Concerning and Unsnarling Sword and Sorcery, Romanticism, Dark Romanticism, and Fantasy (Part Two)
Part One of this article appears here.
II
The connection between Fantasy and Sword and Sorcery is easy enough to see, but what kind of sub-class of Fantasy should Sword and Sorcery call home? Should it fit closer to the Low or to the High Fantasy fields? “Low fantasy is defined as a subcategory of the fantasy genre that is identified by supernatural occurrences encroaching on the real (primary) world” (Carmody, “High Fantasy vs Low Fantasy: A Detailed Guide”). “High fantasy is defined as a sub-genre of the broader category of fantasy that is characterized by extravagant characters and a massive fictional world that is extensively detailed” (Carmody, “High Fantasy vs Low Fantasy: A Detailed Guide”). And what is Fantasy on its own? Is there such a thing as a purely “Fantasy” work? Is Fantasy only a label for works that came after the 1600s?
What is it that Fantasy does for us?
“For many readers, literary fiction provides desperately needed escapism so they can endure the difficulties of everyday life. Even when conjured characters inhabit a recognizable world and speak to the human condition, fictional stories can pull readers out of their own heads. This effect is even more pronounced in the fantasy genre. Untethered from scientific and societal laws, and limited only by their imaginations, fantasy authors explore themes by creating their own worlds, where dragons battle in the skies, alien diplomats try to maintain peace between planets, and strange creatures cohabitate Earth with humans.”
As for Sword and Sorcery, it would appear that S&S is more about the small-scale concerns and having main characters that are selfish (Anders). Sword and Sorcery was created with the help of Robert E. Howard, and S&S is a genre within the Fantasy family (Fultz).
“S&S has an immediacy, a sense of hurried excitement, that can’t wait a chapter or even a page for things to pick up. This is the power that made S&S an enduring variety of story-telling. Robert E. Howard (or REH as he will be referred to hereafter) created the first S&S characters: King Kull, Solomon Kane, Bran Mak Morn and, of course, Conan the Cimmerian.”
Nonetheless, while it is part of the Fantasy tradition, we must not forget the true essence of S&S. Let us not forget that Sword and Sorcery has been influenced by the Gothic (Thomas “The Gothic in Sword & Sorcery”). From where I stand, the hints of Gothicism in S&S connect it forever with Romanticism, especially Dark Romanticism, which is so much closer to the Gothic and the Decadent. I think S&S shares more with Dark Romanticism because S&S does not share all the exact themes and story-beats of the Gothic, but the S&S genre still retains a spookiness and a dark temper similar to Dark Romanticism. Features of Dark Romanticism blaze forth from S&S through the flawed characters and the gloominess normally found in Sword and Sorcery works. Melancholy, brooding, and grimness—attributes welcome in Dark Romanticism—can be found in the works of Michael John Moorcock (b. 1939) and Karl Edward Wagner (1945–1994).
What a bitter shame how Fantasy and Romanticism have been so perverted and cheapened in this vulgar age of our modern societies. Not every writer, publisher, or company cares about the artistic integrity of pulp fiction, Fantasy, Adventure, Horror, S&S, or even Romanticism. To save Romanticism is to save S&S and the pulp in general. Yet, what other kinds of art, music, and media have been so debased as those in the style and genres of Fantasy and Romanticism? If you said: “Horror,” I might almost entirely agree. Look at the gross oversaturation of mediocre books, movies, series, comics, and etc., which are pushed onto the public and labelled as “Fantasy” or “Gothic.” Mediocrity, and those addicted to it, abound. Pieces of Romanticism are forced into every facet of pop-culture. Sellable rebellion. Subverted myths. Price-tag revolution. What a horrid mixture of Enlightenment and Romanticism! Is not today’s pop culture society controlled by the postmodern? And what is it that drives the postmodern?
“It must suffice to assert that all postmodernists have in common a rejection of grand narrative, teleology, and rationalism. They squarely belong with the culture of feeling, in a line that stretches back to fin de siècle and romanticism (and indeed to the baroque).”
This situation is ironic, poetically tragic, given that Romanticism was founded on principles of artistic purity. So why have the “Romanticists” settled for mediocrity? Profit? Propaganda? What is the “Romantic” way?
“In his celebrated review of Johann Georg Sulzer’s classical aesthetic, first published in 1772, Goethe concluded: “The only thing that matters is the artist, that he should experience the joys of life only in his art and that he should live immersed in his medium with all his emotions and powers. Who cares about the gawping public and whether, once it has done gawping, it can or cannot give an account of why it has gawped?”
This was an attitude shared by the English romantic poets, among whom Tom Moore complained about the “lowering of standards that must necessarily arise from the extending of the circle of judges.””
“Although romantic contempt for the mundane world of the money-grubbing philistines was not confined to angry young men and women, it was certainly expressed by them with special vehemence.”
And yet, here we are, with art and writings in the genres of Fantasy and Romanticism, including those works from the 1940s all the way to our present day of the 2020s, so often being cheapened by works that show me no sense of passion. Sometimes, artists and writers produce works that devalue the genres because of how run-of-the-mill they are; and yet, even these lackluster works can earn great acclaim. So, who should we trust to judge art? How should creators uphold the sanctity, and who will define what that even means? In the 2020s, does it not feel as though all of us readers and writers are in a struggle for legitimacy and meaning?
Sometimes I come across some books and stories that many in circles around me love but I just cannot enjoy: e.g., in my unpretentious opinion, the works of R. A. Salvatore (b. 1959) and Jack Vance (1916–2013) are just not my thing. Their bloodless writings do nothing to lift the idioms or artforms of Fantasy or Sword and Sorcery for me. Many have been inspired by their writings, but their stuff does not stimulate me in the slightest, and I can’t even finish reading their works. Life is too short.
The writings of Jack Vance make me think of what kind of art might be produced when a mercenary attitude is taken towards art, when profit and pandering predominate one’s artwork. I never felt the passion from his works, and maybe that was me sensing a money-oriented attitude behind the stories? Why do his works come across to me so mechanical, as if they had been written just for the money?
“I wrote to make money, not for any other purpose,” Mr. Vance said of himself in an interview last year with Locus online, the Web site of a science fiction and fantasy magazine. “I just wrote the stuff because I was pretty good at it, and I wrote as fast as I could. I don’t glorify my writing at all. For some reason I have the knack. I can’t take any credit for it, any more than you can take credit for being a beautiful girl.”
While profit is pleasant, it is not my bag to focus too heavily on making money through writing, because I know how that kind of fixation compromises art. Mercenary motivation in writing can do more damage to one’s art—a mad voyage doomed and made impure by a stubborn fixation. There’s got to be a balance between following an ambition, making the money, and making true art—I do not mean this in a strict mode of Aestheticism.
I am reminded of how a cold attitude of just creating something for money, or even just creating something without meaning or heart, has a habit of transcribing itself rough into a work. Beauty is absolutely most important, but not everyone agrees on what that is; so, I put the question towards you, readers—who is to be the judge? In this day and age, an answer is waiting. Would we have what we admire go to waste?
I personally could not get into the writings of Vance because too much was happening in his works, and that overabundance was filled with that which never interested me; things were just happening without enough logic or emotion, and I couldn’t care about any part in this bombardment. His writings, to me, are like an overload of stuff, of things that just happen in a hollow, empty, and unsatisfying way. In reading his works, there never was even a delicious sense of damnation, madness, or the sublime. Maybe I’m completely wrong about Vance’s attitude or ambition toward writing, but his works just do not speak to me with passion or intensity.
As for Salvatore’s works, they leave me miserably cold. Salvatore’s writings do not seem to aspire to really say anything, and they do not bring me to a state of the sublime or the numinous. It just seems like Salvatore’s works were written with a lack of feeling in them. Just my personal perspective. Vance’s and Salvatore’s writings are altogether comparable to overvalued swill that one downs hard at last call in some nondescript dive. It is worse than being damned. When I read their writings, I see the mediocrity and the banality that reminds me of all that has corrupted the finer essence of Fantasy and Sword and Sorcery.
None of what I’ve said or written has been meant to be an attack on Vance or on Salvatore as individuals; nor is any of this an attack against those who enjoy their writings. If you like them and their work, that’s fine. I’m only focused on expressing my humble opinions and on examining and critiquing artworks. Maybe reading Vance or Salvatore will help you find your own spirit in the world of art. Who knows? Art can only be evaluated and appreciated when differing opinions clash and debate. What works for one person will be anathema to another, and I certainly do not want everyone to think as I do. We cannot afford to be automatons of propaganda. We cannot afford to all be the same. We, as readers and artists, absolutely require others who disagree with us, who push upon us, who go against us. I have made my peace with being misunderstood and criticized.
If at this point you still care in some small amount about my opinion, I would say, in my modest belief, that when it comes strictly to Fantasy and Sword and Sorcery, the superior art can be found in Arena (1994) by William R. Forstchen (b. 1950), in some of the writings of Jeff Grubb (b. 1957), in most of the works by Robert Ervin Howard (1906–1936), and in many of the writings of Karl Edward Wagner (1945–1994).
“Lancer’s republishing of the Conan books in 1966 heralded in a virtual explosion of Sword & Sorcery, with good and bad results. (Also behind this paperback renaissance was the issuing of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings in paperback in 1966.) Among the good was establishing of a genre that would never be forgotten. S&S was here to stay. The bad effect was the solidifying and “genrification” of that type of story to the point where hacks churned out imitations of imitations. The parodies were not far behind—numerous and vicious and often with good cause.”
That is why we must be thankful for individuals, presses, and publishers—like DMR Books, and others like it—who continue to produce quality Fantasy, Sword and Sorcery, and works keeping alive proper elements of Romanticism. DMR Books is a champion of artistic integrity, returning the S&S genre to true artistic merit through its releases and its wonderfully informative, relevant blog, which do keep the pulpy styles we care about alive and thriving. It is entities like DMR Books that allow us to remember why we write and read these fantastical genres. Whether you need High-Fantasy or tales of thrilling adventure, you can count on DMR Books to uphold the right standard.
Hopefully by now I’ve been able to demonstrate how knowing the difference between Romanticism and Dark Romanticism helps us appreciate how Romanticism and Sword and Sorcery are connected. Knowing the difference helps us see what about Dark Romanticism links to Sword and Sorcery writings. Frankly, I am not sure if “Dark Romanticism” is the term I’d like to use, but it’s all we have at the moment.
“As is true for any designation of an epoch, Romanticism too is nothing more than an auxiliary construction, defined less by the exterior characteristics of an artwork than by the inner sentiment of the artist. The term “dark Romanticism” cannot be traced to its origins, but – as is also valid for Romanticism per se – comes from literary studies. The German term is closely linked to the professor of English Studies Mario Praz and his publication La carne, la morte e il diavolo nella letteratura romantica of 1930, which was published in German in 1963 as Liebe, Tod und Teufel. Die schwarze Romantik (literally: Love, Death and Devil. Dark Romanticism).”
To me, “Dark Romanticism,” even though I know what it is meant to represent, does not in truth give justice to the full power and scope of the genre and its elements as I know them. There is something about the sound and look of the term of which I am not particularly keen. Just look at the label “Gothic.” Is “Gothic” really emblematic of all it is meant to represent? There can be times when the designations we use do not bring out everything we want to express about something. Is it time for new labels?
“From song titles to BDSM dating apps to erotica with sexy and dangerous billionaires waiting to be tamed,it is safe to say the term “dark romance” has changed meaning since its inception. In fact, few literary movements are probably as ambiguous, obscure, and even misunderstood as Dark Romanticism, Romanticism’s black mirror.”
Nevertheless, whether you like the term or not, “Dark Romanticism” has influenced Sword and Sorcery; with a little help from the Gothic, Dark Romanticism could be said to have been partly responsible for the birth of Sword and Sorcery. I see many characteristics of Dark Romanticism throughout the works of the arcane Clark Ashton Smith (1893–1961).
CONCLUSION
Readers will be able to appreciate the Sword and Sorcery genre in a much more meaningful way, and they will truly unlock the potence it holds, once they understand the position of Dark Romanticism amongst Fantasy, Romanticism, the Gothic, and Sword and Sorcery; writers will be able to fully dive in to the essence of the Sword and Sorcery genre in a purer fashion by having such an awareness. Just because one does not like everything about a genre, just because someone might not enjoy every artist or writer in that genre, and just because one might not enjoy the labels and terms that define the genre, these things do not mean that the genre should be mocked or forgotten. “New” does not have to mean pulling down and abolishing that which we love about what came before us. As we uphold our traditions, the mistakes of the olden do not have to be ours. We live in truly radical times, the 2020s, and, maybe, it might just be time for us all to grip hands with the past that so loves to reach up from the grave and grab us!
If you’ve made it this far, thank you so much for reading these weird, little opinions and ideas of mine, and thank you for taking the time to read the ideas of many others that I have shared here in this essay because I thought they were worth digging in to. Who is to say for how long I or any of us will think, feel, or believe in what we do today? Romanticists might say that what is most important to hold on to is feeling itself. What about you? Are you a Romanticist? What do you think the future should bring?
Matthew Pungitore graduated with a Bachelor of Science in English from Fitchburg State University. He volunteers with the Hingham Historical Society. The town of Hingham, Massachusetts is where he was brought up, and he has lived there for many years. Matthew is the author of The Report of Mr. Charles Aalmers and other stories, Fiendilkfjeld Castle, and Midnight's Eternal Prisoner: Waiting For The Summer.
If you’ve liked what you’ve read here, check out some of Matthew Pungitore’s writings at his BookBaby author-page.
Contact him at: matthewpungitore_writer@outlook.com
WORKS CITED
Anders, Lou. "What's The Difference Between Epic Fantasy And Sword-And-Sorcery?" Web. Accessed 12 May 2021.
Blanning, Tim. The Romantic Revolution: A History. Modern Library, 2011. Kindle ed.
Carmody, Austin. "High Fantasy vs Low Fantasy: A Detailed Guide." Fantasy Book Fanatic. Web. 12 May 2021.
Court, Simon. "Edmund Burke and the Sublime." Wordsworth Grasmere. 02 Mar. 2015. Web. 13 May 2021. <https://wordsworth.org.uk/blog/2015/03/02/edmund-burke-and-the-sublime/>.
Fultz, John R. "The Mud, the Blood and the Years: Why "Grimdark" Is the New "Sword and Sorcery"." Grimdark Magazine. 20 April. 2018. Web. 12 May 2021.
Hovde, Carl F. "Introduction by Carl F. Hovde." Introduction. MOBY-DICK. By Herman Melville. New York: Barnes & Noble Classics, 2003. Print.
Kantrowitz, Jonathan. "Dark Romanticism. From Goya to Max Ernst." Art History News. 21 Dec. 2013. Web. 13 May 2021.
Thomas, G. W. "A Brief History of Sword & Sorcery." Dark Worlds Quarterly. 02 January 2020. Web. 12 May 2021.
Thomas, G. W. "The Gothic in Sword & Sorcery." Dark Worlds Quarterly. 24 September 2020. Web. 13 May 2021.
Weber, Bruce. "Jack Vance, Novelist of the Fantastical, Is Dead at 96." The New York Times. The New York Times, 02 June 2013. Web. 12 May 2021.
"What Is the Fantasy Genre? History of Fantasy and Subgenres and Types of Fantasy in Literature." MasterClass. 13 May 2021. Web. 15 May 2021.