hmm, methinks some of what you completely miss of this "silver age" is that while most lack the genius & talent of your big 4 (and it's only most, there are full peers aplenty), they all HAD TO be different so as to be published, make sales, become their own writers. There was a niche (& still is to this day) for aping the greats &/or classics, but real writers had to take their inspirations & then go make their own marks. Some might subvert or deconstruct (and this was GREAT back then, before it was all deconstruct/destruct 24/7, 365, year after year,,,it was FRESH then), other dabble in humor, or horror, history or religion, or for varied age groups or social issues relevant for the time, etc, etc.
It is the same. Deconstruction of all kind is the same, it is about weakening and tearing down and destroying. Not creating something great, there is no difference between to-day's deconstruction and that of the 70s. It is all bad. I'm not against dabbling in other ideas, forms and styles or sub-genres (such as a mystery fantasy story for ex) and there was plenty of dabbling I approve of. I've nothing against most of the authors of the Silver Age, I've read most of it but am numb towards certain parts of it and have noticed that all of to-day's deconstruction can be traced back to the Silver Age. You can disagree, I don't mind but my view is that it is not about doing little more than aping the greats as you put it, but about carving your own path, while also honouring traditions. Such as those of the Medieval & Victorian periods' lit upon which fantasy is inspired by and based off of. But better to ape the greats, then to subvert and rebel against them to such an extent as to destroy the genre purposefully as most writers to-day do.
we aren't taking about writers of today in this, that's my point. You haven't read Moorcock, you've no idea what you are saying. Creative like few others, but whatever, you know all without every reading any of it. Sorry, but you come across as yet another millennial ADD kid without a clue talking in extremist terms way out of your depth. quote again for you the facts: "With writers such as Robert E. Howard and Michael Moorcock, Leiber is one of the fathers of sword and sorcery and coined the term." Moorcock is no destroyer of S&S, he's a PILLAR of it! So too is Fritz Lieber, and I do not know you ever heard of him (but Gary Gygax sure as heck did!) I suspect you'd quite enjoy those I'm suggesting (Lieber, Zelazny, Moorcock) if you can get past whatever you heard on the internet. I'll leave ya be though, and good on ya for reading at all, it's more than can be said for the vast majority. @@thebrotherskrynn
I'm a big fan of both Elric & Moorcock...you come across as bonkers, lads. Cool to make fantasy literature into the 5 ages of man though; gold/silver/bronze/heroic/iron; even if I'm not entirely in agreement with most you said, and cannot see where you are going next. Moorcock dull? You've clearly not read it. You seem ignorant on many big names of the large period chosen; just in the 70's say, you'd have Roger Zelazny (a really great writer, sci fi, but also fantasy, etc), and a whole variety of styles; from Anne Rice's vampires(et all), to Piers Anthony's Xanth, Terry Brooks epic style sword of shannara, the Princess Bride(goldman), watership down(adams), neverending story(ende), hell, plenty were not for me, or even if I loathed them, like Thomas Covenant stuff from Donaldson, they aren't all so easily dismissed & castigated, boxed & labelled. FFS, Fritz Leiber is in your silver age, and unmentioned. Norton, McCafrey. L. Sprague de Camp did more than pastiche Conan. I can go on with varied authors like Katherine Kurtz (Deryni) or Robert Lynn Apsrin (myth), or even Stephen King...
This is a general history plenty will be skipped over it is inevitable, but maybe more could have been mentioned. The main throughline is the general history and the truth was that none have matched the big two Howard & Tolkien this is fact. Many of your writers are good, but they were missed only because as said, this is mostly following the big names of each era and big points/works. Brooks should have been mentioned, and it is remiss of me to forget him, nonetheless though if there's to be expansion on the events of the Silver Age his name will be mentioned amongst others.
fair point on it being so very short for so large a topic. I was trying to get all the big names, I'm not a fan of all, though I've read at least some from nearly all. Brooks could be left out IMHO, though the first book, sword, stands out to me, and certainly others enjoyed his later works on into what i assume will be the bronze age & beyond. @@thebrotherskrynn
Non, it is more sci-fi to my mind though it did change genre fiction quite a bit and movies. Should have made a reference about how it changed computer-graphics for movies.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Really love fantasy from this era, cool video!
It was a pretty good period.
hmm, methinks some of what you completely miss of this "silver age" is that while most lack the genius & talent of your big 4 (and it's only most, there are full peers aplenty), they all HAD TO be different so as to be published, make sales, become their own writers. There was a niche (& still is to this day) for aping the greats &/or classics, but real writers had to take their inspirations & then go make their own marks. Some might subvert or deconstruct (and this was GREAT back then, before it was all deconstruct/destruct 24/7, 365, year after year,,,it was FRESH then), other dabble in humor, or horror, history or religion, or for varied age groups or social issues relevant for the time, etc, etc.
It is the same. Deconstruction of all kind is the same, it is about weakening and tearing down and destroying. Not creating something great, there is no difference between to-day's deconstruction and that of the 70s. It is all bad.
I'm not against dabbling in other ideas, forms and styles or sub-genres (such as a mystery fantasy story for ex) and there was plenty of dabbling I approve of. I've nothing against most of the authors of the Silver Age, I've read most of it but am numb towards certain parts of it and have noticed that all of to-day's deconstruction can be traced back to the Silver Age. You can disagree, I don't mind but my view is that it is not about doing little more than aping the greats as you put it, but about carving your own path, while also honouring traditions. Such as those of the Medieval & Victorian periods' lit upon which fantasy is inspired by and based off of.
But better to ape the greats, then to subvert and rebel against them to such an extent as to destroy the genre purposefully as most writers to-day do.
we aren't taking about writers of today in this, that's my point. You haven't read Moorcock, you've no idea what you are saying. Creative like few others, but whatever, you know all without every reading any of it. Sorry, but you come across as yet another millennial ADD kid without a clue talking in extremist terms way out of your depth. quote again for you the facts: "With writers such as Robert E. Howard and Michael Moorcock, Leiber is one of the fathers of sword and sorcery and coined the term." Moorcock is no destroyer of S&S, he's a PILLAR of it! So too is Fritz Lieber, and I do not know you ever heard of him (but Gary Gygax sure as heck did!) I suspect you'd quite enjoy those I'm suggesting (Lieber, Zelazny, Moorcock) if you can get past whatever you heard on the internet. I'll leave ya be though, and good on ya for reading at all, it's more than can be said for the vast majority. @@thebrotherskrynn
I'm a big fan of both Elric & Moorcock...you come across as bonkers, lads. Cool to make fantasy literature into the 5 ages of man though; gold/silver/bronze/heroic/iron; even if I'm not entirely in agreement with most you said, and cannot see where you are going next.
Moorcock dull? You've clearly not read it. You seem ignorant on many big names of the large period chosen; just in the 70's say, you'd have Roger Zelazny (a really great writer, sci fi, but also fantasy, etc), and a whole variety of styles; from Anne Rice's vampires(et all), to Piers Anthony's Xanth, Terry Brooks epic style sword of shannara, the Princess Bride(goldman), watership down(adams), neverending story(ende), hell, plenty were not for me, or even if I loathed them, like Thomas Covenant stuff from Donaldson, they aren't all so easily dismissed & castigated, boxed & labelled. FFS, Fritz Leiber is in your silver age, and unmentioned. Norton, McCafrey. L. Sprague de Camp did more than pastiche Conan. I can go on with varied authors like Katherine Kurtz (Deryni) or Robert Lynn Apsrin (myth), or even Stephen King...
This is a general history plenty will be skipped over it is inevitable, but maybe more could have been mentioned. The main throughline is the general history and the truth was that none have matched the big two Howard & Tolkien this is fact.
Many of your writers are good, but they were missed only because as said, this is mostly following the big names of each era and big points/works. Brooks should have been mentioned, and it is remiss of me to forget him, nonetheless though if there's to be expansion on the events of the Silver Age his name will be mentioned amongst others.
fair point on it being so very short for so large a topic. I was trying to get all the big names, I'm not a fan of all, though I've read at least some from nearly all. Brooks could be left out IMHO, though the first book, sword, stands out to me, and certainly others enjoyed his later works on into what i assume will be the bronze age & beyond. @@thebrotherskrynn
Star Wars doesn't count as fantasy?
Non, it is more sci-fi to my mind though it did change genre fiction quite a bit and movies. Should have made a reference about how it changed computer-graphics for movies.