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

I was having a bit of discussion about the personal belives of Robert Howard and how they are present in his stories, and did some additional research into that subject. (To sum it up: No, he was not sexist. Yes, he believed in different races, but No, he doesn't seem to have judged people by it. And yes, he seems to have been somewhat homophobic but wasn't outspoken about it. Looks pretty impressive for a 30s Texas man to me.)

And this got me thinking if there are any general tendencies in the Sword & Sorcery genre as a whole regarding personal values and ideals?

I think one that certainly is present, as it has been very important to Robert Howard and was embraced by all who followed, is the believe in personal freedom. Not bowing to social norms and expecations against your own desires is something that everyone seems to agree on.

I agree with that last statement, that is the on ethos I think is prevalent in just about all Sword & Sorcery works, that and, perhaps, the will to power and the responsibility for one's own fate.

I do not, however, believe that their is an over arching moral or religious belief that permeates through S&S fiction. As many of the characters seem to be morally ambiguous at best.

Sword & Sorcery often seems to me to be about 1 man standing alone, standing for what they believe to be right, even if it isn't necessarily what the world around them thinks is right. In a moral sense, almost all S & S heroes have a 'code' of some kind that they live by, even if it isn't the mainstream code. They stand for 'justice," but true justice rather than the justice determined by laws that are indifferent to the individual.

They are ambigous in the sense that some of their character traits are approved by mainstream western culture while others are condemned. But it's only an ambiguity when using this existing set of values as the standard for comparison.
I would say in their own minds, the things they value and approve of are very consistent. They know what they consider okay and what not okay and stick to that. And in the same way, most authors also have their own convictions which they try to incorporate into their stories. (Which don't have to be the same thing. I am pretty certain Karl Wagner did not think of Kane as a great guy to whom we should aspire.)

Thinking some more about it, I think one generalization that can be made is that Sword & Sorcery believes that there are situations in which the use of violence and lethal force is not only justified but also mandated. It certainly is not a genre that has room for absolute pacifism. Instead of asking "Is killing okay?" it's more asking "When is killing okay?"

Martin wrote: "They are ambigous in the sense that some of their character traits are approved by mainstream western culture while others are condemned. But it's only an ambiguity when using this existing set of ..."

Agree

I generally agree about the idea of a code, but I also feel, as I have mentioned before that there are exceptions to the rule. And as per usual that exception is Elric. Is there certain things he feels is right or wrong? Yeah probably, but I don't think he has a strict moral code by any means. If has a code at all it seems he is often stuck in moral dilemmas that at times lead to breaking it.

Actually many S&S heroes seem to get stuck in moral dilemmas and are often forced to do things they otherwise would not, I know it happened with Brak (breaking an oath, or at least be willing to do so), Kane and others I think. Do the characters often have codes? Yes, but they are often tested and at times broken.

Perhaps one of the aspects of Sword & Sorcery fiction and RPGs that has appealed to me--without realizing it at the time--is it has never felt preachy to me. Although I've been exposed ad nauseum to the pervasive 'dwarves and elves hate each other, and everyone hates orcs' tropes, it never seemed hateful in terms of the author trying to convey some kind of subliminal or overt social message. That in-story hate never seemed like a metaphor for real life.

Thinking about it, I wonder if it's because fantasy has always seemed so damned direct and practical -- it's kill or be killed, and daily survival is a much more pressing concern than what color of cell phone case I should get so it matches my BMW. When things are that hard scrabble, you don't have time for the subtle nuances of modern day, thinly veiled hatred-without-reason. In fantasy, if one group hates another, there's a pressing and tangible reason for it, even if that reason originated 1,000 years before.

If I've seen any kind of moral message or principle in fantasy, it's that hard work and bravery is much more important to oneself and to one's comrades than just about anything else.

Not S&S, but the Narnia series is just about the preachiest books I have read.

And I do feel like I have learned lessons, and reinforced some of my ideals from reading many different fantasy works over time.

Dan wrote: "Not S&S, but the Narnia series is just about the preachiest books I have read."

Narnia / C.S. Lewis is the counter-example. It's a direct metaphor for biblical stories; in many ways, C.S. Lewis ripped off someone else's story.

Steven wrote: "Dan wrote: "Not S&S, but the Narnia series is just about the preachiest books I have read."

Narnia / C.S. Lewis is the counter-example. It's a direct metaphor for biblical stories; in many ways, C..."

Most of the books are biblical allegory to be sure. Which is more or less what I was referring to. He does also like to preach about other socio-political beliefs though. As far as ripping off someone else's story... yeah he does, but of course he also made it his own in some ways. And honestly most authors are guilty of that to some extent, it's just that most fantasists have a more varied selection to choose from than just the bible.

Dan wrote: "As far as ripping off someone else's story... yeah he does, but of course he also made it his own in some ways. And honestly most authors are guilty of that to some extent"

"All rock-n-roll is just ripped-off blues chords." :-)

There's a difference between "riffing" off other, older tales, and "ripping" off. Retelling Biblical stories is an extremely wide spread activity from many authors. Retelling of fairy tales and Shakespearean tales is common. Retelling of Howardian stories happens all the time, and Howard certainly got plenty of influence on his stories from older historical tales and myths.

I actually keep story notes on every piece I write where I indicate what kind of influences I recognize for the piece. I have one tale, called "The Sundered Man," which appears in the Bitter Steel collection, which is a retelling of Shakespeare. Of course, most authors probably also have unrecognized influences. You only really get out what you put in, which is why I think widespread reading is very important for authors.

Charles wrote: "There's a difference between "riffing" off other, older tales, and "ripping" off. Retelling Biblical stories is an extremely wide spread activity from many authors. Retelling of fairy tales and Sha..."

Well put Charles!

Steven wrote: "Thinking about it, I wonder if it's because fantasy has always seemed so damned direct and practical -- it's kill or be killed, and daily survival is a much more pressing concern than what color of cell phone case I should get so it matches my BMW. When things are that hard scrabble, you don't have time for the subtle nuances of modern day, thinly veiled hatred-without-reason. In fantasy, if one group hates another, there's a pressing and tangible reason for it, even if that reason originated 1,000 years before."
If you're interested in that, I very much recomend the Witcher books. The hero is a monster hunter, but it's really all about human evil and endemic violence. Very great reading.

Charles wrote: "Sword & Sorcery often seems to me to be about 1 man standing alone, standing for what they believe to be right, even if it isn't necessarily what the world around them thinks is right. In a moral s..."

In my experience, the hero of S&S is out for his own ends.

They don't have to be evil ends, and they don't prevent his doing incidental good deeds along the way, but their objective is not doing what is right.

Sometimes it seems that the overarching theme of S&S stories is that civilization and order are at best a thin veneer covering the law of the jungle. Might makes right in many (not all) of these stories and the only hope for the downtrodden is that someone (Conan) come along who is stronger and more violent than the oppressors. This sounds like a negative, but I appreciate the honesty of the form. Contrary to what my elementary school teachers taught, violence has solved every problem the world has ever had.

I always have to smile when my students tell me violence never solves anything. It's a good chance to get them to think, though.

eh, not every problem. Didn't solve smallpox, or the way the Continental Army was going to mutiny over its pay in the early United States, or the problem of determining longitude at sea.

A good number, though.

Martin wrote: "I was having a bit of discussion about the personal belives of Robert Howard and how they are present in his stories, and did some additional research into that subject. (To sum it up: No, he was n..."

Martin, regarding Howard's life experiences and how they appear/influence his fiction. There is a good depiction in the biographical movie "The Whole Wide World" (if you haven't checked that already).

For me, S&S comes out of the tradition of the picaresque tale, which dates back to Renaissance Spain. The characters are rogues, (originally, wandering mercenary pikemen, or picaros), with an emphasis on the mercenary. In my own writings, the rogues may be entirely self-interested and amoral, though some have a code that they live by. But the setting, pre-Dying Earth, is largely populated by self-seekers.

Yeah, that's one form of S&S. But it's not a required feature.