think he did much to heighten interest in this sort of story.
And alas, Gemmell has passed on too, just a couple of years ago and at far too young an age (50s).
So where does that leave sword & sorcery? Well, I believe Gemmell's Legend was first published in 1984. Marion Zimmer Bradley's first Sword & Sorceress anthology was published this year too, which is also a seminal contribution to s&s. Still, while there's no denying its importance to the subgenre, since these are anthologies with different authors writing about different characters in each subsequent volume (though I'd imagine there are the occasional repeats), for the purposes of this conversation I feel like it's comparing apples and oranges.
Either way, my point is that if you take seminal anthologies out of the equation, it seems to me that it's almost been 25 years since something new and enduring has burst upon the s&s scene. This is not to say there haven't been good sword & sorcery tales published in a variety of venues. But how much of it has been enduring, something that continues to be read and actively discussed among s&s fans? Robert E. Howard makes you think Conan. Fritz Leiber may be known for other stuff (and rightly so), but Fafhrd & Gray Mouser are his most enduring works. Same goes for Moorcock and Elric. Clark Ashton Smith may have never delivered that singular character that resonates through the ages, but as a world Zothique continues to fascinate (and it did kind of spawn the whole dying eath subgenre as a result).
See my point? Compared to many of the other subgenres this is an awfully small list, and the lasting creations are few and far between. That's a bit troubling when you take the time to consider that s&s is older than most of the subgenres. And when the short form is what lends itself best to s&s, it starts becoming apparent why it's been a quarter of a century since the last enduring world came about. Short stories aren't nearly as popular as they once were. Conversations about declining magazine sales are a common occurence. Many of the names I mentioned were able to make a living off their creations in the shorter forms. Not so today. And it's also hard to create an enduring s&s character or world in the magazines without enough readers to create a proper word of mouth. That's why Gemmell was so important to s&s. He was helping it evolve. But others haven't really followed in his wake, Moorcock has slowed down with age, and while I respect Saunders' contribution as being hugely important, I'm uncertain how widely he is read and whether he is still actively writing s&s.
We need someone else to pick up the torch. We need another lasting creation, whether it's in the shorter form or in novels. I swear, this whole subgenre is so overdue it's now ten months pregnant. I don't think s&s will ever disappear, but in order for it to grow and thrive it's in dire need of a new master.
I'm pretty rigid in what I define as the best kind of sword & sorcery. Obviously there are swords (or a suitable weapon equivalent) and there is sorcery. There is fast pacing and action/adventure. The writing is usually florid, and there are usually some enduring images. It focuses on a lone adventure or perhaps a pair, generally wandering the earth and getting mixed up in all sorts of nastiness. But most importantly (aside of the whole swords & sorcery part, that is), the best kind of sword and sorcery is usually primal. It taps into the primordial recesses of our subconscious and dredges up things ancient and fiece and terrifying and sometimes beautiful. And then our protagonist is pitted against such forces. Occasionally they team up with such forces as well, usually to down another such force. Either way, there is something elder and primitive and beyond our understanding about the best sword & sorcery. And to down such forces the heroes are forced to revert to something of the primal themselves. It takes a special kind of writer to achieve all of the above and create something lasting in the bargain. Everyone I've mentioned did this to a greater or lesser extent and added their own touches along the way to help expand the subgenre.
Someone else needs to do it again. Besides the concerns of a shrinking short story market, I also imagine that with each enduring s&s creation it becomes harder and harder to suitably reinvent the formula enough to create something that is fresh enough, familiar enough, and engaging enough to make a lasting impression. You don't have the vast canvas of epic fantasy to play with. The formula here is much more rigid, and I think that's why Robert E. Howard casts an even bigger shadow over s&s than Tolkien does over epic fantasy.
Still, I hope someone strikes this mix soon again soon in transcendent terms, because as I said, this subgenre is in desperate need of a new shining beacon ...
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
douglascohen- Douglas Cohen
Comments
I have no idea; I tried reading the first book of "Wheel of Time" and couldn't go on. These subgenres confuse and annoy me.
S&S tends to have much lower stakes. It's generally concentrated on or two characters, it has far less subplots and while the worldbuilding is interesting, it doesn't take the historical fiction approach that the epics are so fond of. There's more of an emphasis on action in an eldritch world. The fate of the world is almost never at stake. Usually it's just a battle for a character's survival. Sometimes things get bumped up to control of a city or even a kingdom, but never the world stakes of the epic.
I agree that things have gotten a little ridiculous with all the different subgenres, but s&s and the epic are two of the most venerable in fantasy, so I have much respect for these.
It makes me suspect there are really two sword & sorcery movements. There is one steeped in the traditions of Robert E. Howard and another one steeped in the movement started by Marion Zimmer Bradley with her her sword & sorceress anthologies.
I think there's crossover between these two movements, but there must be some fundamental differences I'm unaware of (I haven't read enough in the MZB camp to speak with authority) because I've had a lot of conversations about s&s, and the MZB camp of s&s is rarely mentioned. I doubt that's a coincidence.
It's funny that I should put Saunders in the Howard camp since Howard and Clark Ashton Smith were both racist and Saunders was writing about a black s&s protagonist, but from what I understand of Saunders' Imaro, it's very much in the tradition of Howard, but minus the racism and with a black s&s protagonist in a pseudo-Africa.
Anyway, if this hypothesis is correct, I guess I'm waiting for someone to pick up the torch in the Howard came of s&s.
Yep, Mercedes Lackey may sometimes go for the nasty, but mostly her stuff is too Mary Sue to be primal.
Well shit and hellfire. You're onto something, bucko. And I think that little observation of yours may make it possible for me to finish an S&S story that's been mouldering on my hard drive for a couple of years. Thanks!
Edited at 2008-08-12 02:59 am (UTC)
I find that as a magazine's interest goes further and further away from tightly crafted stories meant to entertain and toward some sort of Rosetta Stone of something that is both fantastic _and_ literate, the less fun it is to read, and the more likely that magazine is to be losing readers.
Since almost all magazines (fantasy or otherwise) are losing readers, I feel safe in my somewhat dubious connection.
Seriously, I think the way that you've defined Sword and Sorcery (short form, one or two characters) basically requires an operative short fiction market, and said market does not currently exist. Little guys like Black Gate (bless their hearts) are trying to do it, but it's slow work and it's tough to get decent distribution.
You're right to include Gemmel. I'd probably throw in most of the Thieves World stories as well, and a better fan of that series than me could likely name a couple of characters. I think Marion Zimmer Bradley had a few that stood out.
I think the subgenre fell out of favor with editors in the mid-1980s or so, and it hasn't been back since in a meaningful way.
But the seeds have been planted. A kid born in 1980 is only now getting his first chance to read genuine S&S from Robert E. Howard, for example. My own line is bringing out the likes of C. L. Moore and Henry Kuttner in affordable editions, but even the Clark Ashton Smith and Karl Edward Wagner stories are locked away in expensive hardcovers.
New York has not been interested in keeping this stuff in print, and hence the next generation of would-be sword and sorcery authors are writing what you would call epic fantasy, game tie-in novels, or something else worthy of even less respect, such as paranormal romance.
I think the pregnant lady will soon be giving birth, though. The baby has started kicking.
For the bigger publishers, I guess we can point to Del Rey publishing Gemmell and re-releasing REH & Moorcock. Of course, these are all very low-risk ventures. Gemmell was already a worldwide bestseller by the time he finally broke through in the U.S. And REH & Moorcock are both proven quantities. Moorcock is still alive with an intact fanbase that is happy to cough up cash for these new editions. And REH was so overdue to be re-released by a major publisher the sales were practically guaranteed. Also, many of those buying these REH editions from Del Rey will probably the Moorcock editions, since they look similar and feature more of what such fans will be looking for.
As to the magazines ...erm. Black Gate is a nice venue, and now that Weird Tales seems settled in with Vandermeer, I'll be curious to see where they go. I believe F&SF publishes the occasional piece of s&s. As to Realms of Fantasy, I've lamented more than once how I'd like to see more s&s in the slush. Shawna has admitted to not being the biggest fan of this genre, but her biggest problem with it seems to be that she doesn't see enough stuff that escapes the shadow of Conan. Understandable, and all too true.
I've passed along one piece of sword & planet that she ended up publishing, but having read almost all the issues of ROF I know that we've published very little s&s or its sub-subgenres. But since I also handle the slush, I also know that we receive very little s&s that I want to pass along.
Still, maybe you're right that the baby has started kicking. In the past half a year or so I've seen five pieces of traditional (or close to it) s&s that have been passed along (or soon will be) to Shawna. Three pieces have come from a former slush survivor (whose original story we bought wasn't s&s) and I know we've bought one. The two others come from the slush. One is a cool homage piece to Clark Ashton Smith and the last one features a sword & sorcery duo teaming up in a sixteenth century Brazil where magic abounds. That's very different from anything I've seen before, and I'm hoping Shawna takes it.
Five pieces isn't an overwhelming amount, but it's WAY more than I've seen in the past. So perhaps there is reason to hope. But like I said, we need more than some good stories. We need someone to pick up the torch ...
And I should have given more credit to F&SF. I know they recently published an as-yet-unread-by-me Matthew Hughes serial that probably has a bit of the old sword and sorcery feel to it.
I posted a link to your comment on my blog, along with some further thoughts. I'm curious to see what we can kick up. My own reading is so focused on the 30s and 40s lately that I've lost sight of a lot of what the modern market is doing.
Wagner is locked away completely out of print isn't he?
http://www.eldritchdark.com/
Scott Lynch's Locke Lamora books seem to fit the bill. Yeah, there's a bit more intrigue than in Howard, Leiber, et al., but it's got that feel, at least for me. I'll be curious to see where the series goes.
Your general point about Sword & Sorcery generally is quite right. People are rediscovering the greats of the sub-genre, but that doesn't equal a renaissance. On the other hand, there are genres for S&S now, from video games to comics, that just didn't exist back then.
This isn't a shot at Lynch's work, mind you. But overall the way he goes about telling his story doesn't leave me with the same feeling I get from reading REH or Clark Ashton Smith or David Gemmell. It feels closer to the feeling I get from reading high fantasy.
But that's me. As I've noted elsewhere, I'm fussy with my defintions.
In booklength fantasy, you might have a look at Joe Abercrombie The Blade Itself. Also, Lou Anders (Abercrombie's editor at Pyr and, full disclosure, mine as well), is teaming with Jonathan Strahan to produce a mammoth anthology of new sword and sorcery. So there is some light on the horizon.
I can't argue the point about editorial preferences. But for me, some adventure fiction feels more like high fantasy than sword & sorcery. But I have a very narrow view of what I'm looking for in s&s. I like (usually) eldritch, (usually) dark, and (usually) primal adventures, ala the works of the masters. If it doesn't fall into these categories, I can still enjoy it, but I tend to think of it as something other than s&s/weird fantasy.
And believe me, it pisses me off to no end how often I see the words "no sword-and-sorcery" at various markets. I suspect it's the Conan stigma, i.e. these markets believe (or fear) they'll receive nothing but knock-offs of the iconic Cimmerian.
http://www.asimovs.com/aspnet_forum/mes
(Crap, late, I'll have more thoughts at another time)