[Jorgen]

One of the last posts I read was kind of setting up some matches between fantasy authors such as Tad Williams vs. G.R.R. Martin, Matthew Stover vs. John Marco etc. Don’t know a thing about the latter couple (though Marco’s books have recently been translated in Russian, and from what I have heard on this board I gather I should give them a shot), but the former opposition reminded me of something I had already been thinking about. And this is: am I mistaken or has something really changed in the fantasy world of late?
Because IMHO Williams’ brilliant saga is situated in midway between the classical fantasy opus (elves, dwarves, magicians and the like) and something Martin came up with in its purest version, I mean a novel about a world in most respects as realistic as our own (politics, cynicism, grayish – I mean not black-or-white - characters given a rather natural development, elaborated and believable historical background). It seems many fantasy fans are tired of magic-driven worlds and are acclaiming this new wave. Some authors like Pratchett amuse themselves destroying mainstream fantasy stereotypes (po-mo fantasy?), and lots of readers enjoy that also. What do you think?

[jfclark]

I think you might be onto something, but I think it's too early to say that Martin heralds a New Wave in fantasy. For all the grittiness of A Song of Ice and Fire, at this point the series is still defined by many of the tropes and types of standard high fantasy. There are eerie phantoms (the Others), wolf-dreamers, magicians leading evil cults, dragons, and, of course, several adolescent or pre-adolescent children on the path to becoming world-saving heroes. Martin may be intent on giving us a "gray" view of the world, complete with harsh violence and failed relationships, but at bottom, he still locates himself pretty squarely in the Tolkienesque fantasy tradition. He's really not very innovative. Williams doesn't stray too far off the reservation, either.

And there are still lots of authors, like Robert Jordan, who continue to be successful with the standard line of fantasy. The New Wave, if there is one, will probably take the form of "urban" fantasy.

[Myrah the witch]

Since you question is does fantasy tend to be realistic, or to that effect? I guess the answer for me is, of course not, that is why its fantasy. The fact that is seems to take aspects of our daily lives is because unless the author is very exceptional he or she will tend to use items or ideas that are familier to him or her.
I must agree somewhat that fantasy isn't really fantastic, but on the rare occasion that an author has an exceptional mind and imagination it can get very very close to the fantastic.
But really Elves, dwarves, little people, ie hobbits, pixies and fairies are not new or ever implied as something new. But the ideas are imaginary and interesting. The idea of a dragon is actually quite frightening if such an animal were real. How many of us would find it convient to distroy them.
Other than putting a new slant on the concept of fantasy, or its creatures and hosts, in and of itself, fantasy is nothing more than the same story repeated over and over again. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

[allanon]

I also prefer Willliams to GRRM and I don't like aSoIF. It'snt really fantasy for me, but pseudo-historic novel- like "Lions of Al-Rassan" f.ex. i don't think that this is good and I prefer "the standard high fantasy"- because it IS fantasy. ASoIF...why to read this? It is not real fantasy, but it is not also historic novel. it's...how to say...I don't like it.

[Cannon Fodder]

I suppose there is something of a move toward more 'realism' in the field of fantasy. To present worlds and stories that are somewhat grittier and characters who aren't just good and evil and so forth. (Although I'm not sure how much this is a purely recent trend but I haven't read that much comparatively older fantasy so I really can't comment). Although, as other people have mentioned it tends to be a lot of the standard fantasy stuff presented in a new way. I don't think the move toward 'realism' in fantasy makes it anything less than fantasy. The term fantasy is a pretty broad one and can include any created world no matter how 'realistic' it is or however realistic the characters, politics etc. are. It is somewhat inevitable that a lot of people are going for this newer 'realistic' brand of fantasy, but it is of course still fantasy and I doubt it will ever replace the traditional fantasy this new type may be seen as move away from.

[LeMort]

I think the trend is more towards moral ambiguity than realism. But that doesn't mean that books that are less "black and white" are any more realistic.

Many people seem to have a false view about what fantasy really is. In the same way that your average man on the street thinks that science fiction is just Star Trek and Star Wars, many people, including many readers of fantasy (which is pretty odd...) think that fantasy has to be set in mock-medieval times, swords and magic, Dark Lords, epic quests, wizards and kids-who-become kings.

While fantasy can include the above stuff, it can also be so much more!

Fantasy can be dark and gritty, morally ambiguous, it can be set in the past, in the future or in the modern world, but it's still fantasy and not really any more realistic than the stereotypical stuff.

[Ladijen]

Cannon Fodder used the word "realism" instead of "realistic", which I think better defines the differences between, say GRRM and Tolkein. Both are fantasy, with basic fantasy themes, elements, characters, etc., but they vary in the presentation.

Fire alarm--will hopefully finish later

[Ladijen]

So many false alarms--I should sue for hearing damage!

I have lost my train of thought...

Sloppily, then--

I think that GRRM's use of realism in portraying the world, the people, the magic, the politics, etc., makes the story more believable to people who might not be fantasy fans. The characters and events have the more of the greyness and complexity of the real world and so are "realistic" if one grants the fantasy elements: the existence of this other world, magic, supernatural/magical creatures. Exchange some of the fantasy elements for real-world elements and the people and events might have really lived and happened.

I think that is what I started to say before, anyway...I'm not even sure that it makes sense. Oh well.

[Shef]

I believe that fantasy is moving into a more gritty realistic style of writing. I DON'T believe that the fantasy worlds themselves are moving in this direction. I believe that they will always stay in the same form that they always are.

[jfclark]

<<<I believe that fantasy is moving into a more gritty realistic style of writing. I DON'T believe that the fantasy worlds themselves are moving in this direction. I believe that they will always stay in the same form that they always are.>>>

You raise a good point. Martin's Westeros isn't very different conceptually from Jordan's Randland (or from Middle-Earth, for that matter), though readers are constantly talking about how Martin's style is supposedly so revolutionary.

I wouldn't be surprised if publishers were actively looking for authors writing in an "edgier" style--more violence, more sex, more "realism." When MTV and other pop culture reference points are marketing more and more sex, etc. to young people, fantasy books read by young people (as well as adults!) can't be that far behind. But underneath the fancy dressing, the substance of fantasy is likely to remain much the same.