Forked Thread: What is the difference between New Fantasy and Old Fantasy?

[Corjay]

My mistake, I must have interpreted this incorrectly.

This seems like sarcasm. So a writer can have a goal of writing fantasy without knowing they're writing fantasy?

If your statement was genuine, and not sarcasm, then disregard this post.

 

[Leatherhead]

This seems like sarcasm. So a writer can have a goal of writing fantasy without knowing they're writing fantasy?

If your statement was genuine, and not sarcasm, then disregard this post.

I don't use that much sarcasm, as it doesn't convey well in text form.

 

[Corjay]

No problem. When things get intense, it becomes hard to tell the difference between a minor concession and sarcasm.

 

[Hussar]

I would also point out one of the largest differences between Modern Fantasy and Romance literature is the novel format. That is probably the biggest demarcation between the two that you can find. Novel structure is very different from, say, epic poetry structure.

And, to be honest, I do believe that the functions of myth and modern fantasy are very different as well. The Illiad is a historical text based on what people knew of the events of the time. I said this in the other thread, but, modern fantasy primarily deals with wish fulfilment. The small individual saves the world. That's a trope that is almost completely absent from earlier Romance literature. Even King Arthur isn't a simple farm boy, he's the son of a king.

 

[Klaus]

In my view, modern fantasy's clearest ancestor is the legend of Arthur. The stories are centuries old in their recognized form, and meld religion, poetry, folk tales, history and storytelling into a complete mythology of their own. Lancelot was a fictional insertion with a known author. The tales take place in a recognizably fantastic England. More importantly in this discussion, the stories inspired by Dunsany and especially Tolkien. Dunsany inspired, well, a lot of people. And Tolkien essentially created modern genre fantasy, which absorbed, alterered, and also segregated "weird tales" and prehistorical yarns. Prior to Tolkien, swords-and-sorcery was a recognizable genre of its own, after, it became a set of motifs applicable to high fantasy.

Given all this, I cannot state a clear demarcation between old fantasy and new. The tales of Myrddin, Arthur, and Bedwyr probably meant something very similar to the people of that age as Frodo and Aragorn mean to ours.

Plato flatly regarded the stories of the gods as allegory, poetry, and sometimes nonsense. Particularly in The Republic, he suggests editing and censoring the tales of the Greek gods and remaking them as stories that promote social good.

Actually, while the Arthurian myths are an organization and amalgamation of several different takes on the same story, the Portuguese national epic "Os Lusiadas" was specifically written by Luis de Camões in order to become a "new mythology" for the Portuguese people. In that he is closer in approach to modern day comic book writers, or to George Lucas (another creator who set out to make a new mythology).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Os_Lusíadas

 

[GSHamster]

I think the difference is in the society that produced the works. Modern fantasies are works of the Enlightenment, of the rational view of the world. Even if they don't hew to that view, or reject it outright, they still have an awareness of that view that makes them different in feel to older fantasy.

Older fantasy is less ... ordered, may be the best word. Stuff happens that, quite frankly, makes no sense, even in the context of the story/world. Story elements are capricious.

In modern fantasy, stuff happens for a reason, sometimes a fantastical reason, but a reason none the less.

 

[Corjay]

I would also point out one of the largest differences between Modern Fantasy and Romance literature is the novel format. That is probably the biggest demarcation between the two that you can find. Novel structure is very different from, say, epic poetry structure.

That is true, and the key point there is that much of the ancient stories were written as poetry, but that did not last forever. Outside of that the best difference I can seem to think of is that more monsters are used, mixing monster/race tropes from all manner of legends that have been collected through history. Nothing's sacred.

And, to be honest, I do believe that the functions of myth and modern fantasy are very different as well. The Illiad is a historical text based on what people knew of the events of the time. I said this in the other thread, but, modern fantasy primarily deals with wish fulfilment. The small individual saves the world. That's a trope that is almost completely absent from earlier Romance literature. Even King Arthur isn't a simple farm boy, he's the son of a king.

You're using a David and Goliath-type summation for modern fantasy to show how modern and ancient literature is different? I can't tell you how priceless that is. Seriously, though, you're focusing on the wrong part of that evidence. It isn't that it isn't seen in the old literature (it is), but the question is how frequently it's seen in today's fiction. And I think that is related more to the times we're, and speaks nothing to how frequent the supernatural aspects have been amplified.

As an example of ancient texts that match modern standards of fantasy, the 1,001 Nights was a collection of tales that were pure fantasy written for the purpose of pure fantasy as admitted in the tale itself, and its not a poem. However, this only goes back to the 9th century.

I know of more that I can't remember the names of, but all I can recall are poetry. So while the fantasy element is maintained as strongly as modern fantasy in all the stories that come to mind, all of them are poetry. So that is really the biggest difference that comes to mind.

 

[Corjay]

I think the difference is in the society that produced the works. Modern fantasies are works of the Enlightenment, of the rational view of the world. Even if they don't hew to that view, or reject it outright, they still have an awareness of that view that makes them different in feel to older fantasy.

Older fantasy is less ... ordered, may be the best word. Stuff happens that, quite frankly, makes no sense, even in the context of the story/world. Story elements are capricious.

In modern fantasy, stuff happens for a reason, sometimes a fantastical reason, but a reason none the less.

Out of all our comments in this thread, this is the most intelligent, straight to the point, post I've seen. This is indeed where the difference lies. Yes, no overt claims to this enlightenment in each story, but a definite awareness that is ever present, along with the more fleshed out and sensible stories. Very good, GS.

 

[WayneLigon]

I figured 'old vs. new' would be 'fantasy from 1900-1970' vs. 'Fantasy from 1971 through today'. I think comparing modern fantasy to the ancient epics and myths is kind of apples/oranges territory.

 

[Desdichado]

Like I said, that's your job, not mine. I'm not trying to prove modern fantasy is different than classical literature. I started this thread because I didn't want to side track the Sci-Fi vs. Fantasy thread.

A one sentence statement is not "addressing" the question. It's a "just so" story. It's the exact equivalent of "Nuh-uh" like I said earlier.

In any case, it's hardly my job. I'm not trying to prove anything. You're the one who challenged my claim and haven't yet put forward anything of substance to refute it. And now it seems despite forking the thread, you don't really care to discuss it after all.

Let's try this another way. Beowulf and The Hobbit. I say there's a big difference between them; one is prefantasy and one is modern fantasy. Presumably, you say that they are the same since your contention is that there's no difference between them (again, I have to presume. You've given so little indication of what you believe or why that I'm flying blind here trying to engage you in some fruitful discussion, which you seem to be steadfastly avoiding.)

For similarities, I see warriors with swords and a dragon. For differences, I see completely different tone, theme, style, mode, characterization, plot structure (and complexity) and (although I admit external factors are not as important, they're still interesting) authorial intent and audience expectation.

How you can claim that such fundamentally different works belong to the same genre when all they share are a few superficial similarities is beyond me. Perhaps if you explained that, we could get somewhere.

Granted, I purposefully picked two examples that were a bit farther apart than other examples I could have picked. You could counter by asking me whether I placed William Morris within the fantasy genre as it's known today or "prefantasy" as I call it, and I'd have to admit that I don't know for sure. But the fact that there are "muddy" issues that are difficult to place doesn't invalidate the genre goalposts. Genre definitions are like Platonic ideals and you compare works to them to see how well they fit rather than being proscriptive definitions that you have to cram works into.