Hi, I’m Freya. I’m a writer, and when people ask me what kind of books I write, I tell them “epic fantasy”. Various replies I’ve had to this statement have been, “What, like Twilight?” “You mean that Arthur C. Clarke stuff?” and my personal favourite, “Like The Wizard of Oz?”
Well, they’re kind of all on the right lines inasmuch as fantasy is an extremely broad genre, and the line between science fiction and fantasy is often blurred (although I think we could safely say Clarke is on the sci-fi side of the line.) But I wanted a clearer definition of the kind of books I write, so I delved a little deeper into the meaning of the sub-genre “epic fantasy”.
First I looked up some dictionary definitions of “epic”, and I came up with “classic”, “heroic”, “impressive” and “ambitious”. These words could cover a wide range of fantasy novels, so next I looked into how else the genre is defined. It’s sometimes also called “high” fantasy which means it’s almost always set in an imaginary world (as opposed to “low” fantasy or “urban” fantasy which is set in the real world.) “High” to me implies high medieval—the period between the Norman Invasion of England and around AD1300. Certainly many epic fantasies have a medieval-style background spawned by Tolkien, (which has come to be seen as a requirement for the genre by some and a constriction by others.) Certainly, in my mind, it fits into the “classic” part of the definition of epic fantasy, and I don’t personally see a problem with one of the definitions of epic as having a high medieval feel. However, according to the font of all knowledge (ie Wikipedia) high and epic are not quite the same—epic fantasy usually contains a wider range of main characters.
What about the alternative definition of epic fantasy as “heroic fantasy”? Wikipedia defines this as “a sub-genre which chronicles the tales of heroes in imaginary lands”. I like this definition. It covers the way I feel about epic fantasy—the very word “chronicle” suggests old Icelandic sagas of adventure and the traditions of bards singing tales for kings in Great Halls on dark nights (I typed knights at first there—shows how my mind works.) To my mind, epic fantasy is very heroic—but to make sure we’re all on the same page, let’s have a look at defining that word too.
We currently live in an era of the superhero—Marvel and DC comic heroes have never been more popular, superhero movies are in abundance, and many devotees of the fantasy genre enjoy playing fantasy computer games in which we as players take on the role of the hero. Equally in real life, we all admire “real” heroes such as fire fighters, doctors and police officers who save lives and/or risk their own to help others. But when it comes down to epic fantasy novels, what makes a good hero?
The natural way for a writer to portray a hero is to give him or her supernatural powers or special abilities of some kind. As I said, Marvel and DC heroes are popular at the moment, and they all have a special gift that lifts them out of the ordinary—they can fly, are super-strong, or sometimes even turn into other creatures like werewolves. Think also of characters like Whedon’s Buffy, who possesses superior strength and the special ability to fight vampires. Sometimes they have access to resources that enable them to become ultra-powerful, like the wealthy Tony Stark who dons his suit to become Iron Man, or they have years of special training, like Batman, which elevates them above normal humans.
However, I would argue that it’s emphasising the human strengths and abilities that is most important in writing a good hero. Take Frodo for example—he doesn’t possess a single super power, has no special training, and on the face of it doesn’t come across as particularly strong or brave. But it’s the way he offers to take the ring to Mordor that makes him a hero, even though he “does not know the way” and he is clearly frightened. And it’s the same with Buffy—we all love the way she fights, but we root for her because she struggles to fit in at school and because she’s so hopeless in love, not just because she has superior strength. A real hero becomes a hero because of the choices he or she makes, not in spite of them—they are heroes because of the way they overcome personal trials and tribulations, not because of their powers. Batman and Superman resonate with us not because they can fight and fly but because they have overcome the trauma of losing their parents at a young age.
I tried to keep this in mind when writing heroes like Chonrad in Heartwood—the knight whose inner strength and honour help him to defeat the Darkwater Lords, and Sarra in Sunstone—who struggles to lead her people from the darkness of their underground prison and back to the light, even though she’s pregnant and even though she’s not sure the voice she’s hearing is real. The characters in my stories fight against overwhelming odds and have to delve deep to find their courage, their strength and their willpower to fight evil. It’s this that makes them real heroes, not their super powers, and certainly not their costumes! It’s the heroes that make epic fantasy what it is—it’s a sub-genre in which we tell tales of heroes in imaginary lands.
That’s what I write 🙂
Freya
http://www.freyarobertson.com
It’s the heroes that make epic fantasy what it is—it’s a sub-genre in which we tell tales of heroes in imaginary lands
So what’s the difference for you between Epic Fantasy and Sword and Sorcery?
I really enjoyed your article and the insights it provides. One other way to define a hero, and again Frodo and Batman may be the best examples of this, is by the challenges or adversaries they have to face. To make a great hero the challenge must be great. What was seen in the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer was that each season the challenge for all of the characters was greater than the previous which meant the characters had to grow themselves. As a new writer this is what I am trying to accomplish.