The Complete Book of Heraldry by Stephen Slater
I rarely buy new books but this one was on sale and the subject matter intrigued me, as I love history. I quite enjoyed it.

What is heraldry? "It is best defined as a hereditary system of colors and symbols, borne on the medieval war shield, for personal identification." It is guessed to have started somewhere in "around the Low Countries and Northern France in the mid-12th century." From there it spread to neighboring countries and throughout Europe and from there throughout the world. It is still used even today.

I was into Heraldry for a few years. Very interesting subject indeed. But I got too addicted to buying compendiums and that hobby was getting too expensive (couple hundreds euro/dollars here, one hundred there). I didn't completely quit though, my last book was my first book on the subject written in English.

So, there is an episode of the Rockford Files where this dude plays a detective on TV. He meets Rockford and asks him if he watches his show, Rockford says no because, "I don't watch much TV." The actor then says, "No, of course not. You probably stay home and read Hamlet. Nobody ever watches TV." Or, something basically like that. I use this to illustrate two things: No, I was reading Hamlet and Nobody watches TV. The former is the meme that you are sophisticated and only consume high culture entertainment while the latter is that nobody admits to doing something so popular that the chances that you do not do it at all is not believable. I say that to preface that I really do not tend to read a lot of fiction. I mostly read manga if I do but even that was a development that did not truly kick into gear until the past few years. Otherwise I like to collect comics (Barack Obama and I have in common that we both collect Savage Sword of Conan magazines) and play games. If I watch a show it is probably something comfortable and older or anime, same goes for movies. When I read it is normally a history book or old literature like the Iliad or an Icelandic saga (and I really have read a good bit of Hamlet, but I was sick at the time and did it largely out of lack of better things to do. You probably should just watch a production of Hamlet anyway rather than read it but there is some value to reading it). However, sometimes I like to try and understand a genre or at least get the temperature of the room, as it were, with it. So last year or so I was curious about fantasy in general and that led me to reading some pulp stories and Sword and Sorcery stories.

So, first among these I read the original John Carter trilogy which includes A Princess of Mars, Gods of Mars, and Warlord of Mars. I actually really liked the 2012 John Carter movie but due to bad publicity did not see it until I owned it on Blu Ray in 2018. Princess of Mars is more or less the source for it. There are quite a few differences between the two but generally they were to make the story more acceptable to a modern audience (John is not a widower, Dejah's type of strength and pride are an older archetype that would not play ball anymore, and John is perhaps even more overpowered in the book) and I see no real reason why one could not enjoy both. The story is told in first person, a convention I legitimately do not like but it was, as Grampa Simpson says, the style at the time. It works here and the work is breezy and quick to read. It has a pretty unique vibe since it is a slight mix of western, medieval romance, then modern romance, and sci-fi. John is an interesting character since his estimation of himself is not entirely positive: he knows well enough that he does not think things through so he misses things that should have been apparent to him but only realizes after it is too late the hint he was given. He admits to laughing with a certain madness when he partakes of the chaos of combat and relishes when he takes others' lives but he is possessed of a chivalry that leaves him sad and frustrated when good men die for no good reason (otherwise competent ship captains willingly going to their doom with their ships). This was the most straight forward and felt like a work of some whimsy, if felt less planned out than the other two which are a little more conventional and hold to a story pattern.

Gods of Mars is possibly the best one because it asks interesting questions. I read that HP Lovecraft was very fond of it and after reading it that makes a lot of sense. Not going to spoil it but it is a good story and if you liked the first one this one is a no brainer. It, however, would be very, very hard pressed to be adapted into a movie anymore. I would have loved to have seen the final ship battle at the end with the same production values as the 2012 movie but it ain't gonna happen. Moving on, the writing continues to be breezy and quick but with a single problem of becoming a tad predictable. Kind of like how in Grimgar you hear of a bank and a single teller and you think "It's going to be some brilliant ten year old, isn't it?" and you're right. Not quite that bad but similar problem. What would be a bad thing to happen to John here? You'll probably guess right. However, it's not a problem worth getting upset about and does not affect the quality of the story. Same goes for Warlord of Mars. It is not as grim as God of Mars but it is a breezy and fun read all the same. All three are pretty good and if you can I'd recommend reading them if a turn of the previous century story set on Mars sounds appealing.

I read a few Robert E. Howard stories as well. A couple about Solomon Kane and one about Pyrrhas the Argive. I like Solomon Kane more in concept than in execution. His main issue is that Howard is not interested in the unironic beliefs of a Puritan with a rapier as much as he is with how all men, even one who would reject the idea like a Puritan from the 17th century, are connected to prehistoric savages. He focuses a lot on how Kane feels connections to the untamed and unconquerable fighting spirit within the fighting man. This is all well and good but it is not exciting as it does distract from the story moving at a faster clip, and there was not a whole heckuva lot of room in the first place. I only got through a few of these in the Solomon Kane collection from Del Rey. I skip unfinished stories so many of the stories have been the little ones that take about ten or thirty minutes to get through, they're not bad but they are fairly inconsequential. Pyrrhas the Argive is kind of a problem. He does not come across like an Argive ala the Iliad but instead like a 9th century viking placed in Conan's clothes in ancient Mesopotamia. By that I mean he is blond, swears by Ymir, and makes references to colder climates. What was there I actually liked, although Pyrrhas himself is a somewhat unsavory character. However, it was not bad. Actually, when it dealt with seeing the world of ancient Mesopotamia and how its beliefs would work in "real life" I thought it was very good.

Also read Necromancy in Naat by Clark Ashton Smith. This one was pretty good I would say, it feels at first like a typical Conan-ish (not actual Conan) story and moves into weird fiction pretty seamlessly. Ashton Smith's only problem is that the made-up words give one pause on how to pronounce them. You know, the word in a fantasy or sci-fi story that you look at and think instantly, "The author never once tried to pronounce that, did they?" I liked it, it was somewhat unconventional but kind of suffered from being a little lopsided. Some things were detailed a bit more than they deserved and others less so but that is pretty normal for fiction and especially short fiction. I found out later that this was supposed to be one of CAS's better stories and that is no ill omen, I am glad to say.

The Slaughter of the Gods really feels like it was written, not only a good while ago, but like the author's name really was Manly Wade Wellman, and it was. Kind of reminds me of a Hemingway inspired character (not one he would write, one based on him like the dad from A Christmas Story when he was in Magnum PI). It's a very short and breezy read and it is pretty inconsequential. If you told me it was an affectionate parody of pulp fantasy then I would believe you. That said, if the cover to the collection the book came in does not sit well with you (DMR's Renegade Swords) then just don't even bother, it is exactly what it looks like. I thought it was decent, that said.

On to the big one which took me way too long to get through in Elric of Melnibone. Since my brother and I both have an interest in it we read it aloud to each other, taking turns. I did my imitation of Doug Cockle's Geralt when voicing Elric but think Liam Obrien's voice would be best for the albino emperor.

Elric of Melnibone (sorry for the lack of accent marks) was the story I read and... it feels like a prequel. I know that is what it is but... if you need to know necessarily what Elric is for the story to make sense (or be familiar with the Dreaming City) then what's even the point in this? Getting past that, it too is not bad. However, Elric makes a lot of dumb decisions and nearly every bad thing that happened to him is his fault. I know this story exists more or less so you can read the other ones but Elric basically sabotages every chance he has to have a decent and normal progression by screwing himself at important intervals. Imagine playing an RPG and picking the one obviously wrong decision at the important story moments and that is what it feels like reading this one. This, however, fits with what I said about the other stories and is a generally breezy read so it's not a problem. It's not even especially long, in fact for a novel it is pathetically short. That said, you can see how this and other Elric stories were pretty influential. Amoreen (I think is what it was called) felt like a location out of a Dark Souls game and the Chaos and Law thing needs no explanation (except maybe that Poul Anderson did it earlier). Aside from playing the bad run of his own story, Elric is not really a bad character he just makes baffling decision. But, the story has to happen so he has no choice. Destiny is brought up a lot almost like a joke acknowledging Elric's otherwise baffling decisions. Of course Elric makes that bad decision, the Dreaming CIty has to happen. And, who knows, maybe Moorcock has a good point there.

Anyway, those were some stories I read recently and wanted to share my thoughts on.

Necromancer (1962) by Gordon R. Dickson:2/5

The second of the Childe Cycle or Dorsai series to be written, but chronologically it's a prequel to Dorsai!.

The book feels like a mix of Algis Budrys (matter transmitters like in Rogue Moon and a strong, resilient, silent type protagonist) and A. E. Van Vogt (protagonist with hidden powers/identity that must be unlocked). Unfortunately the writing is not as good as Budrys' or as exciting as Van Vogt's. It feels more like a superhero comic plot with superhero comic characters.

The protagonist is Paul Formaine who lost one arm in an accident and the other one has grown longer and freakishly strong. So I pictured him somewhat like Hellboy. Trying to graft a new arm fails due to his body rejecting it, so he seeks the help of the Chantry Guild who uses the "Alternate Laws", and is accepted as an apprentice Necromancer. There's lots of not very convincing pseudo scientific babble, and it turns out the whole story is basically a rather contrived way of setting the stage for the future history in Dorsai! and later books.

The world feels like a very small place, with only a handful of characters who interact, one of them the "World Engineer" without any entourage of special advisors or body guards. But in other ways he's very much like modern leaders, like for example Justin Trudeau:


Three times Paul manages to overhear the World Engineer and the Chantry Guild leader discussing the fate of the world. :rolleyes

The best thing about this novel is that it may be the oldest one to get much of the information tech right, like mobile phones, kind of Internet and ebook readers.

Interesting read.

I read some of those fantasy authors decades ago ... Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert E.Howard, Michael Moorcock ... all their works. And I liked them for different reasons, and they are great at what they do most of the time, and I have never wished to over-analyze them, just enjoy their pure entertainment.

Elric is probably my second least favorite character after Jerry Cornelius, from Moorcock's works. I much preferred the likes of Corum etc.

The John Carter movie was brilliant, but marred by the Disney changes going on at the time, which meant poor promotion and no sequels, even though it eventually made good profits. All Disney and other big movie makers seems to care about now is making maximum profits, which usually means remakes of past very popular movies.

Honestly, viewing entertainment as a method of entertainment is the best way to go about it. GC Vasquez on YouTube had a video to that affect when he was talking about not finishing games.

I actually really like the Mignola Corum comic adaptation and think that Corum comes across as an appreciably better thought out character. Elric is fine but Corum never had me asking in bafflement what the point was in that choice.

The current Disney model of remaking animated movies in "live action" is not only creatively bankrupt but is an appallingly crass manipulation of people's sentiments to get tickets sold where otherwise they could not. It's not like they should never do it but I would like to think they would have the decency to leave some of the classics untouched. Regardless, it's nice to see someone else who enjoyed the John Carter movie.

It's probably worth pointing out that one of Elric's defining features is that he's self-destructive. It also fits with the sort of deconstructionist tilt of the character - where other heroes make the right decisions or maybe just luck into stuff going the right way, Elric consistently makes bad calls that eventually catch up to him. I do like Moorcock's work, but I wouldn't say he's a particular favorite of mine.

Quite a thorough piece you wrote here!
But... I guess it goes with what you say, viewing entertainment as just entertainment. I take books more seriously (games as well, but this is about books), and that sword and sorcery kind of fantasy... Well, it may be classic, but nothing like what I'd think about when I think of fantasy, and my attempts to read that genre led to even forming a negative bias against the authors, who may have better books at some point.

And perspective is important when regarding that part of Elric's character. He was an earlier example of that sort of fantasy protagonist who made questionable decisions (morally and logically) after LotR. I read this retrospective which considered him a throw back to morally ambiguous (for their time) sword and sorcery protagonists (I'll go ahead and link to it since it is pretty good) who may have been more inclined to do what was beneficial to them rather than be selfless or guided by an ordered and benevolent providence.

https://www.grimdarkmagazine.com/grimdark-is-the-new-sword-and-sorcery/

Thank you much.

I would not blame you for getting soured on the genre. I had a laugh at a few moments that fell hard on the postmodern philosophy or the broody cynicism of the protagonist. To me it's part of the charm but I also get how it would not hold someone's interest. Normally the worlds are only developed in so far as a passing line requires or a single line plot requires.

Also, older writing styles are going to be one of those things. Either it works for a modern person or it does not. I read the Cossacks by Tolstoy and enjoyed it greatly but I would literally prefer to brush up on algebra (I probably should anyway) rather than read Dickens or Hemingway (well... maybe trade Twain for Hemingway).

Yeah, my attempts to read "classics" almost always turn up badly, and the writing style is a major reason why. There's also the fact that they're all too realistic and full of what I call human filth and I'm looking for escapism, but the writing style may hurt even more. Mainly referring to those written a really long time ago, though you can also usually tell which are post-War but until the 80s or so by writing style as well, and classic heroic/sword&sorcery fantasy fits there.
But yes, worldbuilding is maybe the defining aspect of fantasy. Sci-fi may take place on different worlds too, but rather by definition, unless it's science-fantasy, those worlds still need to work according to known or at least scientifically plausible laws of nature, while in fantasy you get to make up new laws of nature as well, alongside planets and lifeforms and societies and so on, so fantasy that lacks that is, well, a waste of imagination, for lack of a better term.

True, but I kept reading and waiting for him to eventually get on top of things.

I guess he is a kind of anti-hero, a bit like his Eternal Champion persona of Jerry Cornelius who I guess fares better at times. I'd have to call him a tragic character for the most part, with a doom of chaos hanging over him. In some ways, Moorcock used Eric and Jerry to explore forbidden aspects of things that would never appear in the likes of LOTR for instance, which Moorcock considered tame and lacking in wider human characteristics. And while that is true to some degree, I find that Moorcock's work doesn't have the same appeal or magic, and is certainly less appealing in that sense. Moorcock always seemed to be his own worst critic and cynic.

Many of us would love to live in Middle-Earth or Narnia or Barsoom and many other fantastical places, not so the worlds of Michael Moorcock ... at least for me anyway.

That said, I did enjoy most of his books, even the Elric stories, despite their somewhat depressing nature.

One could spend a lifetime analyzing authors and their works. I'd rather just read and enjoy, despite the occasional failing along the way. More important to me is being able to suspend disbelief, and some authors make that harder, even though technically they may be more literate.

Was actually referring to non-fantasy fiction, since I was talking of those classics that are so realistic. In fantasy I mind it less, maybe because I can put far more distance between me and it, take it as a fable that will eventually have a good moral, hopefully, when it'd get to the point of bothering me, instead of getting that "oh ffs, I know how bad things/people/society/etc are, don't need to read about it here too!" reaction.
Had that wishlisted for a while, eventually decided against trying it just because it seemed too dark in terms of characters to be tolerable even if it's fantasy, yeah.
Same as with Prince of Nothing, also had that wishlisted and eventually gave up on it because of the same reason, why read if it seems likely I'll hate everyone? Do that enough in "real life", people being, well, people...
For me worldbuilding is key, so could also appreciate A Dance with Dragons, though I saw it very fairly said that it's a 1200-page book with 200 pages of action which with a bit of effort could be squeezed into 100, and even that action is usually presented indirectly. Now when somebody manages to mix great worldbuilding with thrilling action and deep, believable characters you can support, like Sanderson in Stormlight Archive in particular, excellent, but that's the very cream of the crop, rare and precious (heh), and if having to choose I'd rather be trasported in a world than taken along for an adventure.
(Odd to see Mistborn instead of it in that Forbes list, now that I looked it up, the original Mistborn trilogy is probably his second best piece of work, but come on, everything else he does seems to be practice for Stormlight Archive, focusing on certain elements and trying things out before putting their best form in SA.)
Had to look up isekai... Portal fantasy, eh? Nope, I'm staying away from that...

Prehistoric Adventures is another nicely produced anthology from DMR Books. This one has four stories focused on caveman action.

The opener and main event of the collection is an obscure novella by Arthur Petticolas called Dinosaur Destroyer. It's one of those in which a modern man somehow manages to tap into ancestral memories of a time when he was a primitive badass. The modern guy in this case is a collegiate football star (back when such types were often snotty rich kids) who goes into trances and recounts the life of Daarmajd, the Strong, the Mighty (get used to that phrasing because it appears literally almost every time the character's name is mentioned), leader of an ancient tribe that tangled with the Atlanteans and against precursors of the Aztecs and far east Asians. I wanted to like this more than I did, but I think the framing device kept me distanced from what was going on with the story, and there's something about Petticolas's prose that I found generally uninvolving despite all the action. Daarmajd (the Strong, the Mighty) also comes across as a villain to my eyes more than a hero, and it's kind of disappointing that there's only one dinosaur in the story and it gets destroyed in the very first chapter.

Following this is Spear and Fang, Robert E. Howard's first-ever published story. It's short but it's a lot of fun. It is kind of funny to see Howard, who is often perceived as favoring the barbarian/primitive cultures over civilized man, writing a story in which the heroes are distinguished by how they've progressed compared to the beasts and Neanderthals.

The next two stories are by CM Eddy Jr., another old Weird Tales writer, and these are also good fun, although it's hard not to notice that a common problem with this kind of story is that the characters are all so primitive that the writer has to work hard to come up with conflicts that aren't covered by every other story in the genre. It's all kind of the same stuff about grunting men and women hooking up while fending off rival tribesmen and predators, with the occasional twist of the hero suddenly discovering how to create history's first weapon or something.

The book concludes with Stories of the Stone Age by HG Wells. Another story about a young man and woman trying to make their way in the world after being driven off by their tribe. Wells brings a bit of an arch tone, particularly when he writes how the animals are thinking/"speaking" - they often come across as more thoughtful and civilized than the humans and you feel more for them when the humans decide to brutally slaughter them as a gag. But I guess Wells was a known misanthrope.

So a slightly disappointing overall read since the opening story didn't hit very well with me, and it makes up a large chunk of the volume.