Yeah, it's almost as if epic fantasy has other common features that contribute to the genre, and epic scale is only one such feature. But that would require reading what other people have written and contextualizing their arguments appropriately through good faith readings. However, let's rid ourselves of the ridiculous reductionist take here that this amounts to "This story has a lot of important characters, and those characters have a backstory." Or maybe we can say that there is no difference between the noir genre and teenage monster romance genre because both feature stories with beginnings, middles, and ends. But such reductionism would obviously be intellectually dishonest. So we should likewise avoid reducing the argument about characters fitting in settings with grand historical scale to simply "The story has a lot of important characters, and those characters have a backstory." In fact, maybe one should refrain from making further bad takes on arguments in the future? They are not particularly conducive to fruitful discussions.
I'm snipping most of your discussion, because while interesting, I feel like it is just going to go into circles, and I want to focus on this.
Let me requote
@Hussar 's opening paragraph that got this line started.
This is a mistaken definition of Epic Fantasy. Epic fantasy is epic, not because of big stakes,
but, because it is epic in scale - cast of thousands, tons of characters, big, massive battles with thousands of combatants - in other words - epic in the sense the The Illiad is epic - it's not the fate of the world, and, really, we're talking about the battle for one poncy little city over the stakes of a girl.
But, it's epic because you have all these different characters and stories woven into the plot.
Note how he is specifically saying that the stakes do not make an Epic, epic? Note how he does not mention an epic scale of geography stretching most of the setting, or epic timescale involving multiple generations?
In fact, his only point mentions the number of characters, and their backstories.
So, I pushed back on that singular point. That an Epic Fantasy story is
defined solely by having a large cast. A point that Hussar has since agreed with, a point that you agree with in your above post, even italicizing in the section I bolded.
So.... if everyone agrees with me, how was I making a bad faith argument, reducing his argument into a absurd caricature in an intellectually dishonest move?
I guess instead of saying "No, I think you are wrong and using too simplistic a definition, here is an example of something that is not an Epic Fantasy Story that has a large cast to back-up my assertion with evidence" I should have just said "No, you are wrong, it is more than that." And had you guys provide the evidence yourselves? Because, after all, you both agree with me. You both agree that a large cast with complex backstories are only one part of what makes Epic Fantasy Epic. So, how was I doing anything wrong by providing evidence to back up an assertion we all agree with in the first place?
Maybe, instead of backhandedly telling me "But that would require reading what other people have written and contextualizing their arguments appropriately through good faith readings" you could... maybe do the same? Because I keep making very simple points, that as the discussion moves on, everyone agrees with, but I keep getting called dishonest and ignorant in the process, and I don't understand why.
You're seriously comparing a single, American city, with a history that's measured in decades, to the epic scale of something like Middle Earth which has a history measured in millenia? Seriously?
sigh
An American City? What is this America? Oh, they came from England? What is that? Democracy has it's roots in the Native Americans and the Greek City of Athens? Oh, the mob seems to have a lot of Italian roots, how did that happen? Why was Italy that way? Rome? Didn't that involve the Greeks?
But yeah, just a history a few decades old is brought along to talk about the real world. Totally.
Might want to re-read my post where I said that "brings with it the entire weight of American history"
See, Tolkien had to explain millenia of stuff, because he was building a new world millenia old. Dresden doesn't need to tell us about the Civil War, or the Revolutionary War, or World War 1 and 2... because they are our History and we are assumed to know it, unlike the story of Middle Earth, which Tolkien had to write themselves.
Yes, what Tolkien did was monumentally impressive, but the reason it is impressive is because of the weight you can gain from reference real-life history, which brings all of that weight Tolkien constructed, ready made.
Because you aren't even trying to understand. The fact that I had to list out all those elements means that you actually don't know what you're talking about and are making zero effort to be informed before jumping in to criticize.
The very fact you had to list out all those elements
means I was right!
My entire point was that the size of the cast
ALONE did not define Epic Fantasy. Which you claimed it did. If that wasn't your claim, then perhaps you should have said so, instead of attacking the details of my argument and trying to show how badly I understand the original intent of Tolkien's work.
I mean, what effort was I supposed to put in to disagree with a point that you yourself disagree with? My only conclusion is that I should stop trying to back up my claims and just state them as facts, because every time I try and put forth a reasoned example, I get attacked over quibbles even when people agree with my point.
Which was, to reiterate.
The size of the cast alone does not determine if a work of Fantasy is Epic Fantasy or not.
Sigh. Epic Fantasy is a Fantasy form, number one, which doesn't exist in literature prior to the 19th century. It's also referring to the NOVEL form, which, also, doesn't really exist before the 18th century. Good grief, this is basic Lit Crit from high school.
I suggest you look at
Heroic Fantasy Quarterly - Prose. Poetry. Pulp. or
Black Gate before you begin writing off S&S as a genre. Or, look up Glen Cook's Black Company novels for another current example.
IOW, THIS is why you are getting raked over the coals. You are making zero effort to actually understand what's being explained to you and you are now forcing the rest of us to regurgitate crap that you should have learned in high school English classes. This is just freaking ridiculous.
Right, I suppose it sprang fully formed from the mind of Tolkien, with no references at all to prior forms of creative writing. No Epic Poems, no collections of mythological stories, none of it.
After all, the modern novel was completely unique right? It was based on say... collecting stories together into a single volume. Which happened for centuries if not millenia since people invented writing.
I mean, I mentioned it depended on how you define things. But I guess nuance is a pointless endeavor for me to embark on, since my arguments are ignored outright due to my perceived idiocy.