[Benthic]

Before I get to the point, a brief introduction from the most recent member: Hello. Relevant facts:
favorite author, fantasy: Terry Pratchett, though at the moment he is being knuckled out by Fritz Leiber.
favorite author, sf: Iain M. Banks.
favorite author, mainstream: Melville, Borges, others I can't remember right now.

Now for the point. What do you consider to be a better mode for fantasy, the short story or the multi-part epic (just polarizing it a bit for effect). A short browse of these forums seems to indicate that you prefer the latter. Me, I'm on the short story side. Why?
I think the short story has several advantages.
First, it allows the author to clearly make a point, which in turn allows him/her to elevate the genre above mere escapism.
Second, it almost forces the author to give it a plot, a real story, avoiding the all to common affliction of characters wandering around Fantasyland for four hundred pages collecting plot coupons.
Third, the author can experiment more
Fourth, they don't take long to read.

Your thoughts please.

Btw, if my english seems weird, I can only say that it isn't my first language and that most of the english I read tends to be a bit oldfashioned.

[Nevyn]

Greetings Benthic..... I read purely for the escapism and try to distance myself from writers always wanting to make their point . I believe a good story doesn't have to proove anything , morally or otherwise , to be entertaining . Short stories are good for the shock value etc. but for me epic sounds like a good book .(English is my first & only language , yours is much better than mine)

[Barbarossa]

I enjoy both short stories and epics, I think the main reasons epics are discussed more here, are:

- There aren't that many short stories released these day in fantasy in the first place, and good part of those that are released at all are "tie ins" with epic series ("Legends" would be an example, even though those are more novellas than short stories)

- Fantasy unlike science fiction isn't that great
a genre for short stories in the first place, world building takes time, and once the effort is spent, authors tend to use a setting as much as possible. The big exception are the "Urban fantasy" and "magic realism" subgenres, and it's no surprise that most of the original short stories I read in recent years came form those subgenres (Neil Gaiman would be a prime example, with "smoke and mirrors".

[Jon Shannow]

Iam with Nevyn on this one I read most of the stuff I read for the entertainment value sometimes its intresting if you find thought provoking ideas but there nothing mere about mere escapism.

[Alucard]

I hate everything.

[Stark Direwolf]

I love nothing.

[estranghero]

I don't care. :D

But seriously, I agree with Barbs, especially on fantasy 's focus on worldbuilding.

Also, I might add, science-fiction mainly deals with concepts that writers want to test (for example, Philip K. Dick's constant theme was 'what makes human human?'). Hence, this fits in more with the short fiction style especially since it also asks questions on how people would react to given (usually futuristic) situations.

Of course, there are cross-overs, science-fiction that deals with world-building and fantasy that deals with mindbending concepts. However, this is what usually works.

Btw, the other problem with short fiction is that it's a limited market as it's a dying art form IMO. I know a lot of people still write short fiction but let's face it, magazines that publish such works are dying out and e-zines aren't spreading like memes either. And I don't think that there are too many short-fiction readers still out there.

Just an opinion... :p