Arabian Nights=Swords & Sorcery?

[Markdoc]

I'd say magic is less likely to be a PC ability (Conan, Fafhrd) but this isn't an absolute rule (Elric).  A better delineation is the availability and ease of magic--in S&S magic tends to be rarer and more difficult; implementing it usually requires elaborate rituals and/or appealing to supernatural entities. 

 

I think this is one of the keys - you could more simply say that in most S&S magic happens "off stage". It happens, but it's not the protagonists doing it. The various characters in classic S&S generally live in worlds with plenty of magic – if it’s not wizards, it’s elder horrors or eldritch creatures – but they are not themselves generally magical or magicians. Conan’s the prototype, of course, but there were plenty of others in the same vein. It’s not all sandals and loincloths, either: Conan (and plenty of others) spent as much time leading knights in plate armour as he did careering about as a mercenary in a mail shirt.

 

But things have changed since the classic days. Fafhrd and the Mouser are mid-period S&S, but even though the Mouser started as an apprentice wizard, in the few stories where he uses magic, it inevitably goes wrong, and he does most of his problem solving with his brain (not his best part, actually) or his sword. It’s still classic S&S fantasy. Elric, on the other hand, was a deliberate attempt to move away from the classic S&S genre. Where Conan is manly, and brawny and decisive, Elric is sensitive, feeble and pensive. Where Conan triumphs by force of arms and things - no matter how dark – resolve themselves in the end, they almost inevitably go pear-shaped as soon as Elric draws a blade. Where Conan – though a barbarian – is innately decent and honest, Elric – though an educated nobleman - is conniving (also petulant, vindictive and petty). Conan starts from nothing and ends up a ruler. Elric starts as a ruler and ends up (quite literally) with nothing. And most of all, Elric is a sorcerer. Unlike Conan, he’s a swordman entirely by accident and necessity.

 

I think that’s where things started to diverge. For me at least, Elric was a break from the tropes of S&S – certainly Moorcock has said explicitly that was his intention - and represents a new genre (I call it Epic Fantasy, for want of a better word). Like any genre definition, the edges are a bit fuzzy, but the whole Conan/Kull/Brak/Fafhrd and Mouser genre is mostly about the main character and their particular trials and tribulations. If Kull dies, he loses the throne. But Elric and the whole Eternal Champions team/Corwin of Amber and their ilk, in contrast are typically fighting for the survival of the world and/or universe as we know it. If they fail, everybody dies. And I don't think it's a coincidence that in Epic Fantasy, some or all protagonists do have magic powers.

 

So while both types of stories involve plenty of sorcery and plenty of people getting stabbed with bits of pointy metal, the whole atmosphere and style is very different. 

 

 

cheers, Mark

[IndianaJoe3]

Where Conan – though a barbarian – is innately decent and honest, Elric – though an educated nobleman - is conniving (also petulant, vindictive and petty). 

 

I think that, from REH's perspective, Conan is fundamentally decent because he is a barbarian, and uncorrupted by civilization.

[Markdoc]

I think that, from REH's perspective, Conan is fundamentally decent because he is a barbarian, and uncorrupted by civilization.

 

Of course - that was part of his shtick.

 

cheers, Mark

[Ninja-Bear]

I think that, from REH's perspective, Conan is fundamentally decent because he is a barbarian, and uncorrupted by civilization.

I thought that REH felt that Conan was superior because he was a barbarian but he wasn't nesscerly decent. In "House of Rogues" Conan was described as being better because even though he killed and stole he was honest about it and didnt do it by political manuevering.

[bubba smith]

yes I think that the Arabian nights legends are a form of sword and sorcery

[Lucius]

I read Burton's translation, but it was decades ago. Here is what I remember....

Oh yeah, and blue eyes. If someone is evil or ugly (usually both) a point is made of how blue their eyes are.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

There were no palindromedaries, but I suspect a palindromedary would be right at home in some of those stories....

[Burrito Boy]

Oh yeah, and blue eyes. If someone is evil or ugly (usually both) a point is made of how blue their eyes are.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

 

Damn. That means Conan is exceptionally evil and ugly.

[Clonus]

Of course it's ill-defined; every genre is ill-defined.  This S&S discussion is nothing compared to some of the flamewars I've seen over whether fantasy is a subset of SF, or whether SF stands for "science" or "speculative". 

 

But I'll keep trying.    To me it's not exactly access to magic that defines S&S but prevalence.  Magic is everywhere in Middle-Earth--rings, swords, phials, cloaks, doors, maps, horns, elves, and forests are all overtly magical there, and Gandalf calls it forth visibly with a word or gesture or pinecone.   In Earthsea wizards and sorcerers are commonplace enough that you could go find one if you needed to.

 

Conversely Elric is one of just a handful of sorcerers that you run into in his entire career, and even then his 'magic' is limited to Stormbringer and summoning powerful extradimensional beings, the latter only with difficulty or at great cost.  In Hyboria, sorcerers are very rare, usually up to no good, and typically found in forgotten ruins.  In Lankhmar magic is virtually nonexistent except for the prophecy and coincidence of Ningauble and Sheelba.

 

I don't think that's a defining feature of swords and sorcery.  It's just typical of the older examples of the field.  I could hardly describe a series like Sanctuary as high fantasy but it had plenty of spellcasters.