I suppose that when we read, we all hope to be drawn into the world the author has created. If we read in a detached manner, then we might as well read dryer stuff than fantasy. But their is still some kind of special need that fantasy itself satisfies and ameliorates, that is distinct from what we feel after we walk away from a Grisham novel for example. Grisham may help to pass the time and the plots may be fun and interesting to guess at. But we want and expect and hopefully get more from fantasy. Forget the appelations, high or epic or modern. I don't really care about the categories. And it seems that, from what everyone has been saying, that most people here just use them to help narrow down what they really prefer the most, not to eliminate categories. It's the world building that strikes me as common to most people's responses. They want to be able to enter another world, and that seems to be where the fascination is. Maybe because values are clearer and danger is more defined? Maybe because, as I said in the beginning, there is always the hope that the 'good guys' will prevail and the world will be a better place? In a way, contemplating philosophical ideas, like right and wrong, and determinism and free will, is easier to do in an unreal landscape. And fantasy lets you explore anything. As an author, nothing is impossible, and the term 'illogical' doesn't relate. So you have the luxury of both writing the impossible, and dealing with everyday issues and decisions in a very real and intelligent way in an unreal, make believe setting. The reason I brought up Nietzsche and Hegel before, and the reason I mention philosophers frequently is because, particularly with Nietzsche, understanding motivation was always a substantial part of his intent. With Hegel, how we learn and how we reason and arrive at our conclusions was paramount - the process of thought. For me, great fantasy can deal with those issues in the context of the unreal, and it does it in a world where no one seems to question the definitions of right and wrong. The reader always seems to know who is good and who is bad. So some parameters have been established before the story even begins. It's easier when those issues are clear. Maybe it's me and my prejudice, but I see fantasy, serious fantasy, as a means of understanding the real world, and the values we aspire to and all seem to subliminally understand. Does this make any sense at all?
Fair enough, but the above begs the question of what exactly makes something truly mythic and not merely something with trappings of the mythic? If Robin Hood is not a myth, why not? Also since you don't consider him a myth do you think less of the character and all he represents compared to something you think is a true myth? What is an example of a true myth? Even if you were to answer all these, I suspect it would ultimately still be a question readily contested on the grounds of subjectivity. Allanon brings up an important point. These books can be therapeutic. Frequently when escapism is brought up as a reason for reading, one can already here the barely muffled guffaws of detractors making light of this reason for reading. Implied is a contempt for the act of "escaping" rather than facing reality. Doesn't sound macho does it? No wonder those who would put on airs are the ones who would slyly ridicule escapism. But let's face it the human psyche not only needs nourishment but also a degree of tranquillity. The workaholic mentality might take a dim view towards R&R, but try going without rest and see how one's life starts to suffer. I am reminded of a complaint I've heard directed towards the lie-on-the-sofa kind of psychological counselling that goes along the lines of "ok yes now I know what are the reasons for my problems---but that doesn't make me feel any better". On the other hand taking a despondent friend out to see a movie to help them take their mind off their troubles even for a short time while not as impressive as seeing a shrink is a legitimate constructive act of addressing the problem.
The epic fantasy's I enjoy reading are ones were the theme of Good and Evil are seriously blurred or nonexistent. And though must epics seem to follow good vs evil to an extreme (i.e. the saintly hero(s) vs the outright despicable villian(s)) there are those that do not. Martin's SOFAI has already been mentioned, another one I think is good is Modesitt's "Recluce" series. Though ive read WOT, I dont seem to enjoy epics were the good are to good, and the evil are too evil anymore. I like the hero that makes the big mistake, or does an unthinkably evil thing. At the same time I think its cool to see the Bad Guy's sensitive side, or see them do a good deed.
Good point. A great villain doesn't necessarily see his/her actions as being 'evil'. Sometimes, they seemed to be pushed into doing wicked things for whatever teh reason, family, honor etc. The tweedling his hands in glee type of villain is not interesting and if seen is usually used as a joke. The villain is doing or going about doing deeds that lean to the darker side of right, can be doing so for a variety of reasons, power, faith or for someone etc. These types that can be as heroic as the heroes are much more interesting than their cackling counterparts.
More interesting to you. But yes, I can see what you mean about blurring the lines. Still, I think that some people really prefer that the good guys be good and the bad guys be bad. It helps them to understand the world, and it somehow also makes it feel better out there. There is less moral confusion. Part of the appeal of certain kinds of Epic Fantasy is that it assuages all of those confusing emotions and thoughts by presenting a clear, black or white view of choice.
I like epic fantasy because the stories are long. I can't stand short books, I always feel like I have been cheated. I like to read nice long, interesting well developed stories. Of course, I'll read a book under 300 pages, but I generally like the longer ones better. Is it me or are there a lot of books that are 254 pages long?
Interesting to hear that question. Originally, my publisher told me that my books were too long (between 500 and 700 pages each) and they wanted to divide the first three books into six books. That would have meant rewriting the ending to each and the beginning of each of the subsequent ones. I disagreed. I always believed that fantasy fans, or readers of Epics in general, not necessarily just fantasy epics, like long books and longer series. I remember reading James Michner as a kid and James Clavell later, and I hated them to end, no matter how long they were.
I can definatly see how some like reading epics that have a clear, defined sense of good and evil. I think Jordan is like that, and I loved WOT. At the same time I have read epics were I think its taken to the extreme. I've read epics were the hero is on the same level as Jesus (buddha, etc)! The never do wrong,always strive for the right thing type, which is fine I guess. I just find it irritating when im reading about a character who ALWAYS does good. I dunno, maybe for me perfection is boring.....
I've found that idiots are intimidated by long books. Whenever someone see's me reading and say's "damn, that's long!" I know they're an idiot. But we all know that idiots buy the majority of books. I'll read 50-100 pages an hour, so I want to be able to fully enjoy a book, really sink into the story...get the movie inside my head running, takes a lot of development and immersion to get that to work. The shorter books are more difficult to immerse myself in...epic fantasy is perfect for escapism.
Wow, thats kinda weird cause im exactly the same way. I tend to like longer books as well. Shorter books only tend to take me a couple of days to read and so I think they are easier to forget. Though there are exceptions, like Orwell and Bradbury
Good point. A great villain doesn't necessarily see his/her actions as being 'evil'. Sometimes, they seemed to be pushed into doing wicked things for whatever teh reason, family, honor etc. I've always firmly believed that even people who do evil things do not believe that they are evil. As much as I love Tolkein (and in a universe like that, it's OK for evil to be pure evil, because that's the way it is designed), I prefer bad guys who do what they do for very specific reasons, well thought-out. The only other excuse is extreme organic mental illness like Caligula apparently had. Comment 2: I like books to be as long as they need to be. I've read 600-page works that are brilliant, and 150 page works that are the same. Likewise, some books need to be longer, and some books really need to be made shorter. It really depends on the story and they author. I may draw someme for this, but I can't finish any Tad Williams books because it seems like he desperately needs an editor. He gets mired in mundane details that I just don't need to know and that don't further the story.
I certainly agree that there are plenty of short books that are brilliant and long ones that are boring as oatmeal. However, when you read a short book and it is awsome, don't you wish it was longer? The more Grey the characters the better. I am not as big a fan of evil guys who just want to turn the world into a lump of clay.
Great thread Gem. I've been reading for the past couple of days. My reason. Immersion into a world not my own. This of course isn't just for fantasy (as has been posted again and again). It's for any book long or short. Simple or complex. Fantasy or Sci-fi (or anything else for that matter.) What I don't like in my reading is preaching. If I wanted a sermon, I'd spend more time in church. I want my story to entertain me, not attempt to instill values. I don't want the lines of good and bad to be black and white. I want my characters to cross those lines once in a while. To be more human and less predictable. Push the edge of what is accetable. Keep me guessing.
I think you have hit upon one of the reasons that people turn to epic fantasy. Our own world is always grey, the lines between good and evil constantly muddled, and it is out of our control to change it. Some people want to escape into a world where there is a chance of bringing definition to right and wrong and a hope that good will prevail. They love to latch onto characters that are striving to make their world a better place to live. Epic fantasy is great at providing an alternate world where a reader can lose himself and detach from the real world. He can identify with the heroes and jeer the villians, and for a time, the real world ceases to exist. Not saying this is the only draw for epic fantasy, but it is one that I have heard over and over.
Is it simply an accident that epic fantasy worlds tend to be ancient worlds? The thing about science - the great thing about science - is it's ability to tell us things we might not otherwise want to hear. So many of it's procedures are designed to protect it's conclusions from all the ways we tend to distort things when left to our own devices. As a result, science has cobbled together a view of the world that is at best indifferent and at worst antithetical to our needs and hopes. Look at evolution. It's the foundation of modern biology, it's systematically consistent with geology, genetics, microbiology (as we discover every flu season), and it's principles are being used to generate software that no human being could design, to replicate hundreds of human-invented circuits, and (now) to produce completely novel ones. And yet the vast majority of people find it impossible to believe in. Before science, we had the luxury of creating worlds that answered to our needs and hopes. The fact that all of these worlds (with the exception of a few holdouts) have become myths, suggests that for humans there's something cross-cultural, something natural about world-building. Could epic fantasy be the reservoir of this innate need to create and celebrate meaningful worlds? I mean, this is the thing that distinguishes epic fantasy from most other genres of literature, isn't it? The creation of prescientific worlds.
Historically, myth served as explanation. When the answers weren't able to be found, myth and superstition and religion provided them. And you are saying that science has made that virtually impossible today? That makes sense, if I am understanding you properly. Science today explains much more than we ever expected it to be able to. You think that people are subconsciously unwilling to accept that? So, they create these imaginary worlds beyond science, so to speak, where they can still find meaning? That's a really interesting proposition. The twilight of the Gods by virtue of science yields an even stronger need for a new means of justification. Did I understand you correctly, No Dog? And, yes, Tuttle. I agree with you. The world is very gray and very much out of our control these days. I think many of us yearn for better times where having the values that we read about in Epic fantasy made a difference - a world where people could still effect change in a meaningful way. I think that's part of the enduring lure for readers - a big part of it.
OOOOOO... are we going to spark up a theological debate now? As we speak of God and gods in relation to writing, I would have to agree with you Gem. As science explores and blows away more and more myths, it leaves less and less to the imagination. Humans seems to have a driving need to believe in something other than themselves (ghosts, angels, spirits, gods) and I think this adds a powerful dimension to a LOT of writing that is coming out lately. A reversion where in the 50's and 60's it was all about exploration of science (with the Asimov's, Heinlein's, Bradbury's, etc.). Now the big names are the Jordan's, Hobb's, and the list goes on longer than I can imagine. There has been a major shift in these past 15-20 years from Sci-fi to Fantasy. It's actually difficult to find much in the way of sci-fi when going into a book store. Is this a good thing?
I would think that it's just plain difficult for a sci/fi author to come up with things that are more bizarre than science is coming up with today. People are capable of drawing their own mental conlusions about cloning and nuclear proliferation and so on. Apocalypse is more often the theme of sci/fi now, or apocalyptic worlds where everything is dark and depressing, as opposed to futuristic, positive worlds like the Jetsons! (remember them?) We all need something to believe in and to dream about. Fantasy still provides that. But the trend even in fantasy is moving toward a darker side, where the lines are blurred between good and evil and the mythological worlds are not medieval or middle earthed ones.
*Snif, snif, snif.* Do I smell a theological debate? I'm not sure I'd go as far as to call it 'need'. America alone holds about 50 million people who don't practice any type of religious activity and they don't seem to be falling unconscious from any sort of "belief deficiency syndrome". Desire maybe, but not need. I have an alternative theory: maybe it just makes sense. No, I know, I know. The age of enlightenment taught all of us good Western Civilization types that everything can be explained by science, and if it can't it's just hocus pocus. At least it tried to teach us that. The funny thing is, it never really caught on anywhere else in the world. Still hasn't. If you travel somewhere to the east or south of the equator -- pick a country -- and you get sick, the helpful residents are as likely to take you to some variation of a witch doctor as they are to take you to a hospital. And the really strange thing is... sometimes the 'witchcraft' works. We talk about systems of magic like they are, inherently, an invention of some author, however the fact is that various systems of magic are alive and well on our planet and are as old as mankind. Voodoo, Wiccan, Satanism, HECK - the pentacostal movement within Christianity. It's out there! Science shakes its collective head and pretends it doesn't exist, but it does. And some of the stuff that happens (and I mean REALLY happens) is straight out of the X-files. Well, you say, science will be able to explain all that "miraculous" stuff one day. Don't count on it. Of course, Maus, you could be right. It could be a need. Maybe believing in "ghosts, angels, spirits, gods" fufills some need down deep in the soul. Who's to say? Or if could just be that on some intuitive level, somewhere in the base of our brains, everytime we read about magic or monsters or ghosts, something calls out to us -- that really does exist you know. Just something to think about.
