[Buddhist]

...and yet I can't really put my finger on it. I don't know. It just seems all so cheesy to me. It might be the fact that it seems to be oh so blatantly escapist.

Help! I need to figure out what it is!

[Arthryn]

It's typically formulaic and has a tendency to stagnate the genre? And that there are too many elves and dwarves? I personally get peeved by the conventional plot (farmboy hero defeats great evil), and the stock races (elves, dwarves, dragons, orcs, etc), and the stock character roles (farmboy-turned-hero, wise mentor who is usually not who he seems, beautiful and unattainable princess, comedy relief, evil lord, and so on). I feel like I'm reading the same book over and over again, and that the genre is going nowhere because of authors who dominate said genre by writing stale, conventional crap.

I mean, it's perfectly possible to create a new fantastical world with fantastical races and NOT write a story about defeating some great evil. So many authors don't break the mold, and the ones that do are very rare.

[eragon nerd]

EF has degenerated into a glorified version of fanfiction. Think about it, it almost always takes the plot, world, characters, and style from another source and tries to make it its own. In any other circumstance this is known as fanfiction.

That's not to say something new can't be done. It's just that EF has shaped itself into a genre that practically mandates shoddy practices (For a serious book that is) and bad writing simply follows from this.

[Buddhist]

I guess I should be proud that Apocrypha probably won't be considered High Fantasy.

[Behave Yourself]

High fantasy, frankly, needs to be redefined. The way people use it these days, for example, are basically just using stock races - elves and dwarves and centaurs, etc - and not doing anything really original. Personally, I've never felt any sort of drive to write about dwarves and elves and things, but eh. I mostly write science fiction and low to middle fantasy, and some weird mix of religious and contemporary.

James

This post has been edited by LyriantheFirst: 24 September 2009 - 11:39 AM

[Spinner]

We all know how I feel about genres for genres sake, so I'll spare you that ramble.

The appeal of high fantasy is sort of like how myths and allegories appeal to children (some children, anyway). Up until a certain age, it's something fun to read, then you go branch out to newer, different things. At it's current definition, EF/High fantasy, whatever it is, is not going to grow past that.

Ben

[Future Quest]

I tried a high fantasy story once and it was so horrible that I shredded it. Few authors can really pull it off. It's what I call a cookie-cutter genre. Take a book, change the names and a few of the events, and publish it. That's how most of them seem. I usually don't read them unless they're truly a spectacular book.

[Mr. Trouble]

I like High Fantasy. I agree that it has become polluted with the same orphan boy turned hero plots. But I like the sameness of the archetypes, when written well, theses work. Such as the knight, wise old man, corrupt leader - I think these are all people we can relate to. For me it is comforting, because these archetypes always exist.

I also like the stock races. I don't feel like the elves always have to be elegant or the dwarves greedy, or whatever formula it is. But these races have been around for awhile, you could change some of these elements however. I don't like the idea of creating new races just for the sake of not using the tried and true ones. Certain ones always work like the goblins and elves.

[dragonking555]

I feel that High Fantasy as you call it has just become the classic system of fantasy writing. It feels familiar to people which is why so many people like to read it and why so many authors write about. It almost feels like a resource ready for use. Personally I have no problem with it if they put a little originality or decent story telling into it. True I like those that branch out a bit but there is nothing wrong with good old fashion classic writing in my book.

[Spinner]

What bothers me about the name "high fantasy" is how the presence of the word "high" makes everyone think of it as some grand concept. According to Wikipedia, this is the definition of high fantasy:

High fantasy is defined as fantasy fiction set in an alternative, entirely fictional ("Secondary") world, rather than the real ("Primary") world. The secondary world will normally be internally consistent but its rules are in some way different than those of the primary world. By contrast, low fantasy is characterised by being set in the primary world, or a rational and familiar fictional world, with the inclusion of magical elements.

The secondary world of high fantasy exists, or may be entered, in three different forms:

1. A setting in which the primary world does not exist (e.g. Discworld, The Wheel of Time)
2. The secondary world is entered through a portal from the primary world (e.g. The Chronicles of Narnia, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever, His Dark Materials)
3. A distinct world-within-a-world as part of the primary world (e.g. Harry Potter)

By this definition, you really can't say that high fantasy is exclusive to sword and shield. In fact, by that definition, my speculative series, Cloudnigh is high fantasy. All in all, high fantasy effectively appears to mean that not only are the fundamental laws of the world fantastical, but the events happening within.

Sorta an eye-opener, TBH. o_O

Ben

[Go for Gin]

High Fantasy won't ever change. I enjoy reading the trashy, cliched novels. I just love the escapism, and don't mind the repetitiveness--I find it somewhat soothing. However, I do realize that the stories do get repetitive. The problem with High Fantasy is that it's so narrow of a genre--by definition, it has to be a "save the world" plot. It usually follows the Hero's Journey. Since the Hero's Journey generally (not always) requires certain characters, archetypes are going to ensue.

It's really not changeable without becoming a different genre entirely. In which case it's not High Fantasy anymore.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, the real world totally does exist in Discworld. However, it probably still fits that category, as it's only rarely referenced as "roundworld" and is an enigma in-story. Just throwing that out there.

This post has been edited by DwarvesRule: 24 September 2009 - 08:45 PM

[Behave Yourself]

So that means that Revelations is low fantasy, and Fragmentsv2 is high fantasy. And so is Neverland and The Island of Para. Hmm.

James

[Hoof Hearted]

High Fantasy is like those pictures on the internet.

They get really repetitive, but they're very addicting.

[Hresvelgr]

I simply don't like it because of how formulaic it has become. It's not including elves and dwarves that is annoying, it's when those two are always nothing more than humans with odd physical attributes. Like dwarves are short, stocky humans who love to mine. Why? Nobody knows, that's just the way it is. Elves are beautiful humans with pointy ears who live forever and write poetry and practice archery. Again, few know why. I mean, in books that use these, I'll take Eragon as an example 'cause all of you know it, though others fit this case even better, but the dwarven and elven characters could easily be replaced by humans. I mean, they don't think differently, they don't act differently, etc. If Orik were a shorter than average man who happens to be good with an axe, how many of y'all would care or notice? Arya could simply be a witch with awesome ninja-fighting abilities, yet the plot would generally advance the same way it has. With the immortal elves of so many books, few of them mention how elves would use their millenia of accumulated knowledge and experience, or how they'd realistically interact with the humans who pass like mayflies in the eyes of the older elves.

A good example of this actually being used would be Memory, Sorrow, Thorn, a series by Tad Williams. But those books failed on a different level, the author took to the whole Deus ex Machina thing at the very end because the books were extremely long, the plot was unraveling slowly, and he wanted a trilogy so to end it quick he just rushed a DEM into the mix. Which would be another reason fantasy is stale nowadays. Everyone has to have a big ending. No, you can't leave it with the characters going back home and living happy like LotR did, you have to have them destined for greatness and popularity. However humble the characters were they will take that offered crown eventually.

The only other annoying thing not found in books with either of these problems is when the author cannot tell the difference between a trope and a cliche. Like when they go so far to make it seem different from every other fantasy book to prove a point. When they go that far it ends up in one of two categories: One, it is so different it alienates the vast majority of readers and is actually quite dull due to the lack of the familiar to care about and has absolutely no endearing qualities. Or two, when they tried to make it look different but simply failed at changing the appearance behind the name, not realizing the Ul'ucrath or whatever are nothing more than strange-looking orcs or wraiths. Or that the tall, immortal and beautiful Valiformir aren't all that unique. Then it's just sad.

So yeah... there's my two cents about high fantasy. In case any of y'all wanted to know what I think. Basically, the best of fantasy in my mind are the intentionally escapist ones that actually realize what they are, rather than long-winded pretentious "epics". The whole key is the attitude, I suppose.

This post has been edited by Hresvelgr: 29 September 2009 - 03:17 AM

[Behave Yourself]

I'm debating with Eldon Thompson about this on his forum. http://eldonthompson....php?topic=62.0

James