<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Let's also keep in mind a useful distinction between novels and
short stories, which at least can be said to hold for literary
fiction: that short stories are about what happens, while novels are
about characters. Much of pulp was written for publication in
periodicals and thus is by definition short.<br>
<br>
But even longer sf/s&s works are often episodic, eroding this
distinction so that they are as much about process/genre
expectations as they are about characters. Worlds are developed as
much as or more than characters, and even long-running characters
(Elric, Conan) max out as well-developed caricatures at best. <br>
<br>
Rarely are characters as developed as Severian, who interposes
himself between the reader and the created world so that no matter
how carefully worked out, it is never the main interest. <br>
<br>
On 12/16/2011 10:32 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:1324049526.56006.YahooMailNeo@web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times
new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt">
<div><span>Yeah, I think that's fair to say. Tolkien does get
called "high" fantasy and s&s is a term more often
associated with the pulps.<br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
<span></span></div>
<div><span>Like all these terms, though, they really only work
as reliable categories in the abstract or with very early
examples. But I think where they are useful is in looking at
how people (like Wolfe) challenge them. You say, for
example, that Wolfe is in between them, and I think he is,
too. But it's important to say how/why: his surface can
often look like s&s (a gothic dude with a big sword
wandering the countryside) but it serves the purposes of
"high" fantasy (he's on a quest to save the earth, he
encounters allegorical figures, etc.). And what that looks
like in the end when you discover that "fantasy" is a thin
veil over a "sf" story that's might also be a veil over a
religious story/allegory/"fantasy"/gospel (?), then you're
in another realm altogether. But you get there by moving
through the genres and playing them off against each other.<br>
</span></div>
<div><span><br>
</span></div>
<div><span>And it works with other people, too: is George R.R.
Martin and those like him (Steve Erikson, Glen Cook, Joe
Abercrombie, etc.) "high" or "low"? They're not just s&s
because their doing a more "cinema verite" thing, and the
scale of their world-creation often reaches for the
"Tolkienesque." But the thematic approach takes the violent
world of s&s and places it in the realm of politics and
even religion/philosophy. These are worlds where politics is
"real politik" and where no one, not even the supposedly
"idealistic" characters, are really any better than Conan.
There are no Gandalfs or figures of Good and Evil in the sky
to provide the world a compass. So you get what often looks
like the surface of high fantasy (huge empires with long
histories and complicated mythologies), but the ultimate
impact is like taking Conan seriously as a nihilistic
philosopher. :)</span></div>
<div><br>
<span></span></div>
<div><span>In other words, I think generic categories are
necessary and useful. But they're necessary and useful as
*jumping off points*, not as conclusions about a piece of
work.<br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times,
serif; font-size: 12pt;">
<div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times,
serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <font face="Arial" size="2">
<hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b>
Daniel Petersen <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:danielottojackpetersen@gmail.com"><danielottojackpetersen@gmail.com></a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Craig
Brewer <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cnbrewer@yahoo.com"><cnbrewer@yahoo.com></a>; The Urth Mailing List
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:urth@lists.urth.net"><urth@lists.urth.net></a> <br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b>
Friday, December 16, 2011 9:03 AM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b>
Re: (urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?<br>
</font> <br>
<div id="yiv295491929">Good points again, Craig. But I
wonder if Tolkien is to some degree High Brow Sword &
Sorcery, and Conan and the like are Low Brow Heroic
Fantasy? Wolfe, would again perhaps fall between these.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-DOJP<br>
<br>
<div class="yiv295491929gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 16,
2011 at 1:47 PM, Craig Brewer <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" rel="nofollow"
ymailto="mailto:cnbrewer@yahoo.com"
target="_blank" href="mailto:cnbrewer@yahoo.com">cnbrewer@yahoo.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="yiv295491929gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div>
<div
style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:times
new roman, new york, times,
serif;font-size:12pt;">
<div>
Lee wrote:<br>
>Great observation and recognition Antonio.
Perhaps I am not alone in having assumed that
LotR was<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:times new roman, new
york, times, serif;font-size:12pt;">
<div style="font-family:times new roman, new
york, times, serif;font-size:12pt;">
<div>>more of a prototype or archetype of
S & S while Conan is more of a cheap
comic book derivative.<br>
>A cultural bias? Conan (like Tarzan)
is a European character created by an
American, while LotR seems<br>
>somehow more authentic and refined-
high brow British characters created by an
Englishman.<br>
<br>
</div>
To me, the generic markers of "s&s" vs.
"Tolkienesque" usually break down like this:<br>
<br>
s&s - adventure tales where action and
"marvels" are what drives the story. (The
magazine _The Black Gate_ is trying to
revive this right now.)<br>
Tolkienesque - fantasy that tries to inspire
a sense of scope and "history" and is
infused with moralisms ("good vs. evil,"
maturation and "coming of age" stories,
religious/mythic allegory, etc.)<br>
<br>
Some people certainly try to imply markers
of quality in the definitions, but I've
heard both terms used as praise and
derision. I don't think it's integral to the
terms.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Urth Mailing List<br>
To post, write <a moz-do-not-send="true"
rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:urth@urth.net"
target="_blank" href="mailto:urth@urth.net">urth@urth.net</a><br>
Subscription/information: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.urth.net">http://www.urth.net</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:urth@urth.net">urth@urth.net</a>
Subscription/information: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.urth.net">http://www.urth.net</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>