Too Much History, Not Enough Fantasy?

[DarrellR]

A friend and I were discussing today's fantasy and how it seems more of historical fantasy than mere fantasy. Her point was that she feels a lot of what made fantasy what it is doesn't exist enough in the book's today. She used George R.R. Martin's famous series as an example. To her it had some fantasy elements but they were so miniscule in concept compared to the general story arc that it did not have the feel of a real fantasy. Her belief is that fantasy is supposed to take you to another world, another place like a voyage to somewhere you've never been. But some of the writings popular to us readers to her doesn't do that. It's our own world and history simply revamped.

So I wondered did others feel this way? Do some think that there is just too much of our own world history in some fantasy books that you aren't truly going on that voyage many readers do seek when reading the fantasy genre? I can see her point in a way though I still find such books like Martin's and Bakker's enjoyable. At the same time a reason I really enjoy Erikson is because he simply takes me somewhere so different I don't know what to expect.

And if none of this made sense pardon me. I'm at work with about two hours of sleep in me and enough coffee to build my own Starbucks, lol.

 

[Overread]

hmm Personally, I like Martines take and I consider it rather more unique in its depth of understanding of actual historical facts than much other fantasy material. Granted the series does start off much more real than many other fantasy words, but it develops into its own - its just not high fantasy in that sense. Erikson takes the other route - a high fantasy world where he can play with the gods and magic and big bangs. Its a difference in style and in the world - however I think there is much more of this in fantasy the the former MArtine world.
Martines world feels partly like it was once real - and that, to me, makes it even more escapable into.

 

[shadow9d9]

The story is what matters.. I don't care where it is, as long as it isn't on earth : ).

 

[ScottSF]

I'm in the opposite camp. Too much Fantasy not enough History. If everyone's running around weilding magic than it means less. I think too much fantasy is more of something for children's fiction. I understand her complaint. For example, Guy Gavreil Kay's was very subtle on the magic and I read it at a time when I really wanted to see dueling mages BUT it turned out to be one of my all time favorite fantasies. If I see a unicorn on a floating castle with 10 moons conected by rainbows on the cover, I'm not going to want to read it. I think there's room for everyone though. Problem is finding your own brand of fantasy, that's why I come here and find out who likes what I like then ask what else they like.

Another thought. History is another world and a sense of realism helps me escape.

 

[rol7805]

It comes down to the writing. I love traditional 'high fantasy' and wanted a good series to dive into lately so I read the original Dragonlance (yeah, I'm about 25 years late to that party!). The first was fun. The 2nd and 3rd were just trite and silly in too many places, though the setting I could eat up with a spoon. Guy Gavriel Kay surprised me...light on fantasy (in some of his works, heavier in others - I discovered him with Last Light of the Sun), but wonderfully written.

My beef lately has been with the popularity of "modern fantasy", i.e. Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere. Don't get me wrong, really enjoyed the book and the idea of putting fantasy into the modern world is creative. But when I finish them, I had a longing for elves and dragons :-D

 

[j d worthington]

I think for me that -- despite all the elaborate world-building -- much of fantasy has lost that air of verisimilitude so often called "realism"; though here I'm not referring to consistency in details dovetailing, but to a realistic approach to human emotion. What we are seeing is more along the lines of adventure tales with fantasy elements, than a true fantasy that has that feeling of "otherness" to it. This isn't to say such things are bad -- they're not; simply that they don't quite fit the concept of "the fantastic". They either go overboard, or they underdo, but it doesn't feel coherent to me... there's a lack of conviction about the reality of the world to the writer on an emotional level. It feels shallow, no matter how complex the structure they've built.

I'd say the proper approach is a judicious blending of the two, but in such a way that each is integral to the other and couldn't really stand without the other; even if the fantasy element is very lightly touched on, one needs to feel its presence throughout, and it really needs to inform the history, and vice versa.....

That, I think, is part of what makes the best fantasy, from whatever period it may be....

 

[High Eight]

Martin's series has got damn great dragons - how much more of a fantasy element do you need?

I agree with Overread here - I'd rather depths of history than yet another ruddy quest against a dark lord.

 

[Pyan]

For example, Guy Gavriel Kay's was very subtle on the magic and I read it at a time when I really wanted to see dueling mages BUT it turned out to be one of my all time favorite fantasies.

I'm in the middle of one of GGK's books at the moment, Sailing to Sarentium, and I would agree: reads like history, with just the subtlest magic applied to make it into fantasy rather then historical fiction.

Cracking book, by the way - if you haven't read it, make a point of doing so soon....

 

[Connavar]

I agree with your friend i think its way too much history and too much political stories set in pseudo european countries like GRRM or in totaly different world like Erikson.

I want more fantastical elements. Not just good mage vs evil maga thing but interesting fantasy elements in a good Fantasy story.

Erikson i thought would be more to my taste cause the first book had alot of magic,Gods etc The second book is too much military for my taste. Reblion or what not. Bored me despite interesting characters. Typical the only female ,main character is the most annoying,clichè character i have seen in a long time...

Although i enjoy GGK more Historical Fantasy than the likes GRRM,Erikson. Atleast he doesnt pretend to be what he is not. He gives good low fantasy in a historical setting.

Same i enjoyed with Tim Powers.


I have focus more on Urban Fantasy and other types of Fantasy.

Epic fantasy atleast the most famous ones right now arent much fantasy. More like a soap in GRRM and some second rate Historical Military story in Erikson.....

 

[Werthead]

A friend and I were discussing today's fantasy and how it seems more of historical fantasy than mere fantasy. Her point was that she feels a lot of what made fantasy what it is doesn't exist enough in the book's today. She used George R.R. Martin's famous series as an example. To her it had some fantasy elements but they were so miniscule in concept compared to the general story arc that it did not have the feel of a real fantasy. Her belief is that fantasy is supposed to take you to another world, another place like a voyage to somewhere you've never been. But some of the writings popular to us readers to her doesn't do that. It's our own world and history simply revamped.

There is more fantasy in GRRM than in Erikson.

To which I expect people to say, "Huh?", but bear with me.

In Erikson every second character is some kind of uber-powerful mage with powers beyond mortal comprehension, or an Ascendant who's been around for half a million years, or a shapeshifting undead dragon, or a guy with a really bad tan who can turn to dust at will. The magical becomes ordinary, what should be awe-inspiring becomes mundane.

However, in ASoIaF the situation is different. The world is fundamentally unmagical. Magic left the west four centuries before the books begin. No-one believes in magic or monsters or the dead coming back to life. Then things start to happen. When something magical happens it's a shock, as hundreds of pages with no magical events at all may have just passed. Magic is rare and thus far more wondrous and special when it does take place.

ASoIaF and Lord of the Rings, with their extremely rare uses of magic, are much more effective in their handling of magic than those books which have tons of wizards flying around firing laser-like fireballs at one another which is, let's be honest, a bit silly Fun, definitely, but still a bit daft and difficult to take seriously.

 

[ScottSF]

I'm in the middle of one of GGK's books at the moment, Sailing to Sarentium, and I would agree: reads like history, with just the subtlest magic applied to make it into fantasy rather then historical fiction.

Cracking book, by the way - if you haven't read it, make a point of doing so soon....

good lord, think I did an edit before posting and left the book title out. Sailing to Sarantium and it's sequel was exactly what I was talking about.

 

[Jen526]

Darrell, did your friend mention any series that she considers having the right amount of fantasy-elements vs. history? Just curious to get some counter-examples for better comparisons.

 

[Pyan]

good lord, think I did an edit before posting and left the book title out. Sailing to Sarantium and it's sequel was exactly what I was talking about.

Great Minds Think Alike, Scott!

 

[DarrellR]

Darrell, did your friend mention any series that she considers having the right amount of fantasy-elements vs. history? Just curious to get some counter-examples for better comparisons.

She likes the quest, heroic type novels. Lord of the Rings, Wishsong of Shannara, Dragonlance, etc. I know part of her feeling is the escape fantasy should give is one away from our world. That life is hard enough and that sometimes when reading you don't want any resemblance of what we have here. And I'm not sure the is anyone who loves elves more *laughs* Magic intrigues her, elves and the creativity she feels it takes to create such a world.

I think one of the main issues for her is too much politics and our history is very gritty which translates into the novels. At least the aspects that are written about.

 

[jenna]

Personally I think there's a place for both. I love high fantasy, even middle fantasy (if there is such a term! If not, I have just officially coined it!) mostly for that escapism factor. But I also love the books that lean more towards historical fiction, a la Gemmell's Legend. If the characters and plot are compelling, the amount of magic doesn't really bother me..

 

[DeepThought]

I find it hard to decide which is the best between Martin's ASOIF and Erikson's A Tale of Malazan Book of the Fallen, but then again, IMO it is rather pointless to do so, because both authors have different ways of telling their story and the world's: as mind boggling they seem to be, they're drastically different. But they both certainly have depth and not the least which is history and with Malazan, the mystery part is tightly interwoven and tangled with the world itself, so the guy has his hands tied in this department and has to reveal its secrets/back-history in small doses in obscure ways, not like Robert E. Howard with his Conan tales (on the first page: BAM, history, cultures, geography is neatly written down before even the story starts).Martin's world is quite similar in this respect to Erikson's, but less so IMO (he lays out a lot of history even in the first volume). So wouldn't it be only fair to comment on the histories/world-building of the two aforementioned great works only when the tale is fully told?.

Cheer's, DeepThought