I have to admit: the concept of a *new* sword and sorcery gets my pulse going. Why? Because I’m an enthusiast of sword and sorcery. Furthermore, I want to write sword and sorcery. And further furthermore, I thought sword and sorcery was dead. Imagine my surprise at founding this book on an end cap in a bookstore in Portland.
Being that this anthology was published 2010 (a scant two years ago), I find it extremely inspiring that something like *new* sword and sorcery exists. And here is where this blog becomes a confessional: I admit it. I don’t read contemporary fantasy fiction. Before my fast-talking attempt to evade your well-justified scorn, let me just acknowledge how *uncool* that is, especially considering the goal of this blog.
I get the sense that if one wants to be a writer, one should be reading contemporary fiction. Why?Well, it seems that if you set out to write fiction and don’t read any fiction being written today, you set yourself to be neglected by everyone. I’m not preaching to you: I’m preaching to myself.
O.k.. Now for the explanation. You see, I have been reading fantasy ever since I’ve been a reader; however, at the same I’ve also been reading the “literary” texts (I won’t bore you with the strange relationship I have with that adjective, which is both a value judgment and indicator of a specific tradition). For a long time, I made no distinction between so-called “literary” and “genre” texts (oh, the innocence of childhood!). To this day, this distinction is one I adopt somewhat awkwardly.
So, conditionally agreeing that there exists things called “literary texts” and things called “genre texts,” I have to admit that genre literature has been only a portion of my reading (albeit a large portion—let us say approximately 50%).
Here’s some more conjecture: academic training in literary studies, of which I have had a fair amount, makes one read in a specific way: in accordance with a road map. It takes the *risk* out of the exploratory work. In other words, it conditions ones to read in conformity with pre-established canons. I haven been reading “the canon,” if you will, of science-fiction, fantasy, and horror rather than, say, the work being produced today.
There’s a very pessimistic subtext that informs this bias for the old, the established, the work that has generated commentary: the idea that the stuff being written today is *ephemeral* and may or may not stand the test of time. Carrying this logic forward: if it is written today, then it *may not* be worth one’s time.
O.k.. Now for the explanation. You see, I have been reading fantasy ever since I’ve been a reader; however, at the same I’ve also been reading the “literary” texts (I won’t bore you with the strange relationship I have with that adjective, which is both a value judgment and indicator of a specific tradition). For a long time, I made no distinction between so-called “literary” and “genre” texts (oh, the innocence of childhood!). To this day, this distinction is one I adopt somewhat awkwardly.
So, conditionally agreeing that there exists things called “literary texts” and things called “genre texts,” I have to admit that genre literature has been only a portion of my reading (albeit a large portion—let us say approximately 50%).
Here’s some more conjecture: academic training in literary studies, of which I have had a fair amount, makes one read in a specific way: in accordance with a road map. It takes the *risk* out of the exploratory work. In other words, it conditions ones to read in conformity with pre-established canons. I haven been reading “the canon,” if you will, of science-fiction, fantasy, and horror rather than, say, the work being produced today.
There’s a very pessimistic subtext that informs this bias for the old, the established, the work that has generated commentary: the idea that the stuff being written today is *ephemeral* and may or may not stand the test of time. Carrying this logic forward: if it is written today, then it *may not* be worth one’s time.
Thus, the way one decides what to read is to ask if this given text has “withstood the test of time.” How do you know if a text or writer has withstood the test of time? Well, that writer or that novel appears in a list or canon. But who decides who makes the list or canon? Folks who are well read in the canon. And here we have an echo chamber, the implications of which are worth further meditation.
The consequence of reading in conformity with “canons”--whether they be the canons of science fiction, fantasy, or the “Western Canon”--means that you end up missing out on authors who haven’t “made the cut.” Or who *have yet* to make the cut. I truly believe this. And so, as I set out to become a writer, I hereby make a commitment: to change my ways, to read texts that are being written today. To seek out the ephemeral and quit seeking after the eternal. Hence, my purchase of an anthology of *Swords and Dark Magic*.
I’m going to be spending some extra time on this anthology in the coming month. Here’s the plan: I’ll read a story from it and react to it and also try to compile some information about each author: their website, their twitter feed, their blog. My hope is that by doing this I’ll be able to get a clearer sense of the kind of sword and sorcery being written *right now*.
In other words, I’m setting aside the road map for a little bit.
The consequence of reading in conformity with “canons”--whether they be the canons of science fiction, fantasy, or the “Western Canon”--means that you end up missing out on authors who haven’t “made the cut.” Or who *have yet* to make the cut. I truly believe this. And so, as I set out to become a writer, I hereby make a commitment: to change my ways, to read texts that are being written today. To seek out the ephemeral and quit seeking after the eternal. Hence, my purchase of an anthology of *Swords and Dark Magic*.
I’m going to be spending some extra time on this anthology in the coming month. Here’s the plan: I’ll read a story from it and react to it and also try to compile some information about each author: their website, their twitter feed, their blog. My hope is that by doing this I’ll be able to get a clearer sense of the kind of sword and sorcery being written *right now*.
In other words, I’m setting aside the road map for a little bit.
There was a bit of an indie S&S resurgence in the 2000s. It centered around a few ezines, a couple of anthologies, and the print magazine Black Gate. Howard Jones (who later went to Black Gate) was editor of an ezine called Flashing Swords. He published a story of mine ("Gods of the Catacombs") in issue #6. Some of the folks involved in this anthology were in the ezines in those days, I think.
ReplyDeleteYou should check out some modern fantasy. There's still some good stuff out there. :)
Re. Modern Fantasy: I know, I know! It's a serious source of embarrassment for me.
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading my blog. I'm flattered! I found your story on swordandsorcery.org and am going to read it this afternoon.
Oh, is it still up there? I thought the site had gone down. Anyway, I enjoy the blog. Hope you like the story.
ReplyDelete