# What constitutes "fantasy?"



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

Why is the word so synonymous with sword and sorcery type stuff?  Isn't anything that couldn't happen in real life technically "fantasy?"    If someone were to write a book set in modern times with a fantastical storyline that had nothing to do with elves, trolls, knights and quests and labeled it fantasy, would that annoy people?  Would they get all defensive and say, "That's not fantasy?"  If so, what would you call such a book, if its not sci-fi, not horror, not fantasy?


----------



## S Jaffe (Jul 3, 2011)

I think there are two answers here -- one is the "real" answer and one is the "expected" answer.

The "expected" answer is that most people think of Lord of the Rings or Conan the Barbarian when they hear the word fantasy. Just as they also think Star Wars or Star Trek when they hear Science Fiction. But the fact is that in those genres there is a wide, wide, wide range of stories and types.

The "real" answer -- when I come across somebody who say "I don't like fantasy," I usually tell them "yes, you do, you just don't it". I then point out that _The Lovely Bones_ is fantasy -- the book is told from the viewpoint of dead girl. The classic _Beloved_ by Toni Morrison is fantasy -- unless you can prove the existence of ghosts (maybe someday this won't be fantasy, but for now it is). Anything labelled "magic realism" is fantasy. Usually after a few examples, the person gives me a "Hmmm. I hadn't thought of it that way."

Now, I don't expect this person to go pick up the latest China Mieville new weird fantasy, but then again, Mieville's last few books are being sold under the all-encompassing Fiction instead of Fantasy where he used to be sold.


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

S Jaffe said:


> I think there are two answers here -- one is the "real" answer and one is the "expected" answer.
> 
> The "expected" answer is that most people think of Lord of the Rings or Conan the Barbarian when they hear the word fantasy. Just as they also think Star Wars or Star Trek when they hear Science Fiction. But the fact is that in those genres there is a wide, wide, wide range of stories and types.
> 
> ...


I tend to think of Star Wars as fantasy, myself.


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

> The "real" answer -- when I come across somebody who say "I don't like fantasy," I usually tell them "yes, you do, you just don't it".


Lol! I'm going to have to borrow that line.

There are so many different kinds of fantasy nowadays. I used to think of fantasy in strictly Lord of the Rings terms, but there is urban fantasy, paranormal romance, magical realism, etc.

I think you're right...fantasy comes in all shapes and sizes.


----------



## S Jaffe (Jul 3, 2011)

Patrick -- Yes, Star Wars is fantasy (I've heard some call it Science Fantasy) but the perception of those who aren't genre fans is that it is SF.

Mscott -- Borrow away.  I figure the more people out there who realize they actually like some types of fantasy, the better for those of us writing it.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

To me words, especially labels of things like genre, are utterly useless if they don't have very clear meanings/narrow definitions.

A genre label is only useful if you hear it and know exactly what types of stories fall in that genre.  So I like that fantasy is used to mean elves/dragons/dwarfs sword and sorcery stuff.  And other things like stories with ghosts get called "paranormal fiction" or whatever the current genre label for that type of stuff is.

Specific labels are an easy way to tell right of the bat if a book is in your area of interest or not.


----------



## Sean Cunningham (Jan 11, 2011)

Tolkien-style fantasy is usually called high fantasy, isn't it?

I'm reading the Fantasy Masterworks edition of The Anubis Gates by Tim Powers at the moment. It's got a bit of low-key magic knocking around, but it mostly reads like a sci-fi time travel story. Magic is generally the mechanism for the fantastical elements, but its used to achieve fairly science-fictional ends.

Still counts as fantasy, but it's an entirely different animal to high fantasy.


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

Sean Cunningham said:


> Tolkien-style fantasy is usually called high fantasy, isn't it?
> 
> I'm reading the Fantasy Masterworks edition of The Anubis Gates by Tim Powers at the moment. It's got a bit of low-key magic knocking around, but it mostly reads like a sci-fi time travel story. Magic is generally the mechanism for the fantastical elements, but its used to achieve fairly science-fictional ends.
> 
> Still counts as fantasy, but it's an entirely different animal to high fantasy.


Aaah! Gimme gimme! Tim Powers is one of my favourite authors, but I've never been able to get hold of Anubis Gates. Not in the library, not anywhere. I once saw it for sale at a second hand shop but it was too expensive. In retrospect, I should have bought it. Sorry for the Off Topic comment - could not resist.

Edited: Oh I've just found that same Masterworks edition on Amazon Kindle Yay! It was not available in my region last time i checked


----------



## Amyshojai (May 3, 2010)

PatrickWalts said:


> If someone were to write a book set in modern times with a fantastical storyline that had nothing to do with elves, trolls, knights and quests and labeled it fantasy, would that annoy people? Would they get all defensive and say, "That's not fantasy?" If so, what would you call such a book, if its not sci-fi, not horror, not fantasy?


Urban fantasy. Setting "fantastical" creatures or situations in modern setting.


----------



## Evan Couzens (Jul 18, 2011)

Amyshojai said:


> Urban fantasy. Setting "fantastical" creatures or situations in modern setting.


Agreed. Calling something urban fantasy or contemporary fantasy is generally good enough to indicate that it isn't all elves and swords and people with apostrophes in their names.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

For me, the simplest answer (since I like sci-fi and alternative histories) is the inclusion of 'magic.' Things that are not supported by at least imagineable science (like the technologies in sci-fi) or the behavior of real people in alt. histories.

Of course it's not a black and white line, but that's what does it for me....that's one reason I'm not into horror....not that interested in stuff people can just 'make up.' 

The Stand by Stephen King is my favorite book and the entire Randall Bragg character could easily have been just as relevant for me if he had no mystical 'powers.' He could have been written as just a bad guy with a great cult of personality, IMO. For me, I practically skimmed over stuff like that in the book....


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

This is exactly why I love Shelfari and GoodReads. Instead of relying on a generic idea of what 'fantasy' is, I can reference a book I'm interested in by who is reading it (and what's on their bookshelves, and what else they've read, etc.)

I'm not a huge fan of high fantasy, but at the same time, I don't want to skip over a potentially good book because it was labeled as high fantasy.


----------



## karenk105 (Jul 7, 2011)

Do you have a dragon? Then it's fantasy!

lol... just kidding. I'm just in a Game of Thrones mood right now. 

I thought this article was interesting (and helpful): http://www.yafantasyguide.com/for-writers/identifying-your-fantasy-novels-genre.htm


----------



## Sean Cunningham (Jan 11, 2011)

mashadutoit said:


> Edited: Oh I've just found that same Masterworks edition on Amazon Kindle Yay! It was not available in my region last time i checked


/cheer.

I struggled with and failed to finish a couple of syndicated fiction novels before this, so it was nice to hit a book of genuine quality. The Kindle sample grabbed me very quickly.

It's interesting too to read a book that might sort of sit with urban fantasy these days, but isn't cheesy like a lot of modern urban fantasy. There's humour in it and it's put a smile on my face several times so far, but it's humour of the kind where the characters don't know it's humour. I like me some cheese, but this is a much more satisfying meal.

On the subject of not high fantasy fantasy, I think Charles De Lint was writing urban fantasy before there was much out there and the term came into common usage. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that one. For a long time, the only urban fantasy I knew of was him.) My copies of his books are back in Australia so I can't check them, but I remember one having a former Mafia hitman and the forest god Pan in it.


----------



## msdanielle28 (Jun 12, 2011)

I myself is a little confused about the different fantasies and the rules around them. I was wondering must all fantasy writing deal with a bad guy good guy theme. What if you have a setting in another world and there is no real villain character to say. I like to read fantasy too. I just called anything fantasy that had a virtual look to it fantasy.  Well, I'm lost.


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

Yes I would agree that de Lint is Urban Fantasy.  I only discovered him recently - another favourite.

But Tim Powers is one of a kind.  He had me believing that Edison invented the telephone so he could communicate with ghosts.  I made myself a  "Dinner at Deviant's Palace"  T-shirt, I'm that hooked.


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

msdanielle28 said:


> I myself is a little confused about the different fantasies and the rules around them. I was wondering must all fantasy writing deal with a bad guy good guy theme. What if you have a setting in another world and there is no real villain character to say. I like to read fantasy too. I just called anything fantasy that had a virtual look to it fantasy.  Well, I'm lost.


There is a lot of what I would call fantasy that totally does not have a clear bad / good guy split. In fact, a lot of it is actually about how difficult it can be to distinguish one from the other. Ursula le Guin, Charles de Lint, Jonathan Stroud, and so many others use this as a way to drive their stories.


----------



## SSantore (Jun 28, 2011)

Harry Potter books are fantasy and they don't fit any of the descriptions in that article about how to classify your fantasy book.

I always thought that fantasy covered anything that couldn't happen in normal life.  Any type of magic woven into a book makes it a fantasy in my mind.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

SSantore said:


> Harry Potter books are fantasy and they don't fit any of the descriptions in that article about how to classify your fantasy book.


Actually, it fits Epic Fantasy pretty well:

"Typically a series of books that revolve around a quest." - This is definitely Harry Potter - a series of 7 books over which his ultimate quest is to defeat Voldemort. In each book, he faces different individual quests that are linked to his ultimate one. That's a very classic element of fantasy.

"Think sword fights, medieval weapons, and damsels in distress." - Okay, there might not be a very traditional sword fight from what I can remember but Gryffindor's Sword is used more than once as a crucial part of the plot. Damsels in distress aren't a common theme but Ginny definitely serves as one of them in the second book (Chamber of Secrets).

At the same time, it could also be High Fantasy - even though the magical world co-exists along side the "muggle" world, Rowling has created a whole fictional world that is completely separate from our own. Although it is not a parallel universe, it's quite similar.

So I'd say Harry Potter has elements of both.

Wikipedia has info on distinguishing between High Fantasy and Low Fantasy in which Harry Potter is specifically mentioned as an example of "world within a world" High Fantasy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_fantasy#Distinguishing_between_subgenres

But Wikipedia defines High Fantasy and Epic Fantasy as the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fantasy while listing "Sword and Sorcery" separately: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_and_sorcery (while the other article linked it with Epic Fantasy). Probably because these sub-genres commonly overlap so they are all related anyway.

They also list several other subgenres of fantasy the other article doesn't mention like Historical Fantasy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_fantasy


----------



## Larry Marshall (Jan 2, 2011)

Long ago, far away, the debate that raged in literature was whether fiction should reflect real life or be used as an opportunity to expand beyond that.  The two big shots in that debate were from the upper crust of literature at the time, H.G. Wells and James Joyce.  These were the days before "genre" anything.  Oh how I long for those days   With regards to 'fantasy', there is a reason many people have started using 'speculative fiction' as a term for books like Lovely Bones, Life of Pi, The Road, and Year of the Flood.

Cheers --- Larry


----------



## Marc Johnson (Feb 25, 2011)

I like to think of fantasy as where we've been. Conversely, I like to think of sci-fi as where we're going. Just my two cents.


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

Charles de Lint rocks 



> I myself is a little confused about the different fantasies and the rules around them.


Me, too. And I was surprised at how defensive a few people can get about what books fit what category.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

_Posts have been edited to remove self promotion. Authors, we can tell by your signatures that you have books--no need to work it into every response. _


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2011)

I read a definition of science fantasy versus science fiction and i think it is apropos in this discussion. Science fiction is making the possible probable, science fantasy is making the improbable possible. (I may have gotten that mixed up.)

This definition can be applied broadly between sci-fi and fantasy as well. Star Trek is a good example of sci-fi. It is based on actual laws that if applied in a fantastic way make the whole thing probable. Star Wars is definitely more fantasy because it takes what is improbably (lightsabers, etc) and gives an air of possibility to it - at least in making up believe it's possible in their world. Of course, people falsely call it sci-fi simply because it takes place in space.



Unfortunately, as has already been discussed, when people hear fantasy they think LotR or HP. This is a misconception I would love to see die yesterday - and I would like to sell tickets to the execution - because nothing is more unfair than bad classification. (I mean in fiction, not real life. Slavery is always the most unfair.)


----------



## G.L. Breedon (Jul 7, 2011)

This made me think of a quote by Larry Niven - his corollary to Arthur C. Clarke's Famous 3rd law. 

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

Larry Niven: "Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology."

Personally, I always think of the key component of fantasy as the presence of the impossible without any attempt at a scientific explanation. For instance are psychic abilities fantasy, or sci-fi? I think it depends on the telling of the story. 

This is a bit wonky, but U of M English professor, Eric S. Rabkin wrote a book exploring the subject in a very scholarly way called THE FANTASTIC IN LITERATURE. I haven't read it in ages, but one of the things I remember from his classes (he teaches sci-fi and fantasy as literature - best teacher ever!) was the idea that both fantasy and sci-fi novels are explorations and retellings of ancient myths. A very Joseph Campbell - HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES kind of approach. Fantasy and sci-fi authors are the modern mythmakers - word shamans guiding us on journeys that seem external but really look inward.


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2011)

G.L. Breedon said:


> Or maybe I just think that because I write sci-fi and fantasy.


I agree. And I say that with absolutely no bias!

_--- edited... no self-promotion outside the Book Bazaar forum. please read our Forum Decorum thread._


----------



## S Jaffe (Jul 3, 2011)

mscott9985 said:


> Me, too. And I was surprised at how defensive a few people can get about what books fit what category.


A lot of people get defensive because it can actually have an effect on sales. That's the real reason Margaret Atwood often tries to say she isn't writing science fiction but rather exploring the possible outcome of a future technology or some such nonsense. She's doing it because too many of her readers would not buy The Handmaid's Tale if they thought they were buying geeky SF. At least, that was the rationale not too long ago. Today, as SF and F become more mainstream, it's possible for authors like Michael Chabon to proudly say they're writing SF-inspired work. Then again, Philip Roth and Cormac McCarthy both recently wrote SF (alternate history and post-apocalyptic respectively) and did all they could to deny it. Go figure.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

G.L. Breedon said:


> This made me think of a quote by Larry Niven - his corollary to Arthur C. Clarke's Famous 3rd law.
> 
> Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
> 
> ...


Yes, I was thinking of Clarke's quote when I replied. I like your definition as well...just 'magic' with little to no underpinnings is something that just doesnt work for me (usually) and so I do not seek out fantasy.


----------



## Sean Cunningham (Jan 11, 2011)

Are there fantasy books you'd recommend to non-fantasy readers to get their feet wet? I don't know anything about The Handmaid's Tale, but would that be one you'd suggest to someone who reads from whatever other genres the author was drawing from?

I once heard the anime series Cowboy Bebop described as anime for people who don't like anime. Fantasy must have similar works within its very broad borders. The first few Harry Potter books, for examples, read like whodunnits.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Sean Cunningham said:


> Are there fantasy books you'd recommend to non-fantasy readers to get their feet wet? I don't know anything about The Handmaid's Tale, but would that be one you'd suggest to someone who reads from whatever other genres the author was drawing from?
> 
> I once heard the anime series Cowboy Bebop described as anime for people who don't like anime. Fantasy must have similar works within its very broad borders. The first few Harry Potter books, for examples, read like whodunnits.


Handmaid's Tale is a very good book, but _I_ dont consider it fantasy. It's more dystopian fiction, IMO. (No magic!)


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

You know it when you see it. Magic will generally put you into the fantasy realm. But the Arthurian stories are fantasy, and pretty much would be fantasy even without Merlin. The Arthurian stories are a fantasy past. They aren't historical fiction, as there is little that is historical about it. Magic and an unreal past are a couple things that can make a story fantasy.

Telepathy is a grey area. Of course, it is possible that a species could have evolved natural biological radio. For such a species, telepathy would be quite natural, and they would think it bizarre that other species did not have it. I read a science fiction book where one species had telepathy and considered those without it to be soulless.

The horror, fantasy and science fiction genres often do blur together. I understand why some authors want to avoid the science fiction label, but is is grating. I remember reading "A Wrinkle in Time", and there was a blurb on the back cover that said (I paraphrase) "It's not science fiction, it's good!" Science fiction writers have been presenting some pretty deep ideas for a very long time.


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

Sean Cunningham said:


> Are there fantasy books you'd recommend to non-fantasy readers to get their feet wet? I don't know anything about The Handmaid's Tale, but would that be one you'd suggest to someone who reads from whatever other genres the author was drawing from?
> 
> I once heard the anime series Cowboy Bebop described as anime for people who don't like anime. Fantasy must have similar works within its very broad borders. The first few Harry Potter books, for examples, read like whodunnits.


That is a tough question. For some reason I find it easier to think of "entry level" science fiction. 
Maybe because most of the fantasy books I consider entry level are written for children or young adults. Narnia, Eva Ibotsen's "Which Witch" and so on.

For an adult starting on fantasy, I would recommend ANYTHING by Garth Nix, but possibly starting with the Abhorsen trilogy. Fantastic books. Sabriel is the first one in that trilogy.


Steve Augarde's "Various" trilogy is also excellent. The cover of the edition below is terrible, really does not give an idea of what the book is like. It is actually quite gritty and dark:


For more typical "High Fantasy" how about Tad Williams "Green Angle Tower" series that starts with "The Dragonbone Chair"


I read both Fantasy and Science Fiction so I dont need to worry about where the divide is - some authors really dont fit comfortably in either - e.g. Phillip Pullman and Peter Dickenson.


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

> A lot of people get defensive because it can actually have an effect on sales.


Thank you. That was the point I was trying to make only from a reader's perspective. If a book is marketed as something that it isn't, readers may get angry. (And who could blame them? If you think you are buying one kind of book and then get 'tricked' into buying a book that's labeled as the same genre when it actually isn't, then you could feel cheated.)

Sean, if you are looking to get your feet wet in the fantasy genre, I'd recommend Charles de Lint's "Trader". (Of course, I'm partial to urban fantasy, so this book is at the top of my list.) I would also consider "The Handmaid's Tale" to be dystopian sci fi rather than fiction (although it is an excellent book). And if you like something edgier, try "American Gods" by Neil Gaiman.


----------



## Joseph.Garraty (May 20, 2011)

I wish I had a good definition of fantasy! In particular, I think the line between horror and fantasy is extremely blurred. Arguably, many of Stephen King's books--the whole Dark Tower series for example--fit better into fantasy than horror, but you'll never find them shelved there. Similarly, Neil Gaiman is creepy as all get out sometimes, but you'll never find his stuff shelved in horror. 

I think it ends up coming down to where readers expect to find something.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

_Posts have been edited or deleted to remove self-promotion_.


----------



## Sean Cunningham (Jan 11, 2011)

mscott9985 said:


> Sean, if you are looking to get your feet wet in the fantasy genre, I'd recommend Charles de Lint's "Trader". (Of course, I'm partial to urban fantasy, so this book is at the top of my list.) I would also consider "The Handmaid's Tale" to be dystopian sci fi rather than fiction (although it is an excellent book). And if you like something edgier, try "American Gods" by Neil Gaiman.


Oh I'm a long-time fantasy reader, but I got bored of high fantasy years ago. The question popped into my head reading some of the previous posts.

That said, this is more the sort of thing I enjoy these days, something that is fantasy but which my brain says is "different", different kinds of stories with fantasy elements. _American Gods_ is a good one but I'm a sucker for good mythology. I grabbed the sample of Steph Swainton's first book the other day on the basis that it sounded a bit different. _The Handmaid's Tale_ might be worth a look too if it's a different spin on things, as you and others seem to be suggesting.

EDIT: Or it would be if it was available in the UK Kindle store. Drat.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2011)

Evidently we can't reference our own books - even to make a point - without being accused of self-promotion.

My broader point (which was edited) is that science-fiction and fantasy are too intermingled to be distinct, with a few exceptions. I would say LotR, which has no reference to science (or magic) but if clearly based in another world, is fantasy. Any story that paints a world that could happen depending on the advancement of science should be science-fiction.

Where things get interesting is with Back to the Future. Sure, there's science mentioned (1.21 jiggawatts[sic]) but the mere notion of traveling through time in such a fantastic way makes it more fantasy, IMO.


----------



## G.L. Breedon (Jul 7, 2011)

> Oh I'm a long-time fantasy reader, but I got bored of high fantasy years ago.


Hi Sean,

What did you find bored your about High Fantasy? Myself, I tend to find the omnipresent quasi-medieval world to be a bit repetitive.


----------



## JChris (Jul 18, 2011)

karenk105 said:


> Do you have a dragon? Then it's fantasy!


That sounds like a fun Jeff Foxworthy game!

"If your closet leads to a magical word filled with talking animals, then you're probably fantasy!"
"If you're in love with a vampire, but not sure if you want to live forever, then you're probably fantasy!"
"If your hermit neighbor is a werewolf-heart-throb being hunted down by man with an eye patch, you're probably fantasy!"
"If your girlfriends try to convince you to join their coven so you can get the quarterback to like you, you're probably a fantasy!"
"If you quest with a half-elf ranger who doesn't drink mead, you're definitely fantasy!"


----------



## Jordan Parkes (Jul 16, 2011)

I don't think people would get *offended* necessarily. At least I hope not since I am writing a book like what you just described. Takes place in real world but with fantastical elements. There definitely is the conception that anything labeled in the fantasy department equates to a sword, a big burly man in armor, or a old wizard shooting fireballs. Personally I find Sara Douglass's books to be a of different variety of fantasy. Great if you want a break from dragons!


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

> I'm a sucker for good mythology


If you can stomach YA fiction, the Percy Jackson series is fun to read.


----------



## Colin Taber (Apr 4, 2011)

A good entry to fantasy for an adult who's interested in trying, but a little put off by the cliches of the whole thing is Rothfuss' Name of the Wind. The only downside to it so far is that it's part of an uncompleted trilogy, but that's not an entirely uncommon situation.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Fantasy, like all genres, is sometimes a victim of its own successes.  When Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter become huge, the general public expects anything labeled fantasy to resemble those types of books.  There is such a wide variety of fantasy novels.  I like it that way!


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> Fantasy, like all genres, is sometimes a victim of its own successes. When Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter become huge, the general public expects anything labeled fantasy to resemble those types of books. There is such a wide variety of fantasy novels. I like it that way!


That doesnt give readers much credit. As someone who's sorted thru a bunch of fantasy thru the yrs...it's just not my thing. Again...not into the convenience of that 'magic' thing, for one. But there are a few things about it that dont appeal to me....some people are just looking for something else.


----------



## Sean Cunningham (Jan 11, 2011)

G.L. Breedon said:


> What did you find bored your about High Fantasy? Myself, I tend to find the omnipresent quasi-medieval world to be a bit repetitive.


I was a bit the same. I felt like I was reading the same thing over and over again. If it wasn't an author in dire need of creating a new world to play in instead of repeating themselves in an old one, it was what should have been an epic story which, by the end, felt awfully ho hum.

But I'm sure there are plenty of people who completely dig it, which is all good as far as I'm concerned.



mscott9985 said:


> If you can stomach YA fiction, the Percy Jackson series is fun to read.


I have the feeling I checked that out and saw it was in first person, which I don't get along with, but other than that it does sound promising. I've nothing against YA at all and I keep an eye out for anything interesting. I really liked Catherine Fisher's _Incarceron_ books and a while back I enjoyed Scott Westerfeld's _Leviathan_. Both are inventive books, though Westerfeld's characters didn't grab me quite as much as Fisher's did.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

I agree that -- apart from High Fantasy -- 'fantasy' is a pretty hard thing to define. But part of this discussion -- the part about how writers want to classify their books -- reminds me of an allegedly true story.
Kingsley Amis was once a reader for a publishing house ... Faber's, I think. He was handed J.G. Ballard's first novel and declared, "You must publish him as science fiction -- it's a great boost for the genre!"
A few years later, that same publisher told Amis that they wanted to publish one of HIS novels as sf.
"Like hell you will!" said Amis.


----------



## SimonSmithWilson (Jul 26, 2011)

Fantasy is magical to me. I grew up on Never Ending Story, Willow, Witches, Labrynth and all these amazing 80's movies. They are fantasy to me. Terry Pratchett is fantasy. I write fantasy and I keep these subjects in mind when I go write, as I love really unique, magical and uplifting stories.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

9MMare said:


> That doesnt give readers much credit. As someone who's sorted thru a bunch of fantasy thru the yrs...it's just not my thing. Again...not into the convenience of that 'magic' thing, for one. But there are a few things about it that dont appeal to me....some people are just looking for something else.


I'm sorry if it sounds that way. Nobody gives readers more credit than I do. But it's a fairly common phenomena that when something hits big, it becomes the face of that genre.


----------



## Mr. RAD (Jan 4, 2011)

Is there such a thing as "Light Fantasy" or "Low Fantasy"?


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> I'm sorry if it sounds that way. Nobody gives readers more credit than I do. But it's a fairly common phenomena that when something hits big, it becomes the face of that genre.


Sorry. The way you wrote it sounded like an excuse for why other varieties of fantasy were passed by...I was implying that giving in to that does everyone else an injustice and may lose potential readers....or shortchange current ones.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

S Jaffe said:


> I think there are two answers here -- one is the "real" answer and one is the "expected" answer.
> 
> The "expected" answer is that most people think of Lord of the Rings or Conan the Barbarian when they hear the word fantasy. Just as they also think Star Wars or Star Trek when they hear Science Fiction. But the fact is that in those genres there is a wide, wide, wide range of stories and types.
> 
> ...


I agree people read fantasy all the time and just don't realize it. I was asked to a talk/signing at a country club. The room was filled with a room full of "definitely not my demographic". When I asked the room if they read fantasy -- not one hand. But then I started talking about the history of fantasy, its roots in things such as Beowulf and brought in some other references over the ages and everyone was pretty entertained.


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2011)

Michael_J_Sullivan said:


> I agree people read fantasy all the time and just don't realize it. I was asked to a talk/signing at a country club. The room was filled with a room full of "definitely not my demographic". When I asked the room if they read fantasy -- not one hand. But then I started talking about the history of fantasy, its roots in things such as Beowulf and brought in some other references over the ages and everyone was pretty entertained.


And I bet if you asked "who reads fantasy?" again after your explanation more hands would have gone up.


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

I don't mind all the sub-classifications of fantasy since it does help me select books that I would like.  For example, if there was only one 'fantasy' category, then Robert Jordan would be lumped in with Charles de Lint, and I would find it harder to pick out the books I like.

As a rule, I'm not a high or epic fantasy lover, and so having those UF/PR sub-genres help me out quite a bit.  (Although, I've been hearing so much about "Game of Thrones" that I'm getting curious and may try it.)


----------



## Chris Turner (Jul 23, 2011)

It's unfortunate that media branding has hardwired fantasy generally into the category of sword and sorcery.  Don't get me wrong, I love S&S!

No doubt there are a lot of different types of fantasy out there, but I would say a 'fantasy story' is something that presents something uniquely different to the reader.  Something different from the regular day to day world that we generally live in, ie the characters have special powers, or perhaps they have the opposite quality: they are hindered in some way, and it is their destiny to work through their karma and resolve the conflict on their plate.  The fantasy world, then, is a different place from the one we know it (in terms of time, flora, fauna, society, any of a hundred different aspects).

Since magic is so commonplace in a fantasy story, almost synonymous with the word 'fantasy' itself, an author has to work very hard to create something 'new' or original in the genre.  The most effective fantasy is where the characters meld perfectly into the created world . . . the reader is totally absorbed in the narrative and there is no author.  Ha! very difficult to pull off, but hey, this is what makes the game so fun . . .


----------



## Tara Maya (Nov 4, 2010)

Marc Johnson said:


> I like to think of fantasy as where we've been. Conversely, I like to think of sci-fi as where we're going. Just my two cents.


I like that. I think of fantasy as myth and sf as if-then.


----------



## Adam Kisiel (Jun 20, 2011)

The answer is really simple. Because "fantasy" is the term that gained this meaning through the many years. And it is not something we should fret about.


----------



## Skate (Jan 23, 2011)

I'm a great fan of Ursula K Le Guin. Her worlds are so different and yet so real and the magic is so much part of the world that it seems logical. I think that's an essential element of fantasy - the creation of a place where what in our world would be unbelievable, seems totally natural. Even if the 'fantasy' world is exactly the same as ours, the author needs to make the magic seem believable. Fantasy fails for me when the magic is 'boom, bang, look at that!'


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

You're absolutely right that most fiction is technically "fantasy", especially science fiction and horror. Back in the olden tymes, "fantasy" was called "romance", but then the marketing people changed around the category labels. Today, the labels are basically just for convenience and organization, not for genuine accuracy.


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

Joseph Robert Lewis said:


> You're absolutely right that most fiction is technically "fantasy", especially science fiction and horror. Back in the olden tymes, "fantasy" was called "romance", but then the marketing people changed around the category labels. Today, the labels are basically just for convenience and organization, not for genuine accuracy.


In my first language (Afrikaans) the word for "novel" is "roman".

What is the root of "novel", I wonder?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

PatrickWalts said:


> Why is the word so synonymous with sword and sorcery type stuff? Isn't anything that couldn't happen in real life technically "fantasy?" If someone were to write a book set in modern times with a fantastical storyline that had nothing to do with elves, trolls, knights and quests and labeled it fantasy, would that annoy people? Would they get all defensive and say, "That's not fantasy?" If so, what would you call such a book, if its not sci-fi, not horror, not fantasy?


Well, sword and sorcery is a separate subgenre. Lord of the Rings is high fantasy not sword and sorcery. And there IS fantasy written set in modern times. What makes fantasy is the "fantastic" or magical. The biggest selling current fantasy by far at the moment, Martin's Song of Ice and Fire, has no elves or trolls or quests. Since knights are not magical or fantastical, they have nothing to do with fantasy. I write historical fiction with knights in it because there were knights in 13th century Scotland. My fantasies never have knights (or trolls or elves or quests).

By the way, Star Wars is not technically science fiction because of the strong fantasy (that is magical) element, or did you think the "force" was scientific?

Edit: You misunderstand the meaning of the usage of "romance" in the so-called "olden times". It did not mean fantasy as we understand it nor did it mean romance as we understand it. The closest we could come would be an adventure story. They sometimes had elements of magic and sometimes not. Love elements were almost always included.


----------



## Tara Maya (Nov 4, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> By the way, Star Wars is not technically science fiction because of the strong fantasy (that is magical) element, or did you think the "force" was scientific?


I've heard that called, "science fantasy."

The problem with genre conventions is that some are determined by the focus of the story. Romance is focused on the relationship between a man and woman, and can take place anywhere, anytime, in a historical, modern, futuristic, realistic or fantastic setting. However, other genres are determined by setting. So Fantasy requires something fantastic in the setting, but otherwise the focus of the story can be adventure, romance, literary, or what have you.


----------



## MartinGibbs (Jun 20, 2011)

"Roman" is German for novel as well. In any case, I agree that most people have a pre-conceived notion of what fantasy really is. And yes, authors like Neil Gaimon write fantasy in this world, and it fits.

But for me, fantasy is a genre takes place in a world that is not ours, and uses some sort of magical system. Magic doesn't have to be the focus, but the normal rules of physics are sort of exempt. One thing I find interesting--and something I point out in my book--is that, in lands of advanced magic, why do people still use candles and ride horses?

Anyway, this is why the strict "genre" classification can be difficult. It's the same in music--there are so many genres and sub-genres that it gets mind-boggling. I've always asked, of music and any genre of fiction/non-fiction, "well, do _you_ like it?" If the answer is yes, then who cares what genre it is?


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Well, sword and sorcery is a separate subgenre. Lord of the Rings is high fantasy not sword and sorcery. And there IS fantasy written set in modern times. What makes fantasy is the "fantastic" or magical. The biggest selling current fantasy by far at the moment, Martin's Song of Ice and Fire, has no elves or trolls or quests.


If LOR isnt 'sword and sorcery' I dont know what is, lol. I guess that doesnt have to be exclusive of 'high fantasy.' And Game of Thrones (is that different from Song of Fire and Ice?...I've only seen the HBO version) has witchcraft, dragons, and other mystical creatures (mostly nasty).


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Tara Maya said:


> I've heard that called, "science fantasy."
> 
> The problem with genre conventions is that some are determined by the focus of the story. Romance is focused on the relationship between a man and woman, and can take place anywhere, anytime, in a historical, modern, futuristic, realistic or fantastic setting. However, other genres are determined by setting. So Fantasy requires something fantastic in the setting, but otherwise the focus of the story can be adventure, romance, literary, or what have you.


I'd have to disagree that genres are determined by setting. Gaiman sets in fantasies in the modern world. It doesn't keep them from being fantasy.

A romance with a little fantasy thrown in, if the focus is on romance, then it's a romance, and if you try to sell it to me as a fantasy, as a fantasy reader I'm going to be quite p!ssed.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

9MMare said:


> If LOR isnt 'sword and sorcery' I dont know what is, lol. I guess that doesnt have to be exclusive of 'high fantasy.' And Game of Thrones (is that different from Song of Fire and Ice?...I've only seen the HBO version) has witchcraft, dragons, and other mystical creatures (mostly nasty).


A Game of Thrones is the first book the the Song of Ice and Fire series. They just named the TV series after the first book (the first season covered the first book, but I think they're keeping that name for all seasons).


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

9MMare said:


> If LOR isnt 'sword and sorcery' I dont know what is, lol.


Then you don't know what sword and sorcery is. 

I'll be quite happy to tell you. Conan the Barbarian is sword and sorcery. Sword and sorcery focuses on personal battles and adventure rather than world-endangering matters as in Lord of the Rings, Song of Ice and Fire and other "high fantasy". It often has a strong element of romance and sex.

Edit: I didn't say SoIaF didn't have magic. I said it didn't have the aforementioned elves, trolls and quests. It doesn't. Fantasy was defined as having those. It very often doesn't. SoIaF is about saving Westros from the "Others" which are certainly magical. That is the difference in sword and sorcery and high fantasy.

High fantasy is defined by a battle between good and evil, which, of course, involves defining good and evil which is what makes it interesting.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

I'd agree with that. 

The way to look at it is "fantasy" if the overarching major genre label.  Things like "sword and sorcery" and "high fantasy" are subgenres.

Both are under the "fantasy" umbrella.  "Sword and sorcery" stuff is kind of the summer action movie of the genre (lots of focus on sword and magic battles, not as much focus on detailing the world or some epic struggle between good and evil).  "High fantasy" is more like the serious drama movies and is very much focused on detailing the world and outlining an epic struggle between good and evil.  It probably still has sword and magic stuff and battles (just like a lot of serious dramas that are award nominated still have action sequences), but that's not the main focus like it is in a "sword and sorcery" book.


----------



## hakimast (Jul 23, 2011)

Fantasy means whatever you decide it means


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

hakimast said:


> Fantasy means whatever you decide it means


Kinda sounds like it.


----------



## hakimast (Jul 23, 2011)

Well, that's true about every genre, really. Reading involves interpretation, and different interpretations could classify a book as many different Genres. It's all about perspective.

Except for non-fiction. Although there are some non-fiction books that could be broadly interpreted as fiction


----------



## David Alastair Hayden (Mar 19, 2011)

Z.D. Robinson said:


> I read a definition of science fantasy versus science fiction and i think it is apropos in this discussion. Science fiction is making the possible probable, science fantasy is making the improbable possible. (I may have gotten that mixed up.)


I like this.

I actually consider science fiction to be fantasy because it's made up and many stories use impossibilities (as we know them) such as FTL just to make the story work. But the point of idea science fiction is very different than most fantasy, and there are, naturally, more detailed variations that traditionally make a book science fiction or fantasy. We can usually instinctively tell the difference, though some stories like Star Wars blur the lines by being set in what we think of as a sci-fi setting (space) but are actually fantasy tales.


----------



## John Dorian (Jul 23, 2011)

hakimast said:


> Well, that's true about every genre, really. Reading involves interpretation, and different interpretations could classify a book as many different Genres. It's all about perspective.
> 
> Except for non-fiction. Although there are some non-fiction books that could be broadly interpreted as fiction


Totally agree


----------



## Laura Lond (Nov 6, 2010)

I, too, tend to associate "fantasy" with the past and "sci-fi" with the future. It is of course a very basic definition. I can see how others view stories with any fantastical or supernatural element as fantasy, and I don't necessarily disagree. I just read book blurbs a bit more carefully to make sure I get the kind of fantasy I prefer.


----------



## Richard Raley (May 23, 2011)

This is why I just use the term "spec-fic" for speculative fiction now.  You used to be able to look at a work and say "fantasy" or "sci-fi" but the walls are so thin now that everything is bleeding into everything else.  When you have terms like Elfpunk, Dieselpunk, New Weird, and who knows what else that probably 5 people have heard before, maybe we're just too into labels.  So...spec-fic, it means everything fun


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I love this discussion.  Every time I come into this thread my geek pleasure circuits are stimulated.  I love parsing genres and labels just like I love making mash-up sub-genres (zombie post-apocalyptic political thriller ... hurray!)  Its a fun game. 

I typically divide Fantasy and Science Fiction by the standard magic/technology line and then parse it to my heart's content within those basic groups.  Any book that includes magic or other improbabilities get a fantasy nod from me - even those usually placed in standard fiction by book stores - Witches of Eastwick, Practical Magic, Chuck Palahniuk .... I also count anything set in an alternate medieval world as fantasy whether or not there is magic involved.

I don't like the label "Speculative Fiction" simply because it sounds too high-brow and I feel that some (not all) use it to remove the stigma of being labelled a Fantasy or a Science Fiction writer as if that's something to be ashamed of ...


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Geoffrey said:


> I don't like the label "Speculative Fiction" simply because it sounds too high-brow and I feel that some (not all) use it to remove the stigma of being labelled a Fantasy or a Science Fiction writer as if that's something to be ashamed of ...


I never thought of it like that. I think of Speculative Fiction as simply broader than Science Fiction, as it doesnt require the speculative element to be believable in the literal sense.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Adam Pepper said:


> I never thought of it like that. I think of Speculative Fiction as simply broader than Science Fiction, as it doesnt require the speculative element to be believable in the literal sense.


I first heard the phrase in college in the 80's and it was a group of English majors and science geeks discussing their love of Science Fiction and Fantasy but also explaining to themselves and us how Speculative Fiction was just as fine and upstanding as regular fiction .... It left a pretentious taste in my mouth that my first filter whenever I hear the phrase. Now, I get that not everyone uses it that way, but the filter's there anyways ....


----------



## BrianPBorcky (Aug 7, 2011)

This is really indicative of our need to arrange everything into groups and sub groups. It's happening with music now. Weezer and Foo Fighters used to both be rock bands, then they were Alternative Rock Bands, now one is power pop and the other is mainstream rock, or one is indy rock and the other is post-grunge. 

I've always seen the split as Sci-Fi is rooted on existing scientific principles or theories, Fantasy is just that -- fantastical things. 

Star Wars is the interesting case study. Most people, especially outside of fandom, would call it Sci-Fi, but it's more Fantasy based than anything. There's not much science in the original trilogy, and when they tried to incorporate it into the prequel trilogy, it was about as welcome as a hole on a boat.

Supernatural horror is another thing entirely, though I suppose the argument could be made that it is dark fantasy.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Very true.  But I find groups and sub groups very useful if they're clearly defined and used consistently.

It makes it easier to find things you like if you can look at a book description and see it's a specific sub genre you tend to enjoy ,where as a broad/generic genre label doesn't help much as it's not very informative as to what the book is really like.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

mooshie78 said:


> Very true. But I find groups and sub groups very useful if they're clearly defined and used consistently.


Agreed. And they need to make sense to a fairly broad reader-base.


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

BrianPBorcky said:


> This is really indicative of our need to arrange everything into groups and sub groups. It's happening with music now. Weezer and Foo Fighters used to both be rock bands, then they were Alternative Rock Bands, now one is power pop and the other is mainstream rock, or one is indy rock and the other is post-grunge.
> 
> I've always seen the split as Sci-Fi is rooted on existing scientific principles or theories, Fantasy is just that -- fantastical things.
> 
> ...


Ugh, that was the worst, coming up with a scientific explanation for why some people are more "force-sensitive." Completely demystified the whole concept.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2011)

PatrickWalts said:


> Ugh, that was the worst, coming up with a scientific explanation for why some people are more "force-sensitive." Completely demystified the whole concept.


Demystified? Isn't that a good thing?


----------



## Marilyn Peake (Aug 8, 2011)

PatrickWalts said:


> Why is the word so synonymous with sword and sorcery type stuff? Isn't anything that couldn't happen in real life technically "fantasy?" If someone were to write a book set in modern times with a fantastical storyline that had nothing to do with elves, trolls, knights and quests and labeled it fantasy, would that annoy people? Would they get all defensive and say, "That's not fantasy?" If so, what would you call such a book, if its not sci-fi, not horror, not fantasy?


I think there are such books, actually, but they become classified as magical realism. *The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake* is an awesome example of a novel about everyday modern life and family problems complicated by the magical abilities of some of the characters.


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

Marilyn Peake said:


> I think there are such books, actually, but they become classified as magical realism. *The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake* is an awesome example of a novel about everyday modern life and family problems complicated by the magical abilities of some of the characters.


Now you've made me really curious about that book - but it's so expensive in Kindle edition! I wonder if it is at my library...


----------

