Talk:Sword and sorcery

message: One only has to read the sword-and-sandal page to realize that it is vastly overstating the case to say that it is "closely related" to sword-and-sorcery.  I changed the reference to a more correct description of the nearly nonexistent relationship.  71.161.82.63 (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Closely related to sword-and-sandal?

message: I object to "muscular heroes in violent conflict with a variety of villains" -- especially n the "Chicks in Chain Mail" series, and other female and feminist authors, there are many, many, many female protaganists in the genre, and many of them avoid violent conflict altogether.  -- Zoe
Why objectionable? The text to which you seem to object ("muscular heroes in violent conflict with a variety of villains") says nothing about the gender of the hero. I think that it refers to muscular heroes of both genders. I suppose you could instead say "muscular heroes and heroines in violent conflict" but why use the sexist "heroine"? Even "muscular heroines and heroes in violent conflict" is less satisfactory to me than the original.
By the way, I think the issue of gender in S&S is handled quite well at the end of the article. What do you think?
Zoe, I suggest you propose an alternative that would improve the entry -- or just change the entry. Thanks! -- User:Cayzle
Seconded. If you think that there is important information being left out of this article, then go ahead and add it! People can only write what they know, and the only real femininist S&S I was aware of is MZBs... I'm sure that there's more out there in this day and age, but I haven't come across it. ~ KJ
Ant: It's implicit in my source for this that the phrasing of this definition is due to Moorcock in 1961. But not explicit... Certainly, in the 1960s, the perception was that it was very much a "masculine" subgenre, written by men, about men, for men... well, adolescent boys mostly?
If the protagonists, male or female, "avoid violent conflict altogether", then it's not sword and sorcery, it's diplomacy and sorcery; still fantasy, and possibly heroic, but technically not covered by this article. Noclevername 20:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gender

message: This article needs some references to Tolkien and Lord of the Rings. 129.21.109.54 02:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  Lord of the Rings is just about the canonical example of high fantasy.  Goldfritha 23:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Fantasy series like LOTR and ASOIAF where you have magical swords with special names wielded in combat, and characters with magical sorcery powers that affect the plot, are not part of the swords and sorcery subgenre, clearly. 135.180.191.219 (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get some LOTR? 

message: Would it not be helpful to list the seminal works of the Swords and Sorcery genre in chronological order in which they were published?
This would help demonstrate that there is little relationship between S&S and Tolkien and other high fantasy writers, since the stories of R. E. Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, and Fritz Leiber actually pre-date many of the works of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis.
Finally, it is largely inaccurate to refer to the protagonists of the S&S genre as "heroes" or "heroic."  The protagonists of the genre are almost invariably anti-heroes.  Any heroic deeds they accomplish are largely incidental to fulfilling their own agendas.
The excellent articles at swordsandsorcery.org elucidate these points rather well.
--CLSwiki (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seminal S&S, and differentiating from Tolkien and high fantasy 

message: Would it be OK to make a separate list for Sword and sorcery works like we have it for high fantasy, gothic fiction and historical novels? HeadlessMaster (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Sword and sorcery fiction 

message: I deleted the paragraph an anon IP user added on Jennifer Roberson's Sword-Dancer series because: 1) I see no indication that it was as significant to the topic of "Sword and sorcery heroines" as the other two examples; and 2) the many mistakes in spelling and grammar make it almost incomprehensible.  TresÁrboles (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As this material is in fact sourced now - and to a pair of notable authors/editors -  you should have no problem with it. Also, three different editors have found problems with your blanking, which seems motivated by nothing other than your personal dislike of the section. Do find consensus before deleting again. Ergative rlt (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

text: A glance at the article history shows that other editors have removed your blanking. Your description of the paragraph in question is also not based on what it actually says, but on what you apparently want it to say (this also evident in your first comment), and a misunderstanding of what "slander" is. As for the rest, your own personal feelings on S&S or what constitutes sexism aren't relevant here - what is relevant are what reliable sources say, and the two I have provided are indeed reliable. The claim that commenting on and attempting to mitigate possible sexism is itself sexist is an all-too-common bit of dissembling, and calling Sword and Sorceress sexist is simply silly. Again, find consensus before blanking again - you have not shown any, and the actions of other editors support consensus for the section remaining. Ergative rlt (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted paragraph in the Sword and sorcery heroines section 

message: This blanking without consensus or policy-based reasons is now becoming disruptive and tendentious. Read those sections, and also the ones on neutral point of view, verifiability, and if you still have a problem with the sourcing on content bring it up at the reliable sources noticeboard or a similar project page. Ergative rlt (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued blanking 

message: I removed the section on women in swords and sorcery. This topic is about S&S itself, and not about gender issues. If someone wants a feminist rant about women in S&S, it should be in a separate article about women in fantasy. To put this section in this article is just an annoying imposition of opinions and ideas that the reader would usually not come to this article to read about.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.224.59.78 (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that Ergative has undone the removal, and quite properly. The role of women in S&S is a issue of longstanding controversy in the reader/fan community. It makes perfect sense to address the issue in the article, and the section in question seems quite balanced, by no means a "rant." BPK (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Women in swords and sorcery

message: What does the painting "An island story; a child's history of England" have to with Swords & Sorcery? Wouldn't one of Frazetta's classic covers be more suitable?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.0.254 (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I just took that picture off.  I think you would have to find something in the public domain.PopSci (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Picture has been put back.  I will not edit again for that.  However it seems to me that S&S has a more specific definition that would exclude the older King Arthur stories, as much as I love them, and as many swords and as much sorcery as they do indeed contain. PopSci (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article illustration? 

message: I can remember back in the 60s or 70s when I first read S&S stories, that shows my age!  Anyway my understanding was that in earlier fantasies magic had a "spiritual" role, while in S&S it was more a kind of tool or technology substitute which some characters were able to use.  A related aspect is that the theme of the story is not good v. evil as in the King Arthur stories or in Tolkien's, but a more modern or "realistic" view of life where people strive for their own self-interests.  Am I right or is this just my impression?  PopSci (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature of magic 

message: Right now, we have a self-contradictory paragraph:
"The term "sword and sorcery" was coined in 1961 by the British author Michael Moorcock, who published a letter in the fanzine Amra, demanding a name for the sort of fantasy-adventure story written by Robert E. Howard.[3] He had initially proposed the term "epic fantasy". However, the celebrated American sword-and-sorcery author Fritz Leiber replied in the journal Ancalagon (6 April 1961), suggesting "sword-and-sorcery as a good popular catchphrase for the field". "
As it reads, it seems Moorcock asked for a name and Leiber suggested it. Therefore shouldn't it say that the term was coined by Leiber, not Moorcock? Unless Moorcock's letter itself has the term "sword & sorcery" as a suggestion (which should be explicitly stated if that's the case). Since I can't see the letter, which has been printed as "Putting a Tag on It", I don't know.  PatConolly ([[User 
talk:PatConolly|talk]]) 05:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, that struck me right away too. Will edit when I get to my desktop. ~~ D A Patriarche
  --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who coined the phrase? 

message: these authors took Howards direction and characters to far away from their edifying characteristics to be cited as experts of the genre. De Camp excised the original unedited Howard stories from publication after he aquired rights to Howard's work through a copyright claim via a lawsuit of Gnome Press. The original unedited stories were never in publication again until 2002.
He also has gone on to challenge Howard's skills and story telling in well documented demeaning fashion.
This would be like citing Kathleen Kennedy for Star Wars edification. Pastiche work and edits of the original material disqualify them from being cited as valuable references. They had no love or respect for the original, historical stories. 
We have people undermining the historocity of this genre and it needs to be corrected.
Supernaut72 (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excise citations and reference from Lin Carter and L. Sprague De Camp