# Fantasy: Does it HAVE to be set in Medieval Times?



## jason10mm (Apr 7, 2009)

I was listening to a podcast discussing Martin's ASOIAF and the fantasy troupes he rejects or embraces, and about the only one they felt he retained was the quasi-medieval setting. Got me thinking, are there any fantasy novels NOT set in a Dark Ages/early renassaince setting with castles, knights, kings, swords, and crossbows?

There are alternate history books like the Napoleonic one with dragons, or fantasy/sci-fi like Steampunk or Warhammer 40K/Shadowrun, but I can't think of a single original fantasy world significantly influenced by, for example, a Roman style setting, Greek polis, or Persian/Arabic desert, much less an African tribe, Incan city-state, or Assyrian empire. Sure, maybe some of these "ethnic" areas skirt the fringes of the pseudo-european world (Howards Conan, Tolkien, and Martins own Dothraki come to mind).

Is it because english fantasy books are written (mostly) by folks of european/english descent? Did we ALL play D&D growing up? Does the medieval setting add enough familiarity that it frees the writer from having to describe too much (everyone knows what a castle is, for example)? 

I guess maybe Clive Baker or China Mieville, or the Dark Tower series, might count. Kinda? Any others?


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

My fantasy novel _Flaming Dove_ isn't set in Medieval times. It's not even set in the past. It's set in a post-Apocalyptic future.

Urban fantasy and paranormal fantasy books appear all over the bestsellers' lists; they're certainly not set in the Middle Ages.

I think many fantasy novels are set in quasi-Medieval settings thanks to Tolkien and D&D. But these days, many other types of fantasy are emerging.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

I took a course on fantasy and romance in college. The professor's distinction between fantasy and science fiction has always stuck with me:

Science fiction is set in an imagined world that is possible.
Fantasy is set in an imagined world that is impossible.

Using that as a guide, fantasy can be set in any era.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

jason10mm said:


> for example, a Roman style setting


Jim Butcher's Codex Alera. Great series, too.


ETA: In my opinion, Fantasy is broken down into two distinct sub-genres. You've got "traditional" fantasy, if you will - ie. medieval style and urban fantasy which is set in a modern world. I'm sure there are more distinctions than this. Daniel pointed out paranormal, but I'd probably lump that in with urban fantasy, unless it's a romance. In that case it's back to being called paranormal romance. Still, though, I don't think fantasy is always European medieval by any stretch.


----------



## jason10mm (Apr 7, 2009)

LKRigel said:


> I took a course on fantasy and romance in college. The professor's distinction between fantasy and science fiction has always stuck with me:
> 
> Science fiction is set in an imagined world that is possible.
> Fantasy is set in an imagined world that is impossible.
> ...


I would actually dispute that definition quite a bit. I can think of endless "science fiction" books set in worlds that are quite impossible, or at least utilize technologies that are highly unlikely to ever become reality. Faster than light travel, teleportation, lots of humanoid alien races, etc.

I realize my post is a bit sticky due to the rather loose definition of "fantasy" (which seemed crystal clear in my head just a moment ago , and certainly the dark/urban fantasy genres, which I have read extremely little, probably constitutes an exception. I'm wondering about fantasy using the medieval setting, but not based on Earth. So I'm exempting stuff like the Harry Potter series, for almost no definable reason, other than that they are set on Earth and not some invented world that mimicks some period of Earth.

So I guess I'll refine my question. Excluding medieval or modern settings, are there any other "fantasy" settings loosely based on real human historical eras without actually being set on Earth? That Butcher series is what I was looking for.


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

There are actually lots of fantasy novels not set in quasi-medieval times, but because many of them are genre benders, they don't necessarily get included alongside lists with books by C.S. Lewis and Tolkien. I think that's definitely where the tradition of fantasy starts for most people, though, and that explains the prevalence that quasi-medieval settings have attained in fantasy. I mean, you can go all the way back to King Arthur, Lord Dunsany, or even Spencer, but for most modern readers of fantasy Tolkien is the wellspring. If you're looking for something a little different, Michael Moorcock writes a pretty wide range of books that can still be considered fantasy, but aren't set in a very medieval settings. "The Chronicles of Amber" also jump to mind. Piers Anthony and Roger Zelazny do a cool conflict of high technology and magic in "Split Infinity" and "Changeling," respectively. As for fantasy not based on a European tradition, that's a little tougher. Stories based on Greek mythology tend to fall more into the category of historical fiction (or at least have leanings that way) even when they have fantastic elements. Modern fantasy kind of blurs these cultural distinctions though. I know Neil Gaiman's "American Gods" draws from mythologies and folklore from all over the world including African, Irish, Haitian, Greek, Norse, and more. Anyway. This ran longer than I meant it to, but I think it is a pretty interesting discussion.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

jason10mm said:


> I would actually dispute that definition quite a bit. I can think of endless "science fiction" books set in worlds that are quite impossible, or at least utilize technologies that are highly unlikely to ever become reality. Faster than light travel, teleportation, lots of humanoid alien races, etc.


What's that famous quote? Something about how technology far enough in the future will seem like magic now? I'm sure there was a time when man thought flight was impossible, then travel to the moon. I'm sure I'd love to try and explain to someone from the 1600s how I can just pull out this little cell phone thingie and talk to someone on the other side of the world.

David Dalglish


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

There are Turtledove's _Videssos_ novels set in an alternate Eastern Roman Empire and constantly at war with an alternate Persia ... There are also Feist's and Wurtz' _Kelewan_ novels set in an alternate China ... both fantastic worlds.

I do get tired of fantasy worlds built primarily on medieval England and or Tolkien. It gets tedious.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> What's that famous quote? Something about how technology far enough in the future will seem like magic now?


"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguisable from magic.-- Arthur C. Clarke.

To answer the original post, it all depends on your definition of fantasy. To some people fantasy= renaissance/Middle Ages time period equivalent. To others, it is any time (read Mercedes Lackey's Elemental Series) [Cinderella, Snow White, and Sleeping Beauty set in WWI era England.]


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

Gene Wolfe is often described as writing "science fantasy." I've always liked that. And "speculative fiction" also. Poul Anderson wrote that fantasy should be considered to encompass science fiction and I tend to agree with that. Faster than light travel is BASICALLY magic by most literary definitions. Arthur C. Clarke would have probably thought so too. If something is too complicated to explain, it becomes arcane. It seems like a lot of the genre debates I've seen ignore a couple of decades of discussion on the subject. In the end, however, the division between science fiction and fantasy doesn't much matter. Steampunk sorcery anyone? Multiverse fiction? Magic realism? It's not that fantasy is too quasi-medieval (IMO), it's just often presented that way because it's easier to market that package because it has a wide tradition, most people grow up with fairy tales, and Dungeons and Dragons is a really fun game. And, after all, people really like medieval stuff. I know I do.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Daniel's definition:  If it feels like fantasy, it's fantasy.  If it feels like science fiction, it's science fiction.

In other words... if I see magic, swords, and dragons, it's fantasy.  If I see spaceships and lasers, it's science fiction.

I don't think there's any accurate, all-encompassing definition; no more than there's an accurate definition for "Art" or "Love".


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

I've read a few fantasies set in Arabian countries/cultures (what is Alladin if not fantasy?) and some set in Japan.  They have a different cultural balance.  They have a somewhat medieval feel because some of them exhibit a lack of guns, but there are different "technologies" in use (secret doors, different types of spells, different fantasy creatures) that I'm not sure the timeframe of "medieval" really applies.

And as someone else said, there's the whole urban fantasy that exists side-by-side with technology.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Daniel Arenson said:


> Daniel's definition: If it feels like fantasy, it's fantasy. If it feels like science fiction, it's science fiction.
> 
> In other words... if I see magic, swords, and dragons, it's fantasy. If I see spaceships and lasers, it's science fiction.


This is pretty much my viewpoint, too. Like I said, I do distinguish between fantasy and urban fantasy, but that's about it. Hrrrm. I guess....

" if I see magic, swords, and dragons, it's fantasy, unless there's a car or a gun - then it's urban fantasy. If I see spaceships and lasers, it's science fiction."


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

A lot of Fantasy is "Sword and Sorcery" so that makes it necessary for there to be sword-play.  Sword-play will make it seem as if we are in a medieval period, even if the action takes place in another world or dimension or what-ever.

And much of modern-period stories are automatically defined as scifi just because they take place in a modern setting.
I think that Dennis Batchelder's Soul Intent and Soul Identity could be identified as Fantasy.
And A. Sparrow's Xenolith is fantasy surely but takes place, in our world, in the present.

And Terry Brooks works again are more fantasy than scifi but take place in a post-apocolyptic earth. Slowly through the works it becomes apparent that some of the "lost magic" is actually science and the ruins are old cities.

Just sayin......


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

If you _are_ going to set your fantasy novel in some sort of medieval milieu (regardless of Western, Eastern, other universe, whatever), I highly recommend Poul Anderson's essay "On Thud and Blunder" as a starting point to thinking about how to structure your world and how your characters might fit into it.


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

NogDog said:


> If you _are_ going to set your fantasy novel in some sort of medieval milieu (regardless of Western, Eastern, other universe, whatever), I highly recommend Poul Anderson's essay "On Thud and Blunder" as a starting point to thinking about how to structure your world and how your characters might fit into it.


Awesome. I love this essay. Horses can't gallop for days or they die!


----------



## D. Nathan Hilliard (Jun 5, 2010)

Define "medieval." 

Conan the Barbarian takes place in an age much further back than medieval. Sinbad would probably be  pre-medieval as well. Would a fantasy set in ancient Babylon or Egypt be considered Medieval?

I think a lot of fantasy authors simply pick a time they like that is "pre-industrial revolution" for their fantasy. Then they have some form of magic or fantastical creature or object take the place of technology. I admit it's a bit formulaic, and doesn't to justice to what fantasy authors really do.


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

LKRigel said:


> I took a course on fantasy and romance in college. The professor's distinction between fantasy and science fiction has always stuck with me:
> 
> Science fiction is set in an imagined world that is possible given that world's knowledge of physics.
> Fantasy is set in an imagined world that is impossible given that world's knowledge of physics.
> ...


That's my modification of the classic definition. Without it, pretty much any science fiction story involving faster-than-light travel or time travel would be a fantasy.

Going back to the original question, many of the books I'd normally consider "fantasy" that are set in non-medieval time periods tend to be labeled historical fiction, alternate history, or modern fantasy.

I think Guy Gavriel Kay has published some non-medieval fantasies, and pretty much anything paranormal would count.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

I'm confused.....

I can see how Narnia might be considered "medieval"  but Tolkien?  It's not Earth so how can it be middle ages?


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

It's a fuzzy line between science fiction and fantasy, but I just go with my gut when classifying it, regardless of the era in which it occurs.

In the end, the book itself is more important than its category.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

scarlet said:


> I'm confused.....
> 
> I can see how Narnia might be considered "medieval" but Tolkien? It's not Earth so how can it be middle ages?


I think "medieval" in this context is not a one-to-one correspondence with what we call Medieval Europe (or medieval Japan, or whatever). Rather, it suggests a certain level of technology -- i.e. the ability to produce steel, but pre-industrial revolution* -- literacy at least amongst certain groups of people (wizards, priests, certain trades, possibly royalty), a certain amount of structure to society -- typically along feudal lines but not necessarily -- that provides power blocs that may contend with each other (royalty, religion, craft/merchant guilds, organized military forces, etc.)
___________
* With Saruman and Sauron both seeming to represent perhaps the seeds of an industrial revolution in Middle Earth, perhaps?


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

When people say fantasy is basically medieval or quasi-medieval, they are generally referring to the fact that the level of technology is roughly comparable. For instance, Middle Earth is split into kingdoms rely on the feudal system. Transport generally involves a horse, fires are made with flint rather than matches, society is generally based around farmings, and denser population centers grow up around artisans like blacksmiths and millers. Tolkien was, after all, a professor of medieval studies. Now, to be fair, I don't think anyone would argue many of these popular fantasy worlds are strictly medieval. Many ignore the influence of the medieval church and the profound cultural relevance of monastic life in medieval times. Probably because it was difficult to reconcile the extreme mistrust of anything "pagan" or "magical" the clergy held and the existence of good magicians like Gandalf. That would be my guess, anyway.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Guess it's the pedant in me, but the use of the word mediaval to me makes me think Europe in the 1200's to 1500's, (or it's fictional equivalent [see Christopher Stasheff's Wizard in Rhyme series]), so I don't consider a lot of fantasy medieval. I don't use the the word to describe "pre-industrial revolution" since that is a MUCH bigger chunk of time...


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

NogDog said:


> I think "medieval" in this context is not a one-to-one correspondence with what we call Medieval Europe (or medieval Japan, or whatever). Rather, it suggests a certain level of technology -- i.e. the ability to produce steel, but pre-industrial revolution* -- literacy at least amongst certain groups of people (wizards, priests, certain trades, possibly royalty), a certain amount of structure to society -- typically along feudal lines but not necessarily -- that provides power blocs that may contend with each other (royalty, religion, craft/merchant guilds, organized military forces, etc.)
> ___________
> * With Saruman and Sauron both seeming to represent perhaps the seeds of an industrial revolution in Middle Earth, perhaps?


I agree with this. I also realize "pre-industrial revolution" is a big span of time, but fantasy is a big genre and the comparison between fantasy and the middle ages really isn't meant to be direct or comprehensive. 
*I think you're probably on to something. There's a quote from "The Hobbit" blaming goblins for some of the destructive weapons existing in what were modern times for Tolkien. The weapons of the first World War, I think. To a degree, it is also a popular theme in fantasy that olden times were more idyllic times. They tend to ignore things like the black plague, famine, and the protracted carnage of the Crusades.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

As others have said, "medieval" fantasy doesn't mean the world is set in the actual Middle Ages on planet Earth.  It just means that the setting feels a bit like medieval Europe.  Weapons and armor resemble European medieval weapons and armor.  There are knights on horses.  There are castles.  The climate is temperate.  Creatures from medieval mythology -- such as goblins, dragons, and fairies -- may appear.  It's more about setting a mood than being "historically" accurate.

A good example is George R. R. Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire"; the world feels very much like a 15th or 14th century England.


----------



## PiedTyper (Aug 27, 2010)

Wikipedia:  "Fantasy is a genre that uses magic and other supernatural phenomena as a primary element of plot, theme, and/or setting.  Fantasy is generally distinguished from science fiction in that it does not provide a logical (or pseudo logical) explanation for the scientifically impossible events that occur, though there is a great deal of overlap between the two (both are subgenres of speculative fiction)."

So.  Barrie's "Peter Pan," Baum's "The Wizard of Oz."  "The Book of One Thousand and One Nights."  Lots of stuff out there that is not medival sword and sorcery.


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

Daniel Arenson said:


> As others have said, "medieval" fantasy doesn't mean the world is set in the actual Middle Ages on planet Earth. It just means that the setting feels a bit like medieval Europe. Weapons and armor resemble European medieval weapons and armor. There are knights on horses. There are castles. The climate is temperate. Creatures from medieval mythology -- such as goblins, dragons, and fairies -- may appear. It's more about setting a mood than being "historically" accurate.
> 
> A good example is George R. R. Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire"; the world feels very much like a 15th or 14th century England.


If you really want to split hairs, dragons appear in almost every cultures mythology (the story of St. George is the tip of the iceberg!), goblins in Chinese mythology predate European goblins by about a century, and fairy belief is probably older than the middle ages (though maybe not).  I agree with you though. It's not meant to be historically accurate. Because that term doesn't make sense in a fantasy context or a folklore context. Historically conventional might be a term more people could agree on.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

LKRigel said:


> I took a course on fantasy and romance in college. The professor's distinction between fantasy and science fiction has always stuck with me:
> 
> Science fiction is set in an imagined world that is possible.
> Fantasy is set in an imagined world that is impossible.
> ...


This is the best definition I've ever read of the difference between sci-fi and fantasy--thank you for posting it.


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2010)

LKRigel said:


> I took a course on fantasy and romance in college. The professor's distinction between fantasy and science fiction has always stuck with me:
> 
> Science fiction is set in an imagined world that is possible.
> Fantasy is set in an imagined world that is impossible.
> ...


That also means that any fantasy can be science fiction! I believe that my dog can fly and take my basketball team to the championships, therefore Air Bud is science fiction!


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> That also means that any fantasy can be science fiction! I believe that my dog can fly and take my basketball team to the championships, therefore Air Bud is science fiction!


Is my novel _Flaming Dove_ science fiction too? Many people believe in angels and demons... so I reckon an Uzi-toting half-angel, half-demon girl is definitely possible.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

LOL on the last two posts . . . I guess it does depend on your idea of what's possible and what's not.  Oh well . . . I think we should do away with silly genre distinctions anyway.  All genre distinctions do is keep people from reading good books, IMO.


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

My novel/s are fantasy and set in the quasi-Age of Enlightenment.

Dawn


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Another way that the term "medieval" works for many classic "high fantasy" books is the idea of the current civilization having evolved from the fall of a more "glorious" past. E.g., the so-called Middle Ages (i.e., medieval period) in Europe is essentially what was left after the fall of the Roman empire, and then its climb back up and then beyond it into the Renaissance. Similarly, an awful lot of fantasy epics have some hints of a prior, superior civilization, or outright depends on that mythical past for plot points. That civilization might be the source of powerful magic items the current one can no longer produce. Many books have ruins of great cities that play a role, or very old and amazingly durable roads that are still in use (much like the Roman roads were in the Middle Ages).

Tolkien does that in a number of ways, including the Elves as a great civilization that still has remnants there (but are on their way out), the former glory of Gondor and its superior race of men (that Aragorn was one of the last of) are still seen in ruins around the land that are no longer occupied. We then learn that the time of "common" men is beginning, which will supplant the older (and at least in some ways greater) civilizations of the Elves, Dwarfs, and the Men of the West.

Similarly, the Elric saga is based in a world where we see the end of the powerful and mystical Melnibonean race, and see that the time has come for it to be supplanted by the "lesser" race of men. And I think you'll see this general theme repeated over and over in many "high fantasy" books.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

NogDog said:


> And I think you'll see this general theme repeated over and over in many "high fantasy" books.


Interesting outlook. I agree. Consider Tigana. Or even the Dragonlance novels. These were also set in "European Middle Ages" following the fall of an ancient, greater civilization.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

There is some fantasies set in a European middle ages that probably cannot be set anywhere else and still work as well - take Kurtz' Deryni novels as an example.  They wouldn't work in a High Renaissance  or Enlightenment period nearly as well as they do in a Dark Ages pseudo-Britain.  But then she pulls in the Church and many of the elements needed so the period feels complete.  A High Fantasy that's complex works well for me.  And a High Fantasy set in a world after the fall of a different civilization - or directly referencing that they're on a different planet will work while still functioning in a pseudo-European pre-Industrial period.

Then there are so many fantasies that are just a straight up 'farm boy and princess' story set in a Tolkien-esque universe where little has been done to modify the major races or magic systems.  Some books like this are fun.  Hundreds of books like this become not as much fun.


----------



## jason10mm (Apr 7, 2009)

Good discussion so far. I realize I'm somewhat arbitrarily excluding quite a bit of stuff from my interpretation of "fantasy". But I"m getting lots of good reading material from the stuff listed.

I also realized that the newer crop of "fantasy" authors like Steve Erikson, Brent Weeks, and such are straying quite a bit from the pseudo-medieval/feudal structure while remaining in a pre-industrial world. Erikson especially, covers the entire planet in his series with nothing really borrowing much from any particular earth culture, and there are a lot of eastern influences. Brent Week's "Night Angel" trilogy is almost italian renaissance in feel, with a distinct persian empire flavor for the bad guys. And of course Glen Cook went deep into "India" with "The Black Company" towards the end. 

So perhaps the 70s-90s era was dominated by Tolkien-esque series, at least the stuff I was reading (probably heavily influenced by images of knights, orcs, and chicks in chainmail bikinis on the cover, already biasing the content towards european setting fantasy), and I've yet to mentally adjust to the newer stuff coming out.


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

jason10mm said:


> Good discussion so far. I realize I'm somewhat arbitrarily excluding quite a bit of stuff from my interpretation of "fantasy". But I"m getting lots of good reading material from the stuff listed.
> 
> I also realized that the newer crop of "fantasy" authors like Steve Erikson, Brent Weeks, and such are straying quite a bit from the pseudo-medieval/feudal structure while remaining in a pre-industrial world. Erikson especially, covers the entire planet in his series with nothing really borrowing much from any particular earth culture, and there are a lot of eastern influences. Brent Week's "Night Angel" trilogy is almost italian renaissance in feel, with a distinct persian empire flavor for the bad guys. And of course Glen Cook went deep into "India" with "The Black Company" towards the end.
> 
> So perhaps the 70s-90s era was dominated by Tolkien-esque series, at least the stuff I was reading (probably heavily influenced by images of knights, orcs, and chicks in chainmail bikinis on the cover, already biasing the content towards european setting fantasy), and I've yet to mentally adjust to the newer stuff coming out.


I think that might be too big a generalization. After all, Gene Wolfe wrote his amazing "Book of the New Sun" in the 1980's and he actually satirizes some of the things you're talking about in it. I would never dismiss this 30 years of fantasy offhand. Trust me when I say it's worthy of another look. In the period you mention, you had what I consider some of the very best fantasy writers hard at work and in their primes. Pretty much all of them, in fact. There is a lot of fliff in every genre, but be careful not to throw out the wheat with the chaff. I don't know if the authors I'm thinking of dominated their eras per say, but they're certainly recognized for their genius today with Hugo, Nebula, and World Fantasy awards (Gene Wolfe, I believe, has all three). I'm not saying that what you're talking about didn't and doesn't exist, but I think a lot of people's views of fantasy have been skewed (or even narrowed) by the recent reemergence of Tolkien-mania inspired by the Peter Jackson films and the pending film version of "The Hobbit." I love Tolkien and he does have a lot of imitators, but I don't believe his imitators are representative of fantasy in general at all.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

The Deryni books are the only ones I know that include the heavy influence of the church on the medieval period. I would argue that the church made that period last longer because it suppressed knowledge. I read a couple of the Deryni books and couldn't take all the church stuff. The period is so much more fun without it.


----------



## Cate Rowan (Jun 11, 2010)

Wow, coming in here late, but appreciating this thread. No doubt the tropes of D&D influenced many of us, readers and authors alike. (That's a good thing! My fave character was my warrior princess gnome.  Anyone else want to spill?)

Fortunately, there's much more diversity in fantasy than it might seem.

Mad props to Basilius for mentioning Guy Gavriel Kay. GGK writes _wonderful_ historical fantasy. So far he's written of cultures based on medieval Italy, France, and Spain-but also Rome and Tang Dynasty China, and he set a fantasy in modern France. He's a lyrical writer...just gorgeous prose. My favorite of his is _The Lions of al-Rassan_, loosely based on Moorish Spain. Sadly, it's not yet available for the Kindle. _Lions_ was one of the influential seeds for my own _Kismet's Kiss_, which has a "Middle Easternesque"/Mughal India feel.

As far as the definitions of fantasy vs. sf, that's a tough one. Anne McCaffrey considers all her Dragonriders of Pern books to be sf, but to me they have such a fantasy leaning-particularly the early ones. Even after the technology shows up and becomes influential, I still have a hard time getting my brain to reclassify them.


----------



## kae (May 3, 2010)

I'm late to this discussion but have read all the posts. Some one wrote: "Daniel pointed out paranormal, but I'd probably lump that in with urban fantasy, unless it's a romance.  In that case it's back to being called paranormal romance. " 

Paranormal has its own distinctions, I would think. Isn't that more the angels/demons thing?  Paranormal=Supernatural. Those all seem another realm that have a philosophical edge; it doesn't have to be "intellectual" philosophy concerns, but the areas of beliefs that might touch threads beyond pure entertainment you would find in fantasy or SF. 

I might be off the track.

Keep writing, folks. I'll keep reading and maybe get my thoughts better defined.


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2010)

Abstract Fantasy here, this is a great review site and they have a wide selection of titles that they review in depth.

Fantasy Book Critic Really, check this site out. 2 million hits, and over 3500 subscribers. Fantasy settings of all kinds!


----------



## SpearsII (Jan 16, 2010)

> Another way that the term "medieval" works for many classic "high fantasy" books is the idea of the current civilization having evolved from the fall of a more "glorious" past. E.g., the so-called Middle Ages (i.e., medieval period) in Europe is essentially what was left after the fall of the Roman empire, and then its climb back up and then beyond it into the Renaissance. Similarly, an awful lot of fantasy epics have some hints of a prior, superior civilization, or outright depends on that mythical past for plot points. That civilization might be the source of powerful magic items the current one can no longer produce. Many books have ruins of great cities that play a role, or very old and amazingly durable roads that are still in use (much like the Roman roads were in the Middle Ages).


Don't forget this style of story telling can also be use in Sci-Fi. The Foundation series by Asimov is bases on a similar story arc.


----------



## Martel47 (Jun 14, 2010)

Daniel Arenson said:


> Daniel's definition: If it feels like fantasy, it's fantasy. If it feels like science fiction, it's science fiction.
> 
> In other words... if I see magic, swords, and dragons, it's fantasy. If I see spaceships and lasers, it's science fiction.
> 
> I don't think there's any accurate, all-encompassing definition; no more than there's an accurate definition for "Art" or "Love".


This sounds like how the US Supreme Court defined porn, the idea of "I know it when I see it." This is inherently problematic, at least for lexicographers, critics, and academics.

The problem for me, when I think about the question of fantasy v. sci-fi is that I like most sci-fi but dislike most fantasy. There are certainly notable exceptions, like Tolkien and Lewis, but they have depths that make them great works regardless of any genre label. In the film world, I love Star Wars. For me it is a lot of fun, but even though it has spaceships, it is more a work of fantasy than science-fiction because the key component of the stories is not based on scientific or technological advances but rather a sort of realized transcendentalism.

Certainly many books bridge genre lines, and genre identification is a notoriously difficult proposition; however, I do feel that SciFi needs to have a scientific or technological basis for its plot. In other words, the science itself, or an examination of the effects of scientific advance, whether specific or general, drives the story. Sometimes, this is a very weak part in the work, but it must be there for me to consider it SciFi.

This is one reason why I have difficulty considering many "alternate histories" science fiction even though they are sometimes labeled as such. In some cases, these are a sort of "reverse" science fiction where modern technology or science is placed in an anachronistic setting to examine the results given the limitations of a given historical period. On the other hand, I also have some difficulty placing these stories squarely in the fantasy camp. Certainly a book like _His Majesty's Dragon_ which I dl'd for free on my kindle has dragons, but it focused more on the possible effects on history of a single change in circumstances, in this case imagining that dragons are real. In some ways this is not much different from other alternate histories where a turning point changes the course of history, like a key figure is injured or not injured contrary to what actually happened in history and is thus able or not able to participate in historical events in such a way that all history past that point is significantly changed. Is this fantasy? Is this science fiction? Without the scientific component, I would have to say no to the latter, but as to the former, I really haven't read enough fantasy to codify my thoughts on the matter. Another term that is sometimes tossed around is "speculative fiction" and maybe this label could apply to SciFi, Fantasy, and Alternate History collectively. But then again, isn't all fiction speculative at some level?

So, to answer the OP's original question, no, I don't think fantasy has to be set in Medieval times. Certainly there is a swordplay component to something like Star Wars, and it is in many ways a feudal "sword and sorcery" setting with the trappings of futuristic technology, but it is nonetheless futuristic. I would consider many books fantasy that some people who love the genre probably would not agree with. Certainly, I see little difference between magic and supernatural/fantastic creatures being used in LOTR as in books about young British wizards or modern American vampires and their human love interests. But perhaps this is the way that one die-hard fan of Science Fiction simply labels some books as my "other" that is from the outside and thus to be feared, mistrusted and marginalized.


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

While I agree that a personal definition is often difficult and sometimes fun to struggle with when it come to science fiction and fantasy, speculative fiction is, in fact, a literary term and while I also agree that all fiction is, to some degree, speculative, when one refers to speculative fiction one should realize that it has a denotative literary meaning. The terms science fiction and fantasy often refer to the way books are packaged and sold (genre has more to do with this than anything else), but the term speculative fiction is more closely related to the nature of the story itself. It is important to realize that "speculative" and "fictional" do not necessarily mean the same thing. All novels are fictional (at least to some degree), but not all novels are speculative. Rather, speculative fiction should be used in answer to the question, "In what way is the story fictional?" This is a bit of a digression, I know, but it is worth remembering, I think, that these terms are debatable, but they are not necessarily as mutable as some people might believe. Strict definitions are often avoided for the sake of allowing a writers' organization or a panel of judges handing out an award to be inclusive (a somewhat steampunky novel won the Hugo this year, for instance), but one should be careful not to confuse "not strict" and "entirely subjective" as well. As a writer and a reader, I would definitely argue that keeping an open mind while writing and reading will usually increase your enjoyment of fiction in general. Why have just the steak when the steak is included with the price of the buffet, if you will. But I also appreciate the function of genre. I do not like to read romance novels and so I find the classification useful for knowing what to avoid. I do like speculative fiction novels. As a reader, it is convenient when a novel is described as such because it at least gives me an indication that I might like what is offered. I would say that, as my final answer to the original question posed, not all fantasy is medieval, but fantasy set in a quasi-medieval world is a strong subgenre of fantasy just as fantasy is a strong subgenre of speculative fiction.


----------



## Martel47 (Jun 14, 2010)

jbh13md said:


> While I agree that a personal definition is often difficult and sometimes fun to struggle with when it come to science fiction and fantasy, speculative fiction is, in fact, a literary term and while I also agree that all fiction is, to some degree, speculative, when one refers to speculative fiction one should realize that it has a denotative literary meaning. The terms science fiction and fantasy often refer to the way books are packaged and sold (genre has more to do with this than anything else), but the term speculative fiction is more closely related to the nature of the story itself. It is important to realize that "speculative" and "fictional" do not necessarily mean the same thing. All novels are fictional (at least to some degree), but not all novels are speculative. Rather, speculative fiction should be used in answer to the question, "In what way is the story fictional?" This is a bit of a digression, I know, but it is worth remembering, I think, that these terms are debatable, but they are not necessarily as mutable as some people might believe. Strict definitions are often avoided for the sake of allowing a writers' organization or a panel of judges handing out an award to be inclusive (a somewhat steampunky novel won the Hugo this year, for instance), but one should be careful not to confuse "not strict" and "entirely subjective" as well. As a writer and a reader, I would definitely argue that keeping an open mind while writing and reading will usually increase your enjoyment of fiction in general. Why have just the steak when the steak is included with the price of the buffet, if you will. But I also appreciate the function of genre. I do not like to read romance novels and so I find the classification useful for knowing what to avoid. I do like speculative fiction novels. As a reader, it is convenient when a novel is described as such because it at least gives me an indication that I might like what is offered. I would say that, as my final answer to the original question posed, not all fantasy is medieval, but fantasy set in a quasi-medieval world is a strong subgenre of fantasy just as fantasy is a strong subgenre of speculative fiction.


I think this is well-said. I certainly "get" the distinction made by the term speculative fiction and I think it is useful.

Some of this reminds of my film studies days and discussions of film noir-which is not considered a 'genre' by many in the field. The key always hinged on the definition of genre for the particular writer. Noir was too complex to fit into most notions of what would constitute a given genre. It became a sort of "metagenre". This discussion faces some of the same difficulties. What is our understanding of genre or any categorization schema?

I do not like Norton's likening of sci-fi and fantasy, but I do see some similarities between them when you get down to the final analysis and therefore like the idea of a term such as speculative fiction that can encompass both, and more.

One of the problems I have with the fantasy portion of speculative fiction is that so much of it is just bad fiction. Sure, there's bad sci-fi, but a lot of the sci-fi that many people consider bad doesn't necessarily fit into my idea of what makes a work science fiction. I just really happen to be fascinated by the ramifications of science and technology on our world and in our lives. Science affects us all. Many of the conventions of fantasy seem to have little meaning to me in my post-modern culture that still dabbles in modernity.


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

Martel47 said:


> I think this is well-said. I certainly "get" the distinction made by the term speculative fiction and I think it is useful.
> 
> Some of this reminds of my film studies days and discussions of film noir-which is not considered a 'genre' by many in the field. The key always hinged on the definition of genre for the particular writer. Noir was too complex to fit into most notions of what would constitute a given genre. It became a sort of "metagenre". This discussion faces some of the same difficulties. What is our understanding of genre or any categorization schema?
> 
> ...


You make a good point about genre here, but I have to respectfully disagree with your appraisal that so much of fantasy fiction is bad fiction. First, I think there's too much overlap in science fiction and fantasy to even begin to argue that one is better than the other. If you want to talk quality of writing, in many if not most cases science fiction and fantasy are being created by the same authors and I doubt a significant difference in the craft they bring to their writing, no matter the genre, is discernible.

OK. Second. I think perhaps the general perception that fantasy is bad or shlocky or pulpy is based more on the popular perception of fantasy among people who don't read fantasy literature rather than the actual books that populate the genre themselves. Sure, a lot of early fantasy was pulp... in the 1930's. Between 1960 and the present, because of the popularity of science fiction, fantasy, and, let's face it, comic books, a lot of very talented people were attracted to all three and they did a lot of interesting things within the genre like exploring the conflict between tradition and technology (a very popular theme in fantasy) and the alienation felt by a character set adrift in an unfamiliar world (a theme at least as popular in fantasy as it is in science fiction). As for the idea that fantasy is mostly about black and white struggles between good and evil or warrior princesses in metal bikinis or whatever, I can only say, "Hey, are you actually reading fantasy books, or are you watching fantasy television shows and deciding not to?" Because fantasy television shows have little bearing on fantasy literature. In fact, these shows are pretty much the massively dumbed down, homogenized, and widely disowned foster child of fantasy literature. Not representative. Entertaining in some cases (don't get mad at me fans of Xena and The Legend of the Seeker!), but not representative.

Sometimes it is tempting to believe that literature, television, and movies all involve the same creative process and quality of writing because they all involve writers and because they all have genres that bear the same names. Resist this urge! These three mediums are too different for serious analytical comparison! There are tons of great fantasy books out there that are both intelligent and well written! I can attest to this fact because I've read them! But maybe I'm off on a tangent here. If so, my apologies.


----------



## Martel47 (Jun 14, 2010)

jbh13md said:


> You make a good point about genre here, but I have to respectfully disagree with your appraisal that so much of fantasy fiction is bad fiction. First, I think there's too much overlap in science fiction and fantasy to even begin to argue that one is better than the other. If you want to talk quality of writing, in many if not most cases science fiction and fantasy are being created by the same authors and I doubt a significant difference in the craft they bring to their writing, no matter the genre, is discernible.
> 
> OK. Second. I think perhaps the general perception that fantasy is bad or shlocky or pulpy is based more on the popular perception of fantasy among people who don't read fantasy literature rather than the actual books that populate the genre themselves. Sure, a lot of early fantasy was pulp... in the 1930's. Between 1960 and the present, because of the popularity of science fiction, fantasy, and, let's face it, comic books, a lot of very talented people were attracted to all three and they did a lot of interesting things within the genre like exploring the conflict between tradition and technology (a very popular theme in fantasy) and the alienation felt by a character set adrift in an unfamiliar world (a theme at least as popular in fantasy as it is in science fiction). As for the idea that fantasy is mostly about black and white struggles between good and evil or warrior princesses in metal bikinis or whatever, I can only say, "Hey, are you actually reading fantasy books, or are you watching fantasy television shows and deciding not to?" Because fantasy television shows have little bearing on fantasy literature. In fact, these shows are pretty much the massively dumbed down, homogenized, and widely disowned foster child of fantasy literature. Not representative. Entertaining in some cases (don't get mad at me fans of Xena and The Legend of the Seeker!), but not representative.
> 
> Sometimes it is tempting to believe that literature, television, and movies all involve the same creative process and quality of writing because they all involve writers and because they all have genres that bear the same names. Resist this urge! These three mediums are too different for serious analytical comparison! There are tons of great fantasy books out there that are both intelligent and well written! I can attest to this fact because I've read them! But maybe I'm off on a tangent here. If so, my apologies.


Certainly, a lot of my perception, and I want to make it clear that this is only my perception, is that there is more bad fantasy than bad sci-fi. "Bad" can encompass many aspects of a piece of literature. For example, I find that some of the conventional aspects of sci-fi often become a framework for examining some fantastic ideas. I have found, from my limited experience, that many of the fantasy conventions simply become a vehicle to tell stories similar to many stories that have been told before just with different characters and different settings.

There are some sci-fi authors that overlap into fantasy, but I don't think of "many" who do this evenly. I think something like Tolkien appeals to me because of the exhaustive linguistic, anthropological, and historical basis to his books. Maybe it is more "social science" fiction in some ways than other fantasy works seem to be.

Some "epic fail" fantasy reading in my experience includes: _Eragon,_ Robert Silverberg's _Majipoor_ (of which I've read several because I kept expecting something more), _Inkheart, Dragonriders, Dragonriders, Wheel of Time, Discworld,_ and anything by Orson Scott Card that doesn't have Ender. I just couldn't find any of them engaging and many of them seemed poorly written or needlessly complex.

I've tried fantasy. For me, it works better in film and TV than it does in print. For example, I kind of liked _Eragon_ as a film and have also enjoyed films like _Willow_ and more. Your point about comparing film and literature is certainly well-made and I agree with it. But I do find it interesting how some source materials tend to work better than others when translated to film, because conversely, I don't think sci-fi really works well in the film format. Certainly there are some notable exceptions like _Metropolis, The Day the Earth Stood Still, & Blade Runner_, but most sci-fi films just don't cut it for me, especially recent sci-fi films. Althhough, I must say, again, that I really feel that my experience in reading fantasy might not include the best of the fantasy worlds out there. I might adhere to a popular notion of what constitutes fantasy, but in a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, those notions have held true for me.

That being said, there are some fantasy works I really like. Tolkien, Lewis, and Lloyd Alexander's Prydain series (which I continue to like because of its relation to Welsh myth and because they're just good stories for kids). There are probably more I like if I think about it, but those are by far my favorite. I can certainly think of many more fantasy books that have left a poor taste in my mouth. I'm sure many are well written and I hope not to offend any readers or authors of good fantasy, but even those that are well-written by many people's reckoning leave a poor taste in my mouth; this is entirely a preferential thing at this point. I could go on for days examining why I prefer sci-fi to fantasy, but that is about me more than the literature itself.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

kae said:


> I'm late to this discussion but have read all the posts. Some one wrote: "Daniel pointed out paranormal, but I'd probably lump that in with urban fantasy, unless it's a romance. In that case it's back to being called paranormal romance. "
> 
> Paranormal has its own distinctions, I would think. Isn't that more the angels/demons thing? Paranormal=Supernatural. Those all seem another realm that have a philosophical edge; it doesn't have to be "intellectual" philosophy concerns, but the areas of beliefs that might touch threads beyond pure entertainment you would find in fantasy or SF.


That was me  While I agree with your reasoning, this isn't how the publishing houses (or whoever it is that categorizes books) see it. That means if I want to read the types of books I like, I have to use the "accepted" or standard genre labels.

Somewhat amusingly, I just went and looked at an old sci-fi romance and it was labeled as "Futuristic Romance". That's not one you see very often, I don't think. I guess they figure it doesn't sell as well.

Anyway, back on target, you will find ALL of these elements under the umbrella of "Paranormal Romance":
Devils, demons, angels, fairies / faery, werewolves (and other assorted shape-shifters), vampires, magic users, time travel, genies / djinn, pagan gods, alternate dimensions, psionics and... hrrrm. I'm probably leaving some out, but I think I've covered most of them. Basically, if it's a romance novel and includes any of the above list it gets shelved under "paranormal romance".

Fantasy / Sci. Fi. novels are usually all stamped "Fantasy" or "Science Fiction" depending upon whether the characters are using magic and swords or lasers  Some publishers will further differentiate by labeling fantasy that takes place in a medieval-type setting (see up-thread - basically pre-industrial tech, regardless of location) as "Fantasy" and stories that take place in a modern setting as "Urban Fantasy".

Just my observations


----------



## Cate Rowan (Jun 11, 2010)

Arkali, I'm glad you brought up futuristics. IIRC, there is (or at least used to be) a distinction between "futuristic romance" and "sf romance"--but I'll probably mangle what that is, LOL.

Something like Dara Joy's _Knight of a Trillion Stars_ would be a futuristic. Sure, there was an alien in it and his alien-ness was a major part of the storyline, but there wasn't a lot of sf worldbuilding to it. The worldbuilding was very secondary to the relationship. Romance readers were futuristics' primary readership.

OTOH, Katherine Allred's _Close Encounters_ is a sf romance with solid worldbuilding. It was also marketed to both sf and romance readers by the publisher.

My impression is that futuristics are now a much smaller piece of the marketplace and that sf romance has mostly replaced it. There's a lot more crossover readership between genres than there used to be, and I think that's part of it. (Whether that's cause or effect or both, I don't know.  )


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Once upon a time I used to hit book stores a lot - then along came Amazon :-D  The down-side on that is you don't browse as much and tend to go to exactly what you want so you're less likely to see what the "trends" are or try new authors.  I can definitely say that the paranormal romance has really taken off over the last few years.  I could be wrong, but I think Sherrilyn Kenyon's success with the Dark-Hunter series has probably had something to do with that.  It's enough of a market share, though, that Harlequin/Silhouette started the Nocturne imprint, which should tell you something.  As for sci-fi / futuristic romance, I'm not sure how popular that is - though I realize that measuring popularity by number of books in the genre that get published is faulty, at best.


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2010)

I didn't read all the posts. Anyone mention Terry Brooks' "Knight of the Word"?


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Florence,
Very early-on I mentioned his entire Shanara body of work as being post-apocalyptic. They have reference to the "lost magic" being science and the "old books" being engineering texts.  But, yes the Word and the Void trilogy happens in the "current" period America.  And then the Gypsy Morph books bridge the gap from the Knight trilogy to the Shanara period.  Also happening in the modern world (gone wrong).  One of the neatest fantasy uses of the modern setting.

Just sayin.......


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

geoffthomas said:


> Florence,
> Very early-on I mentioned his entire Shanara body of work as being post-apocalyptic. They have reference to the "lost magic" being science and the "old books" being engineering texts. But, yes the Word and the Void trilogy happens in the "current" period America. And then the Gypsy Morph books bridge the gap from the Knight trilogy to the Shanara period. Also happening in the modern world (gone wrong). One of the neatest fantasy uses of the modern setting.
> 
> Just sayin.......


Oooh. That sounds pretty cool. Once upon a time I read the Sword of Shanara but that was when I was a kid and haven't been back to the series. What's a good book to start with, do you think?


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2010)

UPDATE: Some of us like the medevil times setting on occasion


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2010)

All these long, well thought out, posts and here I come with this:  Isn't a light saber nothing more than an electronic glowing (quasi-magical) sword?  Is the Force Wizardry?  Just some thoughts from the cheap seats....lol


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

FlorenceH said:


> UPDATE: Some of us like the medevil times setting on occasion


I'm fairly sure no said they didn't like medieval settings. The original question was whether or not fantasy HAD TO BE medieval or quasi-medieval and were there fantasy novels that took place in settings that weren't medieval or quasi- medieval. I think the answers to these questions ended up being something like, "no, but they still commonly are" and "yes, there are some, but not a lot of them unless you use a broad definition of fantasy."

M.R.: Star Wars is considered space opera when classified by most science fiction fans, but I think your write. Space opera just means science fantasy. The central theme of Star Wars, as I think someone might have mentioned earlier, revolves around a a sort of faith based magic rather than any scientifically well defined technology. You've got the Death Star, of course, and you've got faster than light travel, but the workings of both are overlooked to the point where they too seem like magic. Thus Arthur C. Clarke gets brought up in 9 out of 10 debates concerning popular science.

Question: How does the Death Star propel itself through space so fast? 
Answer: Well, it just does.
Q: You mean like... by magic?
A: NO! By space opera! Not by magic! SPACE OPERA! AND! AND! Arthur C. Clarke said that any sufficiently advanced technology will come to seem like magic!
Q: Dude, whatever. Is it just me, or are ewoks just a cutesy composite of every fantasy creature?
A: I hate you.


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2010)

jbh13md said:


> I'm fairly sure no said they didn't like medieval settings. The original question was whether or not fantasy HAD TO BE medieval or quasi-medieval and were there fantasy novels that took place in settings that weren't medieval or quasi- medieval.


.
So very sorry, I had read it as a negative. My bad


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

FlorenceH said:


> .
> So very sorry, I had read it as a negative. My bad


No need to apologize! I was just clarifying for the sake of discussion.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Arkali said:


> Oooh. That sounds pretty cool. Once upon a time I read the Sword of Shanara but that was when I was a kid and haven't been back to the series. What's a good book to start with, do you think?


It is probably best to read the books in the order that they were written, which is not the order of their happening in time. See logically the Word and the Void books (Running With the Demon being the first) happen first and then we have the Genesis of Shanara trilogy (Armageddon's Children being the first) and then the Legends of Shanara (only the first one is written thus far called Bearers of the Black Staff and it has just been released). Then the normal Shanara books kick in. And even here there is some backtracking.

However the books become the most meaningful if you kinda read them in the order they were written. When I read Running with the Demon, I did not at first know that it was pre-Shanara and would tie-in. You now know that so it will make the book more interesting for you, I think. But I also think it helps to remember some of the little details spead out in the Shanara books, like the group travelling through devasted strange cities that have to be modern U.S. cities, when you read the books about the "four lands". 
Anyway that is my recommendation.

One of two of the Shanara books were a bit tedious for me because I wanted to know more about the Druids, for instance. And guess


Spoiler



who the Bearers of the Black Staff are?


Just sayin.......


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

In the Wheel of Time, there are hints that the world was more technological before the discovery of the One Power. The oldest characters remember a time when there were light bulbs.


----------



## Kathelm (Sep 27, 2010)

I think that the medieval setting just fits well with a lot of epic fantasy archetypes, such as:

- A society living in the shadow of an ancient, forgotten, superior civilizations laying around as a constant reminder of the glory of the past and whatever calamity destroyed the previous civilization 

- Humble peasants yearning for a more satisfying life

- Wandering adventurers

- Weak, decentralized government and a chaotic political environment

All those were features of the real-life middle ages (well, not so much wandering adventurers, but the knight errant appeared in a lot of medieval literature, and Rome didn't exactly fall because of a demonic attack.)

Since epic fantasy stories are generally nostalgic pieces about heroes rising out of nowhere to prevent some ancient evil from rising again, medieval settings just make sense.

That said, it would be nice if more authors would venture out of that setting.  I think we have enough heroic epics at this point.  

Probably the best non-medieval fantasy novel that I've encountered is Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norrell.  It takes place in alternate 19th Century England, and deals with, among other things, a magician getting involved in the Napoleanic Wars.  That said, there are a lot of references to events in medieval times where magic was more commonplace.

Terry Pratchett's Discworld books have been making a slow march into the Renaissance as the series goes on, with splashes of modern technology.


----------



## jonconnington (Mar 20, 2010)

Given that the roots of modern fantasy basically lie in old European folklore, myths and romances, a medieval bias is not surprising. Tolkien casts a long shadow...

Personally. I'd like to see fantasy set in a steampunk setting,...not simply an alternate history story, but a real imaginary world,. Be interesting to se ehow magic and steam tech interact...


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

DH and I were just discussing this and there's probably a better thread but I can't find it. 

The movie Avatar.. Is it Sci Fi or Fantasy? To me, its really a 50/50 split (we're killing the earth message aside). The planet and its inhabitants are pure fantasy, what comes from our world is sci-fi. Discuss.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

Th Na'vi are elves, if you ask me.


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

R. Reed said:


> Th Na'vi are elves, if you ask me.


I agree. And the Eldar are just space elves. And the Protoss, if you ask me, are pretty much space elves too. It's interesting that some fantasy races seem to pass from one time period to another with ease and no change of name, but writers seem uncomfortable with the concept of elves in the future. I can think of a few examples (there's a really good Poul Anderson story about future elves, for instance), but are there anymore future or space elves?


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

Which still keeps us in fantasy  Our space marines were the only sci-fi aspect IMHO. But what would you classify the movie as? Sci-Fi or Fantasy?


----------



## jonconnington (Mar 20, 2010)

You could always try Margaret Weis's STAR OF THE GUARDIAN'S series...basically science fantasy. Scirfi setting, but with fantasy elements woven in...lost king, magic and so on. She's one of the authors that knows how to blur the boundaries...


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

I would classify _Avatar_ as being in the fantasy tradition, as opposed to Sci-fi. The reason being that the movie glorifies the Na'vi earth mysticism and magic in opposition to the big, bad technologically advanced society. As far the original question is concerned, I think fantasy writing grew out of the Romantic tradition in literature and art (William Butler Yeat's poetry comes to mind as well as the Pre-Raphaelite movement in art). The Romantic movement was a response to the rapid technological advances of the 19th century--the Romantics wanted to return to a pre-industrialized world where nature still ruled. They tended to romanticize the Middle Ages in opposition to the very structured, scientific rationalism that took hold of Western society in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. I would classify Tolkien as a Romantic writer in this sense because he used a medieval style setting where technology leads to death and destruction. I think a lot of fantasy writers are still closet Romantics at heart who want a return to simpler times, times when a warrior had to face his opponent directly in battle instead of dropping an atom bomb.


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

purplepen79 said:


> I would classify _Avatar_ as being in the fantasy tradition, as opposed to Sci-fi. The reason being that the movie glorifies the Na'vi earth mysticism and magic in opposition to the big, bad technologically advanced society. As far the original question is concerned, I think fantasy writing grew out of the Romantic tradition in literature and art (William Butler Yeat's poetry comes to mind as well as the Pre-Raphaelite movement in art). The Romantic movement was a response to the rapid technological advances of the 19th century--the Romantics wanted to return to a pre-industrialized world where nature still ruled. They tended to romanticize the Middle Ages in opposition to the very structured, scientific rationalism that took hold of Western society in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. I would classify Tolkien as a Romantic writer in this sense because he used a medieval style setting where technology leads to death and destruction. I think a lot of fantasy writers are still closet Romantics at heart who want a return to simpler times, times when a warrior had to face his opponent directly in battle instead of dropping an atom bomb.


Not to mention that the good guys always win!


----------



## Kathelm (Sep 27, 2010)

jbh13md said:


> Not to mention that the good guys always win!


Not to mention that the bad guys have zero redeeming qualities.


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

Kathelm said:


> Not to mention that the bad guys have zero redeeming qualities.


That's almost always true, but you have to remember the convention of traitors turning bad then turning good again like in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and The Black Cauldron. Ellidyr and his black beast... So cool. You might even include Bilbo on that list, but that might be a bit of a stretch and I can't remember if the ring gets to him as much in the books as it does in the movies. I'm gonna be rereading LOTR next year to kick of my New Year's reading to remind myself of all its trivia and all its awesome.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

jbh13md said:


> are there anymore future or space elves?


The Peter F. Hamilton Commonwealth series has an alien species that turn out to actually be the elves of Earth legend.


----------



## jonconnington (Mar 20, 2010)

Paranormal romance and urban fantasy are two of the hottest subgenres right now...and they pretty much ignore the whole traditional medieval setting.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

jbh13md said:


> Not to mention that the good guys always win!


You're right--I've read very little fantasy where the bad guys win. In fact, I can't think of any fantasies that would qualify as a traditional tragedy with a hero who has a fatal flaw that kills him in the end. Western fairy tales, which invariably have a medieval setting, are morality tales, so good must win. Most fantasy seems to follow in this tradition more or less.


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

purplepen79 said:


> You're right--I've read very little fantasy where the bad guys win. In fact, I can't think of any fantasies that would qualify as a traditional tragedy with a hero who has a fatal flaw that kills him in the end. Western fairy tales, which invariably have a medieval setting, are morality tales, so good must win. Most fantasy seems to follow in this tradition more or less.


The Brothers Grimm didn't seem to care much for happy endings, actually. While it is true that many Western fairy tales are also morality tales, most emphasize that evil will be punished more than good will triumph. The triumph of good is a more modern convention.


----------



## jonconnington (Mar 20, 2010)

purplepen79 said:


> You're right--I've read very little fantasy where the bad guys win. In fact, I can't think of any fantasies that would qualify as a traditional tragedy with a hero who has a fatal flaw that kills him in the end. Western fairy tales, which invariably have a medieval setting, are morality tales, so good must win. Most fantasy seems to follow in this tradition more or less.


R Scott Bakker's PRINCE OF NOTHING series might qualify as one where the bad guy wins...if only because every character in it is so shades-of-grey its hard to tell the difference.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

jbh13md said:


> The Brothers Grimm didn't seem to care much for happy endings, actually. While it is true that many Western fairy tales are also morality tales, most emphasize that evil will be punished more than good will triumph. The triumph of good is a more modern convention.


Which Brothers Grimm tales are you thinking of? I'm just spacy at the moment and not thinking of any fairy tales where the heroes don't triumph in the end. "The Little Mermaid" and some of Hans Christian Andersen's other stories are the only fairy tales I can think of at the moment that don't have happy endings, and most of those aren't based on traditional fairy tales.


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

Huh -- I just had a huge Brothers Grimm compilation out of the library, including lots of the less familiar tales, and I can't think of many where the hero/heroine doesn't prevail at the end, either. The only one that comes to mind is the original Little Red Riding Hood -- and THAT'S a hair-raiser! It's about the creepiest thing I've ever read. Oh, and the Gingerbread Boy -- but if you like to eat gingerbread (which I do!) I suppose that's a happy-enough ending ...


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

There are more than a few Grimm's fairy tales that end "and such and such lived happily to the end of his or her or their days" but there are also no small number that focus on things like murdering evil kings, queens, and witches as the focus of their finales. "Little Snow-White" for instance, has the wicked queen dance herself to death in red hot iron shoes at its ending. Sure, good triumphs, but it's not like Frodo sailing off with the elves because his simple virtues triumphed over Sauron's terrible malevolence. It's more about the punishment than the triumph. "Fitcher's Bird" ends with the wizard and his crew being burned to death. It's not so much a matter of good NOT triumphing, it more a matter of emphasis. "The Sad Tale of Clever Elsie" has Clever Elsie running "off out of the village and she's not been seen since." "Godfather Death" ends with Death getting revenge. Western fairy tales, more than being about good's inevitable victory, are about the inevitable punishment of evil and stupidity. We all know what happened to the witch at the end of "Hansel and Gretel." Boom. Into the oven. And that's the point. No matter how much you want to, don't build a candy house to lure in kids so you can eat them. J/K. The point is not to be a greedy, stupid child or a ruthless, child-abandoning parent. Is that being good? Sure. But is it being especially virtuous and thus triumphing? Not so much. I think it is also worth mentioning that most heroes in Grimms' Fairy Tales don't triumph because they are good necessarily, but, instead, because they are magically gifted or clever as in "The Six Servants" and "The Three Golden Hairs of the Devil."

Sorry if I wasn't clear before. Lots of Western fairy tales do have happy endings, but they're not happy in the same way as modern fantasy endings. Harry Potter, for instance, didn't kill Voldemort by drowning him in a lake or burning him alive or cooking him in a pie. Because, by modern standards, only evil people do that stuff. In fairy tales, however, heroes can kill evil people in whatever horrible and shocking way they want without becoming evil themselves. Great stuff, huh?


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

It is great stuff--wow, your depth of knowledge about the older fairy tales is awesome.  Thanks for explaining.  On a side note, I love all the bad ends that villains come to in the older fairy tales--at the moment, I'm thinking of that story where the mean sister has to go her whole life spouting toads and frogs and snakes and beetles whenever she speaks, though I know there's far more bloodthirsty ends as well, like Little Red Riding Hood.  It's always interested me how some of the classics, particularly ones that have been "Disneyfied," like "Sleeping Beauty," had far different endings originally.  Sleeping Beauty gets the prince, but it's not the end of the original story.  Her mother-in-law turns out to be an ogre who wants to eat her own grandchildren.  Pretty twisted stuff that I don't think Disney's going to put in a cartoon.


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

purplepen79 said:


> It is great stuff--wow, your depth of knowledge about the older fairy tales is awesome. Thanks for explaining. On a side note, I love all the bad ends that villains come to in the older fairy tales--at the moment, I'm thinking of that story where the mean sister has to go her whole life spouting toads and frogs and snakes and beetles whenever she speaks, though I know there's far more bloodthirsty ends as well, like Little Red Riding Hood. It's always interested me how some of the classics, particularly ones that have been "Disneyfied," like "Sleeping Beauty," had far different endings originally. Sleeping Beauty gets the prince, but it's not the end of the original story. Her mother-in-law turns out to be an ogre who wants to eat her own grandchildren. Pretty twisted stuff that I don't think Disney's going to put in a cartoon.


I am definitely a Grimms' geek. I collect the illustrated editions. I got started in college because folklore was my major and now it's one of my favorite hobbies. I like the Disney versions of fairy tales because some of them are visually beautiful, but I agree that they really don't do justice to all the madness in the originals and I think they represent one of the big reasons people think fantasy is just for kids these days. One of the coolest things about Grimms' Fairy Tales are that they often work on two levels. There's usually a message for children and a message for adults.


----------



## WilliamEsmont (May 3, 2010)

I used to play a lot of computer games when I was younger.. A few years before I stopped, a whole new breed of games became popular - massively multiplayer online roleplaying games (MMORPGS). The problem for me was that they were all set in a fantasy world that contained elves, giants, dragons, etc.. Not my cup of tea.. Then I stumbled across a game called Anarchy Online. It had the same basic gameplay (kill stuff to build points & advance your character) but it was set waaaaaay in the future with robots, teleporting ,etc.  I was sold.  Too bad I couldn't get my friends who were hooked on EverCrack and WoW to come over.. oh well..

Under the covers it was still a fantasy world.. only with different names.. spells were 'nanos'. Wizards were 'scientists' (or something). It worked for me.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

jbh13md said:


> I like the Disney versions of fairy tales because some of them are visually beautiful, but I agree that they really don't do justice to all the madness in the originals and I think they represent one of the big reasons people think fantasy is just for kids these days. One of the coolest things about Grimms' Fairy Tales are that they often work on two levels. There's usually a message for children and a message for adults.


You could start a whole new discussion on this topic alone! I agree--I think Disney has done some great stuff visually (Sleeping Beauty actually is one of my favorite Disney cartoons) but its bowdlerization of traditional fairy tales has relegated fantasy to the sidelines for a lot of adults. Books like _Women Who Run with The Wolves _ have given fairy tales back their teeth, but there are still plenty of people who think fairy tales and fantasy are just for children.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

More recently Jacqueline Carey wrote a fantasy series called "The Sundering," consisting of Banewreaker, published in 2004, and Godslayer, published in 2005. It is a story in the vein of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, but told as a tragedy from the point of view of the "dark" side. And as such, it does not have a good ending. Even the "good guys" don't have reason for a dance of joy.

Just sayin....


----------



## jonconnington (Mar 20, 2010)

I;d like to see more fantasy-steampunk style stories...elves with gatling guns or orks with steamships...


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

jonconnington said:


> I;d like to see more fantasy-steampunk style stories...elves with gatling guns or orks with steamships...


Agreed!


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

The Wheel of Time series has had a way-too-long subplot (as everything else has been way too long) about the re-invention of cannons, through a secret long held by the fireworks guild. Gunpowder should make the final battle more interesting. One thing about fantasy worlds is that they stay the same for thousands of years, someone should write an elves and swords series in which someone invents gunpowder.


----------



## Philip N (Oct 8, 2010)

LKRigel said:


> I took a course on fantasy and romance in college. The professor's distinction between fantasy and science fiction has always stuck with me:
> 
> Science fiction is set in an imagined world that is possible.
> Fantasy is set in an imagined world that is impossible.
> ...


That's thought-provoking. I would cast the comparison, however, not in the sense of possibility, but of laws:

Science fiction is set within the laws of our world.
Fantasy is set within the laws of another world.

Science fiction should at least be plausible within the known laws of our world, though the author may introduce new laws (governing faster-than-light travel, for example), whereas a fantasy world can have whatever laws the author desires. In either case, however, once the laws are decided upon, the author must strictly adhere to them. The author should ask, "what's possible given the laws I've created?", and not break them.

That's a point George MacDonald makes in his essay _The Fantastic Imagination_:

http://www.george-macdonald.com/etexts/nonfiction/fantastic_imagination.html

Having said that, I see nothing to contradict the conclusion that fantasy may be set in any era.


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2010)

I can't believe it's been four pages and no one has given a clear answer to the OP.

Yes.


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

Interesting discussion. Tolkien's essay "On Fairy Stories" is pretty thought-provoking in terms of what constitutes a fantasy (he seems to use the term "fairy story" interchangeably with "fantasy"). He doesn't seem to define it outright, but he certainly defines a lot of things which he considers not to be fantasy, such as beast stories, fantastic travel stories (Gulliver), etc.

The heart of his thought seems to be:


> The definition of a fairy-story-what it is, or what it should be-does not, then, depend on any definition or historical account of elf or fairy, but upon the nature of Faërie: the Perilous Realm itself, and the air that blows in that country. I will not attempt to define that, nor to describe it directly. It cannot be done. Faërie cannot be caught in a net of words; for it is one of its qualities to be indescribable, though not imperceptible. It has many ingredients, but analysis will not necessarily discover the secret of the whole.


Anyway, it's an awesome essay. If you haven't read it before, I heartily recommend it. You can find a copy here http://brainstorm-services.com/wcu-2004/fairystories-tolkien.pdf. One of the other things he says is that the fantasy itself must be taken seriously within the context of the story, otherwise it weakens the whole. Something like that. I wonder what he would think of Terry Pratchett?


----------

