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

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.

Well, if you wish to go through that territory, feel free. We haven't really established what is new and what is old for the entire discussion. We only established it for the opening leg of the discussion. The rest is open to finer time lines. :)
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

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. :confused:
Apparently you don't understand the law of logic. You make the claim, I challenge the claim, you provide the evidence. You don't make a claim and then ask the one challenging the claim to provide your evidence. It doesn't make sense.

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.
"A bit farther apart?" Are you kidding me? I could choose Fang Gnome and Brokedown Palace and come up with the same distinctions. You have chosen two entirely unrelated stories. YES, you have to compare to stories with similar elements in order to prove how different they are. If you're going to use Beowulf, then compare Conan, which has the same tropes and elements, but Beowulf contains more feeling and produces a story that is much more fantastical than anything I've seen from Conan. If you're going to do the Hobbit (the least exciting of J.R.R. Tolkien's books outside the Silmerillion), then you should choose the Odyssey for comparison, which was MORE fantastical, and yet contains many of the same elements (much because Tolkien was clearly influenced by the Odyssey).

So, if anything, modern fiction is neither as original, nor as fantastical as ancient works, especially when you consider the stories of the gods.
 

Part of the problem too is that people seem to want clear demarcations of genre. That simply isn't going to happen. Heck, even in taxonomy you can't get clear demarcations - look at a panda as an example. The entire branch of science of taxonomy is based on trying to categorize living creatures and often has some serious contentions.

Art is of course a lot more fuzzy. There are no clear demarcations. You can only make generalizations that work most of the time.

Corjay - Again, you can pick specific contradictions of course. That's the point of generalization. If you want another theme that you do no see in myth, it's the reluctant hero. That's pretty much entirely a 20th century creation and something that Modern Fantasy features very regularly.
 

Part of the problem too is that people seem to want clear demarcations of genre. That simply isn't going to happen. Heck, even in taxonomy you can't get clear demarcations - look at a panda as an example. The entire branch of science of taxonomy is based on trying to categorize living creatures and often has some serious contentions.

Art is of course a lot more fuzzy. There are no clear demarcations. You can only make generalizations that work most of the time.

Corjay - Again, you can pick specific contradictions of course. That's the point of generalization. If you want another theme that you do no see in myth, it's the reluctant hero. That's pretty much entirely a 20th century creation and something that Modern Fantasy features very regularly.
Once again, I have to point out, no. Lucas pulled his reluctant hero straight out of mythology. Everything that made up Star Wars came out of ancient mythology. Odysseus was a reluctant hero, Perseus was a reluctant hero, and I know there were others.
 

One possible difference is the nature of the "worlds" that have been created in the two types of fantasy, in the sense that one was created piecemeal by many different writers and authors, and the other is often the version of a single creator.

Take the example of Homer and Virgil mentioned earlier. Homer and Virgil are considered part of Greek myth, but they did not create it on their own. What we know as the world of Greek myth consists of a whole collection of stories and legends, created by different authors at different times, that all coasleced into a larger mythos that we now study today. Greek mythology, and likely the mythology of most other world cultures, did not spring from a single creator; no single person offered an overarching vision and structure to it. Homer certainly made his own original contributions, but he also took a lot from earlier myths, tying his own work into it. Unlike with modern fantasy, when the creator's influence can be clearly seen, Homer's contributions are part of the "foundation", so to speak.

Now, consider modern fantasy. Many of the classic characters and universes, both inside and outside fantasy, of our times are the creations of a single person, who develop the universe and give it an overarching tone and direction. Tolkien developed Middle Earth practically on his own; Robert E. Howard is the sole creator of Conan and Hyboria; H.P. Lovecraft created the Cthulu mythos; George Lucas is supposed to be the original creator of the Star Wars universe; Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek; and so on.

This even extends into D&D and fantasy RPGs: Gary Gygax developed a lot of the 'mythos' that has come to define D&D, with its cosmology of the Planes, the way magic generally tends to work, the various monsters and creatures that exist in the world, and so on. Ed Greenwood established the tone for the Forgotten Realms, and so on down the road.

The criticial difference between these universes and those of ancient times is that the new ones can be clearly traced back to one creator, or a small group of people. His or her first writings will tend to establish a direction for later writers to follow, and conventions that often determine if fans accept or reject new contributions.

Of course, as time goes on and the new universes develop, new writers will come to add their own contributions. Other writers came to add their own contributions to the Cthulu mythos, sometimes with Lovecraft's own encouragement. Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and the rest created the classic Marvel characters, and later writers would develop these aspects of the Marvel Universe and add their own characters, many of whom become key parts of the universe itself. Various aspects of the Star Wars and Star Trek universes have been developed by such things as tie-in novels, fan works, later TV shows, and what have you. Gygax established a lot of the basic mythos of D&D, but later writers would add in their own bits and pieces, and make their own creative contributions.

But the key aspect is that there's generally a tone that's established, especially when the work is quite clearly established by a single creator, as with Lovecraft and Tolkien. Others might make their own additions later on, but it was Lovecraft and Tolkien themselves who established the tone, and what could and could not be done. Fans of the various universes can and do pick up on these things, and this leads them to either accept or reject later developments based on their perceptions of whether it fits with the unvierse or not.
 

Id say the biggest diffrence is that modern fantasy seems to be shoe horned into speciffic tropes. The same races, and ideas seem to get rehashed a lot. Tolkien pretty much created the genre and a lot of writers have looked to his material for insperation, which means a lot of modern fantasy literature, is well just a rehashing of same old same old, though there are exceptions and there are writers who take even the old ideas and work them well.

The old stories did not necassarly follow such rules, though myths can be grouped according to type, fertility, creation, and cautionary tales are typical.

They do however all share comon ground. That of people dealing with real issues in a fantastic setting. One of the most compelling stories ever written is also the earliest ever written for that very reason "Gilgamesh" if you have not read it then read it.

Most of them wether old or new fantasy deal with concepts such as fate, destiny, death and moral quandrums. And each reflect the societies that wrote them. Im not even sure what Im trying to say here just thought Id throw my copper pieces in.
 

Gilgamesh isn't just one of the oldest. It is THE oldest heroic account. You just can't get older than that when you're discussing heroes. It is really the basis from which we get all the kick butt muscle men adventures, and as you say, it beats most in fantastical tales, and there was a continuous cohesive interlocking tale involving his search for immortality. And unlike most mythology, THAT is a story they say is likely based on a real person to the extent that he was once a real king. It is original, a morality tale, and carries you from beginning to end.
 




Remove ads

Top