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? :D
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 :p

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.

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

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. 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 ]

Hobb's novels could be written as historical fiction with only a few changes.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 ]

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. 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.

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. 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.

I read alot of Fantasy and Sci-Fi and a bit of Historical stuff too...but I read as a form of escape, sometimes you want to just sink into another world, and well reading helps me do that, doesn't matter what genre, but Fantasy and Sci-Fi are the easiest for me to sink into :D

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. That's interesting. But I think it's merely because of the rudimentary evil versus good theme that's based on the used sagas and the timing of WWII is sheer coincidence.

Indeed, the evil/good theme plus Tolkien being in the tradition of German Romantik, together with the Grimms and Wagner, and having a book about a "Ring" (ring, germany,nationalism, ringing any bells ?) let to ad-hoc conclusions that seriously tempered Tolkien books Continental-European sells in the beginning. Or at least put him into a certain corner were honest men don't want to be.

Ah, there is no fluent German speaking linguist in the fist half of the 20th. that's innocently going to work on something politically loaded as a fable, feary tale or legend. No, no, no.

On topic: I wasn't aware that Shakespeare isn't considered a fantasy author. What about Faust and his buddy Mephistopheles ? Indeed, it was the prescribed school reading that brought me into fantasy. A Cockwork Orange, A brave new world, Hoffmann's The Sandman and the Devil's Elixirs (that's a hell of a book), Faust and that Gretchen, Othello, Desdemona and that other guy who's name I can't remember, Kafka's Metamorphosis, Don Quichote and his windmills... and so on...

Sometimes I read conventional fiction, but it usually hasn't a lasting affect on my memory.

Most people feel that Tolkien's inspirations with regards to the warfare in Lord of the Rings came from his own experiences fighting in the first World War.

Tolkien was actually very hostile against any such suggestions saying that his stories were not at all allegorial, but no one else seems to believe that.

I wasn't aware that Shakespeare isn't considered a fantasy authorYou are only playing with definitions here. To follow that to its conclusion, is to say that all works of fiction, and I guess we should include plays and poetry (since Shakespeare didn't write fiction), are "fantasy." That would be a meaningless statement. Besides, then you have the arduous task of stating how fantasy is different from other forms of literature, not how its the same thing.

That brings to mind the first day of my University course on fantasy literature. The first thing we discussed was how basically any fiction falls under the actual definition of fantasy literature. We were then presented with a silly little chart comparing just how far from reality (or more fantastic if you would prefer) that the different types of fantasy novels tend to be. Novels with dragons, elves and wizards would fall pretty far away from the reality end of the fantasy scale.

Actually, some of Shakespeare's plays fit right in with what we generally call fantasy. Try the Tempest for example.

It has the appeal, sure. This not to say I don't read sci-fi or realistic fiction, but something has always drawn me to fantasy and sci-fi and action books rather than what is considered classics -- at least most of it, for some I have indeed read and enjoyed and some I have simply had to read, no matter enjoying or not. ;) I just don't care about Russian literature, all sorts of leftist hispanic literature Nobel winners or whatever else is the fad or was at some point. Shakespeare, surprisingly, I have read quite a lot in the original, without having to, but it was probably all about the charm of the old-fashioned English and the show-off value. ;) Historical fiction is another point on my favourite list.

You are only playing with definitions here. To follow that to its conclusion, is to say that all works of fiction, and I guess we should include plays and poetry (since Shakespeare didn't write fiction), are "fantasy." That would be a meaningless statement. Besides, then you have the arduous task of stating how fantasy is different from other forms of literature, not how its the same thing. Well, there is no definition of fantasy given yet in this thread. But I'd change the dircection given by JSBB (Novels with dragons, elves and wizards) slightly and say that elves aren't necessary. It's enough if there are fantastic creatures (dragons, unicorns, talking skulls) and /or magic (wizards and spells). And then, like JSBB, I'd say "the tempest" is definitely fantasy. And so is, at least in parts, "hamlet" and "macbeth".

And then, what about Milton and "paradise lost" ?

Fantasy elements are all over serious literature. I even say that fantasy in earlier times made up a huge share of all serious fantasy.

And certainly in German literature, where romanticism is one of the most important genres. With Goethe writing about a wizard called Faust and Mephiostopheles and "Erlkönig" (elvenking ?).

Who rides so late through the windy night?
The father holding his young son so tight.
The boy is cradled safe in his arm,
He holds him sure and he holds him warm.

Why is your face so frightened my son?
The King of elves, father, see him yon?
The Elfin King with his tail and crown?
It is the fog, my son, streaming down. http://ingeb.org/Lieder/werreite.html

Actually, some of Shakespeare's plays fit right in with what we generally call fantasy. Try the Tempest for example. No, sorry, they don't. Maybe in what you call "fantasy" they do, but again you are playing against convention. When you go to your bookstore, university library, public library, do you find _The Tempest_ in the fantasy section? Is that the first place you look for any volume on Shakespeare? You can read any work of imaginative fiction/play/poetry on a given LEVEL as fantasy, but Shakespeare operates on many levels at one time. His plays are many things to many people.

You would have had a stronger case, which I have often made, with the _Fairy Queen_ by Edmund Spenser. But let's not stop there: How about _The Tain_? _The Divine Comedy_? You wished to include Milton, why not Dante?_The Lais of Marie de France_? _The Saga of the Volsungs_? Better yet, let's just cut right to the chase and label _Beowulf_ a work of fantasy.

I had argued, while a student in the literary department, that fantasy has a literary tradition that has its origins in the imaginative writings/mythology/epic poetry of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. The quick response was that it is "derivative, escapist, and as such of marginal importance in the tradition."

While making that argument, I did not mean to say that those works are fantasy adventure of the sort of genre fiction that is written today, as is being suggested here, PARTLY because the authors themselves meant them to be something different.

Nevertheless, they are original sources that inform many contemporary fantasy writers. Of course, we can devalue those sources by relagating them to the mere status of typical genre fantasy, which would excite those PCers in the departments who would like to see those sources, including Shakespeare, scrapped from the literature text books anyway.

But most literary works are judged by the context in which they were intended to be viewed by their authors and the literary conventions of their own times. Taking that into account, I strongly believe that Marie de France and Edmund Spenser meant for their works to be read, on a few levels at least, as fantasy - and as adventure stories. BUT, whereas it was pointed out very quickly that Tolkien did not want his story to be read on the level of politics and religion, Spenser did want his readers to see different contexts of his epic poem that was both religious and political. In that sense it is not pure genre fiction.

In addition, Spenser was attempting to fashion a work that was a national epic in the same sense that Homer had for Greece and Virgil had for Rome. Spenser was working within a "literary tradition," which was decidedly both of his times - the Renaissance - and a national tradition, which, to this day, is English. In this sense Tolkien achieved much the same: His work can be considered a national epic, written within the context of the 20th century. And he tapped into the old sources and created a genre, which his work transcended. It is literature.

Profesionals working within a discipline develop conventions to be able to sharpen definitions and to able to convey them with greater clarity. In this way the non-professional does not confuse Shakespeare with Terry Brooks.

Profesionals working within a discipline develop conventions to be able to sharpen definitions and to able to convey them with greater clarity. In this way the non-professional does not confuse Shakespeare with Terry Brooks. Conventions. Yes. And usually, there are plenty of plausible conventions with their own reasoning. But you still haven't stated the convention you use, i.e. your definition of fantasy. But you seem to use a "quality" clause. The convention I use and know has no quality clause, it only deals with the theme and used means, i.e. if it has magic and/or surnatural things in them. That's actually the only convention that I know.

And if I am in the bookshop, it's usually the SF/Fantasy/Terror department, as those three genres usually are hard to distinguish from eachothter definition wise. In case of an unclarity, there's no need to search all over the shop.

The classics are in their own classic department. Their definition is clear. What's in the classic segment of a publisher is a classic according to leading opinion of the canon-keepers in the competent faculty.

But what I don't like are pecking order conventions. Because I think they have a bad impact on people and their attitudes. I've actually read two books of Terry Brooks, so I am aware of the depth and shallowness that exist. Yet there is no way that I would try to dissuade someone from reading Terry Brooks. There's no accounting for taste. And Terry Brooks is probably a master in his own right. He seems to be able to give something that some can't find somewhere else.

To make it clear, I am not talking about you now, CTR, but in real life, people that talk about canon and "good literature" are a pain in the ass and the most tasteless people that are around. They are the apotheosis of shallowness. It seems that the canon thinking breeds people that are convinced that book reading is a serious matter, that needs a lot of willpower and is necessarily entwined with either endless tediousness or sheer pain. And if there is a hint of entertainment, it has to suck. Those people barely read, yet have a clear opinion about everyhting and its worth.

I agree with much of what you are saying here. :) But I would not wish to encapuslate my own ideas on fantasy and the current state of literature into a single post. It would probably prove to be overly long and arduous. :coffee:

I'm not reading because of escapism, definately not. I just like the setting. Not that I dream of living in it, I just like it. It's different from society now (and that's not an argument that it's escapism).

I find it amusing that in talking about Shakespeare and fantasy, no-one has made the obvious suggestion- Midsummer nights dream

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?Actually, I read all those book types.

Why does fantasy have a special appeal to me, though? Well, fantasy books are the means through which I can escape this wretched world when it has become too much. I've read fantasy always, and it has a "sort-of" mending effect on my mind and soul whenever it feel shattered. To travel to a world in which you can attend in heroic battles, fight evil villains, and most importantly wherein good will always triumph over evil; no matter how ultimate it may be!

Who wouldn't want to be, say, Gandalf? To be all powerful, all wise, but still good and soft on the inside? To travel the world on the back of Dragons, sit with the elves, listening to their beautiful poems, practicing with sword and arcane powers alike!

Sure, to some degree Sci-fi does the exact same thing; fantasy is just more magical and enchanting.

I read fantasy and SF books because they put my imagination to work .After I read a chapter of Dune or LOTR I can let my imagination go wild a few moments . I can't do that when I'm reading War and Peace.

I like getting ideas for new RPG characters. Almost all of my good RPG character are based off a fantasy novel character (with the exception of my Simpsons IWD2 party).

Well i suppose i shall include my input on this matter. I am a fantasy and sci-fi reader and really that is all i read. I have tried to read other books but i find no interest in them at all, they do not hold me, or i cannot sit and actually get into the story. I would think that i prefer fantasy and sci-fi because it is a way to escape reality and read about great things other people did, in a completely new world. it might be that i like to not read about where i live or things that i already know about, or it might be that i have a biased opinion, which of these i know not, but i really cannot sit and read a book that is not fantasy or sci-fi.