At 03:43 PM 11/29/00, you wrote:
>I read a lot of Anderson at one time. Still good today but I noticed even
>his sci-fi Time Patrol series was often a disguise for writing about
>historical adventure based on sagas or history. Not that there is anything
>wrong with that but as I recall he didn't actually end up writing much
>fantasy except for The High Crusade (SF/Fantasy). There seemed less of the
>fantastic in his writings than fictional history.
>
>One of the things that makes Howard's writings real for me is the ability to
>relate to his scenes and naming conventions. They seem very real to me. I
>think he had the right blend of real and fantastical. Making it more real
>than what he did would probably have detracted from the mood.
It seems to me that a lot of today's fantasy tries very hard to be
"realistic" in some fashion, whether that includes references to people
relieving themselves, or intricate religious ceremonies, or meticulous
explanations of the history behind a storyline.
In some cases I don't mind that stuff, but it does seem to get in the way
of good story-telling. Howard had his own set of rules in his head. His
heroes would do certain things, and they would not do other things.
Isn't it more the consistency of character and setting that makes the story
fall together than the details that might be thrown in?
\\ // Science Fiction and Fantasy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\\// Andromeda, Dark Angel, Farscape, Lexx, Roswell, Star Trek...
//\\ http://www.xenite.org/forums/science_fiction_tv/
// \\ENITE.org......................................................
