Fantasy Aficionados discussion
Discussions about books
>
When is fantasy not fantasy?
I've noticed that too but the one that really gets me is when someone finds a Ya romance with extra vampire type piece of twaddle and feels that its too lame to be horror and thus decides to put it under fantasy as though that's a better comparison. I retch every time.
I see that a ton too...don't forget the werewolf YA romances. They pop in there too. I'll give them paranormal or some such...but fantasy?Maybe they're "fantasizing" about the vampires...yeah, that's all I've got as an idea.
That is exactly what is happening. In fact there's an incredibly obvious example in the introduction of Dark Hunter into FA's top 100.
Glad I'm not alone in seeing this trend. Not that it fixes the problem, but at least makes me believe I'm not imagining it.
On one hand, the confusion has been with us for a while. Is Star Wars Fantasy in space, or is it Sci-fi just because it's in space? On the other hand. I remember a time, when Fantasy only included what we are now calling Epic fantasy. Vampires were "horror" or Thrillers, Fantasy meant horses, sword, sorcery and maybe monsters.
Once the Horror based "fantasy stories" (Urban Fantasies) became accpeted fantasy. Then the explosion of what was considered fantasy affected all forums discussing it.
There was a time, when the catagory (genre) was considered "Sci-fi/Fantasy" It was fantasy if it had swords and sorcery, but in the same genre, and if it had blasters and space ships or some type of scientific problem/issue it was science fiction. Anything else, like the creature features The Beast Maker by James V. Smith Jr. if it wasn't considered a sci-fi monster (Created by man in a labratory) then it belonged somewhere else.
I think on the other side of the fence, (I think a good complication) writers have felt more freedom to reach out of the box, less confined by formula.
Even though I experience the same frustrations I see here about all this vampire stuff in the Fantasy Genre, Vampire Romance, Teen hillbilly vampires, werewolves in High School etc. that I agree should be classified as something else, I don't think the over all outcome is bad.
Some books which I enjoyed, like "Hounded" might not have a place in a publisher's mind as acceptable and would be harder to push through.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. Growing pains suck (Change pains) but that's why the middle two letters of Growth is OW! Growth is still good.
I mostly Agree, especially with the point about publishing issues although with the right advertisers being accused of creating or adding to a new and growing genre that is achieving popularity, (Unfortunately in most cases), would actualy be a good thing. Having said this I must admit that I don't see many advertisers sticking their necks out in this way unless they really thought it was true.
Umm, according to Wikipedia the definition is: "Fantasy is a genre of fiction that commonly uses magic and other supernatural phenomena as a primary element of plot, theme, or setting. Many works within the genre take place in imaginary worlds where magic is common. Fantasy is generally distinguished from science fiction and horror by the expectation that it steers clear of (pseudo-)scientific and macabre themes, respectively, though there is a great deal of overlap between the three, all of which are subgenres of speculative fiction."This means that urban fantasy is a definition of fantasy. Also, YA should be included in fantasy, just because it features main characters that are in their teens, it does not mean that it isn't fantasy.
And why are vampires and werewolves not fantasy? This doesn't make sense to me.
Anyone else stop paying attention after Wikipedia...?
Urban fantasy, I totally agree...my original complaint was about lumping modern urban dramatic fiction and whatnot into fantasy.To be more specific, I just left a group where the fantasy book of the month is the tale of a girl's attempt to not miss a Mexican holiday. No fantasy elements at all.
Anyway, just thought it'd make a good discussion topic to see what people thought applied and didn't...which appears to be correct, as we're getting a few different opinions already.
Edit: Now now, let's not be mean about the Wikipedia reference. :)
Wikipedia provides information. Should I look up the definition from another "reputable" source so then you will pay attention to my valid point?Fantasy, to me, has always been more than just high fantasy. Fantasy has always been about the "impossible." So that's why I think that vampires and werewolves should be included in the genre.
Jim wrote: "Urban fantasy, I totally agree...my original complaint was about lumping modern urban dramatic fiction and whatnot into fantasy.To be more specific, I just left a group where the fantasy book of ..."
I totally agree with you Jim. Unless she must go through a magical world or is late because she meets a unicorn, I wouldn't consider it fantasy.
Are you sure the group doesn't have a non-fantasy read every month?
They actually vote on genre...they voted in fantasy, then went with that as the final choice. I (and I'm guessing the other three fantasy writers up in the vote) was not amused and even asked about the book, wondering if the description was valid. The author more or less wrote back saying it's borderline non-fiction and certainly not fantasy. *shrug*
I merely meant that since Wikipedia is, due to its corruptible nature, highly populist it was always going to allow for the lumping of the new trends in Ya romance into fantasy. By which I mean that they are highly popular and those who read them want to make them seem more reputable. They are also generally read by people of the Wikipedia, Blooging and Youtube generation. Your definition choice is skewed and self-serving. Plus I did read your post in full. The fact that my only complaint was sourcing should tell you that I did, for the most part, like your point.
Mark wrote: "I merely meant that since Wikipedia is, due to its corruptible nature, highly populist it was always going to allow for the lumping of the new trends in Ya romance into fantasy. By which I mean tha..."Thank you. Most people see one thing they dislike and then refuse to read the rest of the post because the person was wrong on the first point.
And for the record, I know just as many adults as kids that read these YA romances, not just my generation (which isn't really mine being that I'm 21, but yanno).
Do you have a better website for reference for stuff like this?
Jim wrote: "They actually vote on genre...they voted in fantasy, then went with that as the final choice. I (and I'm guessing the other three fantasy writers up in the vote) was not amused and even asked about..."Odd. I don't understand that one. People must have not paid attention to the genre and then just decided to vote/nominate what they wanted to read.
In my opinion, fantasy is always 'what if?' that introduces elements not found in the 'real world'. In that case, science fiction is a part of the fantasy genre, but with its own defined space. Within that space there are sub-genres that occasionally blend into each other. The same can be said for all other fantasy genres, and indeed the genres themselves frequently blend into each other.
Indeed they do read the main ones too, (I'd like to add unfortunately given the horrenduous english in those specifically), but the little known ones who don't make up newer elements to the Vamp and Were idea, (S.Meyer for all her problems did at least add new fantastical characteristics to these), and still get put into Fantasy annoy me. There are of course better and more acceptable options here such as any of the ones that try to put a new twist on old myths and legends but are still YA romance. Those ones are Fantasy.
S.J. wrote: "In my opinion, fantasy is always 'what if?' that introduces elements not found in the 'real world'. In that case, science fiction is a part of the fantasy genre, but with its own defined space. Wit..."I believe I've had this conversation before. Once again I'll say that I've always liked this 'what if' idea about fantasy myself. The problem is that this is too easily corruptible into the idea that all fiction is fantasy which in many ways is true but helps no one.
That's why I added the qualifier 'introduces elements not found in the 'real world''.
I'm old enough to remember when 'never the twain shall meet' dominated the bookshelves. Fantasy was orcs, scifi was spaceships. Thank the gods of Malazan, that nonsense is over with.
Majkia wrote: "I'm old enough to remember when 'never the twain shall meet' dominated the bookshelves. Fantasy was orcs, scifi was spaceships. Thank the gods of Malazan, that nonsense is over with."I would like to agree with that and a few months ago, I would have. However, now that I'm trying to seek out friendly locations to discuss the style that I write (epic fantasy), I'm getting infuriated with the "we only do fantasy...oh wait...what we mean is (insert random subset that may or may not even be fantasy-related)" mindset I'm finding all over the place. The ambiguity over what "is" fantasy was once appealing, but now it's driving me batty.
When someone says fantasy and then leans towards sci-fi, I blink and nod. When someone says fantasy and leans towards non-fiction, I want to stab myself in the eyes.
Maybe that's just me. :)
The orcs and only orcs thing was too far in the other direction. A middle ground is what we seek.
I'm glad you brought up that point, Majkia. I recall when the local library had science fiction in one section, and fantasy in another. Back then, I was much more into science fiction than fantasy.
Jim: What do you regard as epic fantasy? I've done some fantasy writing myself, and I'd be interested in your opinion.
Epic fantasy (IMO) tends to be the far more fantastic or "high magic" style. A little magic or monsters in non-epic is common, but epic kind of throws off the shackles and runs wild with a new world that you have to stop and think, "What are the rules here?"Easier with examples...
Game of Thrones: Basic fantasy. Not a lot of "OMG that cannot happen in the real world." I've heard that's changing as the story goes on, but I've fallen behind. Bad on me.
Lord of the Rings: Kind of a middle ground. There's magic and monsters, but they aren't bold enough for me to quite say epic fantasy...but maybe.
Deathgate Cycle: Epic fantasy. Lots of magic, the rules are very different from our world, etc.
That's my interpretation...your mileage may vary.
Okay, thanks. So how does your story meet the standards of epic fantasy? If you'd prefer you could IM me directly on this.
wow. certainly a different interpretation than mine (not that either are WRONG, just different).For me the scale of the action is the controlling factor. Magic might be minimal, I don't care. It might just be so accepted it isn't noted that much. But if it's affecting a huge area and huge numbers of places and peoples, then it's epic.
GoT, epic, LotR, epic, Malazan, epic.
Whereas tales of fantasy where the rest of the world is unaware or unaffected, not epic. Most urban fantasy, I'd think, would fit here. As would tales like The Sorcerer's House, Midnight Riot.
Generally that form of "epic" is used on different topics than the genres of fiction, but it's another good example of how the words aren't always viewed the same by others. :)
Jim wrote: "Epic fantasy (IMO) tends to be the far more fantastic or "high magic" style. A little magic or monsters in non-epic is common, but epic kind of throws off the shackles and runs wild with a new worl..."I think the problem is apples, oranges and Roses.
Apples are apples, Oranges are oranges, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Or if that didn't help muddy things up a bit try this. A "Quartermaster" in the Army handles stores and supplies. In the Navy we call that a "Storekeeper". In the Navy a Quartermaster is one of the enlisted rates trained to assist the CO/Officer of the Deck/Ships Navigator in all things navigation.
What I mean is, this is Sheep and Sheep, one or many.
We could take Epic fatasy and NAME it Guns and ROSES. It would still contain what ever the genre includes. So the term "Fantasy" has two uses here. One, expresses the "name" of the group it belongs in. The other use of "Fantasy" referse to the content of a book (or the nature of the story).
To Quote Colonel Potter (M*A*S*H) "If I had a horse and named him "Man O' War" that doesn't mean he can run!"
By definition in itps purest form, any fiction book could be considered "fantasy" because it is a story "dreamed" up and not about real things.
People tend to act like there is no control over what goes into a genre or not. The words "Fantasy-Genre" are just a name. Anything could be stuck under that name.
By that idea, I don't see anything wrong with catagorizing vampires and YA disco Werewolves into their own sub group.
The book world is acting like the name "Fantasy" given to the Genre is interchangable with the same word Fantasy when used properly in a sentence.
There really is no corelation there beyond "hey, name it somethign so we know what it's about."
It's really more like the "PC vs. Mac" thing, or VHS vs Beta, (DvD vs. Blue Ray?)
It's the old "Spirit of the Law vs. Letter of the law thing. The old way where Fantasy meant swords, orcs and magic, space ships meant sci-fi and vampires were wolves and other supernatural creatures in a modern setting meant Horror was just as valid as the definition in the Wikki piece (again Wikki reflects current situations, rather than defines criteria).
If anyone follows me.
The short version. Someone(s) somehwere could solve this by sitting down and voting on criterion for each genre (named appropriately) or, we can be more forgiving but also more creative and let the functional definition of Fantasy open the door to more unusual and creative things (not all creative ideas are good ones).
It's a choice that may not be ours to make, but it's not like there's a hard fast rule or law on this Genre thing. the phrase "in the fantasy genre" does not have the same meaning as "a fantasy story."
Okay, thank you for letting me type, the crazy man will shut up now... I meant this crazy man.
I rather like this discussion. It's entertaining, enlightening, and cordial. I'd have to say that I considered Lord Of The Rings to be epic fantasy, since id dealt with a threat to the survival of an entire civilization.
My problem with werewolves and vampires being lumped into fantasy is that vampires and werewolves are HORROR. Then some person had an erotic dream about blood and vampires... *poof* it's now PNR...which people want to lump into fantasy. While its ok for this book series, I don't consider Twilight fantasy. It's PNR. That's the whole reason for the series - it's a romance. Romance is a huge genre that has many different "sub-genres" that encompass the entire range of non-fiction and speculative fiction. You want a M/M romance? Historicals, menages, suspense, steampunk, horror? It's there. Vampires and werewolves are your thing? It's there. Spaceships, lasers, pointy eared aliens? Romance has that, too. Do you find prairie dogs or trees to be especially sexy? Romance has a book for you!
Not that I don't read romance. I read it all the time and reading a historical right now. I just recognize how the many facets of romance are slowly corrupting the categorization of the horror/fantasy genres.
PNR wouldn't be so ubiquitous if there weren't a lot of readers eager for it. I asked some readers of this genre why they found it so appealing. The basic answer was: If you're going to fantasize, fantasize BIG. I don't hold with vampires that sparkle in sunlight or werewolves that lose all their body hair when in human form, but as long as some people do, stories will be written for them.
S.J. wrote: "PNR wouldn't be so ubiquitous if there weren't a lot of readers eager for it. I asked some readers of this genre why they found it so appealing. The basic answer was: If you're going to fantasize, ..."I don't have a problem that they are written. Like I said, I like and read romance. You know this. BUT just because I read it doesn’t mean that I don’t realize it’s romance and not fantasy. The problem is that people are categorizing the books as they should.
A lot of PNR – because of its fantastic elements – is pushing into the fantasy genre. A lot of the genre confusion is the readers. BUT a lot more are also publishers. IIRC after Christian fiction, Romance is the best-selling genre. After Romance comes “spec fic” which includes all fantasy. It’s been a while since I read the studies but IIRC the highest selling spec fic is Fantasy (after romance). SOo….. Romance sells like hot cakes. Fantasy is damn close. *publisher lightbulb!* Let’s see if we can get readers from both sides and sell like mad!
And all they do is piss folks like me off when we accidentally end up with some romance in fantasy clothing. My answer to the dilemma is to refuse to buy any book with a cover that shows a guy with no shirt on.
I think I understand: Your objection is that romance books with a fantasy setting are being touted as fantasy?
Now, not to say a fantasy can't have a romance...just it darn well better be fantasy first and romance second.And btw, I'm still laughing at: "Do you find prairie dogs or trees to be especially sexy? Romance has a book for you!"
'Shapeshifter' romance seems to be popular, but some authors have wandered far, far afield in search of new were-creatures to use in the story. One had were-cattle, which prompted me to think of a possible title: Seven Brides For Seven Bovines.
Nothing wrong with a shapechanger...though were-cattle may be pushing even my limits.
Oh, there are even more outrageous were-creatures out there. I think some of them are played for laughs, but I'm not entirely sure.
As a hardcore fantasy and romance reader, I really got into the shifter thing for a while. Oooooh, man. They do push the envelope with the shifters. I've seen bee shifters, tree shifters *shudder*, praire dog shifters (which really turned my stomach cause I watch a lot of Nat Geo), snake shifters, yeti shifters, polar bears....the list goes on and on. I've noticed that the most popular shifters trend toward predators...the most common of which are werewolves and dragons. Which slams you back into horror (werewolves) and fantasy (dragons) again.
Please do not use the word "hardcore" and "prairie dog shifter" in the same post again. It makes something in me die a little. *grin*
Well, the tree shifters offer the possibility of a few bad jokes at least. I suppose it's only a matter of time until authors run short of species and introduce blind naked mole rat shifters.
"tree shifters" lol. What was that like?
All my jokes are either too obvious or really stretching for humor on that one...
The most obvious joke to me would be one about 'morning wood'...
S.J. wrote: "The most obvious joke to me would be one about 'morning wood'..."*snorts water out of nose and blushes fiercely*
Jim wrote: "Please do not use the word "hardcore" and "prairie dog shifter" in the same post again. It makes something in me die a little. *grin*";-)
You're going to need brain bleach.
I disagree with a couple of the assertions that have been made so far. The first being that fantasy covers all what-if scenarios and that sci-fi, thus, is a sub-genre of fantasy. To me fantasy specifically covers what-if scenarios where magic and the supernatural are involved. Sci-fi is what-if scenarios that are based on science and technology, horror as what-ifs with monsters, so on and so forth.I also disagree with the notion that just because some creatures used to be primarily considered things of horror that that means any story with them in it is necessarily horror and not fantasy or some variation thereof. Also, the trend for vampires and werewolves and things being included in the fantasy realm can be laid more at the feet of UF - perhaps starting with Buffy - and less the YA PNRs.
For me one of the lines which divides horror and fantasy anymore are not, necessarily, the creatures used within it but, rather, the intent. For instance, aspects of magic and the supernatural, while being a heavy definer of fantasy in the forms of wizards and mages and dragons and things have also been used in horror stories. It's generally how these things are used, and the intent of the story, which marks which is which.
If vampires and werewolves and whatnot are used in a story, but that stories intention is not to be scary, to horrify, or terrorize, then I don't really consider it horror.
It's really the same sort of differentiation that exists between fantasy with romance and a romance with fantasy. There can be fantasy with horror aspects, and horror with fantasy aspects, but just because something has some things which are, or have been, considered monsters, this doesn't make it horror if they're not being used as monsters.
Of course, there's also a lot of crossover and, by the look of things, there's going to be more crossover in years to come, and not less. Some people like that sci-fi and fantasy are no longer in separate sections in most bookstores and libraries. Others are continually irritated by this face. Some, noting the crossovers of the various spec-fic subgenres, seem to think there should just be a spec-fic section so that the nitpicking of where something stops being fantasy and starts being horror, or sci-fi, or alt-reality, so on and so forth, can stop. Those who are already horrified that sci-fi and fantasy are lumped together go apoplectic at such suggestions.
And so it goes... and so it goes...
Personally, I'd kind of be ok with a spec-fic area, but that's because I read pretty much across the spec-fic realm (though I don't read much sci-fi). Most of the people who don't like the lumping don't like it because they tend to be more genre specific and have a hard time finding their kinds of books in the larger pile.
Which is a lot like picking up a UF book and having it wind up being PNR.
*Just as a random side-note: Dracula is considered horror, and is often held up as the proof that vampires are meant to be horrified and not romantic... but, in its day, it would've been quite a titillating read being that it is rife with social commentary and breaking taboos, including Victorian sexuality.
Similarly Frankenstein, often considered another quintessential gothic horror, is, perhaps, better considered an early sci-fi story, dealing with the what-ifs of scientific technique, as it is, as well as having a heavy dose of philosophizing about human nature and morality.
Fantasy Aficionados
Books mentioned in this topic
Magic Lost, Trouble Found (other topics)The Drawing of the Dark (other topics)
The Host (other topics)
The Host (other topics)
Necropolis (other topics)
More...
As a fantasy writer, this just blows my mind. The comparison I keep coming back to is if HBO replaced Game of Thrones with a Lifetime special, would anyone notice. I'm betting they would. Why is it so different in most "fantasy" forums?
Thoughts?