Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 2264369" data-attributes="member: 2205">Yes, absolutely.  There is fantasy that does not feature pseudo-medieval imagery at all.  There is fantasy about elves slumming at Ren Faires.  There is fantasy about vampires in Victorian England.  There is fantasy about mages in the far future that travel the stars.There's all kinds of fantasy, but according to you, it must not be fantasy.I don't know how you can claim your formal logic is just fine.  You point out the truism that you can't define an entire set by the qualities of a subset, but that's exactly what you're doing.  You're artificially narrowing fantasy to a smaller subset. I just reread your posts, and that, along with what you've posted here, doesn't include anything but imagery in your definition of fantasy.  If you're not saying it can't be fantasy without the images of paladins in shining armor, dragons, etc. then I don't know what you're saying.  That message seems pretty clear from all of your posts in this thread. Oh, no doubt.  But that doesn't mean it isn't fantasy anymore if it eschews those images and has different types of characters in different types of settings.  It may be a poor marketing move on anyone's part to abandon the traditional conventions of the genre, but I can't see making an argument that it no longer belongs in the genre at all.  If not, to what genre would it belong? Indeed, and I apologize to Dannyalcatraz for bogging down his thread on psionics with it.  To that end, I've created a <a href="https://www.enworld.org/index.php?threads/132875/" target="_blank">new thread</a> for the discussion of what makes the fantasy genre what it is.</blockquote>

Verification