Oh, right. The notion of no magic, coupled with small stuff? Or just the small stuff? Or just no magic? I will look up a few definitions of the term. If I was writing fantasy, I'd want to know for sure how to classify it. It's funny, because when people speak about 'high fantasy' I have a pretty good idea what they mean. They mean all the paraphernalia common to Tolkienesque stories, coupled with the notion of world-saving quests, etc. But 'low fantasy' wasn't so obvious. ........edited Just getting started, but here's the Wikipedia definition of the genre. By that definition, Twilight and all the high school vampire, werewolf, zombie stories that were so popular recently, would be low fantasy, right? And a story about a made-up world without magic or supernatural elements wouldn't be defined that way at all?
This is a really interesting discussion because I always say that I don't read Fantasy because I'm not super interested in dragons, elves or wizards. LOTR and GOT both hold no appeal for me, and I have to admit that's what I think of when I think about the Fantasy genre. But apparently I do like Low Fantasy if Willie Wonka or Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy qualify. If we go by the Wiki definition that @jannert mentioned, several Marvel properties would be considered Low Fantasy.
Actually the whole Wikipedia article on this subcategory is worth a read. There is a LOT of disagreement when it comes to fitting certain works into Low Fantasy. Apparently, according to this article, Low Fantasy is much more popular than High Fantasy at the moment, probably because its boundaries are so variable. I believe each book would need a bit of explanation attached to it, to explain why it is High or Low Fantasy. And there would be disagreement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_fantasy
The "talk" page for that page is an interesting set of arguments about what it means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Low_fantasy
re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Low_fantasy Yeah, I just read quite a way down the whole page, and have come to the conclusion that I think this subcategory is a bit of a waste of time. Good grief. There is so much diversion of opinion as to make the subcategory meaningless, as it will mean something different to everybody. What does seem fairly clear, however, is that nobody is very enthusiastic about having their favourite books firmly classified as Low Fantasy. Probably because the connotation of 'low' implies a lack of quality or seriousness. Maybe it's a subcategory whose time has not yet come.
Yes, I think I do too. I mean, stories like The Borrowers are definitely 'Low Fantasy' as far as most of the definitions go. Or at least you could never call it High Fantasy. And I loved that story when I was young. But then you get Harry Potter, which contains major contradictions, going by the list of characteristics this person puts forward for Low Fantasy. And once we open that door of disagreement, we're basically on a highway to hell: Human Dominance: Worlds which are populated mostly (or even exclusively) by human beings rather than the usual Tolkienesque mix of elves, dwarves and other humanoids. Magic: While Magic is very prominent in High Fantasy, it's usually rare if not non-existent in Low Fantasy.
The idea that dwarves, elves, orcs, etc are predominant elements in the fantasy genre feels like a stereotype to me. As a reader of Fantasy, none of the Fantasy books I like feature any of those trappings. The Lord of the Rings, yes, but I prefer the movies anyway. Popular books like The Name of the Wind, The First Law Trilogy, Game of Thrones, Realm of the Elderlings, The Lies of Locke Lamora, anything by Sanderson — none of these include elves, dwarves, or orcs proper. Unless you count Tyrion. Maybe books with elves in them just aren’t my cup of tea. But I think Peter Jackson might be as responsible as anyone for building the pop culture perception of the fantasy genre. And D&D, and Warcraft. But those aren’t really books, they’re games, and they are intentionally derivative. New fantasy novels tend to be intentionally unique.
I think that there's a certain amount of circular definition--fantasy contains elves and orcs because if it doesn't contain elves and orcs it isn't "really" fantasy!
You might as well take your poison. If we accept that every romantic story ends in a happy ending - which, face it, on reflection is not so bad, then we can at least agree that all fantasy stories have an elf.
The one I'm writing doesn't. No magic either, but the worlds made up of made-up lands made up of made-up kingdoms entirely inhabited by anthropomorphic animals, so I still think it falls under fantasy.
Not that I'm certain about any of this anymore, but I've never considered Twighlight low fantasy. I've always considered it contemporary fantasy.
Are there any romance writers that are in happy, long lasting marriages and raise (quite normal) kids? What is the percentage? Do writers write what is missing or what we know? We all know that 99% of romances are classic princess stories rewritten. Feline writers and feline publishers just add market demands to princess stories and... ***BURP*** What socks? Those salty, crispy black-grey socks I have never ever seen in my life? Absolutely no idea where they could be. ***BURP*** I misread "reality socks" and started to seek for more chili and mayo.
I have an idea... let's stop coming up with stupid and insulting stereotypes about romance writers on a thread that's supposed to be about fantasy. Sound like a good idea?
OK. Skimming over the breakdown of romance vs fantasy and the talk of the various sub-genres within fantasy, I have a few points to make. 1. A large part of the appeal of fantasy, I believe, stems from the fact that fantasy can take topics that are difficult to approach, to understand, to cope with (death, love, desire for power, sexual orientation, to name a few) and make them approachable simply by the fact that they are removed from our world. Fantasy is the bars of the cage between us and the monster. When we are approached by a monster, we run. When the monster is in a cage, we want to examine it, understand it. Fantasy provides that opportunity. (You want more of my thoughts on this matter, I wrote a huge paper on fantasy in college that is in the Resource section here: https://www.writingforums.org/resources/in-defense-of-fantasy.276/) 2. Fantasy is absolutely just as difficult to write (well) as is realistic fiction. In fact, I would tentatively argue that fantasy can, at times, be more difficult. In realistic fiction, the rules of the world, the history of the world, are/is already established and understood. In good fantasy fiction, we as authors are faced with the task of a) Establishing rules from the ground up b) creating a rich historical backstory (even if it never enters the story, I guarantee you that in well-written fantasy, the author has given thought to the history of the people/world they are creating) c) Ensuring that the fantastical elements make sense and work together d) Ensuring that the fantasy elements are not some sort of deus ex machina solution and that the characters still have a struggle worth reading e) Oftentimes, creating a whole new world with all the factors and constraints that come with that (continents and politics and governments and wars and nature and weather and....you see my point) f) Creating in-depth characters that, while they may be radically different than you and I, still have something (a trait, a struggle, a problem, whatever) the readers can identify with and empathize with. I'm sure there are more factors I could come up with, but I'm going to leave it there. Yes, I would agree that poorly-written fantasy can be easy to write. Just shlep whatever you wanted in there and call it a story. But well-written, well thought out fantasy is hard. Trust me- I'm doing my best to write just that, and it has not been easy.
How many science fiction writers are successful space pirates, or fantasy writers level 12 druids? The personal life of the writer is irrelevant if they can produce compelling stories and we really shouldn't get into the habit of mistaking the author for their subject.
I know what you mean... maybe? https://www.amazon.com/My-Life-Volume-I/dp/B0002PVAHU/ref=tmm_aud_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Does this mean you experience fantasy as being less immersive, or having less emotional stakes, or both?
Neither. I simply mean that it gives us a way to examine topics which otherwise might make us uncomfortable. If you are examining a monster, you're going to look past the bars and have your focus on what's in the cage. The bars themselves don't interfere with your immersion level or emotional reaction- they just make you feel safe enough to examine that monster with less fear.
I think it CAN mean that the stakes can be bigger without overwhelming us. Like, I find more-or-less-realistic apocalypse stories really intense and awful (The Road, etc.) and I don't really want to read them. But when the apocalypse is a bit more distant - when The Avengers are involved or whatever - I can enjoy it more because it's one step removed from reality. Stimuli X, in a realistic setting, is too much, but Stimuli X, in a non-realistic setting, I can handle. I can happily read Catcher in the Rye when it's set in a contemporary world, because even though the stakes aren't huge, it still feels worth worrying about. But a similar story set in a fantasy world? I'd probably get impatient with Holden (even faster than I already do) because the fantasy setting makes it more difficult for me to see him as a real person. So I think higher stakes are standard in fantasy, and that means that emotional immersion is just as likely.