Sword & Sorcery: "An earthier sort of fantasy" discussion

From The Demarcation of Sword and Sorcery:

"One man who never confused the two terms was the famous writer Fritz Leiber. Best known today as one of the “Grand Masters” of science fiction, he is also beloved for his creation of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, a pair of swashbuckling fantasy adventurers. Although the numerous stories of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are undoubtedly heroic fantasy, Leiber once wrote “It strikes me (and something might be made of this) that Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are at the opposite extreme from the heroes of Tolkien. My stuff is at least as equally fantastic as his, but it is an earthier sort of fantasy. . .”*. It is impossible to say that he was specifically thinking of the term heroic fantasy when he wrote this, but it is clear that he was discontent with his fantasy stories being placed in the same category as The Lord of the Rings. Because of this, in 1961, Fritz Leiber coined the term “Sword and Sorcery” to refer to his own type of fantasy. Thus, because the term was created specifically for the stories of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, these tales belong unquestionably to the genre."

*Fritz Leiber, The Swords of Lankhmar, (London, Grafton Books, 1987)

Interesting comment from Leiber. I think I write mythic fiction, or heroic fiction, but the difference between fiction and fantasy here is primarily one of perspective: the epic of Gilgamesh was surely heroic fantasy; Homer claimed that Odysseus was his grandfather, thus the Iliad falls sightly more into heroic fiction if the first heroic fiction/fantasy combination was the Iliad, as I believe, then the topic -- not a genre, from my perspective -- has a long and powerful history and includes much of Shakespeare and Milton and Marlowe.

I think it was an editor, Lou Anders or Andrew J Offut who referred to "Iliad" as heroic fantasy and "Odyssey" as Sword & Sorcery. It's interesting to think of Shakespeare in the heroic fantasy tradition. Especially, his "Tempest".

Absolutely, Shakespeare; and Marlowe. I disagree with Andy, if it was Andy: nothing could be more heroic fantasy than the Odyssey; and sword & sorcery values don't overwhelm heroic fiction values in the Odyssey: except for the slaying of the suitors, Odysseus' journey is pretty-much sword free. And, Odysseus, with the greater focus on the heroic temperament, including the Telemachy, more directly parents character-intensive heroic fiction as we like it today. As for Shakespeare... Certainly, the Tempuest. And so much more: the three weird sisters? MacBeth: When the hurly burley's done; when the battle's lost and won.... We start with witches and MacBeth's head is the price.... Even in Hamlet, his father's ghost propels the action, being the catalyst for the fight with poisoned sword... We are part of a grand tradition

I don't know much about Homer (Doh!) or Shakespeare, but reflecting on the concept of "...and earthier sort of fantasy" makes me think it can be determined by the amount of abstraction between enemies. If you have political intrigue and complex layers of magical manipulation separating the good side from the evil side, many of whom never meet face to face, you don't have that raw earthy sort of swords & sorcery that Leiber was talking about.

If your protagonist and antagonist are individuals that face each other using whatever means are available at hand, be it a sword or a rapidly uttered incantation, without complex rules of engagement, and the results of their conflict will result in the blood of the defeated spilled at the feet of the victor, then you're in that gritty and direct kind of story we seek.

That kind of immediate conflict is what attracts me to the earthier sort of fantasy. Remove the layers of abstraction and give me an axe cleaved through the skull of my enemy; save your political manipulations and scheming for another day and another reader.

Steven wrote: "I don't know much about Homer (Doh!) or Shakespeare, but reflecting on the concept of "...and earthier sort of fantasy" makes me think it can be determined by the amount of abstraction between enem..."

Swords-n-Simpsons .... now that is groupread topic.

Sword & Sorcery works by emotional logic, not by rational reasoning. Abstract conflicts like ideological differences are of little relevance. It's always very personal.
When you got a Sword & Sorcery hero rescuing someone, it's almost never selfless. They do it because they like the person or because they like the person who asked them to do it. Or they get paid. But don't appeal to their sense of Duty. They have none.

eh, sometimes they do it because they happened on a crime in progress. but it has to be in front of them.

Defining Sword-and-Sorcery

By Howard Andrew Jones

...being a really interesting view, from a modern master of the genre, from the "Tales From the Magician's Skull " kickstarter, updates.