[Orlion]

Kanese S, on 21 June 2013 - 12:36 AM, said:

Orlion, on 20 June 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

Kanese S, on 19 June 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

Defining what is "epic fantasy" and what is "high fantasy," and what is "urban fantasy" might be a fruitless task... as then you might have to define what fantasy itself is.

Only because there's definitions, and then there are marketing definitions. I would define fantasy as a fiction that involves supernatural elements. Marketing wants you to think that it will involve specifically elves or dwarves but not vampires or werewolves (normally, they may want to classify this as 'horror' or 'paranormal young adult'). They are trying to sell to a culture they have deemed as the "fantasy culture."

I'm somewhat in agreement here. Personally I favor wide definitions. Alice in Wonderland, for instance, is fantasy. Supernatural events happen (often), the main character goes to another world, etc. It's never marketed or sold as fantasy, however. Same with much of Shakespeare, actually (though it should be noted that said works were intended to be performed, rather than read as books). Saying "involves supernatural elements" defines fantasy I think is a good definition, but one must also acknowledge that it's an incredibly broad one, bringing many works into the fantasy genre which usually aren't considered such. Not that I have a problem with that, as I think it's fine, and probably for the better.

I think a broader definition works if only because it flies in the face of the idea that "fantasy is only escapism/for children!"... as if any fiction is not a form of escapism

Quote

Quote

Quote

On the discussion of stories happening in "our world" or a created one... how similar does a world have to be to be "our world"? Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel's series is set in a world that's geographically a lot like ours, but is very different in many ways. I wouldn't call her work in that series either epic fantasy or high fantasy, but it's just an example.

If it takes place in 'America' or some other such geographical place, it is low fantasy and takes place on our world. If they pass by a statue of a giant green lady on the coast and yell, "damn you all to hell!", it is clearly in our world, even if the author will not tell us so. An example of this is John Crowley's "Little, Big" which takes place in The City and in a place a few miles out. Just because he is reticent with his information does not mean the story is not set in our world. It clearly very much is.

A tougher example would be something like Middle-Earth... which to all appearances is a different world from our own... however, the author has said as much that Middle-Earth is actually part of our world in some Elder Age. Also Shannara, if I recall correctly, is hinted as being a world that developed after some post-nuclear apocalypse. So, perhaps a different 'fantastical' age would also qualify as being different enough from our world to qualify as high-fantasy. This might also explain why Arthurian tales may, at times, be high fantasy.

Haven't read Crowley's work.

I mean, with Carey, it's always pretty up front that in large part it's based on our world... but at the same time, is definitely not quite the same. In major, major ways. Things get tricky around the edges. Sure, it's easy to classify a completely different world as "High Fantasy" and one that's structurally the same except for one element that's changed as "low fantasy," but what about the middle, as you say? Carey's series takes place mainly in a region that on the map is geographically basically France, and linguistically (mostly) as well... but in culture and history is most definitely NOT France (for example... most of the other countries are like this as well). Not the best example to use, probably, but it's the one that popped into my head originally, so I'm sticking with it.

Haven't read Crowley! *sputters* B-but.....

It's all right, I haven't read Carey either

At the same time, there will be works that will avoid being labeled easily or at all. Take Swift's Gulliver's Travels. It takes place in our world, but in clearly made up fictional lands with little and big folk, scientifically advanced folk, necromancers, talking horses, and Japanese! It clearly is a fantasy but I can not really define it as being high or low fantasy.... because it is by definition both *head explodes*

Quote

And if Lord of the Rings isn't high fantasy... I don't even know what use having such a genre is, then.

Agreed.

Quote

Quote

Quote

What about the Iliad and the Odyssey?

Definitely epics in the original sense. I would call them low fantasy, sense they are intended to take place in actual lands known to the Greeks.

So are Arthurian tales, or were, originally.

Yeah, I'd say the original ones and Beowulf and the Volsung saga are in the same boat. Of course, these tales get hijacked later on, particularly Arthurian legend, and each one would have to be viewed on a case by case basis....

[D'rek]

Orlion, on 21 June 2013 - 03:12 AM, said:

Quote

Quote

Quote

What about the Iliad and the Odyssey?

Definitely epics in the original sense. I would call them low fantasy, sense they are intended to take place in actual lands known to the Greeks.

So are Arthurian tales, or were, originally.

Yeah, I'd say the original ones and Beowulf and the Volsung saga are in the same boat. Of course, these tales get hijacked later on, particularly Arthurian legend, and each one would have to be viewed on a case by case basis....

Depending on the context/details, I'd sub-classify these as either Folk Fantasy (ie: folk tales), Mythic Fantasy or Historical Fantasy.

[Kanese S's]

Orlion, on 21 June 2013 - 03:12 AM, said:

I think a broader definition works if only because it flies in the face of the idea that "fantasy is only escapism/for children!"... as if any fiction is not a form of escapism

Oh, don't get me wrong, I also favor that. I'm just pointing it out, because I like to actually articulate the implications of such things. The "fantasy is only escapism" thing annoys me. Escape to what? Wonderland, which is something between confusing, terrifying, and depressing? Wu, which is a total crapsack world where shitty things are happening to its hapless inhabitants all the time, especially those in Darujhistan where things are constantly blowing up? The world of Arthur and his knights, populated by terrifying monsters and other dangerous things? The world of Greek myth, where the gods are all douchebags and will destroy your life for no damn reason at all or just as part of a petty vendetta against their fellows? What the hell kind of escape is that?

Quote

Haven't read Crowley! *sputters* B-but.....

It's all right, I haven't read Carey either

At the same time, there will be works that will avoid being labeled easily or at all. Take Swift's Gulliver's Travels. It takes place in our world, but in clearly made up fictional lands with little and big folk, scientifically advanced folk, necromancers, talking horses, and Japanese! It clearly is a fantasy but I can not really define it as being high or low fantasy.... because it is by definition both *head explodes*

I guess, yeah, things will always be more difficult to define if they're straddling the divisions. Especially so with stuff that's satirical, such as Utopia (and if I recall correctly, Gulliver's Travels).

Quote

Yeah, I'd say the original ones and Beowulf and the Volsung saga are in the same boat. Of course, these tales get hijacked later on, particularly Arthurian legend, and each one would have to be viewed on a case by case basis....

How close any of them are to an "original" version of the stories is impossible to know. Not very, I'd guess. Especially with the Arthurian stuff and Beowulf, how much they were treated as being actually true in the real world by the people who told them is also difficult to know.

[D'iversify]

Kanese S, on 21 June 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

Orlion, on 21 June 2013 - 03:12 AM, said:

I think a broader definition works if only because it flies in the face of the idea that "fantasy is only escapism/for children!"... as if any fiction is not a form of escapism

Oh, don't get me wrong, I also favor that. I'm just pointing it out, because I like to actually articulate the implications of such things. The "fantasy is only escapism" thing annoys me. Escape to what? Wonderland, which is something between confusing, terrifying, and depressing? Wu, which is a total crapsack world where shitty things are happening to its hapless inhabitants all the time, especially those in Darujhistan where things are constantly blowing up? The world of Arthur and his knights, populated by terrifying monsters and other dangerous things? The world of Greek myth, where the gods are all douchebags and will destroy your life for no damn reason at all or just as part of a petty vendetta against their fellows? What the hell kind of escape is that?

Escape form the monotony of everyday life, which some literary fiction aficionados appear to regard as offensive in itself, thinking that everyone should rather read the faux-existentialist dirges of troubled privileged and somewhat educated white male navel-gazing 'outsiders'. I have no issue with actual ennui or works of true existentialism, but from my limited and irritable perspective, I find much 'literary fiction is a higher plane of fiction' crowd' as overly caught-up in fashionably shallow 'deepness', unable to distinguish half-digested works of pseudo-angst from works of real thought and emotion. Above all, they lack a sense of humour and fun. There's nothing wrong with a bit of pretension and overweening self-satisfaction if you can stand back and laugh at yourself and your worldly concerns.

[Morgoth]

D, on 02 July 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

Kanese S, on 21 June 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

Orlion, on 21 June 2013 - 03:12 AM, said:

I think a broader definition works if only because it flies in the face of the idea that "fantasy is only escapism/for children!"... as if any fiction is not a form of escapism

Oh, don't get me wrong, I also favor that. I'm just pointing it out, because I like to actually articulate the implications of such things. The "fantasy is only escapism" thing annoys me. Escape to what? Wonderland, which is something between confusing, terrifying, and depressing? Wu, which is a total crapsack world where shitty things are happening to its hapless inhabitants all the time, especially those in Darujhistan where things are constantly blowing up? The world of Arthur and his knights, populated by terrifying monsters and other dangerous things? The world of Greek myth, where the gods are all douchebags and will destroy your life for no damn reason at all or just as part of a petty vendetta against their fellows? What the hell kind of escape is that?

Escape form the monotony of everyday life, which some literary fiction aficionados appear to regard as offensive in itself, thinking that everyone should rather read the faux-existentialist dirges of troubled privileged and somewhat educated white male navel-gazing 'outsiders'. I have no issue with actual ennui or works of true existentialism, but from my limited and irritable perspective, I find much 'literary fiction is a higher plane of fiction' crowd' as overly caught-up in fashionably shallow 'deepness', unable to distinguish half-digested works of pseudo-angst from works of real thought and emotion. Above all, they lack a sense of humour and fun. There's nothing wrong with a bit of pretension and overweening self-satisfaction if you can stand back and laugh at yourself and your worldly concerns.

Good thing that you, in your "limited and irritable perspective" succeed in seperating good litterature from the bad where all these others have failed.