Well, I think @123456789 pointed out one limitation - that of the lack of existing culture and history. To take his example, how could one write To Kill A Mockingbird as a fantasy and retain the same impact? A reader picks up Harper Lee's book with at least some background knowledge of the prior existence of race-based slavery, the struggle to be rid of such a system, the residual biases it left in its wake and the struggle (ongoing) to be rid of those as well. It is impossible to understand Atticus Finch, Tom Robinson or anything that happens to them without that understanding, even though slavery itself has nothing to do with the story aside from the attitudes it left in its wake. In a fantasy setting, it would all have to be part of the writer's newly invented world.
Good point. But I did love Forbidden Planet which is sort of a take on The Tempest. I think it all depends on what you're going for and definitely what you can achieve through the new genre that the old couldn't. Also how many elements you take from the story - too many and it wouldn't work. Some would definitely half to be reworked. I was in Chapters last year, and there was a copy of Alice in Wonderland gothic or zombie style I forget which and all they did was swap some images - I think the caterpillar turned into a maggot but I was sort of what's the point of this? I think if your going to do something to update a story or something do it shocking or fresh ( Automated Alice ) or don't bother.
I think it could be done. Certainly the fantasy author can create the world as she sees fit, and incorporate all of those elements into it. The reader is still in the real world, and has all the same culture and history to draw on that he would have reading the original work. If you simply mirrored the real world enough, you could do it. I'm not saying you'd necessarily want to do it that way, but you could. You could tell the same story.
Example: Imagica. Much of what takes place and is backdrop for the realms other than Earth in this diptych are taken directly from real history and culture, reimagined in a fantasy setting. It would take a dull reader indeed not to twig this when reading Barker's work.
Must confess that I have struggled with reading one of them from the story perspective, however it was a Master Class in descriptive narrative. I recall reading about twenty pages tracing the route of a scream as it travelled through the castle.
I think fantasy has grown into a bigger genre than just fantasy. And it has, but more so than those genres already existing. Now that Tolkien type fantasy is cliche people has to find their own twists and such, thus leaving the pure fantasy genre. I write epic fantasy, but I like to view it as a medieval world with a sprinkle of fantasy.
As a new member, I would like to state, "I love the fantasy genre." I read Tolkien as a child, but Terry Brooks brought me into the realm of reading in general. I just could not put down the Shannara series. I moved on through most of the popular books; Then I found, The Wheel of Time. I am certain many here have much to comment about Robert Jordan. However, those books really made me want to create! On to, A Song of Ice and Fire. . . I thought Robert Jordan could draw things out . . . I still like it! I suppose that fantasy is growing ever larger, because it offers an escape. Be it from the neon distraction, the total crap that is broadcast on TV, or just the toil of the mundane life. One must also factor in the HUGE, amount fantasy based video games that have been on the market for the past ten years. I am guilty as charged!
In Animal Farm, Orwell made a commentary on communism using a bunch of talking animals. So I'm sure many real world subjects can be explored using humans in a fantasy setting. Issues of slavery and racism for example do get explored in Terry Pratchett's Snuff. The oppressed race are goblins rather than black people, but there's plenty of message about the human condition. (His later works such as Snuff have much more depth than earlier books such as Colour of Magic)
I do think that a lot of people do get a desire to write fantasy because they like playing fantasy based games. (Be that computer games or pen and paper RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons) That is a harder starting point than being a heavy reader, so the drop out rate may be higher and could partially explain why there is a higher percentage of fantasy writers amongst the new writers than the experienced writers.
This is interisting to me, since I'm a 15-year-old writer who's been writing for most of my life, mainly fantasy. I've never played any computer games more advanced than Age of Empires and didn't even know D&D - or any other RP game like it - existed until I started searching the web for articles and hints of writing fantasy.
Well by no means have all fantasy writers got into the genre via games, but I know people who have, so it seemed a credible theory.
I love writing fantasy, but i always err on the side of keeping it slightly real. There are heavy sci fi elements in my main piece with a touch of horror. I think for young writers, like myself, Fantasy is the easiest to write. I don't have a great well of knowledge on any particular subject to dive into for writing anything but fantasy.
I have been giving this topic a bit of thought... I have concluded, that most popular SciFi is really in the Fantasy genre...
I think fantasy is a natural realm to explore in writing. One of the best things about creating your own work of fiction is that there are no limitations, you can explore things that you'd not normally be able to study or experience in normal life. As a result, people like to write fantasy. It's different, refreshing and has no boundaries. If you create for the sake of creating something, why would you choose to create something with limitations, when you can create something without? Why worry about whether or not your spy novel is realistic, when no such concerns really apply to a fantasy novel?
I find myself wondering if there's a circular definition issue here. That is: "All fantasy is the same--swords and magic and dragons." "What about E. Nesbit's Five Children and It or Rumer Godden's The Doll's House?" "That's not fantasy--there aren't any swords or magic or dragons." What are the minimal prerequisites for something to be called fantasy? Do those prerequisites all but require the stereotypical elements for which fantasy is being criticized? (I'm not asking 123456789 specifically, just tying the question to his post because it sparked the question.)
I am working on a fantasy and a science fiction novel. My fantasy won't be typical like Dungeon and Dragons or Harry Potter. It is a fantasy post apocalyptic story that takes place in the future. Future fantasy stories are rare.
I write fantasy, but it's widely influenced by Asian culture and legends, so it's more varied than medieval fantasy.
My first novel was a mixture of science fiction and fantasy, I wrote a superhero comic book for my second project and I am currently working on an Afro futurist (fantasy) novel with a Civil Rights theme.
I am doing a collab with a friend that is a historic fantasy, a little fun ditty with my 6 year old that is also fantasy. My major works that I truly hope to publish, however, are historic fiction...which poses problems when I can't find the information I am researching.
That's a good question, as fantasy and scifi intermingle so much and then there is even subgeneres to the genres themselves... For me, it also means more than simply fantastical as Alice in Wonderland is a fantastical novel but I would never say it's fantasy as the themes aren't there. Fairy Tales are also exempt as the fantasy is only fanstastical in our modern world while the settings were quite commonplace way back when and dealt with commonly accepted superstitions. Fantasy as we know it started as struggles of olden times with good vs evil or ancient myths from old cultures such as the norse sagas. So judging by the root of fantasy, we can say that fantasy is based on a marvelous version of our world where gods were prominent and heroes slayed mighty beasts. Or, in a more modern mindset, fantasy is in its rawest form in any story where a hero defeats beasts or has dealings with the gods and comes to an inspirational ending about the might of mankind in the face of forces beyond its preconceived limitations. So, high fantasy, low fantasy, urban fantasy are just subgenres of fantasy and many of which today are considered fantasy might actually not be fantasy. Maybe that's why many of our protagonists are "chosen ones" or go on epic journeys to save the world; because what made fantasy is still what makes fantasy today with or without our knowledge. It's about the heroes and what they go through to become heroes. From unlikely farmers, cuthroat thieves, and wise kings - fantasy is about their deeds that lerave an impression on the reader.
I'm puzzled as to what you mean by gods. It seems to me that requiring them would eliminate almost all low fantasy and a very large percentage of all fantasy. For example, Tolkein would be out. For me, "fantasy" is about the setting, not the theme. But it's not as if I'm in charge.
