[Rant] Fantasy - beyond the "standard" paradigm

[jdrakeh]

So yes I am glad it speaks volumes (Your pre-edited words) that I oppose anyone who thinks they can Rant because of the way I think.

You're ascribing motives to others that, presently, have only been proven to exist inside your own head. Jurgen hasn't lowered the hammer of oppression that you claim he has. He hasn't demanded that others agree with him - but you, ironically, have.

Indeed, the sum total of your contribution to this thread has been that Jurgen (and others) who use the common definition of "fantasy", rather than your own, personal, definition, are not only wrong, but somehow forcing you to think differently (which is, of course, absurd).

So from that point on, I do not allow any tech related items in my fantasy

And that's the problem. Jurgen isn't talking aboiut your fantasy, he's talking about (speaking of dictionaries) the commonly acccepted definition of the word as it appears in the dictionary - the fantasy. As he says, you're certainly free to define the word however you like, but to claim that anybody who uses the dictionary definition rather than your own, personal, definition is trying to oppress your freedom of thought is rediculous.

When I was growing up my father would call this "Respecting a person's opinion"

Respecting another's opinion does not mean agreeing with it, which is what you seem to be saying. I (and I suspect Jurgen) respect that you have a right to your opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with or subscribe to it, nor does it prohibit me from having my own opinion, as you've suggested.

 

[Elf Witch]

When I took a class on Fantasy Lit in college I learned that there were a lot of different sub genres to fantasy.

Sword and Sorcery an example of which is Conan , Epic/quest ala LOTR , urban fantasy a good examle is Mercedes Lackey Bedlam Bard, Pulp Verne's works fall into this, Space Fantasy Star Wars, Anne McCaffrey's pern, Horror used to be considered part of fantasy because it dealt with things like Vampires, Werewolves, Ghosts.

There are more I just can't recall them off the top of my head since I took this class over 20 years ago.

Fantasy has a very broad definition it is more than just Tolkein. Classic DnD like Greyhawk can fall under sword and sorcery or Epic/quest. Shadowrun is urban fantasy because it is set in a modern world with magic. Eberron is fantasy not Science Fiction because it may have Warforged and Airships but they are made and run using magic not technology.

True Science Fiction is a story using technology and extrapolating how it woll evolve. It is why in the true sense of the word Robert Heinlein is considered SF and McCaffrey with her dragons on another planet is considered Space Fantasy.

The class was fun and there were a lot of debates about where what went. And I enjoyed the disscussions but at the end of the day I was like who really cares does it really matter if this story is more sword and sorcery or more epic in the end it goes on my shelf with the rest of the Sf and Fantasy novels.

The only reason I can see for the breakdown is to be able to tell someone esle what a story is about in a nutshell. That and give scholars papers to write.

 

[pogre]

Sword and sorcery fantasy has become the default meaning for fantasy amongst the greater D&D crowd. When someone says "Eberron is not fantasy" I perceive them to say Eberron is not really sword & sorcery fantasy. That's a fair thing to say - in other words I agree with Joe B.

 

[Hussar]

Sword and sorcery fantasy has become the default meaning for fantasy amongst the greater D&D crowd. When someone says "Eberron is not fantasy" I perceive them to say Eberron is not really sword & sorcery fantasy. That's a fair thing to say - in other words I agree with Joe B.

I'm sorry, but this would be a case where the greater D&D crowd would be mistaken.

S&S fantasy is a fairly narrow genre typified by Howard and Leiber and a handful of others. Lord of the Rings is no more S&S fantasy than Moby Dick is. While people can mislabel all they like, playing fast and loose with definitions isn't going to help any conversation.

There are a bazillion sub-genres under the umbrella of Fantasy. To try to say that X is not fantasy because you happen not to like it, rather than based on any accepted definition of the genre is silly. Personal tastes have zero to do with genre.

Is Dracula fantasy? Of course it is. (Well, actually 19th century romance, but, who's counting ) It has vampires. It has magic. It's fantasy. Yet, it resembles in no way the works of Howard or Lieber or any other S&S writer. Stylistically it is entirely different.

I think there is a very concerted attempt by some to broaden the definition of Fantasy to mean "Books we like" and anything that doesn't fit isn't true fantasy.

What really blows my mind is the idea that there are bad inspirations for the game. This just boggles me. I couldn't care less where the inspirations come from. Personal preference does not make something objectively good or bad.

 

[francisca]

To me, that's rather close minded. Why should fantasy be limited to these genres? Why can't we admit that other varieties are fantasy, too?

No problems here. I totally acknowledge the existence of various styles of fantasy. That I think most of them are crap has no bearing on what others think, and I'm quite happy with that. If my favorite sun-genre falls out of favor, so what? I can create my own content for my games.

I think Hong hit the nail on the head: it's about validation. And it isn't limited to sub-genres of fantasy. Some people want to feel validated in their choices of setting, ruleset, genre, etc...

My advice to those folks: enjoy what you play/read, and damn the naysayers.

 

[DragonLancer]

I prefer to call D&D sword & sorcery, but then I get people telling me that Conan is sword & sorcery (IE, low magic, few monsters, just men fighting with swords) and D&D is fantasy. Fantasy is far bigger pigeonhole.

 

[francisca]

I prefer to call D&D sword & sorcery, but then I get people telling me that Conan is sword & sorcery (IE, low magic, few monsters, just men fighting with swords) and D&D is fantasy. Fantasy is far bigger pigeonhole.

S&S is an old literary term, indeed applied to REH's Conan works, as well as Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and Mouser yarns.

 

[rounser]

S&S fantasy is a fairly narrow genre typified by Howard and Leiber and a handful of others. Lord of the Rings is no more S&S fantasy than Moby Dick is. While people can mislabel all they like, playing fast and loose with definitions isn't going to help any conversation.

It's better than obfuscation and confusion with "big F" Fantasy, and it describes Tolkien and derivatives to most people, even if officially Tolkien is "officially" epic fantasy, Moorcock dark fantasy etc. etc.

 

[SWBaxter]

Actually, the first post in that that thread specifically dismisses Eberron as not being fantasy, but some misguided attempt at "science fictasy". Jurgen's post seems spot on in that context.

Jurgen's statement is that "many people" in that thread dismissed Eberron as not being fantasy. But it looks to me like most of the respondents in that thread basically said "Eberron's different, but cool." It seems pretty clear that the OP in that thread was engaging in hyperbole in order to get responses, and Jurgen did exactly the same thing in this thread.

 

[jdrakeh]

Jurgen's statement is that "many people" in that thread dismissed Eberron as not being fantasy. But it looks to me like most of the respondents in that thread basically said "Eberron's different, but cool." It seems pretty clear that the OP in that thread was engaging in hyperbole in order to get responses, and Jurgen did exactly the same thing in this thread.

I never said otherwise. rounser stated that nobody had made the argument. I simply pointed out that somebody had, in fact, made the argument that Jurgen was railing against (and that it had been made in the very first post of the linked to thread, no less). Since then, others (including some on this thread) have also made the argument in question (i.e., that if something isn't medieval European analogue, it's not fantasy).

Point is, the argument was made and is being made, so Jurgen wasn't railing against a non-existant argument when he started this thread, as rounser suggested. Whether Jurgen exaggerrated the number of people making the argument is immaterial, so long as somebody was making it in the linked to thread - and they were. So there you go.