Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3886219" data-attributes="member: 18280">The EoF would agree with you here; a taproot text is not &quot;fantasy&quot; if the author(s) believed the events therein are/were possible in the real world.RCEDIT:&nbsp; I am certainly aware of the view that &quot;Fantasy is as old as fear&quot; (which I am sure that I am misquoting from the preface to Black Water 2).&nbsp; And, I would agree that it is very likely that some of the taproot texts were fantasy in the modern sense.&nbsp; The question, though, is what was considered &quot;possible&quot; in a pre-scientific world?&nbsp; I have some wonderful modern works that I am not 100% sure are &quot;fantasy&quot; because I am not certain that the authors didn't believe that what they were writing was possible.There is another line of thought (also brought up by Alberto Manguel in the into to the Dark Water 2 anthology) that &quot;realistic&quot; novels are just another form of fantasy -- a fantasy of how we wish people interacted.I tend to think that accepting either of these arguments (fantasy based on content, rather than what was believed, &amp; &quot;realism&quot; as a form of fantasy) muddy the definition of the genre into uselessness.YMMV.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3886219, member: 18280"] The EoF would agree with you here; a taproot text is not "fantasy" if the author(s) believed the events therein are/were possible in the real world. RC [i]EDIT: I am certainly aware of the view that "Fantasy is as old as fear" (which I am sure that I am misquoting from the preface to Black Water 2). And, I would agree that it is very likely that some of the taproot texts [i]were[/i] fantasy in the modern sense. The question, though, is what was considered "possible" in a pre-scientific world? I have some wonderful modern works that I am not 100% sure are "fantasy" because I am not certain that the authors didn't believe that what they were writing was possible. There is another line of thought (also brought up by Alberto Manguel in the into to the Dark Water 2 anthology) that "realistic" novels are just another form of fantasy -- a fantasy of how we wish people interacted. I tend to think that accepting either of these arguments (fantasy based on content, rather than what was believed, & "realism" as a form of fantasy) muddy the definition of the genre into uselessness. YMMV. RC[/i] [/QUOTE]

Verification