Sword & Sorcery

[Bardos]

What is the difference between Sword & Sorcery and other Fantasy?
I more or less know, in my mind, but can't define it in words...

[Rob B]

Sword and Sorcery is more of an adventure tale than fantasy like Tolkein, Jordan, Farland and the like. I think.

[Verminaard]

I think that difference is very simple: the good Sword&Sorcery is interesting literature,
yet the good Fantasy is good literature.

[Rob B]

Huh?

[Bardos]

Verminaard> You're wrong.

Fitz> I too know what it is with an example, but as a difination?? What is the difference between them?
Perhaps, one thing is what you pointed out: S&S is more an adventure, while Fantasy is more an epic tale. But... I think it leaves something out...

[FitzChivalry]

Swords & Sorcery is a sub-genre of Fantasy...
The sub-genre of Fantasy that Tolkien, Jordan or Farland belong to is High Fantasy and you probably mean to ask what's the differece between swords and sorcery to high fantasy.

I can think of several distinctions.

1. High Fantasy usually has complex worlds invented by the authors, while swords and sorcery worlds are created only as a set to the heroes and aren't really described or built in a logical way.
2. High Fantasy characters usually has higher goals, like saving their country or the whole world, while Swords & Sorcery heroes can go on a journey to save a princess or to find a treasure.
3. In High Fantasy there is a lot more politics, intrigues and armies clashing, swords and sorcery is usually about sole heroes and their swords and spells fighting hordes of monsters.
4. Despite all that, High Fantasy is a lot of time just Swords & Sorcery with supporting cast, the more characters you have the closer you get to High Fantasy.

Btw, during the 60s and early 70s all fantasy that dealt with strange creatures, magic and medieval level technology on strange fantastic worlds was called Swords & Sorcery, Tolkien was considered Swords & Sorcery too in the early 70s. People started to call it fantasy only in the late 70s/early 80s.

[Rob B]

Wow FitzChivalry, I think you did a good job of showing the differences.

I think, like FC pointed out, one of the main distinctions of Sword and Sorcery is that S&S deals with a single character on an adventure, with an occasional companion. "Surviving only by the skin of his teeth, and skill with his blade" or some such rubbish.

[Ntschotschi]

I think it's called sword a n d sorcery, because people not only fight with swords (physical strength,normal weapons etc.) but use sorcery as well. So it's an adventure tale with bits of magic.

[lior]

Althogh I found Fitzchivalry's analysis quite intriguing, I myself don't see any difference between the genres, for all I know fantasy is usually the sword & sorcery type of stories, done in different versions. every story which has swords, magic, strange creatures, makebelieve lands and so forth is considered the same genre in my book. 90% of current fantasy novels are sword and sorcery. the different ones are true original works like Amber or the Dark tower.

[This message has been edited by lior (edited April 12, 2001).]

[allanon]

FitzChivalry,I'm not sure that you are right.
I know S&S characters,saviours of the world-f.ex. Dorian Hawkmoon.Verminaard,you are not
absolutely right,too.Some stories by Fritz Leiber are great['Meet With Evil in Lankhmar'-Hugo and Nebula Award],and Moorcock stories are also masterpieces.And finally...to be a good literature one fantasy must be great,not just good.Example-
Feist is great,Goodkind is just good."Riftwar
saga" is good literature,"Sword of Truth"-no.

[FitzChivalry]

Lior, every genre has sub-genres, humans tend to catalogue and define things and analyze them to death, you might want to stop in the atom level and don't go down to electrons and protons, and that's ok, but sub-genres of fantasy do exist.
You need only to read Conan and then to read The Wheel of Time or A Song of Ice and Fire to see it.

Allanon, i never said anything about the quality of S&S, i enjoyed Moorcock very much as well.



[This message has been edited by FitzChivlary (edited April 13, 2001).]