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

Does having swords and books of fairy tales count as fantasy
in a Sci-fi universe? Fantasy Forward maybe?

I think Warhammer40K could be seen as Fantasy Forward,
as it is set so far into the future, and yet Eldar, Orks, and
Daemons exist. Also some magic, and prayer to computers
and other tech.

 

Because people of this time fancies life in earlier time and could only get there through imagination.

 

Well, I'm currently toying with a fantasy novel that takes place in a setting inspired by our very own "Enlightenment", which isn't quite medieval, no. I'm also attempting to write a bit of a modern fantasy/murder mystery, so that's also something.

But, I'd imagine the reason why medieval fantasy has so much exposure is probably because, as a setting, its so much more defined, and when you're working with a setting already established, rather than something more abstract, unpopular or what have you, it makes it easier to extrapolate various character archetypes, plot points and world-building elements from the already widely defined works.

 

It might be trivial to say that, but we cannot think of using the name of a genre to identify what the genre is about in an absolute fashion. If we do that then everything is fantasy, because if we just depict real events we're making a dissertation on a subject. Every plot is a plot of fantasy but yet not every book is a fantasy book. We might argue that with fantasy we mean elements which are not proper of the real world, hence a different fictional world, non existing animals, magic etc. But then a non existing alien race wouldn't fit in a fantasy novel? What makes fantasy not sci-fi? I'm really against considering sci-fi a pure scientifically correct story, it might well incorporate non possible elements and still be sci-fi. If we think of stranger in a strange land, is it scientifically even plausible? I hardly could accept that it is, and yet is a classic of science-fiction. In my personal opinion sci-fi might "often" be included into fantasy, but what I think makes a genre, is the tradition which developed it. We have now many fantasy sub-genres, and we can keep incorporating new ones as much as we want, but if traditionally fantasy does not have starships and has dragons, we might well argue that thus "could" be a boundary. Now I actually really like when elements more commonly associated to fantasy are included in something else like a sci-fi novel, but to depict something like pure fantasy and not sci-fi because it is not scientifically correct is for me totally wrong. The aim of good sci-fi is not to teach us science, a falling star-ship in the space is not something that makes it not sci-fi, it all depends on the aim I think of the story. The future progress will lead us to have starships, this might be true or not, but is a sentence which in my opinion makes the story sci-fi, because is about an evolution (fantastic or real) of our technology. That said, we might combine genres and make a nice romance in a fantasy world, a nice fantasy adventure in the space, but defining what is what is a bit irrelevant, I like sci-fi so I might like a space fantasy, I like fantasy hence I like a space fantasy. Further more I'd point out that what is called science-fiction in English, gets translated as "Science Fantasy" in some other languages, and the corrispondence between those words is one to one.

 

I wish it were possible to simply stop labeling stories with their genre categories. It won't happen, because it's a lot easier to market a book that 'fits' a genre—but it wasn't always like that.

When I was a child, I read all sorts of books. I remember a few that fit into a category (Nancy Drew Mysteries, for example) but most of them were not 'sold' to me as part of a genre at all. I read books and if I liked them I wanted to read more by that author, or about that topic. It got me reading lots of books. I remember browsing the shelves in the library, as a child AND a teenager, looking for titles that jumped out at me. However, these books were all arranged as 'fiction,' and there were no other categories. Just alphabetical order, based on the author's last name. There was a 'children's section' which I quickly outgrew, an adult section (which included a locked bookcase for 'censored books') but no genre divisions.

I still like that idea of no genre divisions. It gets you looking at stuff you might not consider if you only read within a genre or two. I believe that widens expectation.

 

Part of why I write is to put stuff out there that, hopefully, hasn't been seen in other works. Another reason is to have a voice and outlet for the imaginary dump that is my mind. There are nights I'll be up for hours in my bed, unable to sleep, just because I get stuck on an idea for a story and play it out in my head. I love a good ol' sword-n-board epic just as much as the next nerd, but I get tired of seeing the same themes with cookie cutter plots. Despite that, I can't really bash people for using them. Medieval fantasy is a battle-scarred ship, with grandaddy Tolkien's books at the helm. Borrowing from his themes and ideas is good groundwork for a fantasy story.

On the other hand, with how many of these books there are now that use this schema, the greater whole of fantasy literature under this category seem to blend together. There are some books that are actually good, but honestly, aren't very memorable. The ones that stick out the most to me don't fall under a specific category of fantasy other than "High Fantasy".
One of my favorites to read as I grew up was the Seventh Tower series, by Garth Nix, because it just felt so different. Another of my longtime favorites is the Bartimaeus Sequence of novels, which took form of an alternative history blended with fantasy.

For me, I have to see in the writing that the author loved the story they were creating. Well written stories and characters generally come from a writer who really cares about the material they're publishing. If they're just putting it out there for the capital, then you can see that in the narrative and dialogue as well. If I see a lack of love for the story, I won't even finish reading it. My point is that, as long as there's a love for what you're writing, any story is worth putting to the pages.

 

I think its a lot more complex then just the genre itself. For example; you could argue that people overuse the genre to write a novel or tell a story but the context of the novel itself is what is going to make it unique. The characters, the setting, how the words fly across the paper, emotion, so on and so forth. There were plenty of stories about wizards and schools before Harry Potter made a big debut, not all of them were note-worthy some of them needed to be burned and never-to-be-seen-again. So I guess its all about not limiting perspective about how genre can be written. Being a highly creative person helps, as you are always looking for ideas that have not been used, or putting a spin on already written stories, just as long as it comes off original, easier said than done.

 

I wrote a fantasy that was in a parallel modern world. They have electricity, running water, etc. and all kinds of original creatures. Fantasy is amazing. You can do whatever the heck you want within the rules of your own world. I don't understand sticking to old fantasy tropes, either.

 

My fantasy world where most of my fantasy works take place is highly inspired by Tolkien, and I'm not ashamed of that. One of the main reasons being I don't plan on publishing any of those stories, other wise I would make them more original. For now I'm just focusing on honing my world building/writing skills by writing in a setting much like Tolkien's.