Defining the integral elements of epic high fantasy

[George]

It is often said that jazz is the musician's music. In terms of the written world, I would say that fantasy is the true blank canvas of creative fiction. It has this infinite creative canvas that has led me to move from writing horror to exclusively writing and reading fantasy fiction. The author is free to create entire civilizations replete with their own cultural peculiarities, mythos and political/religious realites...the only limit of what the writer can create is the tangible limit of that particular writer's imagination. Still, there are characteristics that define a work of epic high fantasy and I would like to assemble a check list of some of those defining features and generate a healthy discussion around them.

I will start with a few and would love other readers to add their elements:

1. fully realized and developed cultures with detailed histories and cultural mythos.
2. divergent political and religious systems.
3. epic quests that span continents if not worlds
4. well-develop antagonist(s) I've written a detailed blog about why this is so essential on my part of this site.
5. detailed and fully realized schools of magic that are well defined by the author.
6. powerful, evocative prose that vivifies the darkest and brightest aspect of the characters they've created.

These are just a few fundamental elements that might provide a good stating basis for the discussion.

[mlady_rebecca]

I never thought magic (#5) was a requirement for epic high fantasy. Jacqueline Carey's "Kushiel's Dart" series has all the other elements, but not really much in the way of magic. Anne Bishop's "Dark Jewels" Trilogy has all of that, including the magic.

What books or series did you have in mind? I know "Lord of the Rings" is the typical example many people use.

[George]

You are right or course...magic is not an essential element...but it certainly has its place...I have stated my belief that Steven Erikson and Guy Gavriel Kay epitomize epic fantasy as an art form...they both draw heavily on magic in designing power structures of the worlds they create...but George rr Martin has written some epic fantasy with a definite dearth of magic to be found...all of these elements can be removed or replaced...they can be sublte or overt...

[Julia]

I'd say 3 isn't absolutely essential. The stakes should be epic ( affect the world / continent)yes. But there doesn't need to be a quest that follows people all over the world...The book need not ever leave one city, so long as the outcome would effect the larger population and not just the protags and his few friends

And while magic isn't essential, a fantastic element is - the high referring to the 'high' level of fantasy as opposed to the low level of fantasism in low fantasy, and epic tends to be high fantasy ( though not always again)

4 & 6 would be what I require from any book.

Number 7 - Almost always parallel world.

Good versus evil is more prevalent in High fantasy, though I'd say while it's not essential the themes do tend to cover that

Actually now I come to think of it, apart from the epic stakes, you could leave out one or more of any of these, and it might still be epic.

[Bill]

What is the difference between High and Epic fantasy? Is LOTR high or epic?

I would also suggest that an integral element is multiple sentient species sharing a world.

[George]

Perhaps this is redundant...or perhaps the explanation lies in the first paragraph of Julia's remark...
I believe that all of the elements I initially listed may be removed or perhaps combined...dare I say that the addition of each to a fantasy offering only serves to deepen and enrich the tapestry.
Kernos' remarked as it pertains to multiple sentient species certainly provides some great latitude for debate. The Malazan books of the fallen are rife with multiple species and I would argue that this series stands as the very definition of epic fantasy...so to does the legend of king Arthur where humans hold exclusive sway.

[Julia]

Kernos wrote: "What is the difference between High and Epic fantasy? Is LOTR high or epic?

I would also suggest that an integral element is multiple sentient species sharing a world. "

As I see it a work can be both all at once :D

'High' refers to the amount of fantastical elements. The more fantastical and the less realistic your world / culture / beings, the more 'High' it is, as opposed to 'low' fantasy which is more like the real world, maybe with only one or two elements that are fantastical ( or even none, if it's set on a different world and / or alternate history)

Epic refers to the stakes. In Epic, the stakes are BIG!! The fate of the world or a continent or a whole people ( so say Dragonlance). As opposed to say Sword and Sorcery which may well have lots of fantastical elements but the stakes are more limited...the protag, his friends etc are in danger. ( Think Conan etc)

So, that being the case, LOTR is both High ( lots of fantastical elements, though not huge amounts of magic) and Epic ( the future of the World hangs in the balance)

Epic / high also often has a more delineated sense of Good v Evil, whereas low / non epic is more morally ambiguous, ( great for your basic anti hero lol)though that's more a trend than a hard and fast thing

As for multiple species - yes it's seen very often. I wouldn't say it's a requirement though

George wrote: "Perhaps this is redundant...or perhaps the explanation lies in the first paragraph of Julia's remark...
I believe that all of the elements I initially listed may be removed or perhaps combined...d..."

Yes, I think they are rather mix and match, to a degree, though ,most Epics will have several. I'd say all you really require are some fantastical elements and a scope of plot that will endanger the World or a large portion of it ( and usually on an alternate world).

That's just me though :D

[Ridan]

Interesting discussion - I agree that fantasy is the most creative of fiction writing and probaly the most diverse. I guess I'm just not analytical enough to break it down as specifically as you have but in general your reasoning seems sound.

[George]

Fantasy lends itself to everything that makes writing a pure and utter joy...that is why I've made the gradual writing switch from fantasy's distant cousin - horror to this genre...even the elevated use of the english language...that would read as pretentious in any other genre...has a unique home here...it's just kind of fun to analyze and dissect things, but it certainly isn't necessary in terms of enjoying this wonderful form of fiction!!!

[Julia]

Lol sorry, occupational hazard. If I don't know what genre I'm writing, it makes it more tricky to sell it :D

Besides I don't shut up IRL either, and it's a fave subject so....I enjoy fantasy so much is why I waffle on so.

[George]

Two other skills that I would say are crucial to possess as an effective fantasy writer are deft use of the descriptive narrative tool and the ability to evoke reader empathy for the story's characters. Irrespective of how brilliantly crafted a story might be or how lush and fully realized a fantasy world may be contructed, if the writer cannot evoke a strong emotional bond between characters and reader...the story will in all probability fall short of meeting the readers desires...this is true of all fiction, but I find that fantasy is the genre of caprice and wonder where this may be especially so.

[Bill]

George, are "strong emotional bond" and "identifying with a character" the same thing?

[George]

I'm not sure if there is a strict definition for either...they could well be the same thing except, again this is only my interpretation and I may be wrong, but when I think of identifying with a character, I see this as seeing aspects of the character that you may see in your own nature or perhaps your situation...When I say a stong emotional bond, I define this as having a passionate response to a character...that response may be admiration...it may even be intense hatred or loathing...but the writer has managed to evoke a strong response to the characters he or she has created...perhaps you've read books or watched movies where you are completely indifferent to any of the characters in the story...you simply don't care what happens to them one way or the other...again, this is only personal opinion, but I find it hard to enjoy that kind of story. When I write, I really put a great deal of effort into descriptive narrative, especially when it comes to providing insight in the characters motivations and nature...If a writer does this with any degree of skill, I think it will manage to evoke a response from the reader. Have you ever read a book where you wish you could sit down and talk with the character or hang out with them...or wonder what they might do when they're not involved in the plot of the story? That sounds kind of silly, but it's how I see creating a strong emotional bond.

[Amelia]

I completely agree with you George. I think that is one of the main problems a story has, especially movies. If you don't care if a character lives or dies, gets the girl, wins the lottery or whatever the story arc might be, we as either a reader or viewer will think of the time we spent invested in that story as unproductive time. If one can really get involved with the characters everything that happens to that character matters and we want to see them suceed (or if we love to hate them - to fail).
A lot of movies lately just have a lot of action and no characterization at all. I think that was one of the failings with the movie adaptation of Eragon and also the 3 new Star Wars movies.

[George]

I could be wrong, but I suspect the reason for this failing may be found in the fact that ours has become a culture of immediate gratification where non-stop action and pyrotechnics has replaced story elements and human interaction...this is truer in cinema of course, but may also account for the decline of reading as a form of entertainment...I think of how Revolutionary Road flopped at the box office, but GI Joe rise of Cobra made a mint and I shake my head...Still, one of fantasy's great strengths is its exemplary use of the english language (and all others, to be sure) to build not only spectacular worlds, but engaging characters. This is oen of the primary reasons I switched from writing horror to now writing fantasy.

[Melissa]

As a reader, not a writer, I'm going to jump into this fray (nervously). I agree with most of what has been posted so far, but I want to add that in addition to character depth, I personally find that a story also needs some minimum narrative to paint the environment. I can't follow a story and enjoy the story, if I can't be in the place as well.

Which brings me to George's remarks about the "immediate gratification" aspects of entertainment. I'm an outlier I guess. I want the story to unfold at a pace that keeps me involved, but it has to wrap around me as well. Non-stop racing action is just that. It's like a rush of adrenaline, but then its gone. It doesn't linger after you close the book. The ambient details help create images that capture the characters and the story--that's what makes the book memorable.

Now, how does this get boiled down into an "element" of fantasy?

Just my insignificant and humble opinion, based on my limited experiences of falling headlong into the best fantasy novels.

[Marc]

Melissa wrote: "Now, how does this get boiled down into an "element" of fantasy?"

Well, that's actually what I do. I once had a contest judge remark that my story ('Ex Libris', that time) was written in third person limited (whatever that is), yet it felt like first person. My technique for achieving this is simple: everything that happens is seen through the eyes of some character, not my own. In other words, instead of description (which I hate in all the books I've read) I use perception. This is an action, so it is dynamic. It defines the scene yet it is personal, so setting and plot are defined by how the character perceives them. The story unfolds to you the reader the same way that it unfolds to me the author and to him the character. The story changes as the characters change. The same place and time become different settings depending on who is perceiving them.

[Julia]

That's what I do too Melissa, mainly because that's how I like to read. I don't want the author's perceptions ( well okay they are, but I don't want to be reminded tey are, if that makes sense?)

I want to see how this particular person sees this particular world. So if they see nothing unusual in people being purple, instead of a long paragraph describing purple people all you'd get in the narrative is something like 'She loved the way his skin deepened from lilac to purple when he got angry' or something ( sorry, crappy example). Instead of stopping the story to describe things, the description is part of the story, and part of the character's view of the world too. It describes and illuminates character all at the same time. You allow for the reader to have the intelligence to 'get it' without beating them over the head with a wadge of description. Heinlen called it 'incluing'( there's a Wiki article that describes it better than I have :D)It gives the example 'The door irised open' So, the character notices nothing unusual because a dilating door is normal for him. The reader gets it's a dilating door and there's been no stopping the action to describe it.

And of course, other fantasy readers hate that lol. Some adore long descriptions. I just happen to be not one of them. *shrug* But there's room for all different sorts of styles in fantasy. I prefer subtly, I must admit. If the story has grabbed me I don't want to stop for a paragraph on the mating habits of seals ( unless that's what the story is about)And what's really sad? I actually read that in a fantasy...there we were, two people talking about the plot and the story going somewhere and BANG! Seal mating habits. I don't care! Get back to the story damn it!

[Melissa]

You guys hit it right on. Perceptions of the characters are more engaging and give definition to the character. I hadn't thought of it that way--but you are the writers, not me!

I don't think I like to get ensnared in long narrative descriptions necessarily, but its cool when the story weaves around the setting, for example, from the Well of Tears, by C. Dart-Thornton,

". . wide-reaching boughs nodded gently, whispering; their shade was cool and dappled, the ground patterned with tender green blades and butter-curls of leaves . . . Here they rested for awhile . . "

The scene is clear in my minds eye. Another fine example is from Rothfuss's The name of the Wind:

". . . the trees were changing color. Tall poplars had gone a buttery yellow while the shrubby sumac encroaching on the road was tinged a violent red. Only the old oaks seemed reluctant to give up summer and . . ."

Granted, I've emphasized the natural environment in my examples, but I think this is an element that is often overlooked. As a botanist, it's my habit to notice details in the vegetation, and most people just see green and brown when they go outside. Its great when a writer can draw the attention down to some of the details for the reader.

[Marc]

That's actually a very tricky subject. When I write I have to be careful what my characters notice. A lot of people don't notice the number of steps in the front walk or the trees and etc. they see all the time. I actually invented my technique because I didn't want to write all that stuff, so I focused on what he would notice or care about. So details of that sort are the sort of thing my characters probably wouldn't notice unless it was important to them.

[Melissa]

Mark, I think it's all about different styles here - not elements as being used in this discussion. Each writer, each reader, have their own styles and preferences.

I'm enjoying reading so much about the writing process. My whole perspective of a novel is changing. It's a complex process.

[Lowed]

In the case of Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel series (and I meant the first three), the protagonist received a gift from Kushiel that enabled her to feel pleasure instead of pain. That should still account to something on George's fifth point. =)

Details of the environment, the weather, and etc. should be given focused too as this sets the mood for each reader.

Oh yeah, prose is important. it enables the reader to feel. It draws out the emotion.

[Julia]

Oh setting is important, more particularly in fantasy. As you say, weather, environment. It all helps add atmosphere. But that's something that you can layer in a sentence here, a sentence there without a big chunk....

In a non-fantasy, the environment is ( almost) a given. You can head the chapter 1939 Berlin, and the reader gets a picture in their head it's easy to build on.

In fantasy you have to be more descriptive about not just where you are, but the customs and dress etc. The trick is to do it so it's organic, not intrusive. That's the tricky part for me :D And it's something that maybe should be part of a fantasy 'list' - the ability to subtly build a world at variance with our own. ( my own preference for instance would be that the writer knows all the history, but doesn't feel he has to tell me all of it!) Slightly different from your number 1 there, and that's just my opinion. You don't need a detailed history ( or not actually in the book, unless it's pertains to the plot), but the writer needs to know how that's shaped the present time. It's all in the little telling details, which are as good a way as lots of details.

Am I making sense? :D

[Marc]

Absolutely. Many times I've written something lengthy and descriptive, only to cut it out and replace it with just a few words that indicate that it was all there. It's important that I know it, or have thought of it. It's not important that I say it.

[George]

All excellent discusion points!!! Like just about every other aspect of the human experience...a detailed history is only important if the individual regards it as such...I happen to enjoy this element and will be pleased when it is present, whereas the next reader might despise being bogged down in minute detail and not like the story for exactly the same reason I enjoy it. Let's just use the example of a movie (one that I regard as awful) in Angelina Jolie's Wanted...the notion of the Weavers of history was touched upon and glossed over in five minutes...but I frankly found that to be the most interesting and sadly ignored aspect of the entire movie...but again, that is entirely subjective.

[Barbm1020]

I agree that details should be put in to give the reader a feeling of being on the scene, but they should be the details that are important to the point-of-view character. Which is better: "It was a rainy morning. Pavel woke up. He looked out the window. Something was wrong." or "Pavel crouched at the window of his chilly garret, eyeing the cramped view of the street below. Raindrops coursed down the outside of the glass, hardly affecting the grime of years. Pavel's own breath had fogged the inside. He wiped at it with the edge of his ragged sleeve, but the street outside still wavered in his vision. The rain was falling hard, but there was something more. He squinted, rose, swept his hands before his face to clear away any stray Influences, and felt a subtle resistance in the ether. Now the shimmering was inside the room."

[Marc]

The second version is too verbose for me. I'd do something like:

"Pavel woke up, sure that something bad was happening. It wasn't the rain, much as he hated rain. For one thing, this was inside the room."

Or something like that.

[Julia]

I happen to enjoy this element and will be pleased when it is present, whereas the next reader might despise being bogged down in minute detail and not like the story for exactly the same reason I enjoy it.

Exactly! There's fantasy ( and fans) of both sorts, but over-abundance of detail seems more prevalent than sticking with relevant detail. I can only hope to find more of my sort....

Although I don't mind a history when it's done subtly ( not a history lesson lol) kind of woven into the story, or when it's done so engagingly I don't care ( Terry Pratchett. Those foot notes...:D)but if it's not part of the plot or character development, I fail to see why you really need it. It's part of what the writer needs to know, but if the reader doesn't NEED to know, my eyes glaze over lol

But that's just me. :D Horses for courses and all that. I appreciate others love all that stuff, but if I'm bored writing it...

[George]

Just to clarify for all involved, it seems that Marc and others are drawing a distinction between and a preference for Perspective oriented narrative (thoughts and emotions as viewed from inside the mind of a character) as opposed to descriptive narrative where the writer provides story detail from the third person view?...Actually, this is the one thing that will set a novel apart from its movie counterpart...the vehicle to dive inside the mind of the story's inhabitants...it is the primary reason why a good book should always be superior to a good movie!

[Marc]

You're quite right. What you called 'Perspective oriented narrative' I call 'experiential prose', as opposed to descriptive prose, which I loathe. I've often thought my book would make a good movie but trying to visualize each scene as it is perceived by individual characters would be tough. My son suggested it would make a good video game, like Halo and others that have the player in the first person position.

[Barbm1020]

George, thanks for saying it so well. Some readers like to see things happening and use their own imaginations to put themselves into the story. Some like to meet a character whose viewpoint will become their own as the story unfolds and will bring them along into his or her world. So there's room for both kinds of writing. I like writers who can create memorable characters as the reader's companions in the fantasy world. We often refer to Terry Pratchett's work in the fantasy forum, partly because because he's so good at this. I think a great example is Sam Vimes. The city is revealed in all its amusing nastiness, and the complexities of law enforcement in a magical world are explored as we join Vimes in his experience in the Watch.

[George]

I believe that each approach is viable and has its place in fiction...I want my readers to gain a thorough understanding of my characters so they can grasp something of what motivates them to do what they do and thus seeing the world through their eyes is critical...the third person descriptive narrative offers the reader an unbiased view of the world in which the story is unfolding (this is only one function, of course)...both are great tools and both add to the eventual crafting of a well written story.