[Maud]

Synopsis: My own little tiff and rant about the fantasy genre.

Author's Note: This essay is hard to find sources since it is a highly opinionated genre. Also When I say fantasy is the worst genre please understand that because you write fantasy does not mean that you are a bad writer, if you write poorly that means you are a bad writer. Please don't take any of comments or assertions offensive, if you do please do one of two things: take some anti-depressants because this essay means nothing in the grand scheme of things so there must be something must be wrong with you, and two find a hobby, sometimes they can calm you down, besides it gives a little purpose to your life. Ok that was sure to "unoffend" you do let's begin...

"Fantasy is one of the most flexible genres. It is one of the few genres in which the same book can be read by an adult and a 12-year old -- comfortably and without any explanation." There. That's why I don't like the fantasy genre. When ever someone ask me why I don't like it refer to this quote by Terry Brooks. Not because it's flexible, not because people of all ages can enjoy it, but because the book does not use any explanation. Sometimes, I like to think, this may come as a shock to you but it has become a bad habit. Now that is a gross generalization I admit that hands down, but we know for sure that is the truth about this one author(she said it not me). But there is one other fact that needs explanation, how can one person say a genre is inferior of another, well if one could say one is better then another can say why one is "unexplainable." Why is this genre so inferior to all others? That's simple the restrictions established by that genre, the quality of the majority of the works, and it the abstractionism to the point of insanity.

What is the fantasy genre? According to Wikipedia fantasy is defined by many things. One, the universe differs from our own as a result different from science or technology, but rather magic or other anomalous phenomena. Sounds loose, no? Then you must be wondering, "Has he lost his mind?" Lets think about this, not me loosing my mind that is a hard argument to make, but rather is it constricting. In your genre, fantasy, you can not have science (reason) to explain the "reason" your world is different. Confused no? That is if you do mention why your world changed. Ok so now we have decided to use magic. So King Totarian is a half lama because the great wizard Volmo said so. In reality because it is convenient to the plot. Have a major plot hole, well magic just became your duct tape an easy fix. Now some people say they don't need the story to be explained. Ok, that's nice, go in a pit and die. Others those I can actually respect say, well you have to be creative to come up with these purely new ideas. I'll get to the "new ideas" part later. For the rest of that argument lets consider this: what's more creative coming up with the idea, "Maybe I should find a cure for cancer!" or actually finding the cure. How does this relate? Well one deals with having the idea to solve the problem the other deals with making the solution work. I feel if you know why things work you can be submerged into the universe. Lets say in the middle of the story your main character is brought back to life or healed by magic. But here comes a dilemma, your book probably has no tension or suspense because if this character dies he can always be brought back, no harm no foul. Another patteren found in fantasy is the repetition of the same characters/creatures. Now I have been told by those who write fantasy say that there are differences between them in some books, but they admit in most books most characters are repeated. Some of that lies in the genre but the majority in writers them selves.

Here is the part were everyone gets offended, so don't, I hope your ego is saying "well I don't do this so it doesn't apply to me" gets you through. I Googled major literary awards and here is what I got: Booker Prize, Caldecott Medal, National Book Award, National Book Critics Circle Award, Newbery Medal, Nobel Prize for Literature, PEN/Faulkner Award, Pulitzer Prize. None of these have a single fantasy book as a winner. This proves many things that in turn prove my point. Either that the fantasy novel is too young, no this is not fantasy's fault, but have you read "Robinson Crusoe?" That's the beginning of literature and for a lack of a better word, sucks. Two, one major award has not been established for it yet, what does that tell you? Sci-fi has one, romance has one, mystery has one, spy stories have one, and fantasy nothing. Maybe because awarding one would be awarding them all. I'll let you think about that. Also, if we look at the creatures that helped to establish the genre they are still the only ones. How can I prove this, God thank Google. First let me say that I used Google book search which searches many but not all books and two it does not pertain only to the fantasy genere. Here are some of the statistics I got back.


Goblin: 37,200
Dragon: 468,000
Orc: 55,600
Elf or Elves: 394,000
Dwarf: 216,000
Hobbit: 6,990
Fairy: 501,000
Pixie: 12,900*

See how original? Not exactly, yes there are some original characters but no other genre compares I asked someone to name some generic Sci-Fi characters so I could compare, He nor I could think of any, if you have one tell me and I'll post a comparison.

Ok I consider myself creative and imaginative. But let me ask you where does imagination end and stupidity start. "Lord of the Firelands: A Tale of Kings Blood" by Dave Duncan has a climax were a naked guy runs around trying to stab a fireball. As a 21st century American my world revolves around reason. That is not reason. Conjuring a Skeleton man because someone read from a book is not reason. In Ernest Hemingway's "The Old Man and The Sea" one mans life depends on luck, and he finally finds it only to be taken away. The careful metaphors and descriptions are imaginative lower grade fantasy is uncreative and easily formed.

I really have nothing more to say other then to hope you weren't offended. No I don't hope to change your mind, maybe you'll grow out of it, and seek to find meaning. Maybe you won't. But I ask you once again what takes more imagination, telling how something happens or explaining why it happens? I have tried to answer that for you, now you must answer it for yourself. Whether you're that twelve year old or adult I ask you don't you just wish sometimes that the abstract could be explained?

*These statstics are approximate and can vary either way. Keep in mind Google books is being continually updated and may change at any time.

[Hagetaka]

The title alone should be enough to bring in a few wandering eyes. I think ill hold my opinion till I read some others input.

[Maud]

I know I started bulding a fall out shelter and I plan to make a run out of town.

[Maud]

I did some fact checking and I Google Book searched "zombie" a big stero-type in the horror genre and got:
27,400

[Serac]

Maud, I totally agree with you. I can't stand how fantasy relies solely on monsters like orcs, goblins, even dragons. To have something worth reading (in my opinion) you need to have rational enemies (like people) who have motives and who you may be able to relate to. Those are the best enemies. (By the way, nobody try and flame me or anything, I always hated elves and dwarves. Hobbits bomb too, but that's just me.)

About magic being an easy answer for pretty much everything in fantasy, once again, you're speaking for me. It really does need to be rationalized and has to at least make some sense. I'm about to go a little dorky here, but it should be said. In Fullmetal Alchemist, they explained everything scientifically (such as compressing the oxygen in the air to make an explosion when there is a spark, or messing with carbon's atomic bond to make an 'ultimate shield'). While there were still some questionable details, a lot of it was explained intelligently. That was part of why I loved that show. It took magic (alchemy, in this case) and made it something deeper than just finding one has inner powers and just using them because.....some generic reason, or something.

[BookWhale***]

I think fantasy is pretty cool, just because it is so different. The way that I think of it is, that fanstasy is just a twist of fiction. But that is my opinion. I do believe there is a point were fantasy gets a little... strange, though.

[Maud]

Thanks Serac you have pinpointed my feelings exactly. I like Full Metal Alchmesit aswell.

Bookwhale I need something to be more than different I need something to be good bit thats just me. And through looking at those statstics I have presented and some of the books produced I dont think fantasy is all that diffrent from other works of fantasy, from fiction yes from other fantasy no.

[Hagetaka]

The Lord of the Rings was fantasy, no doubt. As was his latter work "The Silmarillion". In only a few moments of research, I found that "The Silmarillion" has been awarded 2 awards. The Locus award and the Gandalf Award (do some research on Wikipedia.org to find out more about this award). Also, im unsure if you noticed how well known that JRR Tolkiens works are.

Something else interesting that you should read, is Times 100 top novels of all time (link listed at bottom). Go through it if you wish and see how many of those are fantasy. I realize that im am not going into great detail on any of this, but hear my point. How many awards that fantasy has or has not won is not important. How many great movies have you seen that critics said were a complete disaster? Same for novels. Sure, there are crap fantasy writers. There are crap writers from all genres. Its all about the fanbase; there are alot of fantasy readers out there.

http://www.time.com/time/2005/100boo...lete_list.html

[Vincentii]

I myself dislike Tolkien's works, but I do not dislike the fantasy genre as a whole. A few years back fantasy appealed me mostly because of the adventure. A good fantasy book creates a whole new world for the reader, with different cultures and different places. An excellent fantasy book (and writer) makes all these elements come to life.
This is one of the reasons why I dislike Tolkien. Tolkien creates a grande world rife with history and intrue, but fails to instill even an ounce of credibility into it. I refuse to believe that there is one really evil, demonic, villain sitting on top of a rather silly-named mountain who does evil things just for the sake of being evil. I also refuse to believe that the good side is so constantly so selfrighteous and so holy that they never ever succumb to feelings such as hate or greed. The people/characters Tolkien portrays are not realistic, they are extremes.

On the other hand, one of my favourite writers is George R.R. Martin. His books are fantasynovels, but with a twist. At first his story seems like a cliché good nobel family versus bad nobel family; but as the story progresses we see that all these characters (and there are quite a few characters) are never completely good or completely evil. Every character has his or her own motives. The 'good' succumb to hate and power, the 'bad' act out of passion or grief.
Another reason why his world appeals to me is because - whilst still fantasy - he rarely ever mentions magic. Magic is mentioned, but often it is left up to the reader to decide whether or not the magic is real, or just coincidence or folklore. For that matter none of the characters ever use magic - it is only mentioned. As for magic creatures, yes, there are a few (dragons feature most prominently from the third book onward, but he never overdoes it).

George R.R. Martin uses fantasy to tell a story without being restricted to the real world. It is imposible to tell a story about a fued between nobel houses on earth, as it would be impossible to integrate it into real history. He thus created a sort of in-between genre: a world between the real world and the worlds used in fantasy.

[Maud]

I can understand that good argument hage, but let me rebuttel. Problems:
Gandalf award- started because of that book and the suspicously one of the people who choose the winners was Tolken himself that rules him out due to a conflict of interest.

Locus- does not honor works but rather publishers, all the books published by that publisher were awarded, proving my point "by rewarding one your awarding them all."

Times- good source cant really argue with that one but to say the genre with the least amount of books reperstned were fantasy.

And actually no I havent seen a movie that I liked that was hated by the critics on average or close to even and the same goes for novels. Thats just me but Im pretty main stream.

There are alot of fantasy readers out their I wont lie but the overwhelming majority of Americans don't even read. According to Herald Interactive in a college and SAT prep class reading increased test scores by 20% reading classics (my favriote) increased it by an extra 15%.

And the four major literary awards that I named did not have a single winner in fantasy. Sci Fi did. George Orwells Animal Farm and 1984

[superbum]

Does Animal Farm count as Sci-Fi

Maud'Dib, I don't think you hate Fantasy I think you hate almost all fantasy books and authors, there are fantasy authors who take the time to make a world where things have to have reason and the characters are real, you just have to find them.

On the other hand mystery is a genre you can hate

[Maud]

Nope I hate fantasy because I have never read a book of that genre was nothing new, I learn from experiance and I gave up on it.

[superbum]

Try The Curse of Chalion by Lois McMaster Bujold it's almost not fantasy, there's no dragons or pixies or orc's and only one kind of magic is mentioned and you have to die to perform it. It's prettty good if you willing enough to give it a try.

[Gigle]

Im a fantaslyer. (sp?)

[SimpleSpence]

Ah, nice debate, but Muad one quick question... In your 3rd paragraph defining fantasy I checked it out. It seems that you've managed to somehow scrape out a line or two out of the definition to give your debate an arguement. But here is the definition in the first and start of the second paragraphs of that very same search of "Fantasy":

Fantasy is a genre of art that uses magic and other supernatural forms as a primary element of plot, theme, or setting. The genre is generally distinguished from science fiction and horror by overall look, feel, and theme of the individual work, though there is a great deal of overlap between the three (collectively known as speculative fiction). In its broadest sense, fantasy covers works by many writers, artists, and musicians, from ancient myths and legends, to many recent works embraced by a wide audience today.

As with other forms of speculative fiction, actions and events in fantasy very often differ from those possible in consensus reality.

Now for those who are wondering what consensus reality is I've also looked that one up for you:

Consensus reality is one approach to answering the question 'What is real?'

First sentence on the page. Now as I will quote the sentence above "Actions and events in fantasy very often differ from those possible in consensus reality."

So if your whole literally, except for a few points, whole debate rises from the loathing of what is not real. You're right. You should hate fantasy. It is everything, but reality. Hello! That's why the genre was categorized and brought to people's attentions was because it was a new type and style of writing. I can agree with you as many times as I could disagree with your first points.

Yes, Fantasy does have very little change in characters and races/plots/abilities, which ever way you're looking at it.
and
Yes, Fantasy does have holes in some of the story plots. I also commend superbum for pointing out that Authors do take time to fill in those gaps to make a very wholesome adventure and plot.

One last thing I must say to close my side of the debate and take it home for the Fantasy side, is that Muad, there are holes in tons of books, but that's why Fantasy normally comes in sequels, trilogies, and sets of series, is to fill in the gaps. It's not that they're illiterate and can't come up with a wholesome plot. Hello! It all revolves around one thing, that is if you're big as an author, "What can I leave off for a sequel, ect., to make me more money and keep the story rolling." Most of the time authors divide out the story, not always with past coming first and future last, but as the author see's that an explaination for the storyline needs to be revealed. That's what pieces the story together like any other genre out there.

Also, you debate about more things being in Fantasy. Um, here's what Serac wrote above in the lines above:

"You need to have rational enemies (like people) who have motives and who you may be able to relate to."

If you argue about lack of variety just go back to her original sentence "Like people." No matter how black, white, yellow, purple, whatever they are they are still just people.

So what is Fantasy in my opinion?
An everyday escape from reality into the minds of characters that take yours to a new land, with new people, and new situations that is not meant to hold any scientific evidence.

[Hagetaka]

The Gandalf Award was only named for him. None of his Lord of the Rings novels won it. He was the first lifetime member. As I suggested, you should have done research on it. Some other authors to win this award were: Ray Bradbury (fahrenheit 451.. just in case), Poul Anderson (War of the Worlds), Lyon Sprauge de Camp (Conan the Barbarian series), Fritz Leiber (Gonna Roll the Bones, also winner of the Hugo Award). Dont mistake its validity for its namesake.