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

Jack wrote: "Now for my take: I've read many comments and articles on Conan pastiches and "TOR-nans" over the years. To be honest, I find them a little off-putting when they veer away from novel-building skills..."

I understand Jack, I think.

I see this as a continuum:
[Sword & Sorcery stories (Clonans too?)] --> [REH-style stories] --> [Conan]

On Clonans: I think HAJ may have been picking up on market pressures too, since many publishers/authors superficially turned out less-than-thoughtful Clonans (i.e. Death Stalker-like movies (BTW my favorite review of these movies is awesome: https://youtu.be/9EJP2Ri6DRo)

With pastiche, one would hope that worthy-continuations (good enough to expand canon) would trump market pressures to "just make something fast, or that sells", but that doesn't always happen. Some of the recent Marvel comics are okay, some not.

I interviewed Darrell Schweitzer who made fun of his own pastiche (Conan the Deliverer....not the midwife type). He is a very serious author who did lots of research, but admittedly still made a pastiche that was better suited for a weirder genre (he transformed the material into The Mask of the Sorcerer).

Purists: Anyway, I am reminded of a video panel at this year's Robert E Howard days. It concerned what was a true Sword-and-Sorcery story... and a lot of the analysis assumed that whatever REH did, everyone else should follow... or else the material would no longer be true S&S. It was a real good panel (I think Jason M Waltz was on it...with David C Smith). I caught it on youtube but can't find the link now. I go by memory for this....

[edit...I found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H-Nr...]

Personally, I disagree with the purists that think that REH defined all the boundaries of the S&S genre. Now, as far as defining REH's own character/Conan... that is interesting to consider.

Here is a question to stir the pot: Can anyone identify a Clonan (or another barbarian character) that is more "Conan" than a particular pastiche?"

S.E. wrote: "Purists: Anyway, I am reminded of a video panel at this year's Robert E Howard days. It concerned what was a true Sword-and-Sorcery story... and a lot of the analysis assumed that whatever REH did, everyone else should follow... or else the material would no longer be true S&S. It was a real good panel (I think Jason M Waltz was on it...with David C Smith)....

[/cut]

....Personally, I disagree with the purists that think that REH defined all the boundaries of the S&S genre. Now, as far as defining REH's own character/Conan... that is interesting to consider. ."

I agree with you S.E.

If a genre is unable to grow and remains stagnant--it dies. The genre creator is not going to be able to define every aspect of any genre they originated, or create every story that genre is capable of producing. Even if they had a dozen lifetimes to write, they would still encounter their own creative limits. Why should others accept those limits as their own?

They can point a singular way for something to be done--but they cannot show the way for every conceivable possibility.

I consider the word nostalgia to partly mean--remembering the past with rose tinted glasses, so that it appears more magical than what it was.

If purists had their way in the late 60’s early 70’s, Marvel comics never would have published their Conan comics. I consider the pastiche produced by Roy Thomas and various artists to include Barry Windsor Smith, John Buscema and Ernie Chan to be some of the most entertaining Conan/REH pastiche.

Clint: If purists had their way in the late 60’s early 70’s, Marvel comics never would have published their Conan comics. I consider the pastiche produced by Roy Thomas and various artists to include Barry Windsor Smith, John Buscema and Ernie Chan to be some of the most entertaining Conan/REH pastiche

That's true.

I seem to remember reading something about Roy Thomas wanting to keep Conan the way REH created him, but that the comics gave Conan values he didn't necessarily have in order to make him a hero rather than a rogue.

S.E. wrote: "Purists: Anyway, I am reminded of a video panel at this year's Robert E Howard days. It concerned what was a true Sword-and-Sorcery story... and a lot of the analysis assumed that whatever REH did, everyone else should follow... or else the material would no longer be true S&S. It was a real good panel (I think Jason M Waltz was on it..."

Hey know, I appreciate a good name-drop, but don't be using my name in vain, S.E.! :)

Seriously, I know I am considered to fall more on the strict side of things regarding S&S, but I do not fall into the 'purist' group, at least I don't think so.

To me, S&S is an attitude and a common set of motivations. Conan could very well be the epitome of those motivations and thus the character all should be compared to, but they all don't have to _be_ him or _be_ Howard. If the motivations and attitude are there, S&S is there. So I believe S&S exists in modern times as well, though typically as an assumed/performed role, like the 80's WWE wrestlers. Call me strict, but I'm gonna deny the purist label. :)

And yes, the SSOC/Roy Thomas era is the best pastiche in my view, understanding that such did imbue Conan with a bit more (though not too drastically different) heroic-like traits.

Lol. For clarification, you rock Jason!