Why is everyone so quick to make fantasy either urban steampunk or medieval? There's so much more.

Would you like to look at the system of classical elemental magic that I came up with and tell me if you think it's more SciFi than Fantasy?

 

You know,

There is so much more to writing than 'Does my story have The Unicorn or a spaceship.' I'd love to have a thread where we discuss Subtext, Allegory, and Symbolism all day. (And yes I've tried, and failed )

 

YES. That is what fantasy is supposed to be for. Metaphor. The Last Unicorn comes to mind. Or Gulliver's Travels.

 

Post it here.

 

It is a shame. I know we get a lot of young writers on here, and I am like "Guys, there is so much more you can DO with writing than just writing sentences about your cool idea."

123,

Here is an article I wrote on one of Clive Barker's stories: https://www.writingforums.org/entry/horror-a-study-on-cliver-barker-part-14-rawhead-rex.63836/

But it really goes into the point of how writers 'should' use monsters in their works.

 

Shakespeare trucked in tropes that would today be labeled fantasy in a number of his plays. Is he not meaningful literature?

The issue is that there are plenty of fantasy works that have the "if", and plenty of sci-if works that lean toward "I wish...".

 

Look. If I were made literary king, we'd have a different set of genres and I promise you would be very satisfied.

 

You didn't answer the question.

 

Shakespeare's literature is meaningful not because he had Fantasy elements (oh Mid-summer dream), but because his of contribution to metrical writing (which some of his devices are still used today) his understanding of subtext (which is brilliantly displayed in 'To be or not to be, that is the question' line.) and to his Themes (forbidden love, betrayal by your best friend, etc.) which are used and credited to him still today (I can think of 20 famous writers that credit his ideas to their writing.)

Shakespeare doesn't counter the point if anything he proves that point by showing what is possible through writing.

-

The point isn't fantasy is 'bad'; the point is that most fantasy is so shallow that it is brain-damaging to read. Most people go to fantasy causes they like the 'scary' dragons or beautiful elves, but most of them don't understand how to take these concepts and apply them in a meaningful way like their heroes did.

'Meaning' that is what some of us readers want, not elves but meaning.

 

I already pointed out Sturgeon's Law. Saying most fantasy is bad is utterly meaningless; so is most of every other genre in every single medium. By the same token, most newbie writers in every other genre are incapable of applying the concepts that drew them to the genre, and simply mimic the surface details.

Singling out fantasy on these fronts is monumentally unfair and smacks of smug elitism.

Edit:

And to elaborate further, Numbers here seems to be suggesting that using fantasy elements means the work can't have meaning. Shakespeare was brought up to point out that fantasy elements are irrelevant to the meaning of the work, not to suggest that the meaning comes from the elements.

 

My fantasy doesn't have beautiful elves or dragons! lol.

I feel my magic system would also be neat to compare here but before I spam you.

I think in the modern world, people don't see Genre as a list of rules that the plot must serve such as wishing or speculating. The best example I currently have for this is Digimon Adventure(one of my fav stories even now.)

The actual plot once you figure things out is a cyber dimension created by our internet. Once it becomes a dimension though it is quite powerful. The dimension becomes unstable, and if it crashes its gonna domanio effect and destroy the universe. So it seeks a solution and discovers that creatures from Earth have the potential to solve the problem and imports them into the digital universe.

I mean, that seems mostly speculation in things that actually could be true, alternate dimensions and all.

Yet, I always felt it was a fantasy. Why? Because when the heroes crash into the digital world, What does it look like? A forest! Why? As they said. "This world was created from data from your world. This area is built upon the forest data we had gained from your world."


Oh point being. I see or think more people see genre as a style more than anything. The heroes in a forest trying to save the world thing reminds me of a fantasy and probably always will. Just as people in bubble domes on the moon is probably always gonna remind me of Sci-Fi, even if they are riding dragons and are elves.

 

Guys, you accuse me of speaking absolutes, yet, you seem (to me) to think that if you can come up with a few counterexamples, that you absolutely refute my statement. It doesn't work like that. Fantasy operates largely on reduction and largely on wish fulfillment but those premises hardly take everything into account.

I have my own list of genres. Probably the largest would be Romance, which would comprise of the majority of contemporary romance novels, the majority of fantasy, and I am sure a number of contemporary novels. Romance isn't is about speculation. It isn't about George Washington. It isn't about catharsis. And it isn't about the nature of life. It's masturbation. Maybe you're reading about an orphan farmboy who turns out to be the most important and powerful man in the world and three beautiful women who love him all agree to be in his harem (#five best fantasies of all time on good reads) or maybe you're reading about that hot bad boy next store who's also a billionaire and head over heels for the MC(I don't think I need to provide a specific example here). It doesn't really matter. It's all the same genre.


Gormenghast is not a Romance. A Midsummer Night's Dream is not a romance. The Odyssey is not a romance. Lord of the Rings is not a romance, if for no other reason than the cultural impact it's made--but most if not all of it's derivatives? Romance.

A book doesn't have to be a current romance or current fantasy to be categorized as my definition of Romance, but once we start looking at murder mysteries set in contemporary times, we have to start looking at police procedurals and murder motives--suddenly I'm not just beating off to an author insert, I'm learning something. Most fantasy elements, which by definition do not speculate on or depict the real world, obviously don't have that luxury.

 

https://www.writingforums.org/threads/second-look-at-my-elemental-magic.152500/

... Wow

What a dreary world you must live in.

 

I mean. Not sure if you are saying that of me. But I am not accusing you of absolutes. My sherlock quote was a joke!

The point I was getting at is that words mean things! Shock! But that the important part is us being on the same page, not their actual meaning.

Like for example. Take Gay. Everyone first thought is someone attacted to the same sex. That wasn't the original definition. And I am willing to bet there was a moment where everyone accepted it or majority accepted it as meaning just that before the dictonary added.

But for the sake of example. Lets assume the dictonary didn't accept it. For the record, I have no idea how or when or why the evolution of the word gay happened. Even if the dictonary didn't acept it. It wouldn't change that everyone I know still accepts that as the meaning. So if you said we were all wrong. You could be right. But whats the point of being right in that case?

II would be completely willing to yield you are right about Genre, but if you are the minority in that. Then you are just resisting the evolution of the written word.

 

And here is the sort of redefining I've come to expect. Exempting the things that shatter the strawman by calling them something else. "This can't be fantasy. It's good" or "This isn't fantasy, it had a big cultural impact." Awfully convenient.

If you think fantasy fiction is author inserts, wish fulfillment, and reduction, you're poorly read in the genre. Period. Same as if you suggested literary fiction is middle-aged professors committing adultery and navel-gazing.

 

It's difficult to read the above post without concluding that you regard character, personality, human interaction, and related topics, as valueless and without interest. That seems inconsistent with your personality as far as I can see it from your posts in general, so I feel that you're somehow not making yourself at all clear.

 

I've read much of the topped ranked fantasy. That's what we should be talking about.

 

That's literary stuff. Human condition. You can do it in fantasy, but the more dwarves, elves, floating castles you have, the harder it becomes to take the literary elements you mentioned seriously. Again, generally speaking.

 

Fantasy has changed. We're no longer talking Dunsany or Tolkien. We're talking sex, melodrama, and teenage angst, stuff that just feels ridiculous when you give it pointy ears.

 

I'm pretty sure that's what many of us in this thread have been talking about. And it's why I've pointed to specific examples in response to the idea that Medieval fantasy is somehow one or two dimensional by its nature.

 

I feel as if you need a term other than "fantasy" for the specific category of fiction that you're criticizing. "D&D spinoff fantasy", for example? It's just an example; I really don't know what you mean, so I'm not sure what the term would be.

 

It's mainstream fantasy. Swords, elves, etc.

 

Pop-Fantasy? Then again, putting pop in front of any genre would syphon a large portion of it off.

 

Eh. I'm finding that an unsatisfactory term. It strongly suggests that all books that are classified "fantasy" and find any decent number of readers are lousy, and I don't think you're saying that. I really do think that the conversation would have a better chance of coming to a point if you had another term.

 

Edi Marchen, I'm up on Amazon. The meteor story isn't finished yet. I wrote half for Nanowrimonth.