Why read fantasy?

Remove all ads!

No surprise that most of the books discussed here are fantasy.

What I would like to know is why you read fantasy instead of, say, science fiction, realistic fiction, Shakespeare, biography, etc., etc. Is it because fantasy has a certain aesthetic or escapist appeal, or does it resonante with you on a deeper level?

 

Well, i do read a lot of fantasy. But who says it's the only thing i read?
I also read Sci-Fi, trillers, realistic fiction and anything that looks intresting. Althought i still read mostly fantasy. I don't know exactly why, i just like it.

 

Not many fantasy books appeal to me anymore - the ones that I elevate to greatness are the ones with a certain atmosphere to them that put you in a mood. I'm especially after fantasy books with a feeling of 'magicalness'.
Some are just extremely well written also, such as Hobb's books.

And I do read science fiction, and have started delving into magical realism.

 

Not entirely sure why I prefer Fantasy to Sci-fi. I think there tends to be more available on the market, particularly in the thicker volume category. My preference is generally for books which pay attention to world and character creation, rather than just reciting a story. For me, this is what creates the mood atmosphere which Aik refers to. As I've probably found this more with larger books it might part-way explain my preference. I'm not a big fan of the Hack & Slash/Dungeons and Treasure books (Terry Brooks Shannara series, Salvatores Drizzt, Weis and Hickman etc)

I do read Sci-fi thoug, and also some Crime fiction, Historical fiction, and Comedy fiction (currently on Tom Sharpe's collection).

 

I think it is because fantasy books tend to have this epic feeling to them, which I mostly found lacking in other types of literature. Yes, it clearly is the epic feel, as the only sci-fi I enjoyed had that same feel. It doesn't necessarily need to be fantasy for me, but most other genres tend to not have the epicness that attracts me in fantasy.

 

I don't read fantasy instead of other genres; I read it in addition to other genres.

I read more fantasy and SF than anything else, granted, but they're hardly the only things I read; autobiographies, biographies, historical texts (Victor Hansen never fails to entertain), technothrillers, mystery, noir...

Lots of stuff

 

Probably because I start reading one book in a fantasy series so I end up reading the rest of the series (unless its rubbish). I like the feeling that I get a bit of 'payoff' from the time invested in learning about a certain group of characters in one book because I can apply that learning to the subsequent books.

 

Ditto, except substitute "Sci-fi" with mystery and "trillers" with thrillers Also "Althought" with although while you're at it

Ditto as well, although I sometimes find the "epic feel" in historical fiction as well.

 

Fantasy is pure escapism -- a world that exists by a different set of rules. Where all problems can be erased with a simple twist of a sword or a blast of a fireball. There is little, simple or no political intrigue. Where all women are beautiful and men are courageous and strong. Villains are easily determined and monsters are hideous and dangerous. Fantasy worlds are strongly defined; there are no blurry lines or greyness. Everything is very simple. You are evil or good, rich or poor, brave or cowardly.

Fantasy that does not appeal to me is the story that does not create a large gap between reality and the fantasy world. Why create a fantasy world? Just make it historical fiction. I want that chasm between this world's mould and the code of another. And the more intricate the details, the better.

Sci-fi does not appeal to me. Science and space are still a link to our world. That's taboo for me, the fantasy lover.

I still enjoy the great detective story by Michael Connelly, Val McDermid, Denis Lehane or Ed McBain. But I find myself enjoying them less and less as I get older as the truths revealed in them often painfully coincide with our world's penchant for evil.

Fantasy is becoming my only genre; a place to escape and watch the triumph of good over evil and that wonderful tale woven to get there.

Just my two cents.

 

While that's true for many fantasy books newfie, some excellent exceptions that come to mind are asoiaf by martin and the farseer by hobb which are loaded with political intrigue and "gray areas".

 

I am familiar with those authors, Enagonios and it is precisely the reasons I listed above that I don't enjoy their work.

I would be naive to think that there would not be some authors who would try to narrow the gap between our world and someone like Tolkien's. But give me Tolkien's or Howard's any day over Hobb's or Gemmel's. Hobb's novels could be written as historical fiction with only a few changes. If I want deep political intrigue or human interest, I'll just turn on the news.

I should have said my view of fantasy existed as such. I am aware that many readers on this board enjoy Hobb and Martin. To each their own.

[ November 14, 2005, 18:01: Message edited by: Newfie ]

 

Yes, except that it are just those few differences that make it interesting. And I personally don't find Hobb's world to be low-magic, and as such your argument about the gap being too small is unsustained.

I however can understand your dislike for Martin's work, eventhough I don't share it. You probably dislike the fact that everybody has reasons for doing what they do, so there are no true heroes or vilains.

The gap between fantasy and reality, the thing that allows the escapism, is not the black/white instead of gray that you are looking for, although it is in most fantasy a major element. I am however convinced you can find it in other literature too. What defines fantasy for me (although I know this is in no way an official definition) is the mystery. You are probably going to argue that in historical fiction that mystery is also present, but it's not the same, since if it's really historical fiction and not fantasy, you know it is only superstition of the characters.

Now, a question for everybody: magic in a modern (current time, not future), is this considered fantasy or not? Sci-fi it is definitely not.

 

I keep my books in 2 categories: non-fiction and fiction. I read fiction. Yes, a lot of it could happen IRL, but does it realy matter? The point for me reading is to have enjoyment with my imagination.

 

Meatdog, I don't like Hobb's writing personally. I find her writing low magic compared to the fantasy I prefer. Whether other' s do not, that is their perogative. Court intrigue and political manoeuvering just doesn't do it for me. Very easily adapted to a French Revolution or Roman type setting,

Whether the gap is small or not, I find her writing meticulous to the point of mediocrity. I like my fantasy swinging; swords cutting, bodies crashing and spells flashing. I like heroic fantasy; Sword and Sorcery if you will. Hobb has her good points; she is descriptive but her plot does not move fast enough to hold my sustained interest.

I like a decent story, well developed characters but most of all, I like vivid description and atmosphere in a fantasy setting. Gory battle scenes with fantastic settings and imagery is what floats my boat.

[ November 14, 2005, 18:04: Message edited by: Newfie ]

 

Tolkien's world was, in certain ways, a narrow gap between the real world and the literary tradition in which he had spent his life working. Ever notice how much like the typical middle class people, Bilbo or Frodo are like in both character and habit? More directly, how much like Edwardian Englishmen are these characters representative?

Furthermore, Tolkien's work is not "only" escapism. During his lifetime he knew more about the English language than anyone else. His work was steeped in an Anglo-Saxon literary tradition that went back to the roots of _Beowulf_, a subject on which he wrote with distinguished academic authority. Out of Anglo-Saxon and Norse mythology, which was mostly lost on the mainstream public, Tolkien crafted, in large part, the shape of the fantasy genre that is so very popular today. Of course there were a few others who were attmepting the same, but Tolkien was the one who succeeded.

 

I know, Chandos. Also the comparisons of the World War and the time when LOTR was written. Of how Sauron was Hitler and the fighting Uruk-hai and the ravanging Nazi troops.

But isn't that like any fantasy novel? Comparisons of real life and the fantasy world? Robert E Howard' s Conan was supposed to be representative of the personality he wish he had, as he suffered in a relationship with a domineering mother in a small town. Hence the almighty Conan, who buckles to no one and spends his time globetrotting and most of his female roles resulted in squealing, helpless "wenches".

I try not to look to deep into a novel and just take it for what it is. Even Tolkien said to take LOTR for what it was; a work of fantasy fiction and not a social commentary on the events of the day. I absorb what's there and try to take as entertainment and enjoyment out of it as I can.

 

I read a lot of fantasy stuff, but I prefer low-magic, preferably set in the real world. That's why I read a lot of Stephen King. I like David Gemmell's stuff too, since his novels tend to be set in a parallel history setting, if that makes any sense at all.

I'm no fan of Tolkein. I don't like his writing style, and the content has become very cliché. And just because he invented that cliché doesn't stop it being dull.

 

Absolutely, I only wanted to point out that there is also a serious side to Tolkien's work, one which is often overlooked, even by academics. That serious side also reflects the notion that the fantasy genre has both a literary and a historical tradition steeped in the Middle Ages. In my opinion, Tolkien, as a writer, is every bit as important as any other serious author of the 20th century, including Hemingway, Steinbeck, etc.

 

The fantasy genre has been a part of our literary history for a long time and should be given it's just due. Homer's Iliad and Odyssey are two major works of fantasy as are all the legends of the Norse, Roman and Greek gods. The "Classic Fantasy" set in the middle ages with knights, dragons, elves, trolls, and goblins are all descended from those ancient myths.

Tolkien should indeed be recognized for his works. How many kids today can say they know the characters in "The Grapes of Wrath" or "The Old Man and the Sea" as compared to LOTR? How many kids tried to pick up and read the Hobbit or LOTR after watching the series? Hey, if it gets kids interested in reading today it is having a more profound effect than Hemingway or Steinback will. A movie of "The Pearl" or "For Whom the Bell Tolls" would not fare so well. With Lewis's Narnia Tales arriving in theaters soon, the sales of comicbook hero movies and the success of Harry Potter, fantasy may be the defining genre of the decade.

[ November 15, 2005, 12:37: Message edited by: Newfie ]

 

While a student at the University of Houston, I spent my third year in the creative writing program. At the time the program was ranked #2 in the nation, (I guess by those who keep track of such things). My point is that it was a high-powered program, and with some great instructors. But we could not even submit anything that was fantasy adventure in the program. The instructors even refused to read anything that was fantasy. It was not considered to be "serious fiction."

Anyway I left the program in my senior year to study literature, mostly Medieval and Renaissance texts. I did take one class which was entirely devoted to adolescent literature which was also a master's level course. Tolkien was even excluded from that class, because he was considered "fantasy." I then inquired about C.S. Lewis, since my feeling was that _The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe_ would be almost a perfect fit for such a class. Again I was met with the same response: "well it's really fantasy, so..." Really, we were doing stuff like _The Secret Garden_, but Tolkien and Lewis were not allowed because of the "fantasy stigma." At some colleges - certainly not all - there is a real reluctance to even consider Tolkien and LotR in a serious manner.