[KatG]

not based on fact or investigation; ideal; theoretical; not established by demonstration; contemplative.

I would not hesitate to say that I write speculative fiction.

Yeah, but using that dictionary definition of the word, all fiction is speculative, so why not say fiction instead of adding on speculative?

Part of the reason I don't like the term was that it was deliberately invented for an agenda to replace the term science fiction, which I see as totally unnecessary. Some of its proponents wanted to change science fiction to speculative fiction in hopes of gaining more literary mainstream acceptance -- to give sf a more palatable, less genre-associated label. Of course, the mainstream pays no attention to it all; most people who aren't sf/f fans would have no idea what you mean by speculative fiction. And most genre fans have a fuzzy idea of what it means, at best.

And really, can we call epic fantasy theoretical? Philosophical, okay. Contemplative, some of it. Idealistic, sometimes. But theoretical? Certainly no more than any other kind of fiction. (See, now I'm on topic but still debating nit-picky details.)

[Gary Wassner]

I used to teach speculative philosophy, and I enjoyed the category because it incorporated some of the technical and some of the speculative in it. No one ever really undestood what speculative philsosphy was, and that suited me just fine. It's a categorization that avoids categorizing. The fact that is is vague and open ended is what appeals to me about it. Speculative fiction does the same for me, though it doesn't really mean very much to many people.

[KatG]

Okay, I get the concept but I still can't like the term. :)

I think fantasy authors, sf authors, and particularly epic fantasy authors, if they are published in the genre and trying to sell to the genre fan audience, can be really great ambassadors. The cool thing about the sf/f community is it really is a community. It's more far flung and bigger than it used to be, but it's still there, and it is a welcoming community that realizes outsiders see them as weird and don't care and invite those outsiders in anyway. It's a genre where fans are passionate, (occasionally too passionate,) and authors often have a close relationship with fans. So I'm all for authors shouting from the rooftops that they write sf or epic fantasy, and if non-fans roll their eyes, we lecture them on the history of literature from Chaucer to Shakespeare to Mary Shelley to Jules Verne to Tolkein to Asimov and on up, until they're about to pass out, and they look ridiculous for insulting our genres and claiming they know anything about literary writing.

That's one strategy, the other is movies. Guy Gavriel Kay's novel is apparently definitely in the works, and that's exciting because it's an epic fantasy that wasn't written eons ago. (Okay, twenty years ago, but it's a start.) And Neil Gaiman has a movie at Sundance. Of course he's worked in British t.v. and film for years, but again, good for us. While a lot of epic fantasy could never cross over to film, a few does increase mainstream interest and acceptance. Which is not why we write it of course, but does effect who we're hopefully selling it to.

So I can't like speculative or other vague, substitute terms because for me, it just sounds like we're ashamed of what we're writing and trying to dress it up so the popular kids will like us. And I think that hurts us. But I understand you're coming at it from a different, philosophy theory perspective. :)

[Gary Wassner]

Glad you understand, and I too am very proud to say that I write Epic Fantasy. In fact, when anyone asks me, that's exactly what I say. If I said fantasy, their minds unfortunately go in the very wrong direction, and if I said speculative fiction they wouldn't have a clue in the world what I meant.

Regardless, I am very very proud to be an author of Epic Fantasy for all the reasons you stated and more. It suits ME. It suits my temperament and my psyche. It is what I love to do.

[Holbrook]

Just wondering Gary what your thoughts are on Epic fantasy with a small "f" no dragons, elves wizards etc... everything that we are told fantasy should be about. What about stories about other places, other worlds where all the trappings of epic fantasy are not the answer to the quest or problem. Yet the story is still epic, still fantasy by the fact that there are elements that could not exist in this world, that the land/world created in the story is fantasy?

Though I love reading "traditional epic fantasy" I don't like writing it very much, I much prefer to anchor my work in the possible, far more than in the impossible.....

[Gary Wassner]

Mieville? Gaiman?

Personally, I can enjoy all types of Epics, but I don't know that I would call them Epic Fantasy. I am confused as to what to call Perdido St. and I am likewise more confused about American Gods. I don't know that I really need to categorize them so succinctly. But I suppose doing so helps us to understand where to place them in the heirarchy of our memories (or our reading lists).

What though would make American Gods epic? What makes Perdido St epic? When I think of epic I think of more than just another world. Epic is grand or on a grand scale.

Fantasy, on the other hand, could be what you are describing it seems. A fantasy can be on any scale.

A reviewer many years ago reviewed a book of mine and he began with a disclaimer that 'I am not a fan of Epic Fantasy. I prefer the real to the make believe.' Of course I was immediately discouraged and I thought that perhaps I should stop reading at that point. But he considered my book a 'Fine piece of Epic Fantasy', though he didn't like it.

What is real? Is the fact that science fiction is supposedly based upon possibility thus real? No, it's still speculative, though perhaps possible.

The difference is that fantasy is not possible, not meant to be possible and not making an effort to appear to be possible now or in the future or the past. It is pure in that sense, and I love it for that reason.

A book like American Gods, though a brilliant piece of literature in its own right, left me wanting much more. It may have been fantasy, but it was not fantastic!

So for me, the scope and scale of the fantastic is so appealing. As I said, I can certainly enjoy and respect many many kinds of writing, but I don't know that I would call them epic unless the some of the elements that I mentioned are present.

[KatG]

Here we go again. Okay, these are market terms. They break down like this:

Genre fantasy: Fantasy works that are published by genre fantasy publishers expressly for the genre fan audience. What is a genre fantasy work? Fiction containing fantastic magical or supernatural elements for which there is no science/reality-based explanation. This is also the definition of non-genre fantasy published by non-genre publishers.

Market sub-genres of genre fantasy:

Epic fantasy
Urban/contemporary fantasy
Comic fantasy
Dark fantasy
Alternative dimension fantasy (for want of a better name)

Epic fantasy -- traditional, classical fantasy, originally called high fantasy or sword and sorcery fantasy. Epic in scope, high stakes plots, often involving VIP's (kings) and war conflicts, often with large casts. But the number one defining characteristic of the epic fantasy sub-genre is that it be a pre-industrial setting, whether it be a historical Earth setting or an imaginary realm setting. Essentially, if the setting is similar to Earth culture in the 1800's or later or in an imagined future time, it's not usually considered epic fantasy. If the setting is similar to Earth's ancient, medieval, Renaissance or Englightment periods of history, it's epic fantasy. Tolkein, Jordan, Brooks, Goodkind, Feist, Hobb, Cherryh, Martin, et al. are epic fantasy writers. Gary is an epic fantasy writer. In fact, Gary is possibly the definition of epic fantasy writer. :) Epic fantasy does not have to have dwarves, elves or dragons, though these are commonly used in the sub-genre.

Urban/contemporary fantasy -- they could never come up with a good name for this one; initially it was a catch-all category. In the eighties, it started being called urban fantasy, even though much of it wasn't urban in nature, to tie it in with the excitement over cyberpunk sf. But writers hate that name, so contemporary fantasy became more used. It is fantasy stories set in a post-industrial setting -- 1800's on up into the future. So Barbara Hambly's "They Hunt the Night" about vampires in late 1800's England, is considered "urban" fantasy, not epic fantasy. Neil Gaiman's "American Gods" and "Neverwhere" which take place in the current day are considered urban or contemporary fantasy. Urban/contemporary fantasy may have elves, dwarves, pixies, dragons and whatnot, or not, as it please you.

Comic fantasy -- fantasy focused on being satirical or humorous. Terry Pratchett and his Discworld novels is the leader in this sub-genre.

Dark fantasy -- Essentially, most horror, that which contains fantasy elements, is a sub-genre of dark fantasy, but horror is usually considered a separate market category of stories intended to scare and horrify. Dark fantasy stories are intended to spook and titillate. They are ominous, noir and Gothic in atmosphere, focus and tone, and sometimes gross and bloody. Tanith Lee is one of the most well known dark fantasy writers. Technically, China Mieville is a dark fantasy writer, though it could be argued he is an urban/contemporary fantasy writer. (More on that below.)

Alternative dimension fantasy -- There is a group of novels that are not comic or dark but don't quite fit in the pre-industrial/post-industrial division either. These are alternative dimension fantasies in which a person from the modern world slips into an epic fantasy realm. They've never really been given a formal name or separate sub-genre. Instead, they are usually thrown in with comic fantasy, if they are comic, which many of them are, or epic fantasy, or occasionally contemporary fantasy. Donaldson's Thomas Covenent series for instance, which is one of these, is put in the epic fantasy category usually. I mention the group here just to avoid confusion.

Recently, writers and fans have been mobolizing to create a new sub-genre, or rather gather titles from dark fantasy and urban fantasy into a new category. It has been given the unfortunate name of the New Weird, though other names have been floating around. It is essentially dark fantasy with industrial or futuristic elements, like Mieville, and urban fantasy with a noir touch, like possibly Gaiman or Laurell K. Hamilton. Whether the New Weird will become an established official market sub-genre is uncertain, but publishers have started to use the term, and that is how chick lit got started. Plus urban fantasy could really use a new name, but it is doubtful contemporary fantasy writers who don't write noir will really fit into a New Weird category. So there may end up being even more new terms.

But basically, you can set a fantasy in the modern world, or even a futuristic world, you can have elves and dragons or leave them out, and it can be epic in scope or very small, and other writers have already done it before you. And there are already loosely enclosed categories for you to be slotted into. :)

[Gary Wassner]

Oh, but we all so love these categories, don't we? How would we know what we are reading otherwise?

Yes, I am an author of Epic Fantasy, and I take that as a compliment, KatG, that you emphasized that. I hope you meant it as one, or at least not as a criticism. Today, you just never know. The resistence to 'derivative' literature seems to be almost de rigeur by some. In my opinion, just about everything is derivative in one way or another, and it doesn't particularly bother me. When some aspects of something work so well....

[KatG]

It means I'm reading about trees right now and they're very epic. I'll give a fuller explanation when I've finished reading about the trees. :)

[Gary Wassner]

Ah, I see. Just remember that according to Grace Slick of the Jefferson Airplane, the human name doesn't mean s... to a tree. Now, she may not have been acquainted with any of these kinds of trees. Although in the 60's and 70's with all that was going on, you just never know.