My take on this cool --already thoroughly answered-- question is that I think that fantasy as a whole has become much more popular. Many more readers, and as a result, probably, so much more writers. Definitely not just younger people. In my opinion, the reason why it is more popular is that the standard LOTR, dark vs light quest for the magic stone to throw in a Sauron-like face is not the only fantasy anymore. I like fantasy but could not even get through the first book of LOTR tbh. Absolutely love 'A song of ice and fire', 'The name of the wind' and 'The stormlight archive' though.
The freedom to create your own characters and world without being beholden to the geography and history of events of Earth. That is the most exciting part. It allows new writers the freedom that they want (and probably need) for their first book. That was the allure for me. I wanted to write historical fiction, but I wanted my imagination to run wild. I didn't want to be shackled to our world, our events, where the history buffs are waiting, cudgels at the ready, for the slightest infraction of historical accuracy or liberty taken. The magic, the fantasy creatures, they interest me less.
While a proper, well-written fantasy world demands consistency just like any other setting, fantasy only beggars insular consistency. If one wishes to write fantasy, while it doesn't quite allow the "absolute anything can happen at any moment for any reason reasonable or not" ideology most people I've seen who aren't fans of the genre associate with it, it does allow for writers to create their own rules, something which I'm sure appeals to other younger/new/budding/aspiring authors. As a budding author myself, I do say fantasy appeals to me as well, especially such like The Broken Earth trilogy by N.K. Jemisin. Sheer epic fantasy like A Song of Ice and Fire, the series with Game of Thrones in it, or the Nigh Angel trilogy by Brent Weeks, however, isn't really up my alley. I'm a bit picky with what fantasy I do/don't wish to read/write, though, to be fair.
Thank you! This is something I see time and time again. Especially in nerd culture when discussing one's favorite fantasy world and talking about "what's possible and what isn't" and someone buds in with "everything is possible, it's fantasy, there are no rules." Except there are, a well build fantasy world have it's own rules, it's an absolute must when you're asking readers/viewers to suspend their disbelief.
Since I was very young (born in 1986) I always loved fantasy: movies, books, whatever. I never enjoyed realistic stories as much, because my thought on reality was and still is to this day: boring, too normal, too predictable, very limited... On the other hand, I always loved things that are "out of this world": different, new, creative. But I have to say I feel sad for the fantasy theme today. When I was younger (as a kid and a teen), there were many different types of stories in the fantasy section. But today, you basically only have two types of fantasy in every bookstore: "vampires with teenagers" or "kingdoms" (Game of Thrones style). And that's it.
Yes. Folk who say you can do whatever you like in fantasy MIGHT mean you should be as creative as you can. In other words, don't copy somebody else's fantasy world by just changing the names. But once you set up your world and make the rules for it, then you have to be consistent within that. One of the good things about taking this seriously is that you will create tension within your book. If there are certain conditions that must be met before certain things can happen, then that will restrict your characters. This is good. Same as we are restricted in the real world. It's great to think that we could do anything we liked, but if that were the case, our 'stories' would be pretty boring. There would be no problem that couldn't be easily solved, no relationship that couldn't be an instant success, no skill or talent that couldn't be easily mastered, no bad thing that couldn't be easily gotten rid of, etc. It's your characters knocking up against impossibilities or difficulties that give a story its grip on the reader. You'll set up these impossibilities, rules and difficulties as you create your fantasy world. Make everything too easy, and why bother? Frodo has to put the Ring into the Fire. Oh, cool. Nae bother. He's got a couple of days free. Gandalf gives him wings that can fly as fast as he wants to fly, and a GPS to guide him where he wants to go, and a backpack to carry a few snacks and some water. He sets the GPS, flies straight to Mordor, engages a cloaking device so nobody can see him, drops down in front of The Crack of Doom, removes the ring from around his neck (where he has also engaged a shielding device so it doesn't affect him or make him want to keep it) and drops it in. Dusts hands. Job done.
I know for me, it was the appeal of world building. I thought the idea of creating my own fantasy world was amazing! As I've stated somewhere else on these forums (who knows where ) my world is very "tropey", it has elves, magic, kingdoms, orcs, etc. but it's MY own versions of those things. The reason my world's like that, is because I love those kinds of things, and those are the kinds of stories I like to tell.
I was being humorous. Using a very large brush, for the Italians military in WW2, something going right was a special occurrence.
It's similar for me. While I don't suffer from depression (at least not any more), I find fantasy fiction to be a great vessel for studying myself and the problems in the wider world that I find frustrating or a cause for anxiety. I think it was reading The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant that first put the idea in my head that fantasy could deal with these problems in an allegorical fashion, with the way it examines the destructive effects of self-loathing and feelings of inadequacy or shame.
It never really was. To use only the best-known example, Conan was never really bothered about good vs evil (he fought evil people, but generally only when they had something he wanted, or had tried to kill him first), and never saved the world. Jack Vance and Michael Moorcock are two well-known authors who also worked a long way outside the Tolkein mould.
People tend to forget Conan for some reason. Along with the whole stable of pulp era Sword and Sorcery heroes and heroines.
IMO, just the idea of an AU fantasy story instantly serves as a way for readers to mentally escape from their various real-world stresses and embrace a fictional character's epic adventure through their own world.
Well, I think a lot of young adult fiction is fantasy anyway.... so while I'm sure there may be influences from Hollywood and video games, as a cause I don't think the writing industry itself can be ruled out either. I grew up reading a lot of fantasy, so that's what attracts me to writing. Writing realistic fiction isn't as interesting to me, because I am not as interested in writing about the same stuff that I see every day. It's kind of redundant to me, but I respect that others enjoy those stories, and don't question their desire to write them. Nor do I make assumptions about the readers and writers and their reasons for reading and writing what they like. In the end, people have preferences, and that's all it really comes down to.
I don't know if someone else touched on the subject, it's a long thread, but I think Fantasy in part is appealing to new writers, and maybe especially young writers, because it's a safe place to explore big questions like life and death, power and weakness, fair and unfair, good and bad, and so on. And for adults too, of course. We probably never stop thinking about that stuff. Fantasy can make it easier to experience and think about difficult subjects, because for some people(me included) a very real contemporary setting can be too close for comfort. Adding fantasy elements to a story can be really soothing and there is a great relief in reading/watching Fantasy, I reckon. I heard in a documentary that Tolkien dealt with his WW1-experiences in his writing, and by making it fantasy, it was perhaps easier to work through that horror and the people lost. And of course, it's a lot of fun to have a kind of freedom to invent whatever would be fun to write about, while still have the tropes of genre-fiction to lean on. I'm not a new writer, or a particularly young one, but I love writing Fantasy for the pure fun of it, and the challenges to the human condition are often similar and relevant even in the most imaginative of worlds. It's a great genre, which provides entertainment and comfort to a lot of people; a break from all the ordinary troubles of life. I think it's so worthwhile writing Fantasy at any age.
Tolkien's supposed dealing with WWI trauma/inspiration by writing fantasy is a misconception disproved by himself - not sure in what particular publication of his but he explicitly denied it. If he was inspired by anything, it was the Nordic mythology and Catholic tradition or combination of both. You're right about the attractiveness of Fantasy genre but to me it sometimes seems that exactly for the reason of freedom from blunder-making (real-life refs) the work lacks in authenticity. In other words, an authentic, detailed and purposeful description of crop harvesting will lend authenticity both to a fiction and a fantasy. Fleeing from facts and factual references in fantasy is what makes it so aluring but it is a trap. Any good fantasy has dealt with it (well). Martin, judging from just how many details he throws around in his books, must have studied a fine lot of particularities.
I heard there are letters where Tolkien wrote about the connection, like a link between The Dead Marshes and The Battle of the Somme, but I could be wrong. When it comes to authenticity in setting, I think that's a matter of individual taste. Some are not looking for facts even if the setting is pseudo-historical. Some just want compelling characters or a fun magic system in a fast-paced adventure, and might possibly skip over a detailed harvest scene. Others need their fantasy to be as close to a historical novel as possible and care a great deal about the small details, because that makes or breaks a book for them. I think if new writers enjoy reading the factual, "historically correct" kind of stories, they will try to write that stuff, even if they don't succeed in their first few books. But I strongly disagree with discouraging new writers to write a pseudo-historical fantasy just because they don't write the detailed historically correct kind of stories like GoT. I think it's okay wanting that kind of historical back-drop without making it into a detailed history book and, especially for new writers, taking pleasure in it without getting this "it's gonna be inauthentic crap" all the time. There are fantasy books out there for all kinds of readers, as it should be. Not everyone wants the Martin-style fantasy, and I reckon a "good" fantasy book is one that connects with the reader.
I know Tolkien said his work was unconsciously Catholic in the first draft, consciously Catholic in the revision, and I think I read somewhere that the WWI themes went the same way: something he wasn't planning, but which he recognized after the fact as having happened anyway.
