Guys sorry for the silly question, newbie rambling... I'm not even sure what to ask (I'm studying D&D history). I'm new to D&D, RPGs, and to classics books pulp, swords and sorcery, and fantasy in general.
When I started learning about the original D&D, basic and advance. I saw the games like adventures with random adventurers (as a wanderer, pathfinder, or rogue), a sandbox game yet with personal goals. I never related D&D to Tolkien.
For me Lord of the Ring which I'm familiar, is just a war, strategy with an army similar to Warcraft. How OD&D/AD&D are related to a strategy fantasy war? Or is just the Tolkien "theme" which people want in their D&D games? but with a S&S gameplay? :o
Reading the book What is Dungeons and Dragons? (1982) by John Butterfield, Philip Parker, David Honigmann I read the following:
In Basic D&D all adventures take place in dungeons, although if the group progresses to Expert or Advanced D&D, which are more complex and detailed forms of the game, they can also occur in towns, in wilderness areas (on the way to the dungeon?), at-sea, in fact anywhere in the world — or in any other world. Fritz Leiber described the fantasy genre as 'sword and sorcery' — a description which few sessions of D&D fail to live up to.
D&D as a game is the end product of a simultaneous upsurge in fantasy, prompted by books such as Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, and in wargaming of the traditional sort, with armies of metal models fighting on table tops according to strict rules. These table-top battles were usually of historical periods - Second World War, Napoleonic or medieval — but some gamers introduced armies of dwarves, goblins and elves, among others, into ancient period games. The Wargames Research Group added a fantasy supplement to their Ancient Wargames rulebook.
In Wisconsin, Gary Gygax and others published Chainmail, a book of medieval period rules with some fantasy elements.....
Which confuse me, if is wargaming with armies of dwarves and goblings, I get it, is a "fantasy wargame" (a la Tolkien Lord of the Rings). However, I don't see wargaming elements like armies, cavalry, siege, etc.
If you see LotR as primarily a war story I think you have very much missed the point.
Chainmail was originally a set of wargame rules, to which Gygax added a fantasy supplement
Arneson used that to run his Blackmoor game, which included not just wargaming but exploring dungeons man to man
Gygax then wrote D&D based on that idea, focusing more on the latter
Quote from: Cathal on April 27, 2023, 08:29:53 PM
Guys sorry for the silly question, newbie rambling... I'm not even sure what to ask (I'm studying D&D history). I'm new to D&D, RPGs, and to classics books pulp, swords and sorcery, and fantasy in general.
When I started learning about the original D&D, basic and advance. I saw the games like adventures with random adventurers (as a wanderer, pathfinder, or rogue), a sandbox game yet with personal goals. I never related D&D to Tolkien.
For me Lord of the Ring which I'm familiar, is just a war, strategy with an army similar to Warcraft. How OD&D/AD&D are related to a strategy fantasy war? Or is just the Tolkien "theme" which people want in their D&D games? but with a S&S gameplay? :o
Reading the book What is Dungeons and Dragons? (1982) by John Butterfield, Philip Parker, David Honigmann I read the following:
In Basic D&D all adventures take place in dungeons, although if the group progresses to Expert or Advanced D&D, which are more complex and detailed forms of the game, they can also occur in towns, in wilderness areas (on the way to the dungeon?), at-sea, in fact anywhere in the world — or in any other world. Fritz Leiber described the fantasy genre as 'sword and sorcery' — a description which few sessions of D&D fail to live up to.
D&D as a game is the end product of a simultaneous upsurge in fantasy, prompted by books such as Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, and in wargaming of the traditional sort, with armies of metal models fighting on table tops according to strict rules. These table-top battles were usually of historical periods - Second World War, Napoleonic or medieval — but some gamers introduced armies of dwarves, goblins and elves, among others, into ancient period games. The Wargames Research Group added a fantasy supplement to their Ancient Wargames rulebook.
In Wisconsin, Gary Gygax and others published Chainmail, a book of medieval period rules with some fantasy elements.....
Which confuse me, if is wargaming with armies of dwarves and goblings, I get it, is a "fantasy wargame" (a la Tolkien Lord of the Rings). However, I don't see wargaming elements like armies, cavalry, siege, etc.
Best source I can recommend to anyone interested:
https://www.secretsofblackmoor.com/ (https://www.secretsofblackmoor.com/)
I think the most important thing to realize in talking about the history of D&D is that there was no plan and it's also important to know that Dave Arneson wasn't really that big a fan of fantasy. So the game that resulted was much more a game that grew out of the demands of the Dave's players rather than one that was carefully designed. And since most of the players were familiar with Tolkien, it is no wonder that those elements were included.
When Gygax got the game notes from Arneson, his main goal was to just figure out how to write the rules in a coherent fashion rather than redesign it. Also remember that RPGs were so new that nobody really knew how to describe one so much of his efforts were spent on things that most players today take for advantage. You can see this in Gygax's early fanzine articles.
There's also an assumption that Gygax had that players would just use the basic parts of the rules and redesign them to suit their own fantasy worlds, as MAR Barker did with Tekumel.
I know that's a bit rambly but the main takeaway is that D&D was neither a Tolkien game nor a Sword & Sorcery game. It was a bit of both with lots of features that only existed as practical game elements. The Vancian magic system, for example, was simply a way to simplify Dave Arenson's magic rules that originally required special materials and work to craft a "spell ball" that powered the spell. By removing the crafting requirements for spells and replace them with the much more straightforward "memorization" method the game was easier to play and describe.
BTW, not many know this but the board game Dungeon! was actually written before D&D so the way that game works is actually very similar to how Dave Arneson's game worked. For example, in the board game, the Wizard gets a certain number of spells and those spells were not split by spell level like they are today. That's the way Dave's system worked: Wizards had a set number of spells they could carry (11 or so IIRC) and higher level Wizards had access to more powerful spells. These higher level spells had more strict requirements to learn and required exotic components (or they were more expensive if you bought them).
The most true answer is probably "both".
Others have kind of touched on this, but I think the "Chainmail" wargaming rules were probably more heavily inspired by more "epic" fantasies like LOTR, the Chronicles of Narnia, and The Broken Sword. Even though Tolkien isn't primarily about big battles, They do make up a lot of the dramatic centerpieces in LOTR, the Hobbit and the Silmarillion. Meanwhile, big battles do turn up in Moorcock, Howard and Leiber, but they're relatively rare.
When Chainmail began to shift into a game about small parties adventuring in dungeons, and ultimately evolve into D&D, the S&S influence came more to the fore. The pulp stories became a more apt influence for the kind of game they were now making. Conan, Cugel and Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser particularly became the models for what D&D PCs would be like: landless mercenaries out for gold and glory.
There's still tons of obvious Tolkien influence in D&D (Halflings, rangers, orcs, ents, etc.), and it's worth noting that the big war is only half of LOTR. The other half is a party (or several parties) of adventurers wandering about the land on a quest. The Dragonlance modules/novels, which set a lot of the tone for the 2nd edition of D&D, are patterned very directly on LOTR and the idea of a party of heroes being drawn together to save the world from from a cosmic threat. Hell, the first two of R.A. Salvatore's Drizzt Do'Urden novels (which also set a lot of the tone of 2nd and 3rd edition) copy so many elements from Tolkien that it borders on plagiarism.
Honestly, the shift towards a more Tolkien-esque, epic-quests-and-legendary-heroes style of fantasy in the later editions of D&D is a big part of why old-schoolers bang the Swords-and-Sorcery drum so hard. I think there's a general perception that while the Tolkien influence has hung on in the game over the years, the grittier, more morally dubious S&S side of it has bled out. So a lot of old-school games and players (myself included) tend to plant their flag on returning that element to the hobby.
(Accidental repost)
Quote from: Cathal on April 27, 2023, 08:29:53 PM
Guys sorry for the silly question, newbie rambling... I'm not even sure what to ask (I'm studying D&D history).
This is a big topic, Cathal, and you're going to run into some disagreements. I'll see if I can help; obviously some folks will think differently. It will be up to you to come to your own conclusions.
Role-playing games were a branch of the miniatures wargaming hobby. Gygax wrote a set of miniatures rules called Chainmail. Because some wargamers were interested in fantasy, he added a short section to the rules about fantasy armies. Arneson took that as inspiration and focused it down to small groups instead of armies (although he had more players per session than we normally have today, and they had hirelings and henchmen too). His players began by exploring the dungeons under a ruined castle (Blackmoor). It wasn't long before Arneson's players were exploring the nearby countryside, establishing their own domains, commanding armies and even travelling to other planes. Arneson's rules were evolving this whole time.
He approached Gygax, with whom he'd collaborate on a naval wargame (Don't Give Up the Ship). Gygax loved the concept and Arneson gave him his own notes. Gygax went back to Lake Geneva and each of the two men playtested separately, and sharing ideas. Ultimately Gygax wrote up the D&D rules as they would be published. He said that he and Arneson didn't agree on everything, and the published rules were
not the way EITHER group played -- they were simply rules for publication. I'll point out that those original rules envisioned adventuring both in and out of dungeons, too. You may be aware that early D&D gamers were advised to pick up a copy of the Outdoor Survival game from Avalon Hill, so that they had an area to play out wilderness adventures. They were also referred to the Chainmail game, allowing them to play out army battles.
You've seen Appendix N. Early landmark examples of fantasy fiction included Howard's Conan, Burroughs' John Carter and Leiber's Farhrd and the Gray Mouser. Leiber made up the term Sword & Sorcery to describe his adventures, and that name stuck to the genre. You've already seen Moorcock's Elric and Anderson's novels Three Hearts and Three Lions and The Broken Sword.
And of course, The Fellowship of the Ring had been published in 1954, with an unauthorized US edition of the completed trilogy published in 1965.
Now Tolkein gained significant popularity in the United States. And of course this is what we term high fantasy.
So those old wargamers who liked fantasy in addition to historicals has several inspirations, and everyone's interests were different. Gygax has said that he added hobbits, ents and balrogs to the game because some folks were Tolkein fans. Obviously you can see that Tolkeinesque high fantasy doesn't resemble typical D&D games as closely as other inspirations, like Howard or Leiber. Those heroes, Conan and Fafhrd and the Mouser, were carousing in the city throwing away their money until they came upon a new adventuring opportunity. When they'd killed the monsters and got the treasure back to the city, it was back to carousing again.
Nowadays a lot of role-players are unfamiliar with wargames. RPG rules don't always talk about mass combat. They don't even talk about domain-level play too often. Also, with the glut of high fantasy "quest to save the world" fiction that followed, and TSR's Jim Ward proclaiming
that was the way to play D&D, things have drifted away from their roots.
Does that help?
Greetings!
I don't understand why so many people--especially "Grognards"--like to get into these stupid dick-measuring contests and debates over which was more influential in D&D, Tolkien and Epic Fantasy or Conan, and Sword & Sorcery. As ForgottenF said well, it was and always has been *BOTH*.
I've been an "Old School" gamer since forever. I *know* what gamers played back then, and what they were influenced by. DM's that LOVE Sword & Sorcery and Conan aside--as I well recall, nearly everyone had read Tolkien. Maybe not the Silmarillion, though most had read and loved--the Hobbit, and the Lord of the Rings. In contrast, many gamers familiarity with Conan et al, was cursory at best. People LOVED Tolkien though, and everyone had instant recognition and buy-in in regards to epic fantasy and Tolkien elements.
Personally, I have always liked BOTH, so I don't have some axe to grind against either. As literature, though, and bringing inspiration, Conan stories are fun and exciting--but they are low on the epic and the inspiration dials. Tolkien, on the other hand, is deeply into epic fantasy, Good vs Evil, the spread of Darkness, the struggle for Good to survive and triumph, and deeper issues as well, such as Love, Family, Friendship, Ancient Traditions and Culture, Music, and Lore. TRUTH, and transcendent values. That kind of literary and narrative foundation is probably why Tolkien has far more traction than Conan. It has less to do with Hickman and Dragonlance. Conan fights for booty, glory, and his next sack of gold. People in Tolkien's stories could care less about that stuff almost entirely, as they are concerned with far deeper and more important issues.
Where those two very different thematic dynamics appeals to a particular individual comes down entirely to preference, and also perhaps exposure. What kinds of literature was a person first exposed to, and the lasting impressions and interests forged from such exposure.
I would also add that as much as I respect Gygax--what *He* thought, or what Dave Arneson thought or preferred--probably didn't have very much relevance to local gaming groups. Individual DM's and the group of players already had their inspiration touch-stones already formed and set. Lots and lots of people didn't even knw who the fuck Dave Arneson even was, and not that many even remembered Gary Gygax. They may have recognized his name on the front cover--and the writing within them--but most people didn't read Dragon Magazine regularly, and obviously didn't have any other social contact with Gary Gygax, either, so beyond what he actually wrote in the first three books, not many gamers cared or even knew about what Gygax thought about the game beyond the three books.
Gamers were really into YOUR GAME OF D&D--not that much concerning Gygax, or even more remotely, Arneson.
Much of the theory-crafting and navel-gazing of the OSR is embraced by adults, now. But back in the day, it was mostly KIDS playing D&D, and as I mentioned, kids, adolescents--didn't likely know or even care about Gygax, Arneson, Dragon Magazine, or even TSR. They were all pretty remote. People were jazzed about YOUR D&D GAME though. Your rules; your interpretations; everyone in the group's inspirations and what they all thought was fucking cool and awesome. That is what really mattered, and what drive the growth and popularity of the game.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Bear in mind that OD&D assumed you were using Chainmail for battles, the first edition DMG covered sieges and naval battles with detailed rules, and the Expert Set had rules for naval battles and sieges and castle building. 2e is where the rot set in.
Quote from: David Johansen on April 28, 2023, 12:25:10 AM
Bear in mind that OD&D assumed you were using Chainmail for battles, the first edition DMG covered sieges and naval battles with detailed rules, and the Expert Set had rules for naval battles and sieges and castle building. 2e is where the rot set in.
BTW 1e DMG and Expert both seem to assume that mass battles - a few dozen to a few hundred - would simply be using the regular 1:1 combat rules, which is quite practical with the simplicity of those rules systems. Actual mass battle rules came later, with the BECMI Companion Set's more strategic-level and abstract War Machine, then later the AD&D/ BECMI Battlesytem rules. The latter was a 10:1 scale system for running battles with a few hundred to a couple thousand per side. War Machine can do unlimited numbers per side, I remember using it for epic battles between empires, with hundreds of thousands per side. 8)
It's probably also worth pointing out that the delineation between "low" and "high" fantasy isn't as clear as a lot of people would like it to be.
Michael Moorcock, for example, usually gets put in the Swords & Sorcery bucket, but the scope and scale of the Eternal Champion series is every bit as great the Lord of the Rings. Moorcock's central conflict spans multiple realities, so its arguably even more fantastical than Middle Earth. And let's be honest: Elric could probably take on the entire Fellowship single-handed, and only Gandalf would even give him a challenge. Poul Anderson also deals with cosmic or world-ending conflicts. Even Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser --generally the poster-children for Swords & Sorcery-- travel between worlds at least once, and directly interact with gods on several occasions.
Like SHARK I've been doing this forever, starting with RPGs in 78 and was a wargamer before that. It's both. My impression has always been that Gygax and Arneson's play style was more sword and sorcery, but they were influenced by Tolkien's world-building like just about every fantasy fan or author at that time was. And no one really cared about quantifying those influences.
When playing D&D my friends and I didn't really do mass battles. We'd play a wargame if that's what we were wanting. But we also didn't just do dungeons. Everything was homebrew. We didn't use published adventures (or modules as we called them back then). We did city and wilderness stuff as well, almost right from the start. I think the "back in the day D&D was all about dungeon-crawling" thing has always been overstated.
If we wanted to play superheroes, we just played Champions.
*Mechanically* D&D back in the day supported a sword and sorcery, survival horror play style much better than 5e does today. You could play epic story arcs and focus on the hero's journey with the old rules. And you could play grindhouse horror with the old rules. That's not really true with 5e, at least not without a lot of work to homebrew it beyond recognition. 5e is expressly a heroic fantasy game and from what I've seen they're doubling down on that with the next revision. And I think that's why the OSR has evolved and gained popularity. WotC turned its back on an entire play style and the folks who wanted that style looked for and created other options, especially just playing older editions.
Quote from: ForgottenF on April 28, 2023, 08:17:36 AM
It's probably also worth pointing out that the delineation between "low" and "high" fantasy isn't as clear as a lot of people would like it to be.
Michael Moorcock, for example, usually gets put in the Swords & Sorcery bucket, but the scope and scale of the Eternal Champion series is every bit as great the Lord of the Rings. Moorcock's central conflict spans multiple realities, so its arguably even more fantastical than Middle Earth. And let's be honest: Elric could probably take on the entire Fellowship single-handed, and only Gandalf would even give him a challenge. Poul Anderson also deals with cosmic or world-ending conflicts. Even Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser --generally the poster-children for Swords & Sorcery-- travel between worlds at least once, and directly interact with gods on several occasions.
Like with Sci-Fi, it all depends on the amount of Fantastical elements (handwavium and unobtanium in SciFi) and how often do they appear:
In LotR the more fantastical elements are not only ever present but central to the story, there's magic and magical beings from magical races.
On REHs works this isn't the case, sure, there's some magic here and there and even some magical beings and gods even but not in the amount or relevance of JRRT. But, since IT IS fantasy you're bound to have some fantastical elements in it.
The more the fantastical appear and is central to the world/story the higher the Fantasy meter. But you could ask 1000 people and get 1000 different answers as to where your pick of 10 novels land.
Quote from: Cathal on April 27, 2023, 08:29:53 PM
Which confuse me, if is wargaming with armies of dwarves and goblings, I get it, is a "fantasy wargame" (a la Tolkien Lord of the Rings). However, I don't see wargaming elements like armies, cavalry, siege, etc.
You should study tabletop/miniature wargaming. D&D concepts like "melee", "initiative", "armor class", "campaign", "grid/hex" and "hit points" all originated from Gygax's wargaming hobby. In order to fully understand what D&D is, you have to study what birthed it.
Quote from: Baron on April 27, 2023, 11:25:16 PM
You've seen Appendix N. Early landmark examples of fantasy fiction included Howard's Conan, Burroughs' John Carter and Leiber's Farhrd and the Gray Mouser. Leiber made up the term Sword & Sorcery to describe his adventures, and that name stuck to the genre.
Hang on... Leiber was certainly the one who coined the genre name "Sword & Sorcery" in a letter written to Michael Moorcock, but I've read that he originally created the phrase to describe R. E. Howard's writing style, not his own. If you have a copy of a text that proves otherwise, I'd like to see it.
Would it be more accurate to say Leiber coined a label for the genre, of which his Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories were a part? And of course REH and all the other writers who were included in those discussions? No, I'm not interested in producing text for you.
Quote from: Baron on April 28, 2023, 09:17:05 PM
Would it be more accurate to say Leiber coined a label for the genre, of which his Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories were a part? And of course REH and all the other writers who were included in those discussions? No, I'm not interested in producing text for you.
Greetings!
*LAUGHING*!!!!
I swear, my friend, some people get so caught up in being litigious morons, or acting like every discussion is some kind f official, college debate. Televised. Of course, every word needs to be FACT-CHECKED!
I don't care, you know? I've heard Leiber talked about, too. *Shrugs* I don't care what kind of context he intended, or what the super-duper-secret deeper meaning he had going for saying it--or not.
Ultimately, we have a literary genre called Sword & Sorcery, and maybe a section at arnes & Noble called "Sword & Sorcery".
YAY!, right?
No text required, my friend! *laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
For me; D&D is a mixture of LotR, Conan, and Board Games. I say board games, because it gets a group of several players around a table; who agree to use a particular set of rules, and they are playing a game with depth far beyond cards or dominoes. This game, can go on for years. Decades, even. And for some players, it can be akin to improv theater. D&D can be a meaningful game.
Purely hearsay, but I remember hearing somewhere that Leiber and Moorcock had a bit of a back and forth over the name for the subgenre. I forget now what Moorcock's proposed version was, but for whatever reason it was Leiber's that stuck.
Like SHARK said, the origins of the label are purely academic at this point. The whole point of subgenres is to be useful when describing a piece of art to someone who hasn't read/watched/listened to it. "Swords & Sorcery" seems to mostly work for that purpose.
Quote from: Baron on April 28, 2023, 09:17:05 PMWould it be more accurate to say Leiber coined a label for the genre, of which his Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories were a part? And of course REH and all the other writers who were included in those discussions? No, I'm not interested in producing text for you.
As I understand, the conversation was originally specifically about what to name Howard's works - and sure, Leiber's own works totally fit in the same genre. This was in 1961, 25 years after Howard's death, so I guess it makes sense that other fantasy writers would have conversations about his literary legacy. I was asking about your sources on the off chance I was wrong and you were right based on some
other piece of correspondance I wasn't aware of - I wanted to read up on that. No need to get hostile.
Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2023, 10:02:32 PMI swear, my friend, some people get so caught up in being litigious morons, or acting like every discussion is some kind f official, college debate. Televised. Of course, every word needs to be FACT-CHECKED!
I'm interested in the history of fantasy literature, and when someone says something that might mean I was wrong about a detail, I ask for clarification to expand my knowledge. You call me a litigious moron for it.
OK, boomer, and fuck you, asshole.
Quote from: ForgottenF on April 29, 2023, 09:12:50 AM
Purely hearsay, but I remember hearing somewhere that Leiber and Moorcock had a bit of a back and forth over the name for the subgenre. I forget now what Moorcock's proposed version was, but for whatever reason it was Leiber's that stuck.
Based on what I've read, Moorcock proposed "epic fantasy." And yes, Leiber's own works certainly fit under the sword & sorcery moniker.
Quote from: Premier on April 29, 2023, 09:28:48 AM
Quote from: ForgottenF on April 29, 2023, 09:12:50 AM
Purely hearsay, but I remember hearing somewhere that Leiber and Moorcock had a bit of a back and forth over the name for the subgenre. I forget now what Moorcock's proposed version was, but for whatever reason it was Leiber's that stuck.
Based on what I've read, Moorcock proposed "epic fantasy." And yes, Leiber's own works certainly fit under the sword & sorcery moniker.
It's funny to me, because "Swords & Sorcery" fits Leiber's work (and Howard's) better. "Swords against Sorcery" might be an even more accurate moniker. But "Epic Fantasy" is a
much better label for what Moorcock was writing.
Quote from: Festus on April 28, 2023, 12:22:39 PM
*Mechanically* D&D back in the day supported a sword and sorcery, survival horror play style much better than 5e does today. You could play epic story arcs and focus on the hero's journey with the old rules. And you could play grindhouse horror with the old rules. That's not really true with 5e, at least not without a lot of work to homebrew it beyond recognition. 5e is expressly a heroic fantasy game and from what I've seen they're doubling down on that with the next revision. And I think that's why the OSR has evolved and gained popularity. WotC turned its back on an entire play style and the folks who wanted that style looked for and created other options, especially just playing older editions.
Aren't the S&S and survival-horror genres in direct conflict with each other, though? Survival horror is generally defined by resource management, underpowered protagonists, and a real likelihood of death or defeat. S&S fiction tends to handwave resources, and while the protagonists aren't exactly a superheros, they're
extremely capable. There's an old joke about Conan having an 18 in every attribute, and it isn't far off.
Personally, I don't think D&D has ever done S&S well, and I mean in any edition of the game. At heart, it's just too much of an equipment-based system, and IMO that runs counter to the whole spirit of S&S. You can homebrew that part out, but it requires a pretty substantial overhaul. It does do survival gaming pretty well, and it does Vance/Ashton Smith style "weird fantasy" very well. Pure horror, I don't know about. Horror is more a mood than anything else, so that's probably down to the individual DM and table.
All that said, I do agree that whatever old D&D's faults, WOTC-era D&D is even less capable of doing those things.
I would say Swords and Sorcery.
Although I have never read Tolken's work, from what I have gleaned from it, it seems like its different then the kind of adventures found in D&D.
Heroic Fantasy -- L. Sprague de Camp
"Heroic fantasy" is the name I have given to a subgenre of fantasy, otherwise called the "sword-and-sorcery" story. It is a story of action and adventure laid in a more or less imaginary world, where magic works and where modern science and technology have not yet been discovered. The setting may (as in the Conan stories) be this Earth as it is conceived to have been long ago, or as it will be in the remote future, or it may be another planet or another dimension.
Such a story combines the color and dash of the historical costume romance with the atavistic supernatural thrills of the weird, occult, or ghost story. When well done, it provides the purest fun of fiction of any kind. It is escape fiction wherein one escapes clear out of the real world into one where all men are strong, all women beautiful, all life adventurous, and all problems simple, and nobody even mentions the income tax or the dropout problem or socialized medicine.
http://www.nerdovore.com/2022/04/what-is-heroic-fantasy.html
Quote from: Premier on April 29, 2023, 09:28:48 AM
Quote from: Baron on April 28, 2023, 09:17:05 PMWould it be more accurate to say Leiber coined a label for the genre, of which his Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories were a part? And of course REH and all the other writers who were included in those discussions? No, I'm not interested in producing text for you.
As I understand, the conversation was originally specifically about what to name Howard's works - and sure, Leiber's own works totally fit in the same genre. This was in 1961, 25 years after Howard's death, so I guess it makes sense that other fantasy writers would have conversations about his literary legacy. I was asking about your sources on the off chance I was wrong and you were right based on some other piece of correspondance I wasn't aware of - I wanted to read up on that. No need to get hostile.
Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2023, 10:02:32 PMI swear, my friend, some people get so caught up in being litigious morons, or acting like every discussion is some kind f official, college debate. Televised. Of course, every word needs to be FACT-CHECKED!
I'm interested in the history of fantasy literature, and when someone says something that might mean I was wrong about a detail, I ask for clarification to expand my knowledge. You call me a litigious moron for it.
OK, boomer, and fuck you, asshole.
Quote from: ForgottenF on April 29, 2023, 09:12:50 AM
Purely hearsay, but I remember hearing somewhere that Leiber and Moorcock had a bit of a back and forth over the name for the subgenre. I forget now what Moorcock's proposed version was, but for whatever reason it was Leiber's that stuck.
Based on what I've read, Moorcock proposed "epic fantasy." And yes, Leiber's own works certainly fit under the sword & sorcery moniker.
Greetings!
Well, in my view your first commentary sounded litigious, and pedantic, and also a bit hostile.
And now, I'm a "Boomer", and "fuck you asshole", heh?
How about you being more polite when you first enter a conversation, jackass? HOW ABOUT THAT?
Maybe if you had done that, I wouldn't have thought you were sounding like a fucking litigious moron.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I want all of it.
And I'll use what is appropriate when it's appropriate.