"Fritz Leiber should be a forefather of sword & sorcery because he influenced R. A. Salvatore." -- Some Guy On the Internet

Since April 9, 2018, I've been periodically posting blog entries devoted to those whom I call the "Forefathers of Sword and Sorcery". The literary stalwarts I’ve discussed—writers like Doyle and London—influenced the First Dynasty of S&S authors such as Robert E. Howard, Clark Ashton Smith and C.L. Moore. Apparently—see the quote above—there are some very confused people out there on the Webz. I thought it best to define a few terms and parameters so further misapprehensions don't occur.

Let's look at the first term: "forefathers". Merriam-Webster defines "forefather" as an "ancestor" and then as "a person of an earlier period and common heritage". The first term is quite vague, extending the "forefather" franchise to women when there is a perfectly good term--"foremother"--for such. The second definition ain't bad, since it has "heritage" in there, denoting the genetic link connecting the past to the present. Basically, "forefathers" means male ancestors from "grandfathers" on back. That is how it was originally understood back in Merry Olde England and that is how I use it. I chose "forefathers" with precision in mind. Mary Shelley and Francis Stevens were fine writers, but neither had any appreciable impact on the First Dynasty or S&S. Thus, no need to use "ancestors", "foreparents" or whatnot.

The genetic link inherent in "forefathers" is one reason why I didn't use "godfathers". That term really didn't become en vogue--in the sense that I might've used it--until after Coppola's movie. Also, there is the sense--once again, deriving as much from The Godfather as from any previous example--of one figure inspiring or controlling the "godchildren". Clark Ashton Smith was writing tales of S&S soon after Robert E. Howard’s “The Shadow Kingdom” was published and the Howardian influence upon CAS at that point seems minimal. If there was a “godfather” who inspired them--one, single, solitary figure--it would be Lovecraft. No, "godfathers" didn't fit the criteria. "Forefathers" did. REH and CAS were the "fathers" of their respective S&S lineages. Haggard, Lovecraft, Kipling, Rohmer and Chambers were their literary "forefathers"; authors they had read and been influenced by.

Clark Ashton Smith, the Dark Lord of Averoigne.

Regarding the term "sword and sorcery"--with or without the dashes--that debate has been going on for six decades. Personally, I consider the definition by TV Tropes to be fairly accurate. There are others out there.

So what about this "First Dynasty" business? That would refer to Robert E. Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, C.L. Moore, Henry Kuttner and Fritz Leiber. In that order. Those writers produced the vast bulk of S&S literature from 1929 through 1939. I originally termed them "the first generation", but that was kinda lame. It didn’t have the weight or power that was required. REH and CAS both used the term "dynasty" in their fiction. "First Dynasty" is a familiar term to any aficionado of Ancient Egyptian history. The phrase imparts antiquity, majesty and glamour. It also implies the lineages that the two great pharaohs of S&S, REH and CAS, pioneered.

I should add that Fritz Leiber barely sneaked in. He wrote "Adept's Gambit" in 1936--which wasn't published until far later--and then "Two Sought Adventure" saw print in 1939. I see Fritz as more of a "prince in exile" who wrote S&S during the First Interregnum of Sword and Sorcery--i.e., the '40s and '50s--than a true peer of the First Dynasty. However, his writing a couple of S&S tales during the '30s and his membership in the Lovecraft Circle tipped the scales. Leiber might’ve been a Johnny-come-lately, but he made up for lost time.

One might ask, "What of Nictzin Dyalhis and Clifford Ball?" Both authors certainly made contributions to S&S/heroic fantasy during the First Dynasty period, hence the collections of their fiction by DMR Books. However, virtually nothing is known of their personal lives, let alone their literary influences. Therefore, for the purposes of the Forefathers series, they might as well not have existed. I consider them "Honorary Aristocrats" of the First Dynasty.

One further note… Yes, I often cite the influence of various Forefathers on later, non-First Dynasty S&S authors. That is simply to show the continuity of influence exerted by such Forefathers, sometimes right up to the present day in the case of many of them. Whether Keith Taylor or Poul Anderson liked one Forefather or another doesn’t really figure in regarding who gets to sit at the High Table of the Forefathers in Tir-nan-Og…and who doesn’t.

The true Forefathers were those authors who came before—sometimes long before—or who were writing coeval with, the First Dynasty of S&S. It doesn’t matter how much some later S&S author loved Wagner or Moorcock. Both of them are downstream from the actual progenitors of S&S and even further downstream from the Forefathers. They certainly aren’t “forefathers” themselves. That isn’t what this series is about. It’s about getting back to the actual roots from which sword and sorcery sprang.

To sum up, I'll be editing instances of "first generation" in the early Forefathers posts to "First Dynasty". I'll also add a preface--with a hyperlink to this post--to those Forefathers posts I misguidedly left it out of. Finally, this "First Dynasty" post will be linked at the top of the "Forefathers" links provided at the end of the various posts in the series. That way, we may have less confusion going forward.

I hope that clarifies things. All hail the First Dynasty of Sword and Sorcery.

Other installments in the "Forefathers" series: