Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2009 15:19:03 GMT
Something I've often pondered in the past is the definition of the term "fantasy sword." It's a term that, I think, can hold different meaning to different people, so I'm interested in a discussion on the subject to see what people around here think. Personally, I don't consider swords to be per definition some kind of relics of a bygone age, simply due to the fact that we have a surviving and even thriving swordmaking tradition and a considerable market for swords today. Because of this, I tend to divide swords in three main categories - historical, contemporary and fantasy. To me, a "fantasy" sword is a sword primarily made to possess a fantastical aesthetic appeal. Usually this means that form is prioritized before function, though that doesn't have to mean the sword can't be functional. Also, this isn't the same thing as decoration, because plenty of historical swords were highly decorate. Rather, a fantasy sword strives to "look the part" and resemble something from the realm of imagination. As for contemporary, in this context I tend to use it about modern-made swords that I think are neither historical nor fantasy, thought that's not entirely correct since technically all swords made in this age are contemporary by their very nature. Point is, a non-historical sword that is just intended to be a sword, plain and simple, isn't necessarily a fantasy sword. For example, I don't really consider the Lady Vivamus to be a fantasy sword; it's a cavalry saber. A contemporary cavalry saber made for civilians rather then military, sure, but still a cavalry saber. I've seen actual historical patterns that look more imaginary. On the other hand, take the Martian Longsword. Now that's a fantasy sword.  So, anyone else have an opinion on this? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2009 15:58:08 GMT
I'll go along with this, very aptly put. For me, a sword is a fantasy sword if that is its main focus- it can be functional, but the purpose was to create or recreate something outside of the realm of 'historicity'. It can, of course, follow characteristics of an historic blade (as we all have seen, blade shape and geometry varies pretty wildly when taken all in context together; other than some of Brenno's designs that's pretty much how it falls for me) but as you said, it is designed to evoke something maybe not of this world but could be. Or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by brotherbanzai on Oct 1, 2009 17:51:02 GMT
You could consider a fantasy sword to be anything from slightly to vastly beyond historically plausible. Fantasy swords can be perfectly usable or completely useless, aside from aesthetic appeal. Generally, if you designed it to look or handle like something other than an historical example or along lines not seen in historical swords, it's fantasy. Though in looking at the different types of sword designs that have been tried over the centuries and around the world, there are some pretty bizarre historical swords out there.
To an extent, in my mind anyway, any modern sword is fantasy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2009 21:04:15 GMT
Sounds like we do not agree, brotherbanzai, though it wouldn't be a discussion if we did. Generally, if you designed it to look or handle like something other than an historical example or along lines not seen in historical swords, it's fantasy. So, were do you draw the line? If I for example designed a sword with strictly historical components, except those components were from different time periods and/or regions, you would consider it a fantasy sword? What about modern-made katana? I'm pretty sure most gendaitou aren't made to resemble historical styles, so would you call them fantasy swords as well? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2009 15:51:38 GMT
And any work by Peter Johnsson? Exacting historical copies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2009 17:51:54 GMT
Peter did make a contemporary jian at one point, which he described as an "approach (of) the sword as a contemporary object of craft and design." So it's not like he only makes historical recreations.
In fact, going by similar debates we've had on MyArmoury.com, he seems to have a definition of "fantasy sword" fairly similar to my own - that it's an aesthetic approach as opposed to just meaning "not historical."
|
|
|
|
Post by sparky on Oct 2, 2009 22:27:50 GMT
I guess the way I take it is, if it's in a book of fiction like the "Lady Vivamus" then it's fantasy. Same as the "John Carter" blade or the "Conan" blades. I recognize that this is a simplistic view on my part, so please don't hold it against me.  I pictured these blades in my mind before ever laying eyes on them. I know many other historical blades are mentioned in books and I don't consider them "fantasy" and there is absolutely no logic to my reasoning. But hey I got problems ;D |
|
|
|
Post by brotherbanzai on Oct 5, 2009 0:02:56 GMT
Hey Anders, plenty of room for varying opinions  I would consider that fantasy. But honestly, I don't care for drawing lines and am happy to let things flow into one another... historically inspired, fantasyish, whatever. Too many lines in the world already. What I mean is that any sword made in present times for a purpose other than warfare is, to an extent, in my mind, an act of fantasy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2009 18:34:18 GMT
I guess the way I take it is, if it's in a book of fiction like the "Lady Vivamus" then it's fantasy. Same as the "John Carter" blade or the "Conan" blades. I recognize that this is a simplistic view on my part, so please don't hold it against me. I pictured these blades in my mind before ever laying eyes on them. I know many other historical blades are mentioned in books and I don't consider them "fantasy" and there is absolutely no logic to my reasoning. But hey I got problems ;D I think you are actually making quite a bit of sense. When imagining swords from works of fantasy, it makes sense to think of them as fantasy swords, no? In the case of the Lady Vivamus, however, there is quite an ironic twist. When the subject was discussed on this SFI thread, an actual letter written by Heinlein turned up where he explained that the Lady Vivamus was, in fact, his navy dress saber. So as far as he was concerned it wasn't a "fantasy sword" at all. Of course, that hasn't stopped fans of the book to have pretty different interpretations of what the lady looked like - the idea of the sword that he managed to convey is the real fantasy. I think the whole thing is very fascinating. I would consider that fantasy. But honestly, I don't care for drawing lines and am happy to let things flow into one another... historically inspired, fantasyish, whatever. Too many lines in the world already. What I mean is that any sword made in present times for a purpose other than warfare is, to an extent, in my mind, an act of fantasy. Those are good points, I admit. I guess I personally just don't think the intended purpose of the sword matters much. |
|
|
|
Post by sparky on Oct 8, 2009 20:13:28 GMT
I guess the way I take it is, if it's in a book of fiction like the "Lady Vivamus" then it's fantasy. Same as the "John Carter" blade or the "Conan" blades. I recognize that this is a simplistic view on my part, so please don't hold it against me. I pictured these blades in my mind before ever laying eyes on them. I know many other historical blades are mentioned in books and I don't consider them "fantasy" and there is absolutely no logic to my reasoning. But hey I got problems ;D I think you are actually making quite a bit of sense. When imagining swords from works of fantasy, it makes sense to think of them as fantasy swords, no? In the case of the Lady Vivamus, however, there is quite an ironic twist. When the subject was discussed on this SFI thread, an actual letter written by Heinlein turned up where he explained that the Lady Vivamus was, in fact, his navy dress saber. So as far as he was concerned it wasn't a "fantasy sword" at all. Of course, that hasn't stopped fans of the book to have pretty different interpretations of what the lady looked like - the idea of the sword that he managed to convey is the real fantasy. I think the whole thing is very fascinating. Yeah I saw that posted here, and was kinda let down in a weird sort of way. Because in my mind the one I posted is what I saw in my head. But hey I'm okay with that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2009 23:20:02 GMT
I'm just thinking aloud here, but I would say that, for me, a fantasy sword is any sword not historically based and not meant to serve the purpose that a sword traditionally serves aka weapon. Perception is key, here. So in the context of Lady Vivamus, that was mentioned, in my mind for Heinlein it is not a fantasy sword, but he created one when he wrote about it. I don't know the story, but that's how I read it. So for, essentially, everyone but him it is a fantasy sword. Same thing for a sword like Anduril, which looks like it could be a historical replica, possibly (I don't know but I think it could fit nicely into an Oakeshott category). By virtue of the fact that that particular blade is not historically based it is a fantasy sword to me. So I mentioned that there were two requirements I had for a sword not being a fantasy sword. My definition of the purpose of a sword is not that it is meant for warfare, but it is designed to be a weapon. Modern replicas fit that definition (even blunts) and so aren't fantasy blades in my mind. So my last comment is that there are historical swords I would consider fantasy swords. Swords made purely for decoration are fantasy swords for me, regardless of when they were made. Due to historical nature, though, I would put more value on the historic fantasy sword than the modern one. Interesting question. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2009 18:04:30 GMT
If it isn't a wallhanger, it's a sword.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2009 20:29:45 GMT
If it isn't a wallhanger, it's a sword. So are you thinking that only wallhangers are fantasy swords? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2009 21:31:11 GMT
No. There are wallhangers, and there are swords.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2009 22:48:51 GMT
So, ignoring wallhangers from the discussion, what's your thought on what consitutes a fantasy sword?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2009 1:00:02 GMT
I'm just thinking aloud here, but I would say that, for me, a fantasy sword is any sword not historically based and not meant to serve the purpose that a sword traditionally serves aka weapon. Perception is key, here. So in the context of Lady Vivamus, that was mentioned, in my mind for Heinlein it is not a fantasy sword, but he created one when he wrote about it. I don't know the story, but that's how I read it. So for, essentially, everyone but him it is a fantasy sword. Same thing for a sword like Anduril, which looks like it could be a historical replica, possibly (I don't know but I think it could fit nicely into an Oakeshott category). By virtue of the fact that that particular blade is not historically based it is a fantasy sword to me. So I mentioned that there were two requirements I had for a sword not being a fantasy sword. My definition of the purpose of a sword is not that it is meant for warfare, but it is designed to be a weapon. Modern replicas fit that definition (even blunts) and so aren't fantasy blades in my mind. So my last comment is that there are historical swords I would consider fantasy swords. Swords made purely for decoration are fantasy swords for me, regardless of when they were made. Due to historical nature, though, I would put more value on the historic fantasy sword than the modern one. So, wait, are you saying that a sword has to be both historical and a functional weapon to not be classified as a fantasy sword by you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2009 4:00:08 GMT
So, wait, are you saying that a sword has to be both historical and a functional weapon to not be classified as a fantasy sword by you? Sort of. I think that the swords primary purpose is to be a weapon of war, and that as a weapon of war it is no longer evolving. The modifications and designs that we do to swords today is more for aesthetics than it is in making it a more efficient weapon. Now, probably the last thing anyone wants to hear is that a sword s/he designed, forged, or gifted was used by the owner as a weapon to kill or maim someone. Well, that is what swords are meant to do, but modern designs are not done to make them better at it, only the historical designs are meant to do that. So functional means that the sword can practically be used as a weapon (and keep in mind I am not even considering SLOs and wall-hangers in this discussion). This applies to swords made in any time period, not just modern swords. Swords could be used as decorative items or as symbols of status and wealth. They would be fantasy swords to me. Historical fantasy swords, but fantasy swords nonetheless. Now, there is a gray area here: swords that could be considered historically based and are functional, but the reason we get it is because we saw it in a movie or read it in a book. Here are some examples: (1) Lady Vivamus. I'm going anecdotally here b/c I've haven't read the story in which it features, and I'm assuming it is the name of a sword in a Heinlein tale which, I understand is based on a real saber. In this case it is not a fantasy sword to Heinlein, but to anyone who buys a saber created because of that story it is a fantasy sword. (2) A heron-marked sword. This is the blademaster's sword from the Wheel of Time series. I've always pictured this as a katana, meant to be used with 2 hands, single edged and curved. RJ might have seen a katana that he used to create the base template for his heron-marked sword. In this case the heron-marked sword is not a fantasy sword to RJ, but it is to the rest of us. (3) Anduril. This sword from Lord of the Rings could probably easily fit into an Oakeshott category, nevertheless it will always be a fantasy sword because it is not historically based but is based on a book / movie. So does that make sense? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2009 17:22:13 GMT
Sort of. I think that the swords primary purpose is to be a weapon of war, and that as a weapon of war it is no longer evolving. The modifications and designs that we do to swords today is more for aesthetics than it is in making it a more efficient weapon. Now, probably the last thing anyone wants to hear is that a sword s/he designed, forged, or gifted was used by the owner as a weapon to kill or maim someone. Well, that is what swords are meant to do, but modern designs are not done to make them better at it, only the historical designs are meant to do that. Am I right in assuming that by "war" you mean "fighting"? Otherwise we can't include civilian self-defense/dueling weapons. And I disagree that only historical designs are meant to be functional, because attempting to make a modern sword with optimal performance will result in a deadly weapon regardless. What if they are decorative items and symbols of status that still serve secondary roles as practical weapons? Well, except me, at least, since I don't consider it a fantasy sword either way. But if you picture it as a katana, how can you consider it a fantasy sword? I think we can at least agree that a katana doesn't equal a fantasy sword. So if you picture it as a katana, it shouldn't be a fantasy sword to you either. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure Anduril doesn't fit into the Oakeshott Typology at all. (Assuming you are talking about the movie version.) The fuller is too long for it to be a XVIa, but it has the wrong kind of point to be a XIIIa. And that's only if we look at the blade - Oakeshott takes the hilt in consideration as well. Weeeell, to be honest I find your reasoning somewhat confusing, and also very strict. By this argument any sword that isn't historical is fantasy whether it is functional or not, but a historical sword can still be fantasy if it isn't functional. Is that about right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2009 20:32:47 GMT
Any really fanciful design that isn't plausible in history...that is, swords with weird stuff attached to them.
Swords in the LOTR movie? Not fantasy, just cool.
Sword of Conan? Fantasy.
That is how I do it.
M.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2009 22:40:41 GMT
There are three types of swords: Replicas (Albion, for example), production swords (clones, basically), and custom swords. The time during which the sword was made does not matter. If it is a real sword, it is a real sword. The design of the sword does not matter. If it is a real sword, it is a real sword. The only fantasy swords are swords that exist only in fantasies. If it is a sword and it exists, it is a real sword.
|
|
