Talk:Sword and sorcery

Closely related to sword-and-sandal?

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)

Merge with Heroic Fantasy

Encyclopedia reference should expand not diminish. Deleting an already existing entry goes totally against the nature of encyclopedias, and knowledge in general. Unless two entries everlap 100%, of course, which is not the case. Heroic fantasy could mean a lot more than just Sword&Sorcery, the latter being a fairly specific and recent genre, while the former could also be link with traditional folk epic themes. So, the two entries are not the same and should not be merged. Stanislav

Note that above comment was entered after the comments below.

Deleting useless entries from an encyclopedia, so far from going against their natures, supports it by making them more useful.

Finally, it does not matter what they could mean; it matters what they do, in fact, mean. Goldfritha 21:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any difference between the S&S genre and HF? I can't see any. If there are, they probably should be listed in the article(s).--SidiLemine 12:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Heroic fantasy" is often regarded as a high-falutin' way to say "sword and sorcery." Heroic fantasy should be merged with this, really. Goldfritha 00:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that "Sword and Sorcery" is, perhaps, a subgenre of "Heroic Fantasy," a larger category that could easily include Epic and High Fantasy. In tone and feel, S&S is "gritter" than other works that could be considered "Heroic Fantasy." In addition, much Heroic Fantasy includes moral themes of "Good and Evil" (often "Good vs. Evil"), whereas questions of morality are far less a concern in S&S; rather, the characters in S&S have their own individualistic codes of behavior that they adhere to, though these may vary from what is conventionally considered "Good" or "Evil." In fact, many S&S characters find employment with patrons who are not much more "moral" than the protagonists' foes. Finally, I would argue that while Heroic Fantasy might include epic battles and grand, world-changing events, S&S rarely does; events in S&S tend to be on a smaller scale, and have more to do with the protagonists' self-centered goals and needs, typically their own survival or filling their money pouch. These S&S protagonists rarely set out with the conscious desires to become great heroes that will change their worlds; they just want to make a buck to fill their stomachs, they may be out for vengeance, or they may simply have a wanderlust that leads them into adventures. EpicReader 11:10, 6 November 2006

Nevermind "could." The question is whether, as used, the term does include Epic and High Fantasy. In fact, your description seems to argue that epic and heroic fantasy are synonyms. If the term can mean either or both, it's not a useful term. Goldfritha 02:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can't see a difference between high fantasy and sword and sorcery, you've no business in this discussion.

Its Game of Thrones vs Lord of the Rings. Gritty realism concerning frontier battles with lusty sexual depictions and graphically violent horror for adult readers are onlt scratching the suface of the obvious differences. Supernaut72 (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

As a Robert E. Howard' fan, I agree concerning the gritty, lusty, and violent nature of sword and sorcery. But high fantasy is typically defined by its depiction of alternate worlds, not by J. R. R. Tolkien's sensibilities. High fantasy can include much darker tales than The Lord of the Rings. The Silmarillion by Tolkien himself features darker tales than LTR. Dimadick (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

'Darker tales' still doesn't cover the obvious distinctions necessary for edification. Tolkiens stories do not involve graphic depictions of horror and torture, they do not involve sex or graphic violence, and they do not involve themes of frontier struggles for basic survival by barbarians vs civilised societies. High fantasy is characterized by very black and white concepts of good and evil, and it's characters not developed beyond their utility to the plot. Supernaut72 (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The List of high fantasy fiction currently lists the likes of The Mists of Avalon, A Song of Ice and Fire, and Elric of Melniboné, which can not be described as typical good versus evil narratives. And I am far from certain that frontier struggles are essential to sword and sorcery. The supposedly "barbarian" Conan the Barbarian is actually literate in the original Howard stories, he has advanced knowledge of various spoken and written languages, and he tends to adapt cultural elements from various cultures which he has encountered. In his very first story, Conan is described as very different from the other Cimmerians: "You laugh greatly, drink deep and bellow good songs; though I never saw another Cimmerian who drank aught but water, or who ever laughed, or ever sang save to chant dismal dirges." Dimadick (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

'barbarian' has nothing to do with ones literacy. Howard uses the term barbarian to describe anti-civilization philosophy. Ghenghis Khans Mongols were considered barbaric, as were Vikings. But they were highly literate.

You lack even a fundamental understanding of these matters and should disengage. Supernaut72 (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Really? I have been reading Robert E. Howard's tales and their pastiches for nearly 30 years. And I have also read several biographies of both Howard and Tolkien. I do not see much of a difference here. Dimadick (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to think there is a difference, but as with many terms of genre, people decide upon one interpretation and stick to it. From what I have been taught, Sword and Sorcery is a genre that depicts generally average non-fantastic figures moving through a fantastic world - i.e. a hero who, while being strong, fierce, etc, has no mystical powers, yet still must fight in a world filled with magic. Heroic Fantasy, on the other hand, has no such restrictions - and often features magical characters in lead (non-villian) roles. Conan is best described as Sword and Sorcery, while Record of Lodoss War is a Heroic Fantasy. I think the articles need work, not a merge. ParticularlyEvil 21:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The question is -- is what you have been taught the standard usage? Goldfritha 23:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd tend to agree with ParticularlyEvil. It's true that S&S implies there"s going to be swords, whereas HF doesn't, and is thus freer in style. I'd like to see articles on both, if only we could find a reference to define both separately...--SidiLemine 10:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather, the Heroic Fantasy article should be deleted. The difference between the two subjects is very subtle, and the quality of the Heroic Fantasy article is very poor. It reflects poor education on the history of the subject, defines and describes Heroic Fantasy poorly (and innaccurately), and focuses far too much on obscure or unimportant writers. Martin is the exception, but his contributions to fantasy are not specifically associated with 'Heroic fantasy.' The Sword and Sorcery article covers the subject tolerably well. The low quality of the article on 'Heroic Fantasy,' its redundancy with the other, and significant lack of consensus for the meaning of the term 'Heroic Fantasy' are all arguments for removing it, or else making it a stub reference that defines itself by its relation to Sword and Sorcery.

Otherwise, it should be completely rewritten.

I agree with Epic Reader whose comment I saw after writing this. He/She was dead on. The Sword and Sorcery genre is derived from Tolkien and Lewis so why should either author define themselves by their relation to Sword and Sorcery. It should be the genre that identifies with them. Also Tolkien and Lewis and possibly the other authors in the Heroic Fantasy article (who I am unfamiliar with) listed did not predominantly write "Sword and Sorcery." Just because their more popular works might have helped spawn the genre doesn't mean that they should be identified with a genre that might have connotations that are not reflected in their work (in my opinion). My longer argument follows below:

My main objection is that it is arguable that Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings spawned the genre at least in D&D's case. And as much as I love the D&D novels, I think that Tolkien and many of the other author's works are written in a much more literary-based tradition whereas the Sword and Sorcery genre which is deeply written in the pulp traditions. Thats not to take away from the pulp genre. It has great merits and traditions and is a formidable genre by itself.

I would find it slightly offensive to see Tolkien and Lewis labeled as Sword and Sorcery authors. Sword and Sorcery does not reflect even a small portion of either author's body of work but just their more "popular pieces". Also their "Sword and Sorcery" work was far more allegorical (Sorry JRR) than the pulp tradition that followed. They do more than tell a quest or swashbuckling tale, they tell us very real things about the nature of life and existence. The creature Gollum was an essay on addiction whether to technology or substances. Authors that transcend the sub-genre should not be listed with ones that don't. Also it might be helpful to read "The Demarcation of Sword and Sorcery" by Joseph A. McCullough V which can be found on the Sword and Sorcery E-Zine that is linked on the S&S page. The E-Zine does states the similarities of the two genres but does not believe that they are one entity and I agree with them at least in the case of the LOTR Blueskelton 11:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Blue Skelton

you are way out of line and should exit the discussion. The term Sword and Sorcery was coined explicitly to describe Howard's recipe for fantasy, steeped in American frontier conflict and pre-historic development of Indo European races blended with mysticism, occultism, and cosmic horror - no elements of which are to be found in tradional fantasy, or heroic fanstasy.

please leave the conversation to people with a vested interest in preserving this fantast genre. Supernaut72 (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I strongly urge that heroic fiction not be merged with sword and sorcery. Heroic fiction is a broader umbrella -- sword and sorcery is particularly specific. Look here, at www.swordandsorcery.org:

http://www.swordandsorcery.org/defining-sword-and-sorcery.htm

And here, another article from the same site. Both are annotated and well-researched and seemingly argue against combining heroic fiction and sword and sorcery. Clearly they state that LOTR is NOT, strictly speaking, sword and sorcery.

http://www.swordandsorcery.org/demarcation-of-sword-and-sorcery.htm

As the author of the first of these articles, and the primary writer of an article for the forthcoming Greenwood genre encyclopedia that defines sword and sorcery, I'd like to vote firmly that there's a difference and that they should not be merted. Given time, I'll update this entry myself. (Howard A. Jones74.137.230.69 19:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

Keep 'em separate. Sword and sorcery refers to a specific flavor of storytelling, usually but not always heroic fantasy. HF, on the other hand, refers to a wide range of stories, some of which qualify as S&S. There is overlap, and a good many stories which belong to both groups, but they're still two different terms with different implications. Heroic fantasy is more about the story structure, while Sword & Sorcery generally refers to the style of storytelling. Noclevername 01:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Gender

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)

Why can't the word "heroes" refer to female heroes? "Heroines" sounds somewhat archaic. Noclevername

Red Sonjya

Red Sonja never appeared in a Howard Conan story, and the character is almost wholly a creation of Roy Thomas. I'm correcting the article as-such, but I wanted to let people know why I was doing it. 172.148.61.63 16:08, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The above corrections were apparently not made, so I went ahead and did them. "Red Sonya" appeared in a non-Conan adventure story (not a fantasy story) by Howard called "The Shadow of the Vulture." The character created by Thomas and Windsor-Smith was called "Red Sonja" (note the 'j') and is only inspired by the 16th-century Spanish heroine of Howard’s tale. 24 July 2005

Should mention be made here of "The Eye of Argon", arguably the worst story ever written? I'm pretty sure it has its own article somewhere as well. 203.26.177.2 18:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It certainly does! See The Eye of Argon, right here on wikipedia!

BPK 18:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we get some LOTR?

This article needs some references to Tolkien and Lord of the Rings. 129.21.109.54 02:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? Lord of the Rings is just about the canonical example of high fantasy. Goldfritha 23:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Elric

Does Elric count as sword-and-sorcery? It violates one of the central rules the article lays out, in that there are consistently kingdom- and world-changing events, up to the point of the entire universe being destroyed by the end of the series, IIRC. 69.225.161.57 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though I've heard of it referred to as S&S, it has all the hallmarks of high fantasy: fantastical magical feats that are hardly explained or even considered, fast pacing, end of the world story arc. I would be interested to know why people consider it to be S&S? 66.152.196.34 17:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Elric counts because the "rules" laid out aren't really rules, merely an observation of what most sword and sorcery is like. In other words they're descriptive, not prescriptive; the focus on personal ends rather than world changing events is a matter of emphasis, not exclusion.

The possibility (and sometimes actuality) of world changing events is quite common in sword and sorcery. Protagonists in selfish pursuit of their own ends are often at the same time the unwitting (and occasionally) witting champions of higher powers. For instance, Robert E. Howard portrays Conan, after he becomes king, as the chosen champion of the god Mitra against the forces of the dark god Set. (Though Conan isn't crazy about the idea and is more than a little creeped out by it.) In Andre Norton's Witch World, the witches of Estcarp finally defeat their enemies by literally changing the world with a great feat of magic (despite which Norton's focus remains on the mundane concerns of her protagonists). Thongor wars against the Dragon Kings because his personal success at climbing to the top of the heap makes him de facto leader of the human side in an age-old race war. One could go on and on.

As for Elric, the whole focus of his saga is on his his attempt to find a little personal happiness and escape his fate as a major player in the destiny of the universe. In his story, world changing events are a mark of his failure. The fact that they happen doesn't negate the fact that emphasis of the saga is on his personal story.

The ways in which S&S heroes affect their world tend to be small, but aren't always.

BPK 18:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ouroboros Spoilers?

Don't know what wikipedia's rules are on spoilers, but this article contains a major spoiler for the book The Worm Ouroboros, by E.R. Eddison. Granted, it's topical, and I knew about the ending before I finished the book. But, some people hold this book in nearly religious regard, and I could see this spoiler really ruining someone's day. 66.152.196.34 17:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Anybody who decides to read about something runs the risk of actually finding out about it. Personally, I've never known a "spoiler" to have actually spoiled a particular story for me. People used to regularly put spoiler alerts in the material they posted to wikipedia. The policy now seems to be that they're unnecessary.

BPK 18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Seminal S&S, and differentiating from Tolkien and high fantasy

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)

List of Sword and sorcery fiction

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)

Deleted paragraph in the Sword and sorcery heroines section

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)

You as well, TresÁrboles? I deleted that paragraph about a month ago, and a second time just now (April 05, 2012). I'm guessing some zealous, misguided soul(s) out there shall pertinaciously continue to try to force the crotchet that Sword and Sorcery (S&S) genre is somehow sexist. As a long-time fan and connoisseur of the S&S genre (as well as a fan of feminism and egalitarianism in general), I do not think that S&S is even remotely sexist. Even if the genre were to lack admirable female characters (which it in fact does not), then it still would not fit the definition of sexist. As I understand it, sexism refers to unfair policies, behaviors, or practices which disenfranchise a gender; sexism does not pertain to viewers’ personal preference in fictional stories. If gender preference were to qualify as sexism, then any outlet which caters primarily to one gender rather than to both genders equally would qualify as sexist. This would include the LifeTime television network, Elle magazine, and Barbie toy stores – none of which have I ever considered sexist. But more fundamentally, the section was the only in this whole S&S Wiki which failed to cite a single expert opinion. For all we know, whoever keeps reposting the calumnious paragraph could be some person unfamiliar with S&S but with some misguided agenda to bring feministic polemic where it doesn’t belong. In short, if the language sounds highly opinionated and cannot be reinforced by expert opinion, then it probably doesn’t belong on Wiki. HappyEskimo (04/05/2012) 19:00 USA Central Time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyEskimo (talk • contribs) 00:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

I'm not aware of any editors objecting to my blanking, excluding yourself. And to clarify, my blanking is not motivated by any personal dislike, so much as it is by the prevention of fallacious slander against the S&S genre. If S&S were sexist, then I would allow it. But, S&S is not nor has it ever been sexist. As I stated earlier, I don't see that women are treated any differently than men in the stories. And again, even if they were, it would not be considered sexist. Barring women's suffrage, or conscripting only males is an example of sexism; I don't think that fictional stories glorifying one gender (which the S&S genre doesn't even do) for the sake of entertainment falls under that category. If it were, then the cited "Sword and Sorceress," an obviously feministic spin to the more gender-neutral "Sword and Sorcery" genre, would be considered sexist. Using a sexist source to falsely assert that a patently gender-neutral genre is sexist is stunningly ironic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyEskimo (talk • contribs) 23:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

I've added the section again, and have provided additional citations showing that Salmonson's and Bradley's contributions are indeed significant. I will also be adding information on more S&S heroines, as there is only one now in the article. Ergative rlt (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Continued blanking

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)

Women in swords and sorcery

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)

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)

I completely agree with User_151.224.59.78. S&S has no more or and less gender issues than any other genre of entertainment, and even if it did, that has nothing to do with the topic of S&S itself. And yes, I would say the gender ramblings here did constitute a rant because they're both unfounded and off-topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.231.32.89 (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Article illustration?

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)

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)

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)

Nature of magic

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)

Who coined the phrase?

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)

Agreed, that struck me right away too. Will edit when I get to my desktop. ~~ D A Patriarche

 Done --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was… merge into Sword and sorcery. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Heroic fantasy should be merged into Sword and sorcery as the terms are synonymous. Both sources cited on Heroic fantasy (de Camp’s quotation and the Encyclopedia of Fantasy) state this explicitly. (And I think most people seeing the term would think it meant high/epic fantasy, making it even worse.) CohenTheBohemian (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@CohenTheBohemian Thinking. And pinging User:TompaDompa and User:Mike Christie from related discussion at Talk:Sword_and_planet#Proposed_redirect_to_planetary_romance, where I'd invite you to comment at too if you are interested in such topics. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd be OK with such a merge. Clute in the Encyclopedia of Fantasy says "There may be a useful distinction between heroic fantasy and sword and sorcery, but no one has yet made it". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That's actually pretty funny, though it may be worth noting that it was written back in 1997. Courtesy link for anybody who is interested. TompaDompa (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It's somewhat amusing they nonetheless have separate entries for them: you linked heroic fantasy, here's their longer entry on sword and sorcery. Funny idea: should we email them and ask why they have no entry on "sword and planet"? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Weak support per Clute and me not having time right now to dig deeper. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to make things more complicated:

Here's a paper from 1978 using heroic fantasy and S&S to mean the same thing: [1] - and here's one from 1969 describing them differently: [2]

I'd prefer secondary scholarship that reflects general usage, rather than a single scholar's quirks... but Brian Stableford's A-Z of Fantasy Literature describes Heroic fantasy in much broader terms to include "high fantasy" and "epic fantasy" ([3]).

Maybe a disambiguation page would be better? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Stableford actually has it right. BPK (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Also see this 2020 book which has a different POV: Joseph A. McCullough suggests the major distinction between 'Heroic Fantasy' and 'Sword and Sorcery' is one of scale. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

In that case, we could change Heroic fantasy to a very short page stating that it's been used to mean both sword and sorcery and high fantasy, linking to both. Do you think that would be better? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

This lists several sources which equate S&S with heroic fantasy, and I think that's the general usage. Palmer-Patel seems to be using "Heroic epic fantasy" which I would guess is their own coinage, rather than "heroic fantasy"; just judging from the abstract and chapter titles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Pending BPK's reply, I think you're right. We can mention the alternative use of Heroic fantasy on the S&S page. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

All synonyms can be red linked, redirected and mentioned somewhere. Generally a good practice. Heroic epic fantasy, hmmm. Epic fantasy redirects to high fantasy where it is mentioned as a synonym. Maybe disambig that one? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

No reply, so I take it to mean the merge is uncontested. I'll do it in a bit. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Excise citations and reference from Lin Carter and L. Sprague De Camp

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)