- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,128
- Reaction score
- 10,900
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Epic.pdf
Consider reading definitions of epic as related to literature. This might help you better categorize works of fiction.
Hmm, but that definition, ASoIAF isn't an epic. Nor are the works of most other modern fantasy writers who get lumped together under epic fantasy.
I suspect the meaning has shifted somewhere. Something doesn't have to be "an epic" in the mythological sense to be in that marketing niche that's called epic fantasy today. Most of these stories have deeply flawed protagonists who aren't all that heroic in the traditional sense.
My take on epic fantasy is that it usually takes place over a relatively long time frame, tends to involve a large geographic area, and it has very large stakes that extend well beyond the personal. Often an entire civilization, even the world, is in danger. Plus it tends to encompass many story lines and points of view and takes place over multiple books.
Note that there are plenty of multi-book fantasy series that aren't epic fantasies, however.
I was thinking about the Hobbit. LOTR is epic, imho, but the Hobbit? I'd say it falls more into high fantasy. Sure, there's a big war at the end, but that war is not in the same scope as Sauron's threat to burn Middle Earth. I don't know. Thoughts?
I'd agree with this. And remember that The Hobbit was a children's book. It wasn't meant to be as weighty as his later works set in Middle Earth.
What gets really confusing is that the terms "epic" and "high" fantasy (or their definitions) are often used interchangeably, and some people will use either or both terms to describe any fantasy that takes place in a secondary world or a quasi historical or kinda sorta "medievalish" setting.
Last edited: