I've never heard of any of those novels. And I think we know by now just because a writer is famous, doesn't mean her/his work is good. I've heard the worst about Eragon but who knows
I don't believe in reading for escapism. I think that's where a lot of the conflicting beliefs on this subject stem from.
My fantasy races were basically talking, bipedal animals. The rest were all humans... ...Wow... Set in a pseudo-European setting? Check. Magic done in a half-assed way? Check. A 'destroy the evil empire and overthrow the evil empress' plot? Check. Cast of characters going from Point A to Point B? Check. Gratuitous fight scenes? Check. A Chosen Hero(tm) sent from the heavens? Check. Said cast of characters with typical dry flaws/seems to fit into a particular stereotype? Check le check. ...Yeah, why don't I just put that story away. Forever. I'll go work on something new, original and exciting. I know this isn't the thread, but...That Moment When you realize your fantasy idea is not only stale and cliché, it is broken. Oh well, I'm better off doing historical fiction/historical mysteries.
I used to feel that way too. In fact I was so self serious that I wouldnt even read fiction for a 5 year stretch. And then I had a couple of promotions into stressful jobs, had 3 kids, and a house with a mortgage. I get real world drama with complex people every moment of the day. I'll take a superficial cliche'd character, clear cut bad guys, and a setting not even vaguely familiar. I know its often crap writing but the real world has a lot of crap too. At least I know this isnt real.
Nein. To be honest, I'm not really that into it anymore. :/ Believe me, I tried, even got to 1k words into that thing before I decided that it just wasn't for me. Not to say I wouldn't write any fantasy ever again, just that that one will not see light of day. Nothing wrong with reading escapism fiction. There's a series I'm reading that isn't exactly high quality literature (ie, one that would be discussed in lit. classes for decades to come), but if it keeps me entertained for an hour or so, then it's doing its job.
Yeah, even when I read literary novels or non-fiction it is for escapism. I currently have a book about String Theory on the go, and trying to make sense of theories that are unrelated to my day-to-day life or work is escapism. I mean outside of reading a recipe or some work related correspondence/ documentation/ legislation/ literature, most my reading is for escapism.
You haven't heard of Amanda Hocking? Wow! That surprises me. I have heard of some but not all of the 23 in the link. But it doesn't matter if you've heard of them, the issue was they were successful fantasy writers at a young age.
I think we might be using different definitions of 'escapism'. If you enjoy a book that is a form of escapism. If you imagine yourself to be in the book, or one of the characters that might be a different degree of escapism but I don't think one needs to do that to 'escape' into a fictional story.
I don't consider it escape. I consider it an "acquisition." A really good novel seeps into my being. I'm not escaping my own life. The fictional reality presented by the author is nutrition for my brain. I have never read an "epic fantasy" that has even tried to achieve this. Those sort of novels are indeed for the conventional sort of escapism.
I warn, I haven't read the whole thread, and you may have mentioned this, but I remember you saying something of the sort: "I don't agree with reading for escapism." Could you elaborate? Is this a personal suggestion, or one you think others ought follow? Why? I'd stress that I agree with it, to a point.
@123456789 when you say "fantasy" is escapism or "fantasy" has nothing to do with the human experience, what do you mean by "fantasy"? I have a fairly rigorous working definition of "fantasy" in my mind, and when I use it to interpret your statements, my immediate reaction is "are we even talking about the same thing?"
I'm not sure I agree that reading for pure escapism is a bad thing. I don't think it's getting as much from a novel as you can, but if you just want to see literature as a mere diversion then go crazy. I have read books just to kill some time between cradle and grave - read them on my back with one hand on the book and the other in a big bag of sweets. I don't see a huge amount of literary, reader-nourishing qualities in the so-called High Fantasy. It has all the potential to be 'good', and more than enough fans to really push it to skeptical outsiders like me, but it hasn't done anything like that. Oh sure, you can say Lord of the Rings is an allegory for the political landscape of 1930s Europe, or that it's all about pushing some sort of Anarcho-syndicalist message, but it doesn't seem to me strictly true. It is very clearly a fundamentally Catholic series, yet you don't seem to hear a lot of people talk about the Christian references in Middle Earth either for the same reason they don't say it's about Hitler or Communism. Again, this is not to say High Fantasy is incapable of producing something really good. If it has already, where is it?
The two biggest examples (The Hobbit + LOTR and ASOIAF) have already been mentioned, and I would add Dune, which I classify as both science fiction and high fantasy. Depending on how abstractly we define "high fantasy", I might even include The Divine Comedy. Now think about other epic poems in terms of fantasy.
Yes, I know. I mentioned two of them directly. One even in the post you quoted from. The Hobbit, it's my favourite childhood book, I love it, love with all my black little heart, but it's not up to the standard I or @123456789 are talking about. Lord of the Rings especially isn't - I think The Hobbit is better than Lord of the Rings to be honest. ASOIAF isn't up to that standard either, yet again I rather liked it. Dune, though, is that High Fantasy? Science Fiction surely, but if you class it as High Fantasy then yeah, ok, there's one. I can't help but think you'd be very isolated in calling it High Fantasy though.
I should add to my earlier post that I would label The Divine Comedy high fantasy before Dune. It has the battle of good against evil (sort of) and the supernatural/ magical elements that high fantasy usually requires, and is appropriately epic.
I added a paragraph to my post between when you read it and when you posted your reply -- that new paragraph also uses a debatable definition of "high fantasy" in order to show that "high fantasy" of literary quality does indeed exist. How do you define "high fantasy", if ASOIAF counts but Dune does not count? They both contain enormous-scale worldbuilding, enormous-scale conflicts, things that are impossible according to the laws of reality we know, epic adventures, etc. If you limit your definition of a genre so strictly, then yes, you will exclude important works.
I define it the way I have always (until your post, quite literally) seen it defined by it's fans. As being a Medieval fantasy world of elves and dragons, and mostly low-level technology. I'm not sure I would define Dante as 'High Fantasy', you could and make a strong case for it though. Mostly because Dante lived in the time he was writing about and setting his poem in, although, ok, he had to recon some by-then-known science to make the universe conform to scholastic philosophy. Outside of the one level of meaning, of it being about Dante himself - the man, searching his soul to cleanse himself of his own sin (and for that it's literally next to the surface of the poem) I'm not really sure Dante's epic is a battle of good against evil. For one thing, Hell and Satan are solidly in the construction of the universe - and Satan himself is entombed in ice - the evil is defeated in all but Dante himself.
We can define it that way, but then we need a term to refer to a work of fiction that combines large scale worldbuilding (fictional geography and/or fictional history and/or fictional rules that determine what is possible) with an epic story (typical examples are a battle of good and evil and a hero's journey; less typical examples are a morally ambiguous war, a creation myth, a character's rise to power, etc). Call it "big fantasy". With both terms in use, I foresee the term "high fantasy" quickly falling out of relevance because that which distinguishes "big fantasy" from non-"big fantasy" is more interesting and more fundamental than that which distinguishes "high fantasy" from non-"high fantasy". At least in this context. The original question is why a new writer would be predisposed to write fantasy. Speaking as a new writer, fantasy certainly appeals to me, "big fantasy" more than non-"big fantasy". "high fantasy" (as defined above) is a popular but very specific and unspecial example of "big fantasy" with no particular appeal to me.
