High Fantasy/Low Fantasy/Power Fantasy

[Hussar]

You would put Baxter's Xelee series as hard SF and not space opera? Really? Raft, Timelike Infinity, etc.

Or his Coelescent series?

I do agree with your later characterization though - it is certainly plot which defines Space Opera. If you want Space Opera, you need a honking big plot.

To me, that's what defines high from low fantasy. High fantasy=epic fantasy, and low fantasy=sword and sorcery. At least, that's how I understand the terms to be defined:

Sword and sorcery (S&S) is a fantasy subgenre generally characterized by swashbuckling heroes engaged in exciting and violent conflicts. An element of romance is often present, as is an element of magic and the supernatural. Unlike works of high fantasy, the tales, though dramatic, focus mainly on personal battles rather than world-endangering matters.[1]

To me, the primary difference between high and low fantasy isn't the level of magic, or even the existence of primary/secondary worlds, but the thematic difference between the two. High fantasy deals with epic scopes, Low fantasy does not.

And, continuing to read the original article from wiki, I see that they do talk about the fact that the primary/secondary world issue is contentious among critics. But, the scope divide seems to be pretty much agreed on.

In some fiction, a contemporary, "real-world" character is placed in the invented world, sometimes through devices such as portals to other worlds or even subconscious travels. Purists might not consider this to be "true" high fantasy, although such stories are often categorized as high fantasy due to the fact that they've yet to be classified as their own distinct subgenre, and often resemble this subgenre more closely than any other.

High fantasy worlds may be more or less closely based on real world milieus, or on legends such as Arthurian. When the resemblance is strong, particularly when real-world history is used, high fantasy shades into alternate history.

 

[Krensky]

You would put Baxter's Xelee series as hard SF and not space opera? Really? Raft, Timelike Infinity, etc.

Or his Coelescent series?

Considering that the only time I've seen his characters not take a back seat to the tech or science was him aping Clarke, yes.

I do agree with your later characterization though - it is certainly plot which defines Space Opera. If you want Space Opera, you need a honking big plot.

No you don't. Laumer's Retief series are all small plots. Drake's RCN series are all small plots. Hammer's Slammers are small plots. Morgan's Takashi Kovacs novels are small plots.

To me, that's what defines high from low fantasy. High fantasy=epic fantasy, and low fantasy=sword and sorcery. At least, that's how I understand the terms to be defined:

To me, the primary difference between high and low fantasy isn't the level of magic, or even the existence of primary/secondary worlds, but the thematic difference between the two. High fantasy deals with epic scopes, Low fantasy does not.

And, continuing to read the original article from wiki, I see that they do talk about the fact that the primary/secondary world issue is contentious among critics. But, the scope divide seems to be pretty much agreed on.

The high fantasy one conflates epic fantasy and high fantasy, and the segment you quote is uncited, where the world one has four citations. The low fantasy article provides several (cited) examples of low fantasy. Things like Tuck Everlasting, The Indian in the Cupboard, etc are all low fantasy. Sword & Sorcery tales typically aren't.

 

[S'mon]

Litcrit isn't the only field which is filled with obfuscatory jargon.

Some other fields do the same thing, in making something simple look really grandiose and esoteric.

Certainly - my mother's a Sociologist! And as for the Critical Legal Theory types I deal with at work... I guess that's one reason I like teaching Law; like applied science (say engineering) or a pure science like Physics, it does require clarity of thought & conceptualisation, although unlike them it's dealing with social constructs rather than objective tuths.

 

[ggroy]

Certainly - my mother's a Sociologist! And as for the Critical Legal Theory types I deal with at work... I guess that's one reason I like teaching Law; like applied science (say engineering) or a pure science like Physics, it does require clarity of thought & conceptualisation, although unlike them it's dealing with social constructs rather than objective tuths.

Pure mathematics is one of the worst in this regard. Very impenetrable jargon and precise definitions.

 

[S'mon]

It refers to the amount of fantasy. Wonderland, Middle Earth, Narnia, Neverland, Harry Potter etc are all high fantasy.

As for fantasy set purportedly in the real world there's the Dresden Files, Dracula (Stoker's novel), The Brotherhood of the Wolf, Sherlock Holmes, the Quartermain stories, etc.

There's no supernatural element in the Sherlock Holmes stories.

Does this mean Buffy is high fantasy & Dracula low fantasy? Again I think it's a useless genre definition because it means that the genre can change within the novel/work simply depending on whether the amount of fantasy in that bit turns it into a secondary world or not. Eg Buffy series 1 could be 'low fantasy' while later series could be 'high fantasy' - which might be justifiable if we were just talking about the magic level, but this litcrit definition focuses oddly on whether the setting crosses from 'primary' to 'secondary' world status. But both Dracula and Buffy are set in the nominally real world. Heck, Harry Potter is not set in an explicitly secondary world, either.

 

[S'mon]

Pure mathematics is one of the worst in this regard. Very impenetrable jargon and precise definitions.

Pure mathematics definitions need to make sense and be internally consistent. I think there's a big difference between that (or eg legal jargon) on the one hand; and that of certain other soft fields on the other.

I remember how when I did a trial run to my academic parents of my research presenation that would get my legal research formally upgraded to PhD status, my Sociologist mother was very unimpressed because it all seemed 'simple' to her, ie it was all clear and non-obfuscatory, I'd put a lot of effort into presenting fairly complex concepts in an easily comprehensible fashion, the opposite of what Sociologists are trained to do. Whereas the legal academics on the actual research panel were suitably impressed and gave me the upgrade no problem.

 

[ggroy]

Pure mathematics definitions need to make sense and be internally consistent. I think there's a big difference between that (or eg legal jargon) on the one hand; and that of certain other soft fields on the other.

In practice, pure mathematics doesn't even involve solving any equations. It's mostly a huge game of doing a long sequence of logical deductions starting from a set of precise definitions and axioms.

In something like applied math or the hard sciences (ie. physics, chemistry, etc ...), the math commonly used will bring up a lot of objections by some pure mathematicians. In some areas of physics, they do mathematically "illegal" operations like subtracting infinity from infinity.

 

[ggroy]

my Sociologist mother was very unimpressed because it all seemed 'simple' to her, ie it was all clear and non-obfuscatory, I'd put a lot of effort into presenting fairly complex concepts in an easily comprehensible fashion, the opposite of what Sociologists are trained to do.

This is what I find frustrating whenever I speak to people trained in areas where obfuscation is the standard MO. They frequently get angry at me when I keep on repeatedly asking them to clarify what they mean, and/or I ask them why they use a particular piece of jargon.

 

[ggroy]

And as for the Critical Legal Theory types I deal with at work... I guess that's one reason I like teaching Law; like applied science (say engineering) or a pure science like Physics, it does require clarity of thought & conceptualisation

Do critical legal theory types think more like a pure mathematician or a theoretical physicist?

 

[Primal]

The high fantasy one conflates epic fantasy and high fantasy, and the segment you quote is uncited, where the world one has four citations. The low fantasy article provides several (cited) examples of low fantasy. Things like Tuck Everlasting, The Indian in the Cupboard, etc are all low fantasy. Sword & Sorcery tales typically aren't.

I think it's nigh-impossible to try formulating all-encompassing genre definitions, because they also change and evolve with time. And, new subgenres are coined every now and then (e.g. 'New Weird' by China Mieville and others). Also, genres overlap each other, and many authors consciously try to mix in influences from other genres and subgenres.

I think the literary history lessons I attended during my studies defined the division between high and low fantasy by using the Primary/Secondary World. Also, another possible way is to analyze how much magic permeates the stories. Thirdly -- as Hussar points out -- it's possible to focus on the scope of the stories (epic struggle against evil vs. more "mundane" themes). I've read numerous articles on this subject, and the general consensus among literary experts seems to be that it's hard enough to define explicit attributes to fantasy or science fiction, let alone their subgenres.