Why isnt fantasy mainstream...

Sakamonda · Oct 17, 2005

No, I don't think so. . .

"But they're not really fantasy. Rowling doesn't write fantasy; she writes Harry Potter books. Same with King, he doesn't write fantasy, he writes Stephen King books. He is his own genre."

---Ummm, no. Both of these authors follow the long-established conventions of the fantasy and horror genres (sometimes together). And they will tell you this themselves. (King definitely says as much in his own essays). Rowling's books are heavily inspired by the children's fantasy books of L. Frank Baum (which were written a hundred years ago) and C.S. Lewis (which were written sixty years ago). So she is hardly inventing a new genre, either. Rowling and King are just very, very successful at bringing a unique voice to long-established genres.

brokenfingers · Oct 17, 2005

Rowling and King are just very, very successful at bringing a unique voice to long-established genres.

Hmmm, I think that's a very, very good point Sakamonda. I think this is one of the major stumbling blocks for writers looking to break into sf/f publishing. Many, unfortunately, tread old ground and rehash the same old tropes and cliches and things used well by other writers in other stories.

It really is a challenge to construct a unique vision that agents and publishers will believe in enough so that you can share it with others - but I feel, ultimately, that it is this very challenge that keeps the majority of us in the ring.

Nateskate · Oct 17, 2005

Why?

People can jump into great fantasies, but I think the reason why modern fantasy is such an acquired taste is because there is a higher degree of difficulty to get into it.

If you stay with a series, you learn enough to stick with it. But some books have a high learning curve, and some people become disinterested before they even get to the actual story.

I'm game, but when I open a book and read, "The Balooga of Fratooga, splanotated the Amelian with Tongaboo...and yet, he couldn't Fanorkulate the Penddog in the Vula-mina.

"Vaponabe," he cried. "Why did Endowi spool Yana Swell?" - By this time I don't care who Yula Bula Vula'd who.

veinglory · Oct 17, 2005

As far as I can see 'mainstream' is just a shelving convention--a place to put things that aren't clearly something else. Why aspire to that? It's like wanting to be a muggle

Euan H. · Oct 17, 2005

Sakamonda said:
Both of these authors follow the long-established conventions of the fantasy and horror genres

Yes, but:

me said:
The label of fantasy/sci-fi used in most of this thread is *mostly* a marketing/sales tool.

genre (1): cluster of characteristics used to differentiate relatively stable groups of novels. Necessarily a fuzzy category, better defined through exemplars rather than defining edges.

genre (2): category into which a book is placed which determines where it is shelved in a bookstore. Necessarily non-fuzzy--but novels may move from one category to another without any actual change of content--the move would reflect a change of perception of where the novel belongs.

There's a large amount of overlap between the two, but they are still different. King may fit into the fantasy genre (1), although that's debateable, but he doesn't *really* fit into fantasy genre (2).

Another example: the Handmaid's Tale. The book fits into the genre (1) of science-fiction, but it doesn't fit into genre (2) of science-fiction.

So: the question "Why isn't fantasy mainstream?" IMHO has two answers:

Fantasy (genre 1) *is* mainstream (King, Rowling et. al.)

Fantasy (genre 2) *can't be* mainstream, because if it was, it would stop being fantasy (books are AFAIK shelved in one section in bookstores).

inanna · Oct 17, 2005

lol

Nateskate said:
I'm game, but when I open a book and read, "The Balooga of Fratooga, splanotated the Amelian with Tongaboo...and yet, he couldn't Fanorkulate the Penddog in the Vula-mina.

"Vaponabe," he cried. "Why did Endowi spool Yana Swell?" - By this time I don't care who Yula Bula Vula'd who.

Hee...thank you for giving such a spot-on demonstration of my pet peeve. I was more tolerant of this sort of thing when I had more time on my hands (like, in high school), but these days if I open a book and the names and places are seriously lacking vowels for no good reason, the book goes bye-bye.

fallenangelwriter · Oct 17, 2005

on the whole fantays vs. religion thing....

first, i challenge the assumption that religious views are significant in this context. plenty of chrisitans i know read fantasy and don't even think about how it relates to their religion because it's just a story.

but, if they did only read books consistent with thier philosophy, that would probably turn them off fantasy.

Dungeons and Dragons, as well as many fantays books, are basically materialist. magic just is, a basic part of the universe. it comes, generally, form within the wielder, has no intrinsic moral value, and is a learnable skill like any other.

on the other hand, AFAIK, anything supernatural in teh bible is either a miracle granted throuhg the grac eof god or the result of trafficking with dark powers.

thus, teh bible does not at all support the concept of magic as it appears in many fantasy books. of course, there are christian fantays stories- in LOTR, the only "magic" is miracles worked by angels- but that's a subgenre within the fantasy genre as a whole.

MadScientistMatt · Oct 18, 2005

MarkButler said:
Didn't someone throw firebolts.. or was that just Tim the magician?

DOn't forget the food magic, never-ending loaf of bread and wine.

Mark

I think you're talking about miracles here. There's a difference between magic and miracles, at least in the sense I was using. Miracles are acts done specifically by God, sometimes with a person asking him to do them. Magical acts, in this case, are done without any assistance from God.

trebuchet · Oct 18, 2005

Correct me if I missed one, but I cannot think of a single act of magic in the Bible, "done without the assistance of God," that was not therefore performed with the assistance of Satan. Many Bible believing Christians blanket-categorize anything labeled "fantasy" as Satanic.
************

There are two reasons people read:

1. To escape from reality

2. To explore and celebrate the truth, the depth, the nature of the human spirit whether within or without the confines of what any particular individual would call "reality."

Fantasy falls into both categories. "Mainstream" does too. Milton does too. How wide is the main stream? Someone mentioned that fantasy being considered a separate fork is a boon to those seeking publication. Thank God, or the marketing powers, for that!!

Edit: I mean, true magic and not tricks; and I mean, read fiction.

trebuchet · Oct 18, 2005

OOpsie, there are three reasons. Silly me.

The third and most ubiquitous reason:

They have to read the onerous book in school or they'll fail the class.

Birol · Oct 18, 2005

Nah. Just buy the cliff notes, look up reviews and summaries of the book online, or skim the texts.

(NOTE to any of my professors reading this: I would never, ever do any of the above. I always read all assigned literature and texts thoroughly and in minute detail.)

trebuchet · Oct 18, 2005

All that? I'm too lazy. Easier just to read the book.

Birol · Oct 18, 2005

Euan H. said:
The label of fantasy/sci-fi used in most of this thread is *mostly* a marketing/sales tool. Sure there are types of fantasy that could *only* be shelved in the fantasy section of the bookstore, like G. R. R. Martin's work, for example. But much of what is labeled fantasy could be placed in a number of different places.

Euan, all genre labels are a sales/marketing tool. That's all genre is. It's really the only reason it exists. The issue of genre is designed to let readers know what books by authors they are otherwise unfamiliar with they might enjoy based upon their past experiences and own known preferences.

That's not to say it's a bad thing. Imagine going into B&N or Borders if books were not sorted by category/genre or if they were only sorted by fiction and non-fiction. You could spend weeks and never find a book you were interested in buying and reading.

Pthom · Oct 18, 2005

Birol said:
... if books were not sorted by category/genre or if they were only sorted by fiction and non-fiction. You could spend weeks and never find a book you were interested in buying and reading.

Unfortunately, this is exactly how my county library sorts fiction--exclusively by author. Fortunately, they do stick labels on the spine for some of the more popular genres: a unicorn for fantasy, a rocket ship for science fiction, horse for western, etc. Still, I'm used to looking for books by genre first, then by author. I suppose there isn't any best way, but I'm glad they don't just have you pawing through boxes.

Euan H. · Oct 18, 2005

Birol said:
All genre labels are a sales/marketing tool. That's all genre is. It's really the only reason it exists.

Well, yes and no, I think. In the sense of the first type of genre, then you can identify broad-stroke types of books. Genres in this sense do have conventions, and they're not solely marketing tools. Frex, in The Compass, Borges exploits the unspoken conventions of the mystery genre to create a great short story. it's wonderful precisely because he breaks one of the conventions (If you haven't read it, I won't spoil it for you by telling you which one).

If genre had *only* the meaning of a merketing tool, he wouldn't have been able to do that.

There is a sense in which the fantasy genre (in the sense of characteristics) is different from the mainstream, but I think that it's a more or less distinction, and not a binary one. Frex, an exemplum of the fantasy genre would:

Be set on a world different to our own
Have mythical/magical creatures
Have a medieval level of technology
Have magic
Have an aristocratic/feudal society
Have some evil force/being as antagonist
Have a male hero who is called from a previously humdrum existence to defeat the evil force/being

Okay, so you may disagree with my characteristics, and different fantasy books may possess more or fewer of these characteristics, but I would say that the more of them it possesses, the closer to fantasy it becomes, or the better an exemplum of fantasy it becomes.

So: IMHO, it is possible to identify rough clusters of books with similar characteristics, and so I don't think that genre is *only* a marketing tool--but I also think that where a book is shelved in the bookstore is not determined solely by its content. So genre as a marketing tool exists, but so does genre as a cluster of similar books. They overlap, but they're not the same.

Anyway, that's my 2c. Which works out to 0.06c/word. So there y'go.

kristin724 · Oct 20, 2005

Interesting topic.

I do think fantasy is becoming more recognized and acceptable that just the orphan of SF. I've debated with Borders co workers why it isn't a separate section. 75% of the books wer put out have dragons on the covers, not space ships. It would seem easy to separate them ,but when authors write both, it's tough to go to a different section.

I don't think of fantasy and religion together at all. I think with the success of the Rings movies, people are finally realizing that fantasy isn't necessarily kiddie, stupid, or poorly done. It can be a very serious, emotional, adventure, and character driven saga.

trebuchet · Oct 21, 2005

If it were a matter of dragons vs. space ships on book covers, it would be easy to separate them. But it ain't that simple. They don't. And bookstores don't have the time to read the backs of everything or look inside to separate the genres. (Boy, I wish they did!) Not only that, but there are so many books that contain elements of both. I guess they could have a middle section and set up the bookstore like a rainbow, with the genres as colors melting one into the next!

HConn · Oct 21, 2005

And there's a lot of overlap in the readership. A lot.

Silverhand · Oct 24, 2005

I just want to make sure everyone here realizes that I am not looking down on religion at all. AND, I am not solely using Christianity as my example for religion versus fantasy.

I have recieved a few Private Messages from people who found my analogy offensive, and just wanted to disclaim that I don't think people must believe in fantasy is they believe in 'The Bible'. I am using this example as an example of basic principle of realitym probability, and plausabilty.

My entire point is there are certain laws of reality that we all follow. If a persons beleif structure says X exists...then a book talking about said X should not be disclaimed as unrealistic and unplausable. Though a person might not recognize this openly, on a sub-conscious level political, social, cultural, and religion all play a major part in reading and suspension of disbelief.

I also wanted to point out that I find Rambo no less of a fantasy then A Song of Fire and Ice. I find cheesy romance novels no less fantastical then The Dark Elf Trilogy. In fact, I think authors can convey morals, ethics, and controversial subjects better in traditional fantasy then in most modern action, romance, and other various genres (There ARE exceptions of course).

fallenangelwriter · Nov 3, 2005

Silverhand-

talk about going out on a limb. so many unsupported categorical statements. I'm not sure whether i find your continued attempts to ignroe the philosophies behind supernatural events in religious theory, your lumping of all fiction in with fantasy, or your blanket statement that what's usually called fantasy is better than other writing more qustionable. (parenthetically excusing yourself for your generalization doesn't help.)
I've been away from this board for a while, adn didn't see this post, but you might really want to consider your words a little more before you post them, next time.

Silverhand · Nov 7, 2005

Since the last response was to me directly, let me reply. I am not ignoring anything. Any response to my 'blanket statement' is pure conjecture....as my own statements are pure conjecture.

I have been told I do not understand such and such....ok and i say they do not understand such and such to be commenting on whether or not I understand. Now who is right? The ONLY thing I hold to be absolute in this entire conversation people seem to be having with me is that 'IF YOU believe something to be TRUE, in a source you deem to be infallible, then you CANNOT dismiss it out of hand. Like I said, we know that make believe worlds are not real. We know dragons are not real. BUT, if I had a source which I deem to be 100% correct...and that source stated hands down that dragons DO exist...I cannot simply roll my eyes at a stroy about dragons, because dragons are NO LONGER fantastical.

Also, fallenangel, if you would like to give me imperical data proving that my unsupported information is incorrect, I would appreciate it. Of course, the only data anyone could provide is speculation about theological philosphy that have been raging for the better part of 2000 years.

In conclusion, you call literary fiction what you want and i will do the same, how about that? However, saying that, I DID Not claim that all fiction is the same as fantasy, nor did I state all fantasy is superior in every way to mainstream normal fiction. It is called reading comprehension. I said that Rambo was just as much of a fantasy as "XXX", I said cheesy romance novels were just as much fantasy as "XXX". I said, "I think," which states that my opinion is now available, that "fantasy does a better job at certain subject matter." Of course, since you wish to judge me...let me take it to that level...ok?

Unless you can prove that fiction is indeed non-fiction, I am entitled to my opinion, and think there is a chance that I am correct in my assertation.

Definition: fiction. Search dictionary for. Source: WordNet (r) 1.7 fiction n 1:
a literary work based on the imagination and not necessarily on fact 2: a ...
dict.die.net/fiction/ - 6k - Cached - Similar pages

fan·ta·sy (făn'tə-sē, -zē)

n., pl. -sies.

The creative imagination; unrestrained fancy. See synonyms at imagination.
Something, such as an invention, that is a creation of the fancy.
A capricious or fantastic idea; a conceit.
a. Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements.
b. An example of fiction.

There are your definitions comprised by Wordnet...do you see any resemblence? They are BOTH a work of the imagination...and if you notice that definition 4.b is an EXAMPLE of fiction. (For whatever reason I cannot get the processing of our forum to recognize that b. is its own line and NOT #5)

Is that enough support?

Out...

fallenangelwriter · Nov 10, 2005

OKay... the point i was making about religion is as follows. You've said repeatedly, it's about basic plausibility. this is because you separate thigns into the categories of "supernatural" and "not supernatural." you then assume that all supernatural thigns are equivalent.

to a christian, however, AFAIk it's a quesiton of "miracles through the will of God" versus "magic through the will of men." to a christian, one is far mroe plausible than the other. a chrisitan may read fantasy, but they'll usually have to suspend disbelief just liek you. you know why? because although you don't belive the world is a kind of place where people can summon fire wiht a word, NEITHER DO THEY.

In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with consideirng msot ficiton fantasy, but this thread was about the Fantasy genre, sometimes known as Fantasy/Sci-Fi. however unrealistic you find romances and mysteries or whatever, they're not part of Fantasy-Sci-fi. the definiton of fantasy you posted even mention supernatural elemtns in it's description of fantasy fiction.

now, I happen to feel that Fantasy does provide some useful tools for stroytelling, especially for morality plays. that's why i write it. and fantasy is my favorite genre. but simply stating that fantasy handles morals and controversial subjects (one or the other of which is the core of essentially every story) better than other genres is not really a "safe" comment to make.

To be honest, i didn't understand most of your reply. the drgon analogy wans't analgous to anything we were discussing, because you miss the essential point that most of what's in fantasy bears no resemblance to what's in the bible. you mention "speculationn about theological philosophies" as though that were the only way to find out how religious people think. i would try asking them. anyway, we needn't speculate about what the prvailing theologies are when we oculd just ask someone/read about them.

so no, it's not enough support.

anyway, the point Im trying to make here is that, while you've claimed innocence, and i belive you aren't trying to be offensive, you manage to sound prejudiced against religious people, christians particularly and non-fantasy books, and ignored what the thread was supposed ot be about.

none of these are habits which will endear you to the public generally.

Silverhand · Nov 10, 2005

Fallen,

I started the thread my friend...I know what I originally asked...which is "why isnt fantasy mainstream if people deam certain fantasy elements as plausible?"

You might not find the question relevant...you might even offer a objective opinion...some here havent. But to me, and there are others out there who have asked the question, as this isnt an old argument, this question is VERY important.

And, I am not just talking about the super natural. As it stands, things lumped into medevil time frime...and has any mention of dungeon crawling, gets pigeonholed into fantasy. The point is, if you are taking a source of information you deem as infallible, and in that tome things of the super-natural exist...then a book talking about super natural events should not be considered fantasy. Since my dragon analogy didnt work...lemme try a different one. Lets say we were using the sky being red as an example. AND, the majority of the world having no source other then opinion beleived the sky was blue. However, you have a book, a source that no one else does...and in that book, they give absolute information that the sky is indeed red. Now, if a novel came along talking about how the sky was a shade of crimson (deep red), it should not be so far of a stretch of the imagination that it is lumped into completely unrealistic. I know I keep referring to religion, but its only because you have the source. Leave Christianity out of it ok....put it away...if anyone...just happens to be religion at this point believes in X...then if X is written about it should not be considred crazy *** fantasy...make sense?

Oh, and finally a friggin answer. Ok so the real issue is that you cant accept magic because it is not granted from God, rather it is the will of man magic. THAT is the answer I have been waiting for. At least it really begins the argument IMO. Let me ask now...for books like Dragonlance...which are god granted miracles (Well the first 6 anyways

) Or other fantasy novels dealing with things directly relating to a monotheistic God...and God granted abilities...why is THAT considered fantasy?

The comment about fantasy doing one thing better then another is my own. Never said it was public fact, but in my own experience...and I have read over 300 novels now, to me anyways, my statement holds validity. /shrug

BTW, I want one comment said in quotes where I sound prejudiced in any way. I said straight up in every single thread, as people were chirping relentlessly that I am NOT talking about Christians, rather ALL religions. It just happened that the chirpers find themselves important enough to think that I am talking too and about them. Basicly, I mentioned you as a passing statement, because you happen to be one of the examples needed to explain, thus I am biased against your beleif. /sounds ridiculous doesnt it?

Ardellis · Nov 11, 2005

Silverhand said:
Let me ask now...for books like Dragonlance...which are god granted miracles (Well the first 6 anyways ) Or other fantasy novels dealing with things directly relating to a monotheistic God...and God granted abilities...why is THAT considered fantasy?

I'm making an assumption here, since I haven't read any of the Dragonlance novels, but if the God in those books isn't the Christian God, then I'm guessing your average Bible-believing Christians will simply not find it sufficiently analagous to their God and will therefore consider it to be unrealistic. Same thing with any other faith group whose religion teaches that what they believe is the only Truth: nothing else, if it doesn't conform to their theology within a certain level of parity (which varies from person to person, of course) is simply going to be, by definition, a fantasy.

Silverhand · Nov 11, 2005

Ardellis,

Well Dragonlance is a pantheon of gods, but in the beginning wizards had to more or less pray for their spells. It might not be perfect, but I see the wizards of Dragonlance being miracle workers since their spells are granted by their respective gods.

Interesting, so yer theory is that since the magic in relgion stems from said God, religous people cannot relate to anything in fantasy besdies a story about said God which uses the concept of said God perfroming miracles. That is, unless the story involves said God which people would already accept as fact? Furthermore, if they do suspend their beleif in a sotry not involving their own God, anything not relating to the stories of said God, now become fantasy and unrealistic?

I like it...at least there is some thought into it.

I still want to stay away from the word God though. I am not really talking about Him in particular...though it always come back to that. Maybe I am not conveying what I mean too...its about the principle of reality mainly. heh Lemme ask this....if a writer correlated said God into his story...stating that a world was an extension of the Christian God, and theres no way to really know one way or the other what God can or cannot do or will or will not do, then does THAT make fantasy more real?

Why isnt fantasy mainstream...

...

Walkin' That Road

volitare nequeo

Unspeakable

Queen of Typos

Empirical Storm Trooper

Hurls Adverbs

Hurls Adverbs

Around and About

Hurls Adverbs

Around and About

Word butcher

Unspeakable

Hurls Adverbs

Whore for genre

tortures make-believe people