You have to also realize that fantasy has its own tabletop roleplaying games where the concept is to literally make stuff up. It's all about creativity and imagination. And storytelling. You don't get that kind of creative freedom with any other genre. Space Opera comes close, but Fantasy is still the clear winner. But, say, Western? No chance. Not to mention that if you want a good fantasy story, the number one outlet is a novel. How many truly great fantasy films are there? Not many. How many of those are not based on books? Fantasy lives and breaths in the realm of written fiction. The popularity of Game of Thrones surely helps (not saying A Song of Ice and Fire, since most of the show's fans don't even read the books; check Red Wedding reaction videos for proof). I believe the Lord of the Rings films helped to a degree, as well. And of course Harry Potter as a whole. As a writer, I can come up with a good number of solid reasons why I would not want to write a crime drama or comedy or sci-fi story, but why wouldn't I want to write fantasy? Can't think of a single reason.
Yes. But there are also horror tabletop RPGs, science fiction one, western ones, thriller/spy games, and so on
If you've never seen one, folks, this is what a truth looks like. When I think back over these novels that are riding the line, answering the queues of both genres, I must assess them with a new respect that I had not accorded prior for not looking at them under this light.
As popular as Dungeons & Dragons? Not even if you added them all together and multiplied by 50. And that's including the rest of fantasy.
I didn't say anything about popularity. I'm just pointing out they exist and fantasy isn't the only genre that has RPGs. As for D&D, I think Pathfinder is eclipsing it at the moment. WotC seeks to remedy that with D&D Next, but we'll see.
But that's kind of my point. Its popularity is helping guide young creative minds toward writing fantasy in a far greater way than...heck, I can't even name a tabletop western role-playing game. More people are being exposed to D&D and similar *fantasy* games than any other genre by orders of magnitude.
You can't just say something like that as if it were you true. Stories which use make believe lose credibility, sorry to say. Also, I have repeatedly asked for examples of fantasy novels that contain these "complexities" you talked about, but so far I've gotten nothing from you guys. Ironpalm, Caltech is an awesome school, I'm sure you're very smart. Sorry to say, though, being a math college major is far from being a scientist. Even applied math.
You may feel that make believe makes a story not credible, but this is not a universal truth in the least. LotR was a parable of the social and industrial change happening in the world around Tolkien. It is a story about classism and the impending denigration of the humans state at the hands of industrialism. Wreaththu is deep look at gender issues, morality and how we come to have the concept of gods. It discusses their need and the idea that if they never existed, we would have need to invent them of our own mind and spirit, thus giving them life. Vale of the Vole is a parable of the environmental disaster that followed the canalization of the Kissimmee River in Central and South Florida. These are all examples I have given and explained in this thread. There are countless others.
How does being a parable about racism make the story credible? In the end, the setting was made up, based on Tolkien's rules and whims and no one else.
If you make a statement, the burden of proof lies on you to produce evidence to support your claim. Please explain how fantasy and make-believe stories lose "credibility".
I don't think any of them lose credibility for that reason alone. You have stories that are credible, and those that are not, across various genres. The genre doesn't make a difference. But, since the assessment of 'credibility' is subjective, I have no doubt you will label as 'lacking credibility' any story named, no matter what it is. In other words, your mind is made up and you have no intention of being objective on the subject, so providing you with examples on the off chance that you'll look them up and assess them with an open mind is pointless. I think I mentioned Angela Carter, above, whose stories are used in college sociology classrooms on women's studies and related issues, and deal with serious issues of feminism within a fantasy context. You could start there if your question is genuine, which I doubt.
All you're going to get back is a set of subjective criteria as to what 123456789 thinks is credible or not, with being 'make believe' obviously being included as a factor against
Steerpike, instead of just making blanket statements with no evidence, provide me your five favorite fantasy novels (not Gormenghast) and I will be the judge for myself. Wreybies, LoTR has failed to impress me, sorry to say, but I will check out the other two.
Easy, fantasy is based on premises which do not exist in the real world, and we have no way of knowing whether they could ever actually exist or not. If it could, it wouldn't be fantasy, it would be sci fi. What is credible about dragons and wizards, exactly?
You should inform all the tenured physics, chemistry, biology, and computer science professors of this amusing fact. Many of them majored in math/applied math during undergrad. Mathematics is the basis of all science; even biochemistry contains subfields (like polymerization) that are nothing but solving differential equations. Also, my current research is in a different field than pure math. What is credible about objects possessing mass traveling faster than/at the speed of light and time travel, exactly?
Hey, I've already offered to look at "good quality" fantasy, do you really need to make me read through feminist sentiments, too? Can you recommend anything else? And please don't say my mind is made up, already. It's not like I haven't read fantasy. I know whats about, and my opinion is based on that knowledge. The Last Unicorn is fantasy, but it too is a parable, a beautiful one. I still wouldn't be caught dead reading it today.
Then you need to specify what research you're doing now. I know many math majors from schools as reputable and more than caltech, and PhDs also, who know nothing about science. They admit it, too. Yes, math is the basis of science, I totally agree, but knowing one does not automatically imply you know the other.
This is where you are wrong. Fantasy is based on very real ideas and premises, like war, terror, strife, slavery, racism (big one), wonder, believing in yourself (also big), etc. It seems you are unable to see the subtext. I don't understand this point. We have no way of knowing how Atticus Finch would act because he wasn't a real person, either. Right? We can only go by what we're told, just like Gandalf. Again, it seems that metaphor escapes you. You are dancing in circles and answering questions with questions instead of presenting your side of the story. You make the statement, you justify it. I'll help...Dragons and wizards are not credible because _______________________. Fill in the blank. And it has to be something more...ahem, credible...than 'Dragons are fake, this makes no sense.' Perhaps your should be thinking less of how dragons don't exist, and more about how the idea of a dragon serves a particular fantasy story, in the same way the idea of a man like Atticus Finch serves the particular story of To Kill A Mockingbird.
No, general fiction is based on very real ideas and premises like those. Fantasy is based on unreal ideas, otherwise it would not be fantasy by definition. If those premises are whats important, why even use fantasy in the first place? Dragons are not credible because they have no basis in the present existing world. If you need a monster, use a rabid dog. It's real. You can define it much better. It makes sense. The whole point of fantasy is, much like philosophy, to cut out details and accentuate other features. The real world is ugly and hard to interpret. Literature in general is about forming truth, but fantasy goes a step further and completely side steps reality. I agree, the idea of a dragon serves a particular fantasy story. Fantasy has the luxury of using make believe things to serve its ideas. But you cant prove an idea with something which is make believe. Truth can only be derived from that which is real, or mathematically provable. If you need to resort to mythical creatures to get me to see your point, I'm going to look elsewhere.
Believe it or not, everyone had to take quite a few advanced physics, chemistry, etc. courses at Caltech, regardless of one's major. And most math majors study/studied a different subject in grad school. I have yet to come across as a math PhD that knew "nothing about science", but I suppose it's a faint possibility, much like unicorns and time travel. Anyways, what's your point in all this? That I don't know much about science? Well, let's assume I don't...I still know enough to spot a number of errors in most science fiction I read (and enjoy)!
I think the distinction between sci-fi and fantasy stems from two elements. Sci-fi looks forward, fantasy often looks back. Where as sci-fi usually explains the "why" behind the rules, fantasy shouldn't -- explain magic too much, and it ceases to be magical.
Yeah, same here, and I only did a little over 2 1/2 years in my pursuit of a Ph.D. in Biochemistry, before bailing out for greener pastures
To the OP: I think it's simple, really: people write what they like to read. Plus, Fantasy is more popular than ever at the moment; same with Dystopian YA.
