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.
A most interesting flaw you found! And good thing you're not in charge or I'd ask what you're doing in my chair! And I do hate asking... So perhaps, I may argue, gods come into the equation because of a cultural belief in gods that was very prominent at the time. Gods were present as divine beings and humans that are divine were part of a culture with strong faith. Removing a cultural bias from the equation, perhaps it's all about the hero slaying powerful beasts! Or perhaps overcoming impossible odds and obstacles where many would falter which in turn gives those characters an inspirational like greatness abo
Overcoming impossible odds? I don't think that's limited to fantasy. Fantasy tends to simplify things, in my opinion. Simple lives, simple problems. A good example is the overused races and their tensions: Dwarves are the working class folk that like to relax with a big meal/pint at the end of the day; Elves are prudish, usually wealthy (in some way) and feel superior; Orcs antagonize for the heck of it, essentially the equal of how real world propaganda paints a country's foes. Generally speaking, each race fits snugly into a character archetype. Don't take that paragraph in a negative way; I love fantasy. I'm more into space military and post-apocalyptic stories than swords and sorc., but it's all a refreshing change from life. Simple is good when it's done right. Edited to add-- Here's another example of the simplicity afforded by a clean slate that comes with fantasy: the primary form of transportation in the most popular type of fantasy, swords n' dragons, is usually an animal. Usually that animal is a horse. You don't have to pay horse insurance, you won't getting in trouble for riding and drinking, their 'fuel' is just hay and water, and they can run off and come back later for some reason (or be quickly killed) if it's convenient for the story.
@Okon I will amend! The hero must do things considered fantastical! ...I am digging a hole >.> Perhaps fantasy is about a hero overcoming odds in ways or things considered fantastical today such as games by gods, evil tyrants, or something of the sort. Something that cannot be of this world. So, fantasy = inspiring hero + fantastical dilema
I usually write Fantasy, Science Fiction, or Urban Fantasy when doing longer works- like novels. I just enjoy the world building aspects, so it helps hold my attention when writing for three months straight. However, for my screenwriting, I will go with just about anything, except maybe romantic dramas. Currently I am writing a psychological thriller as a short.
Interestingly, in the Short Story writing workshop section there are almost as much Horror stories as there are Fantasy.. although some of the Horror may be Fantasy, Sci-Fi and Romance together are about equal to Fantasy while General Fiction blows it out of the water, nearly 2,500 stories there!
Well, when you talk about the origins of fantasy, you might consider this: What we call fairy tales today were never taken seriously in their original, oral context - they were always stories for kids (and grown-ups with big hearts ) They are filled with themes and symbolism surviving from an older, "mythological" times, but in the form they reached us (15-19 c) they are devoid of superstitions - no one telling them really believed in them, as their target audience were the youngest members of a community (they were told, not read, which is why we have so many thousand variants). On the other hand, northern sagas that you mention (or more "modern" epic ballads and great epics of old) were always ment to be as "real"as possible, that is, events depicted in them, however legendary or even fantastical them might seem, were basically considered true, "historically accurate" by their target audience, which were mostly adult members of a community (keep in mind that these people were pre-modern and had no concepts of history and accuracy as we know them). So i'd say that post-modern fantasy has more in common with the fairy-tales as collected by the early 19c, than with sagas, simply because the target audience of, say, Tolkien, were quite aware that Middle Earth is not an imaginary land [why "post-modern"? because contemporary fantasy commonly deals with themes and play with concepts and is rooted in the totality of texts available to the author, and this totality includes previous works of the genre as well as the world heritage]
Well, when you talk about the origins of fantasy, you might consider this: What we call fairy tales today were never taken seriously in their original, oral context - they were always stories for kids (and grown-ups with big hearts ) They are filled with themes and symbolism surviving from an older, "mythological" times, but in the form they reached us (15-19 c) they are devoid of superstitions - no one telling them really believed in them, as their target audience were the youngest members of a community (they were told, not read, which is why we have so many thousand variants). On the other hand, northern sagas that you mention (or more "modern" epic ballads and great epics of old) were always ment to be as "real"as possible, that is, events depicted in them, however legendary or even fantastical them might seem, were basically considered true, "historically accurate" by their target audience, which were mostly adult members of a community (keep in mind that these people were pre-modern and had no concepts of history and accuracy as we know them). So i'd say that post-modern fantasy has more in common with the fairy-tales as collected by the early 19c, than with sagas, simply because the target audience of, say, Tolkien, were quite aware that Middle Earth is not an imaginary land [why "post-modern"? because contemporary fantasy commonly deals with themes and play with concepts and is rooted in the totality of texts available to the author, and this totality includes previous works of the genre as well as the world heritage]
My work in progress is an adaptation of a subplot that takes place in a fantasy world into a story of magic realism. Imagine if The Metamorphosis was inspired by a one-off character who was transformed by a witch into a giant cockroach in a previously written fantasy epic.
I love "modern" fantasy. You know, that "old magic stuff" with a fresh, modern twist to it that makes it feel new. Currently trying that out myself.
I'm trying my hand at a Fantasy. No elves though or anything like that. Shamanistic/Totemic/Anamismismly™ (<- makin up words since 2014), and whatnot. Well, I s'pose my elves and dwarfs and whatnots are Elk and Cougars and Buffalo. And a Raven. Huh.
Hmm... start with a super duper ring or wizards or an escape from some sort of Imperial Troops. Something like that should work. Or an emo teen describing the dreariness of her dreariness as it starts to rain dreary drops of dreary. That might work as well. MIX THEM ALL TOGETHER - omg. The drearyship of the rebel wizards ring of glittery vampires!? I'm gonna be rich!
I do like fantasy—have loved some of it—from fairy tales as a child through Alice in Wonderland, Tolkien and on into things like Kage Baker, Joe Abercrombie. However, I mostly read other stuff, primarily history, social history and novels based on history or set in the past, as well as modern novels set in interesting locations, etc. I love 'hard' sci-fi as well, because I love to speculate upon what is actually 'out there.' I don't write fantasy, and have no interest in writing fantasy, though. Probably an age thing! It certainly seems the fashionable choice of genre for younger folks at the moment. I try to resist the urge to define it, but I suppose I consider fantasy to be anything the writer and reader both know is not—and never could be—real. Sci-fi is something the reader accepts could be real, either in the future or someplace we can't get to yet. Sci-fi speculates about reality; fantasy plays with unreality. At least that's my working definition.
I guess it's also to do with imagination. For me, fantasy (something that can't happen - unless you actually believe in fairies/elves/magic/unicorns/ogres/etc) needs to be written by someone with an absolutely stunning imagination and although mine is fabulous for creating people and situations, I can't extend it to worlds, countries, spells and talking animals. I need to work in a world that already exists. Big thumbs up to those that can do it though!
With the exception of some children's picture books, no, I've never written fantasy. I think my imagination is too grounded to create something outside the realm of reality that could still be taken seriously by adults.
I think nearly every novel aside from non-fiction has some element of fantasy to it. There is no escaping the fantasy that comes from making up certain things in order to make your story work (even in historical pieces).
I wrote a lot more science fiction and mystery before I turned my eyes towards Fantasy. Infact I've only written two fantasy stories. And currently working on a fantasy novel. Instead of going onto the race insenstivities, I went into the darker aspects. But I mean Lovecraft is fantasy, and that is an almost completely untouched fantasy genre. The most used sub-genre of fantasy is the elves, the dwarves, who face a great evil of some kind. Usually a dark lord etc etc.
I'm currently working on a horror novel, but most of the stories I have are about bizarre out there kind of stuff happening in the normal world where I guess the only genre tag could be fantasy. I've never tried to create a sword and sorcery type fantasy story though.
