I don't think escapism is bad per se, under either definition. Sure, it can become bad. If you're resorting to escapism to the extent you can no longer function in the real world, or no longer distinguish the real world from the unreal world, you have a problem. People can resort to many things to achieve that--books (of most any genre), music, movies, drugs, etc. That's bad. But escapsim, even as an escape from the real world, isn't necessarily bad as a temporary refuge. Someone might be in the midst of a tragedy, and if they can forget about it for a couple of hours with a movie, or getting lost in an adventure novel that doesn't require them to think, then that's great, provided that after that brief respite they're able to return to the real world and operate effectively. I still don't think fantasy is unique in this respect. I enjoy thrillers, for example, and they're every bit as escapist and every bit as much a temporary distraction from the real world as any fantasy I've ever read. It's a mistake to frame this in terms of genre. It makes a lot more sense to frame it in terms of types of works--those that allow the reader to pull away from the real world and into a mindless bit of entertainment for a period of time. And, again, I don't think there is anything wrong with that in an otherwise healthy individual.
@Steerpike I think you're right and I think that's probably why the distinction, mentioned before, between literary, genre, and mainstream fiction exists.
Yes, I think that's probably right, with the caveat that there is a lot of fuzziness between categories in that you have some works overlapping two or more of them. It's an interesting topic of discussion when you frame it in terms of those categories and talk about the value of various works. When it's framed as something peculiar to fantasy, it's just an attempt to deride the genre as a whole, which doesn't make sense given how diverse it is.
Isn't, like, all entertainment escapism? If we didn't need to escape reality, wouldn't we spend all day going to work, rescuing puppies, or curing cancer or something?
But you haven’t explained why that’s bad. You’ve just explained that it doesn’t interest you. Soccer and craft beers don’t interest me, but that doesn’t mean they’re bad. Dressing as characters, LARP, and role playing just strike me as different forms of fiction. I assume you’re not opposed to fiction in all forms?
Your use of escapism has been as a behavioral disorder; someone who is using the fantasy/science fiction as a way of avoiding issues in their life that they need to deal with. I agree that that is a bad thing. But, its been a trend in the US to blame the symptoms instead of recognizing the disorder. Someone who is reading fantasy books instead of dealing with life issues needs help. Condemning fantasy/sci-fi books is not dealing with the issue.
You can make up anything you want in fantasy as long as it has its own rules, and it is one of the most profitable genres out there.
Going to use an older piece of Fantasy, with a basic natural law of the series stating that every person has only one (and can only have one) magical power. The MC of this series has the power of magic not affecting them, while there is a guy who's power is to literally piss rainbows. Even at its core makes little sense for most Fantasy, considering it uses magic more as a singular property that the characters have no control or say in having, it is the natural law dictated to the series. But yes you can have extra properties in wanton fashion in both Fantasy in Sci-fi, it is not common to see them for the most part. It would be a lousy read if the character who can't do X, never learns X, suddenly and for no explicable reasons does X as it pertains to completing a specific event. This would be getting into the new Star Wars Trilogy territory of: Oh that thing you never learned and didn't know you could do, well now you're a grand master of that, because plot says so. It can be done, but it is piss poor storytelling and lazy to boot.
No, you clearly don't understand and I'm not convinced you've actually tried to understand it. You're also focusing on a minority here...a small one even. Very rarely do people dress up and roleplay as "their favourite character" within a world, LARP most of the time is set in an original world and people create original characters they themselves designed. A huge part of cosplay is the fabrication part, it's much different for people who like to make stuff out of wood in their workshop. But if you think all of this is silly, how do you feel about grown men wearing sports shirts with someone elses name on it, paying a lot of money to go to a stadium to yell at people kicking a ball around?
People - especially the young - have always loved fantasy. What else would you call all of the old, classic of fairy stories that children have devoured for centuries?
I gravitated toward writing fantasy and science fiction, because of the feelings I am left with when I read them. I am very much an escape reader. I find my life incredibly complex, with many moving parts as so many others do. Sometimes I just want to put my brain into park, and idle for a bit. I also chose to write in this genre, because when I think up stories, nothing but these really and truly come to me. Perhaps, I need to train my brain to think better thoughts. So far, most of the things I want to write about are cute little marmots, forays into space, and possibly the historical battles of a very, very annoyed wife whose husband was killed unfairly by a certain nation and she exacts her revenge on it in the most unique way. When I read the piece of history surrounding her, I actually laughed, because had I experienced the same treachery I'd have done the same thing as her. Another reason, is that I'm a terribly boring person at times and I wouldn't know what else to write.
Absolute bunk. If you're going to tell an interesting, coherent story in a fantasy setting, there have to be rules. They may be nothing like those of our own world, but they have to exist.
I think you're getting confused with science fiction. Once you create a fantasy world, as in it somehow illogically defies reality, whatever "rules" you put in are pretty arbitrary, artificial, and ultimately meaningless.
They might be arbitrary when you create them, but if you want it to be a satisfying story, they need to be internally consistent. Readers accept your first big lie, but if your story doesn't make sense with that lie in mind, they get up in arms. This seems like basic stuff to me. Say your book has werewolves, and it's made out in the 'rules' that they have no voluntary control over their transformations. That's an arbitrary restriction, but that doesn't excuse having a character deliberately transform to save the day at the end of act 3. You've still broken your rules, and you've pissed the reader off.
Only because it spoils the fun. If I can believe that a world has werewolves, I can believe basically anything else as well.
I'm not confused at all; I write the stuff. Science fiction extrapolates from our own world's rules. If it doesn't, it's really more science fantasy. Fantasy creates something impossible in our world, but makes it believable. At its core, all fiction is arbitrary. Why is this character the way they are? Ultimately because the author made them that way. Whatever in universe reasons they are the way they are, it circles back to "because the author said so". The coelacanth surviving the Cretaceous extinction doesn't mean the T-Rex did as well. In the same way, the existence of werewolves in a setting doesn't mean every other fantastical creature exists as well.
That's called suspension of disbelief and given how long you've been posting here I can't believe this is the first time you've met it. Fantasy only differs from other genres in that there's a wider scope of 'big' lies that readers are going to accept. It, like every other genre, is expected to hold to basic internal consistency.
It's an imperative, and in fact is probably the most basic concept in fantasy writing. It's one of the first concepts you explain to beginning fantasy writers, coupled with some variations on Sanderson's law (which has been around since before Sanderson), which states "An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic." It's exactly the same as in science fiction, where in far-future science fiction you have technology that doesn't necessarily adhere to any rules of science we know in the real world in 2018. That's fine, so long as they're adhering to some internally-consistent set of rules. You can find exceptions--myths and fables, and stories that are told in such manners. But generally speaking, the internally-consistent world is fundamental to modern fantasy writing, and modern writers adhere to it. Whether writers from long ago, like Robert E. Howard, had any such rules in mind is speculative. In those types of work (the early pulp S&S) the sorcery can seem arbitrary, but in those works the sorcery also tends to be wielded by villains, so you can get away with some of that. Also, not all authors bother to explain the rules of their world, and they don't have to. So long as the author knows the rules and abides by them, the reader won't be jarred by some kind of deus ex machina concerning magic. Most readers are pretty smart, and it is readily apparent to them whether an author is operating on a consistent set of rules.
It's funny how often threads like these turn into existential debates over what is sci-fi, what is fantasy, and why somebody doesn't know what they're talking about. When I started the thread, it was to try to understand WHY so many young writers were drawn to a genre that, to be honest, bores me silly. As I said in my OP - 32 pages ago - I suspected from the beginning that escapism has something to do with it. But fairly recently, someone also made the point that fantasy makes it possible to present issues that some cannot bring themselves to confront when put in a real-world context. I can see that. I recall, for example, a Star Trek episode back in the '60s (disclaimer: this is not to suggest in any way that Star Trek is fantasy; it's also not to suggest that it isn't), in which Frank Gorshin was the guest star, two alien characters intent on each other's destruction. Kirk and company cannot understand their mutual hatred. Finally, it's made clear - one has black skin on the left side of his face, white on the right, while the other has black skin on the right side of his face, white on the left. It is a perfect model of irrational racism. However, I've always suspected that anyone who could not confront racism in modern day America would likewise be unable to generalize this fictional presentation to their own lives. And I think the same would hold true for any other sensitive issue. Then again, I do not and never have had patience for those who cannot face the real world and its problems. Because they leave the burden to those of us who do.
