Does High Brow Fantasy Exist...
 

or is it just a term that some people use to say that the books they read are for more intelligent people and thus are better?

To me there are four (er five but won't count kids books) types of fantasy

• Light Fantasy
• Fantasy
• Epic Fantasy
• Alternative Fantasy

Light fantasy being something like a Gemmell or Brust book where the story is kinda like an adventure novel. All action with not much background info or depth.

Fantasy would be something like Feists Magician where there is world building but the plot is still mainly all action or intrigue.

Epic is well Jordan, Martin, Erikson, Elliott etc

Alternative being a mix of traditional fantasy and the our world.

Now I enjoy all four types and don't find any of the four inferior to the others. I don't give a crap about prose or if the author users big words. As long as the story is good and compelling i'll read he damn thing.

The thing that gets me is that some of the authors that people list as being "High Brow" fantasy are virtually no different to run of the mill fantasy. The author may have some gimmick or be a bit risque or gritty but when it comes right down to it, it's still the same old thing.

Perhaps when people say "High Brow" they actaully mean adult fantasy. Adult fantasy meaning it has material not suited for younger readers. Not meaning that it has material that only a mature intelligent person will appreciate and understand. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case with some people on this forum. They seem to think it has the second meaning.

I ramble and well i'm sure I have a point somewhere in there. I hope.:rolleyes:

Ps. Burn in hell all you literary snobs!

I suppose there is. I think one criteria is the language or prose. For example, Tolkien is readable but he certainly needs more effort to read because of the level of language. Gene Wolfe also is the same. Peake likewise. Compare that with say Eddings, Jordan, Feist. I'm not saying that it's good or bad but rather that it's the aethestics of the language.

One person who mixes it a lot to good effect I've noticed is Graham Joyce.

Re: Does High Brow Fantasy Exist...
 

This is not necessarily a complete system. A book can have a plot that is not entirely action/intrigue based and yet not be "epic" or include elements of our own world. The categories also overlap a lot. For example, Martin is both Fantasy and Epic Fantasy by this system. In fact, he could even be Light Fantasy, since I'm about halfway through the first Song of Ice and Fire book and his worldbuilding seems to be about as little as any author could get away with. (Not that I don't like it. I like it quite a lot, but only because Martin is such a superb plotter and knows how to write believable characters.) And what is Epic Fantasy anyway? If I defined it for myself, I would mostly end up repeating what I found here
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2002/..._fantasy.shtml so I will just direct you there.

Anyway, it can be hard to say whether an author really worldbuilds or not, sinc ethe standard is really pretty low. It's difficult to find a world that isn't based mainly on a dimly remembered version of medieval Europe or a bland copy of Tolkien. (Tolkien is my favorite auhor, BTW.) That is the other good thing about Martin: he gets medievalism right. To make things worse, really creative worldbuilders (e.g., Ricardo Pinto) often can't write.

I think the term "high-brow fantasy" is meant simply to identify works of fantasy with *literary quality* comparable to that of really good mainstream fiction. I don't think the term "high-brow fantasy" has anything at all to do with the content or sub-category of the fantasy.

It's all fantasy, sure, but you'd have to be joking to say that there isn't a distinct difference in literary quality between Mervyn Peake and David Eddings (or Gene Wolfe and David Farland or E.R. Eddison and Robert Jordan).

Both Jane Austen and Danielle Steel write romance novels. But there is a noticeable difference in quality. I think "high-brow fantasy" is an attempt to get at a comparable distinction in the fantasy genre.

Interesting co-incidence. I had been thinking about just this kind of thread topic for a day or so, when lo and behold! Someone beats me too it (though my angle was a little different)....

I personally wouldnt read either, but I also know that if I was a reader of such novels, I might just pick Steel (shudder). All to ofter, quality equals inaccessible and boring. Classic literature is certainly not immune to that.

It boils down to this.

Every reader has a goal. Whatever fulfils that goal is good and high quality. Period.

When I read a fantasy novel I want to escape and be entertained. I want to be drawn into the world and the characters and the story. That is all I want. I am not looking for an intellectual excercise. I have nothing against one either, but it has to contribute to accomplishing the end which I seek. I am not seeking to 'impress' people with my reading habits. I would prefer if people did not read for that reason, but if they do it is not really my place to question it.

There is a strong parallel between books and movies in this regard. I know numerous people in the movie business. When we sit around and talk about movies, they always seem to judge it by certain technical criteria. Camera work, lighting, directoral skill, etc. I judge it much more simply. If it entertains me, moves me, or speaks to me in some way, I like it.

The authors skill (or movie makers for that matter) only matter to me if they contribute to my enjoyment. I dont care how brilliant an author is. If I dont enjoy it, I dont like it. I might acknowledge the skill and respect it, but that is not enough to make me like it.

Hey... you forgot dark fantasy! And this definitly is in a catagory all on it's own! Haven't you ever read a fantasy book that had the hair standing up on the back of your neck ever page turn? Or that had you thinking twice before walking into a dark room after you've put the book down for the night? Such a book if intelligently written is purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrfect for me. ;)

Well of course, any where that there is a large cluster of people you are goign to have differing opinions. But I don't think the way the term "High Brow" is used on a book has as much importance as to what the content of the book carries. :)

I don't think I've ever seen anyone post a message saying that they read "high brow" fantasy.

It sound more like something a defensive person would say about someone who they feel insecure about.

Like: "He thinks he's got better taste than us because he reads China Mieville and doesn't like Terry Goodkind. Wizard's First Rule, er, rules! Well... I say that he can take his high brow fantasy and stick it up his..."

;)

Hmmm.... this could get nasty. :(

Nah! That would only happen if this messageboard was full of teenage Jordan/Eddings/Feist/Goodkind fanboys.

Oh.

Damn.

Why do you want to split the genre up any more....*sigh*

Dark, Fantasy, light fantasy, I haven't got elves in my story, fantasy. :rolleyes:

If a story contains an element of the fantastical then it is fantasy...

Holbrook sees book. Picks book up. Starts to read book. Holbrook either likes book or not like book... simple....

Jane Austen rules ok???

I would think that 'high brow' means that the quality of the writing is excellent, not the sub-genre that the writing is in. You can have high brow light, dark, dirty, clean, epic, alternative, etc fantasy.
If the quality of the writing is poor, then you can call it crap, regardless of the genre. ;)

Since I'd rather read quality 'high brow' material, then inferior 'low brow' material, then, yes, by god, call me a 'literary snob'!

See you in The Pit.

''High brow'' to me is more a question of subject matter, and approach to subject, than it is of prose style/quality. With that in mind, i would have thought it very difficult for ANY fantasy novel to be high-brow.

*shrug*

I read big books with bigger words , so big be these words that my 'High brows' almost touch in the middle when I frown over their meaning !!:)

Sigh. In defense of English Majors, of which I'm one...

NO ONE would use the term "high brow" to describe a book that has literary merit.

What gives a book literary merit can be many different things. Does it move you, does it teach a lesson, is the language beautiful, and so on. Any one, or all, of these things can give a book literary merit. Another thing, and this is the kicker, is that the story stands the test of time. People are still reading it after 50, 100, 150 plus years. Using that criteria, Tolkien and a handful of other fantasy authors are the only ones that qualify, simply because they have been around long enough.

When it comes down to it though, we're not the ones that decide. Gotta give the folks at the universities something to do... But we DO get to decide what WE like to read. We do not get to decide what the person next to you likes to read. It's just too subjective, really.

I'm not one of those literary snobs that will read a book just because it's better than something else. However, I also WILL NOT read a book that is popular just because it is popular. It still has to be well written. Which, sadly, leaves out a large chunk of bestsellers, genre or otherwise.

Well, enough rambling. Storm headed our way and I have to unplug. Maybe that's a good thing... :)

Susan

You didn't give any answer to the question of what "high-brow fantasy" means. You indicated what you thought it isn't. Does it exist?

When it comes to determining the quality of things I often find the "test of time" referred to. It is probably the most objective method but I do think it is a flawed test. It's like saying what is is. Some works might impress a majority of people but with less force than another work that may impress only a minority of people but with greater force leading to the creation of a cult following.

Also there are institutions that focus on certain aspects and adopt certain works as models. Once these institutions do so those works have a chance of being propagated for a longer time. Models from what I've seen value simplicity and clarity. One theme handled very well at a time. But in such a world multi-volume works are probably at a disadvantage. In that context are we to say the shorter book is greater than the longer more detailed one because it is more usable?

These questions are important. I find myself wondering sometimes if the perceived drop in the appreciation of books by the recent generation is due to the faulty representation of books in schools. If I was younger and had not the good fortune to start reading a few books I enjoyed thoroughly I might have dropped reading entirely if only given the ideas I was given later in high school about what makes a book good. How many kids left wondering after reading a book "If that was one of the 'best' books out there--and I hated it--why should I bother to read anything else?" Perhaps those ideas taught in high school ring more true for writers but I do not feel it is quite the same for readers. I think it is no coincidence that movies in the last century have become so prominent as a source of entertainment. They are marketed better for starters.

On a side note. Jane Austen I agree is the epitome of incessant Victorian female matchmaker chatter. I can imagine how from a writer's point of view she is skilled. It is surprising how she can give the effect of an indignant woman without resorting to phrases like "flea-brained lummox" or "cotton stuffed wool-head" in dialogue. I find she can be more trying than Jordan. Hmm...could it be Jordan looks to Austen as an inspiration? :)

The dictionary definiton of highbrow:

Of, relating to, or being highly cultured or intellectual.

So, as an example, most people would agree that Tolkien is highbrow and most of the D&D novels aren't. But, like anything, it all comes down to the reader's opinion, I guess.

I guess I'll shut my trap for now.:rolleyes:

Re: Does High Brow Fantasy Exist...
 

Yeah!

Eh?... Inviting us to your house again?

:p

Actually.... I think folks here are acting a bit like "snobs" no offense meant. :D

A book is a book, and it is only personal opinions that make it "High Brow" or "Low Brow"

I have always thought it's not what you read that is important, but the fact that you "do" read that is....

I know so many children that don't even read a comic... *sigh*

I also think publishers try to shove work into little boxes......

My first book, (long may it rest in it's mantle of rejection letters) was rejected by one publisher because the language was too "ornate" for them. Though, they admitted it was a strong story, well thought out......

"shoved in a little box"......:rolleyes:

HEY! :mad: ;) :D :D :D

The reason I didn't describe "high brow" is because it is a pajorative term. No one really uses that term to describe the books they read. Caldezar used the term to describe books that someone else reads.

Why don't I describe what "high brow" is? Because it isn't a term applied to a fantasy genre. The term is meaningless as a genre category.

There IS a term called High Fantasy. That is fantasy with elves, dwarves, magic, etc. We usually call it Epic Fantasy these days, but it describes the same type of book. I suppose it sounds better to a lot of people. Tolkien, Jordan, and Salvatore are High Fantasy.

One could only HOPE, Bond, that Jordan looks to Jane Austen for inspiration. However I doubt that is the case. His characters might show a bit more depth if he did. Also, Austen is not a Victorian writer, she lived before the Victorian age, but I digress. Her novels are satire, not romance, though there is romance in them.

Yes, I think the test of time rule is used in order to be as objective as possible. It is hard to point to a book and say that's a classic, that will last. In 20 years no one might ever have heard of it.

Susan

I don't consider "high-brow" to be a pejorative term. I'm proud to read high-brow fantasy novels, just as I'm happy to read other fantasies as well.

Have you read any of E.R. Eddison's fantasy books (sadly out of print in the U.S.)? They are *definitely* high-brow. In fact, I don't think anyone could deny it. And I love them.

"High Brow" is what people who think they are "fantasy experts" call their favorite novels. It has no basis on anything, not even education - since as many college professors dissagree about the genre as we do here. I do think the term (or the attitude) is used to keep newbies (and those "low brow" types) from coming onto the scene and making comments.

I recall a thread on Tolkien-Movies.com where one of the older members (older in terms of time spent at the board, not age) was slamming newbies for "drooling" over ELijah wood and telling them to get lost... LOTR wasn't for Droolers... he said - I think this is a common attitude - meant to try and circle the wagons... not let outsiders in. But it defeats the purpose of the media of writing and movies - which is to reach as many as possible.

I think there are several types of fantasy: dark fantasy, epic fantasy,romantic fantasy, pulp fantasy (your D&D type) and horror (which is mostly fantasy)

but I don't like when people who are "high brow" fantasy fans use it to beat other fans (who are probably new to the gnere) over the head and send them back into the juvinile fiction section.....

Well I only started to think of it when it occured to me how Jordan's writing of female character dialogue in The Fires of Heaven and later books start to drive me nuts. Although not in the same way Austen's writing does, the playful male-female conflict is clear and it is done mainly from a female point of view with sarcasm and more a function of power than romance. Not that I think it should be taken as an insightful look into the male-female dynamic mind you :)

I think I've made that mistake of referring to Austen as Victorian before. Better get it through my thick head she's not :) Many of the great books of that general time that I've read though seem to focus on domestic concerns that I get them all mixed up. I think I prefer those that display simpler narrative like Goldsmith's The Vicar of Wakefield. Is it just me or is the plot of that book pretty much the same as those by Austen? You know dashing young gentleman takes the town by storm, puts the plain yet solid available bachelors in the shade, causes problems in his wake that in the end makes the heroine realize the frivolity of her previous thinking and causes her to recognize almost too late the virtue of the man she had really been in love with and who was there all that time? Was this a standard convention?

If I've ever talked about "high-brow" fantasy novels here, it's because I'm encouraging other people to read them, not because I believe they shouldn't be admitted to whatever inner circle you might believe that I think I occupy. So I think you're completely wrong when you say that "high-brow" types are trying to restrict access to discussion. The opposite is true, at when it comes to me.

There is value in encouraging people (including newbies) to read the classics, the challenging books, the "high-brow" books within the genre. True, there's no point in being condescending about it. But anti-intellectualism is at least as problematic for the genre as elitism.

By the way, college professors might disagree about the genre, but they'd never disagree that [insert High-Brow Fantasy Author here] has more literary merit than [insert Fat Fantasy Author here].

I think this is a pretty good topic. And yes there are different levels of fantasy.

High brow, from what I can tell in this topic thus far, encompasses fantasy that can spill over into literature, Jonathan Carroll (Land of Laughs, Marriage of Sticks), John Crowley (Little, Big) Graham Joyce (The Tooth Fairy, Dark Sister) and may be part of the alternative fantasy group.

I don't particularly think its a bad thing to distinguish one from the other. Sometimes I'm in the mood for a quick read enjoyable, that won't challenge me too much, so I read Brooks.

The only thing I will disagree with is calling Brust light fantasy. His stuff is more than just adventure, though it is that. There is a lot of background in his world and characters and there is a good deal of morality that he tackles in his Taltos Novels.

I think 'High Fantasy' and 'Epic Fantasy' often cross over each other, but there is, in my mind, a difference. High fantasy I always thought of as taking place in a secondary or invented world (Middle-Earth, The Young Kingdoms, Overworld, Nar, Cimmeria, Shannara, etc.), Epic deals with world shaking events.

Am I a Fantasy Snob? Yes, so what. I know what I enjoy reading and I know what I think absolutely sucks, if that makes me a snob, then I am proud of it, BAY-BEE!:p

FF, it sounds like you're part of the vast, high brow fantasy conspiracy that's corrupting the fantasy world! How dare you?
:D

>> The reason I didn't describe "high brow" is because it is a pajorative term. No one really uses that term to describe the books they read. Caldezar used the term to describe books that someone else reads.


I tend to agree. I also suspect the person who asked the original question was confusing "high-brow fantasy", which may have been a throwaway term someone used on another thread, with "high fantasy", which people do tend to think of as a subgenre.

>>But anti-intellectualism is at least as problematic for the genre as elitism.



Boy, I wish elitism was a problem. Anti-intellectualism (together with the sort of bargain basement relativism that leads people to equate Jordan with Shakespeare because they couldn't stomach the latter in high school while the former provided them with a couple of hours of escapist entertainment on a plane) is the bane of the genre.

On a separate matter, I find it interesting that when choosing who could be "high-brow fantasy" the choice seems to gravitate either to the dazzling prosists of yesteryear, like Eddison or Tolkien, or to contemporary slipstream artists like Carroll or Crowley. Whereas I would have thought it to refer to fantasists who are more firmly established in the literary canon, like Kafka or Calvino or Borges or Kobo Abe. Or even Angela Carter, for that matter.