Is High Fantasy Unbalanced without the Core Races?

Sadly we don't generally get to invent genres according to Stuff What We Like, or because it will sound better. ( You really think that's likely? ) I credit people with a couple of brain cells at least) I think most people are aware that epic has more than one meaning. As does fantasy and not many people think that all fantasy books involve me, Karl Urban and a vat of baby oil... I don't think we need to rename a genre because of people who don't read it don't know that.


The thing is ALL genres are just advertising taglines. They exist to help readers find books they want, and avoid books they don't, and talk about them. That's it.

Anyoldway, I think there's a lot of overlap between many subgenres in fantasy (epic and high being a very common one) This is because different subgenres might focus the eye on one thing, but really there's more going on. So (imo) epic is to do with the stakes -- worldchanging as opposed to S&S where stakes are more personal. High/low has nothing to do with the stakes, but is about the amount of magic v realism in the setting. So you could have high fantasy that is also epic, or could be S&S. Your S&S tale could be in a high or low setting. High fantasy has tropes, and epic has slightly different ones which may often also occur in high, due to the nature of the subgenre being about the stakes or the setting (or both!) And it doesn't matter too much if our definitions differ slightly as long as when we talk about the books, we have a rough idea of what is meant by Epic or High (even if it's I know it when I see it")

It's not like if a book is one subgenre it automatically gets cast out of the others*, and is left in the corner at parties or anything. They are quite useful tags for talking about fantasy in general though.



*I think almost all non-Uf -- and even some UF -- could easily fall into two or more subgenres.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

To be honest, I think it's arguable that the epics of the past would fall under high fantasy these days. The Aeneid, for example, or the Iliad.

Click to expand...

I can get on board with this. In the end, I think there are things that define certain subgenres (and as mentioned) some of these will blur depending on the book.

I also think that high fantasy--at least in my experience--is a story where quest takes the captain's chair. (Hence why I call Dragonlance High Fantasy as it's VERY quest-based.)

Finally, going off Flibble's stuff, I agree that genres really are a means for corporations to organize on the shelf. SFF pretty much all goes on the same shelf, unless it's YA or more literary (e.g. "Never Let Me Go," by Ishiguro is under literary in most stores). And genre is also probably there for agents and publishers to organize business-wise. An agent might think, "Okay, what genre am I over-representing right now? What do I NEED?"

Furthermore, one of my agent pals says that many writers query and seem to have no clue WHAT their genre is. She considers this a bad sign--assuming that the person isn't that well read in their own genre. (Other agents might not care.)

Blackmanga said:

Thus I am saying its not a genre. It's an advertising tagline that publishers label lots of books across different genres with.

Click to expand...

Except the term "epic fantasy" did not come out of publishing; it came out of academe. As far as I can determine, it was first applied to H. R. Eddison's The Worm Ouroboros (1922).

Epic fantasy is absolutely seen as a genre in academe—one that people write dissertations about.

Medievalist said:

Epic fantasy is absolutely seen as a genre in academe—one that people write dissertations about.

Click to expand...

Or write dissertations that are...

There are absolutely academic definitions of various genres. genre is an incredibly complex topic, because like many of the things we study, it was designed from the ground up as some sort of scientific classification system. There are also marketing definitions. And then clearly lots of avid readers have their own individual definitions. If everything was completely set n stone, t wouldn't be a very fun discussion, would it?

I think subgenres exist for readers as well, though, not just in academia. Most readers of fantasy will have a pretty good idea what you mean when you say, "Epic fantasy." I don't know if this was the case so much 10-20 years ago. Today, with the internet being what it is--where like-minded folks can congregate on a daily basis with their own ilk--these terms will be more prevalent. Especially in a public sphere such as the internet.

Whether or not all of these subgenre terms originated from academic or pop culture discourse, I can't say for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did.

I also agree with Liosse about the marketing aspect as well. I also wonder if this is going to continue to get more complex as more and more readers go online to order books. Where B&N can't just carve away sections to accommodate for every sub-genre (in all commercial genres), online is pretty wide open.

Yeah but online can get a bit ...out there with subgenres.

Fade to Black is listed as Gothic Romance in at least one place. O,o. And UF (it isn't except for in as far as "it takes place in a city..") and a few more that make me scratch my head a bit.

Not very representative as far as I'm concerned, but hey, like I say, genres are useful for only finding a book you want and discussing books. As long as all the people in the convo are on the same page*, it doesn't really matter.


*They can call it unicorn sexual adventure as long as they buy the book

"Epic fantasy is a subgenre, that is, a tighter classification than fantasy."

It's not a tighter classification than high or low fantasy. With High Fantasy the implication is already there that it is epic as alost all high fantasy stories are epic in scale. Epic Fantasy is redundant as anything but marketing.

And, on an academic and critical analysis level, yes it can be defined to some extent.

Click to expand...

And I'm still waiting on someone to bring a consistant definition. One poster thinks its about world changing events, another disagreed and think its about having no questline. We can all agree on certain points on what differentiates high from low fantasy. But as epic fantasy isnt a real genre, theres no definition that doesnt almost completely overlap with high or low fantasy. The only difference is that high or low fantasy can be small or large in scale. But as its almost always large, "Epic Fantasy" becomes a term with little to no practical value beyond boosting sales by inserting advertising taglines into the genre label. Meaning its a no brainer to anyone who seeks to maximise sales to label their story epic fantasy instead of high fantasy.

One, my correction was gentle because I did not want the thread to end up into a morass of "It's this way because I say so!"

Let's take a look at what you posted, shall we?

Click to expand...

Telling people to drop their line of thinking isn't gentle. Its using mod powers to control legitimate debate before the posters had a chance to respond instead of
actually debating. If you disagree than a simple rebuttal would be called for to which I would respond. No one can debate freely with you because as soon as people make points you disagree with, you close the thread with remarks like "We're done here" instead of actually responding with an argument or letting others do so. And you want to analyze my initial post in this thread and then once you got your repy in, tell me to go take it up with some other moderator. Why don't you set the example and be the first to take any issues with me to PM. Seeing as you're the staff member and all. But no, you want to say things like I have a chip on my shoulder in thread. Well then I shall follow your example and respond in kind in thread.



"Both these statements are personal opinion."

And this is personal opinion:
Originally Posted by ClareGreen
To me, high fantasy has blatant magic and ignores whichever laws of physics can be fudged.

And this is personal opinion:
I see high fantasy differently. I think you can have high fantasy with no magic whatsoever.


And this is personal opinion:
. The stakes are what make it Epic Fantasy. EF deals with the big stakes like world ending, and quests to restore an entire nation/planet back to order after everything has fallen appart, or preventing destruction of an entire race of people.

So basically you believe other posters are allowed to have personal opinions on this topic but I am not. Why is that?

It is my personal opinion, that epic fantasy, as its just an advertising tagline, should cover works with rave reviews and which have garnered critical praise as well as being grand in stakes. Thus it is epic in both scale and quality. Some English professor may disagree, you may disagree, but I don't care. I have a brain and can think for myself.

You invoke mod powers for that because you can't apparently can't handle opinions that dissent too far from everyone else's views including your own.

I will agree that genre labels are marketing things. There's really only three genres: prose, poetry, and performance. Labeling fictional prose into categories such as Romance or Fantasy or Mystery was entirely a marketing move.

Click to expand...

You don't agree because you again, don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying those are useful. Romance, Fantasy Mystery are USEFUL ways to categorize a book. Epic Fantasy is not and is nothing but a marketing tagline. And as it uses a word that is most commonly used to promote and compliment works, it provides unfair sales edge, whereas the other genres don't contain such a tagline. The word "High" or "low" isn't as attention grabbing or marketable as "Epic". So as I said before, it's clear cut to call my story "epic" and not merely "high" or low" regardless of what it's actual genre is.


"So yes, a marketing label. But also something that can be viewed from an academic POV. "

Anything can be, so thats a redundant statement.

But you still don't get to define a marketing label based on "stuff I like that I think fits this label."

Click to expand...

Except I never said "Stuff I like" I said books of actual quality. I said this: Epic as far as i'm concerned, should only apply to work with grand stakes that are actually good.

I never clarified if I meant work that I found good or works that were widely regarded as good. I in fact meant the latter and clarified it later, but as you are trying to desperately justify yourself, you nitpick what a new poster's saying in the first post they made in this thread, and add your own personal bias to make it mean what you think it means to make my position easier to attack. Therefore you set up a strawman fallacy, mod it, and then claim that I have the chip on MY shoulder. Uh huh.

I'm not even going to bother to reply to you anymore. I've said my piece. I really don't care to complain to some senior mod who is probably your friend who will stick up for you regardless of how wrong you are. Bye.

Actually the term Epic Fantasy is useful to many people. And, like it or not, it is a real genre. You not liking the term doesn't delete it from everyone's lexicon. (Sadly. I can think of a few terms I'd like deleted ) Every single genre (even the real ones ) can have and has discussion about which books really fit in and which don't. Even the really broad categories like "fantasy" or "romance". Some books are clearly inside the umbrella, lots often are not. That doesn't make "fantasy" a not useful term.

Blackmanga said:

Except I never said "Stuff I like" I said books of actual quality. I said this: Epic as far as i'm concerned, should only apply to work with grand stakes that are actually good.

I never clarified if I meant work that I found good or works that were widely regarded as good. I in fact meant the latter

Click to expand...

The problem ofc is how do you define "widely regarded as good"? Maybe stars on Goodreads or Amazon? It has an average of 3.8 on GR, and 3.9 and 4.1 on the two amazons I checked (US and UK) and by far the majority of voters gave it five stars.

So it must be widely regarded as good, right? So therefore, by your definition, it can be Epic.

The thing is, past a basic competency, what is "good" is MASSIVELY subjective. And therein comes the trouble of only labelling "good" stuff as Epic. What if I think a book is good and you don't? So I can call it Epic but you won't? Thereby rendering it...a label of "stuff what I like"

As for opinions differing -- jeez, you should try the Oxford comma discussion! We're writers, we can discuss this all day decade and come to no conclusion. However, it's important to discuss it in an open fashion - "This is what I think" rather than "this is how it is, fact". You think Eragon is dull and boring. But it ain't a fact because plenty of people liked it. Maybe they'd find your favourite book dull and boring too.



PS - if you hang around long enough you'll see there often is a LOT of dissent (try the Oxford comma discussion. Or the prologue one...or go and check P&CE if you're feeling brave). We just try to dissent nicely You aren't being censored. Or you wouldn't be able to post any more.

Blackmanga said:

I'm not even going to bother to reply to you anymore. I've said my piece. I really don't care to complain to some senior mod who is probably your friend who will stick up for you regardless of how wrong you are. Bye.

Click to expand...

I call bullshit. The majority of your posts in this thread have been rude in some way or form. You want to complain about a mod taking you to task then go somewhere else, the forum is privately owned. It is not a public entity in which you can say whatever pleases you. You've also failed to convince anyone of your points, and I would thank you not to use me to try to make them.

EF is a reader, marketing, and academically recognized genre of fantasy. High and Low has nothing to do with scale but the amount of magic or blatant fantasy elements a story has. And while it is normal that Epic has a high amount of magic, that isn't a requirement for the genre. High Fantasy on the other hand is damn near required to have magical/magical creatures/extremely blatant fantasy elements. In short, you're wrong.

Mr Flibble said:

Actually the term Epic Fantasy is useful to many people. And, like it or not, it is a real genre. You not liking the term doesn't delete it from everyone's lexicon. (Sadly. I can think of a few terms I'd like deleted ) Every single genre (even the real ones ) can have and has discussion about which books really fit in and which don't. Even the really broad categories like "fantasy" or "romance". Some books are clearly inside the umbrella, lots often are not. That doesn't make "fantasy" a not useful term.



The problem ofc is how do you define "widely regarded as good"? Maybe stars on Goodreads or Amazon? It has an average of 3.8 on GR, and 3.9 and 4.1 on the two amazons I checked (US and UK) and by far the majority of voters gave it five stars.

So it must be widely regarded as good, right? So therefore, by your definition, it can be Epic.

The thing is, past a basic competency, what is "good" is MASSIVELY subjective. And therein comes the trouble of only labelling "good" stuff as Epic. What if I think a book is good and you don't? So I can call it Epic but you won't? Thereby rendering it...a label of "stuff what I like"

As for opinions differing -- jeez, you should try the Oxford comma discussion! We're writers, we can discuss this all day decade and come to no conclusion. However, it's important to discuss it in an open fashion - "This is what I think" rather than "this is how it is, fact". You think Eragon is dull and boring. But it ain't a fact because plenty of people liked it. Maybe they'd find your favourite book dull and boring too.



PS - if you hang around long enough you'll see there often is a LOT of dissent (try the Oxford comma discussion. Or the prologue one...or go and check P&CE if you're feeling brave). We just try to dissent nicely You aren't being censored. Or you wouldn't be able to post any more.

Click to expand...

I'm personally for the Oxford comma. It's a useful thing! Though I will admit to not always using it, I do use it more often than not.

Blackmanga said:

If there was a genre called "Incredible fantasy" where to the few in literary circles, it means fantasy with events that are widly far fetched, but to the average person, unless they do research, it comes across as advertising slogan by way of compliment for the work, because "epic" is so often used in taglines intended to reel people in. Thats just providing an unfair sales edge to work that happen to fit within that genre. It may not be a significant sales edge, although it may, but it's there nevertheless. SO if "epic fantasy" is a thing, and I don't think t is valid, then I would tell any publisher to call my work epic fantasy, even if it was really high or any other fantasy, because the word epic, viscerally draws people in and advertisers know it. And theres the implication, however subtle, that works that arent classed as epic

Click to expand...

I get what you're saying here, but I disagree. While yes, there is a certain set of people who grew up with people saying "Man, that was epic," to imply a level of awesomeness, I doubt the word carries the weight you think it does. First, not everyone is familiar with that way of using 'epic', and so that association is not there for them. Second, people likely to pick up a fantasy novel tend to be fantasy readers. Which means they have at least a passing personal definition of the sub-genres, and judging from community boards I've seen, epic to them means likely to go on over a whole lot of books. To some this is a draw, to others a turn-off. Either way, I suspect that interpretation affects perceptions and sales far more than the epic=awesome one.

Finally, if I read a blurb on a book that tells me the book I am holding is thrilling or engaging, I'm still going to see what the back cover is, read a few pages, and determine for myself what I think. Most readers understand reading is subjective, and so the opinions of one might not align with their own.

Which brings me to my big problem with your argument. If epic should only be used to mean awesome, then who gets to make that judgement? Obviously the author thinks it's good, as does their editor, and probably publisher. Will every reader? Almost assuredly not. So, does this mean the word epic should never be used because someone will disagree? I don't think that is what you're saying, but it does end up being the fall-out of trying to limit the use of a word to represent a value judgment on the work.

Lillith1991 said:

I'm personally for the Oxford comma.

Click to expand...

Heresy! Burn the witch!*




*Not really. I just wanted to say it

Mr Flibble said:

Heresy! Burn the witch!*

Click to expand...

I am also, apparently a heretic. I love the Oxford comma. But, then I love all commas, all the time, anywhere I can put them whether they belong there or not. It's a problem.


As for whether low fantasy can be epic, it will also result in dickering on the definitions, but many people consider George RR Martin's work to be low fantasy (as defined as lowish magic) and others also consider it epic (as defined as involving world-changing events on a large scale.)

So, maybe?

amergina said:

Here's a question, can a low fantasy also be an epic fantasy?

Click to expand...

For me, yes. Because high/low deals with the setting and epic or not deals with the stakes. So worldchanging stakes in a low magical setting - low, epic fantasy. Ta-da!

It's not as common, mind -- epic tends to the high side -- but it could be done. As Lady Chipmunk says, ASOIAF is at the lower end of the magical scale (at least it starts that way, more magical stuff comes in later) but it's certainly epic.

I love this forum. Just lurking for now, but the discussion has been fascinating.

I think Gilgamesh is epic under the other meaning of the term of a long poem telling of the deeds of heroes rather than epic as grand in scale - so in that sense the stakes are not world shattering (maybe because they didn't know about a fair bit of the world )

Lady Chipmunk said:

I am also, apparently a heretic. I love the Oxford comma. But, then I love all commas, all the time, anywhere I can put them whether they belong there or not. It's a problem.


As for whether low fantasy can be epic, it will also result in dickering on the definitions, but many people consider George RR Martin's work to be low fantasy (as defined as lowish magic) and others also consider it epic (as defined as involving world-changing events on a large scale.)

So, maybe?

Click to expand...

Sing me up for a heretic, too. The Oxford comma is the best comma!



I think you could classify Martin as both low fantasy and epic fantasy. In fact, while there is a fairly standard set of works considered to belong to the "high fantasy" genre by many, I don't think there really is much of a "low fantasy" genre. Like, "high fantasy" can either be a genre, or it can be a descriptor opposed to low fantasy, almost having two separate meanings.


Whereas Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen series is epic fantasy as a genre, not high fantasy, but it is high fantasy to differentiate it from low fantasy.

amergina said:

Well, since Blackmangna can no longer reply, We should probably wander back to the topic of what differentiates Epic and High and Low fantasy.

Here's a question, can a low fantasy also be an epic fantasy?

Click to expand...

I had no idea what a tosspot was. So i went to good ol wikipedia and LOL! That article was not written to be funny but that is gold Jerry, GOLD!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tosspot

I have learned so many new words since joining AW.

amergina said:

Well, since Blackmangna can no longer reply, We should probably wander back to the topic of what differentiates Epic and High and Low fantasy.

Here's a question, can a low fantasy also be an epic fantasy?

Click to expand...

The definition of low fantasy I grew up with is a fantasy novel that takes place in the contemporary world, usually with slight magical elements. A number of children's books (like the Indian in the Cupboard, or Mistress Masham's Repose) were given as examples back in the day. I think wikipedia still goes with this definition. So I suppose by this definition, it might be possible to have an epic low fantasy, if the stakes are very high, but I can't think of any examples.

More recently, I've heard low fantasy used to encompass secondary world fantasy where the magical elements are slight, or where the magic follows strict rules and is not earth-shakingly powerful, or where there is less of a focus on good and evil as a central theme, or where divine elements are not involved, or even where the protagonists are normal people instead of heirs to the throne or powerful wizards and so on (by that last definition, LoTR might count, as the hobbits were the true protagonists).

I've also heard it used to describe humorous, even farcical works of fantasy.

I've heard ASoIaF given as an example of an epic "low" fantasy. But to be honest, the term low fantasy confuses me even more than high or epic fantasy. I had someone suggest that my own novel is "low fantasy," and I'll admit I bristled. To me, the word "low" carries a sort of perjorative sense, even though it's not meant that way. Low=not terribly important=boring.

For me, differentiating sword and sorcery from more modern subgenres like "grimdark" or even "low fantasy" (if the latter is described as having less magical or less than noble protagonists). I'm guessing there's overlap, but for example, the Elric sagas are often described as S&S, probably because they originally appeared as a series of interconnected shorts rather than a long epic, yet the stakes were definitely world altering, and there was lots of magic and an ultra powerful "hero" and all that.

But I also sometimes wonder why all those folks who act like today's grimdark fantasy is something new (as if all fantasy were sweetness and light and fluffy bunnies before ASoIaF, Abercrombie, Lawrence etc) don't consider that they're simply resurrecting the older, more nihilistic themes that existed in S&S type stories. I'd say that Moorcock's Elric books might fit intogrimdark if they were written today, as might some of the other S&S of the 60s and early 70s. Heck, there was some pretty gritty stuff being written in the 80s too.

I would suggest the following as common - and useful - definitions of some of these subgenres:

1. "High" and "Low" refer primarily to character goals. If the goal of the protagonists is to save the world/kingdom/realm, then it's high fantasy. If the goal is to survive a power struggle, outwit a rival gang, or be first to the treasure, then it's low fantasy. If the characters are heroic but psychologically simple, it's high fantasy; if they are more nuanced and psychologically complex, it's more likely to be low fantasy. LotR is high fantasy; ASoIaF is low fantasy, as is The Lies of Locke Lamorra.

2. "Epic" refers to the scope of the story. If the action plays out across entire kingdoms, continents, or worlds, and encompasses dozens or even hundreds of characters, it's epic fantasy. LotR is epic; Harry Potter is not, although it comes closer as the series moves toward the end.

3. Fantasies that take place in our world and time are contemporary fantasies. If they involve a gritty atmosphere and a Chandler-esque detective, they're urban fantasies. Emma Bull's War for the Oaks is a contemporary fantasy; The Dresden Files is more urban fantasy, as are Kim Harrison's Hollows novels.

4. Wainscot fantasies are a sub-subgenre of contemporary fantasies, in which the action takes place in a secondary magical world that exists within our world, but which is hidden away from mundanes. Harry Potter is a wainscot fantasy.

5. Sword & sorcery is a sub-subgenre of low fantasy in which the protagonists are generally warrior anti-heroes, rogues out for their own gain, who usually are pitted against sorcerous antagonists. Good examples of this are the Conan novels and Fritz Lieber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. The emphasis is less on morality and nobility than on entertaining adventure.

Within these definitions, low fantasy can certainly be epic fantasy - ASoIaF is a case in point. Most of the characters struggle for survival, power, or revenge, but the scope of the story is vast.

ETA: ASoIaF is *mostly* low fantasy. Something like the Night's Watch story line might be considered high fantasy.