Why isnt fantasy mainstream... [Archive] - Absolute Write Water Cooler

fedorable1

10-12-2005, 06:20 PM

Fantasy by definition takes place in a universe that could never happen, even if we wanted it to. Dragons, magic and psionic abilities just don't exist to most people and never will. They are fake, fable, make-believe.

Therefore, most people look for "mainstream" fiction as a legitimate possibility. They feel like "that could happen someday," or "I could do that." Fantasy? Not so much. It's a lot of fun, but not feasible.

In terms of religion, there will always be the glaring divide between religion and government/education/science. A lot of people shy away from the subject purely on the basis of its controversial nature. Religious works, while often popular and very good, will never compare in sheer sales to the "safer" secular works they compete against.

The only best-seller to top those would be the Bible, and that's only because of its age, history, significance and controversy. If a book came out now claiming to be the "new Word of God," I really don't think it would do well - and the author/publisher may find themselves in a whole lot of hot water.

Marcusthefish

10-12-2005, 07:01 PM

MadScientistMatt

10-12-2005, 08:09 PM

The question reminds me of a very frustrating discussion I had with an English major who was reading Ursula LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness (a serious SF novel that features an alien race whose bodies change sex). This poor person just couldn't take the book seriously, apparently, because it's impossible for people to change sex. "It's just silly," she kept saying.

Evidently she was not familiar with certain types of fish and amphibians. A biologist might not find the basic premise absurd - unless it happened in an implausible manner.

Jamesaritchie

10-12-2005, 09:01 PM

I think fantasy stories aren't more mainstream because they're viewed as fundamentally unserious--which I think comes from their similarity to children's literature.

The question reminds me of a very frustrating discussion I had with an English major who was reading Ursula LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness (a serious SF novel that features an alien race whose bodies change sex). This poor person just couldn't take the book seriously, apparently, because it's impossible for people to change sex. "It's just silly," she kept saying.

My conclusion: most people don't have much imagination, and don't particularly care to.

MTF

Well, I have to admit it. Le Guin is not my favorite writer, and I do have trouble taking much of her fiction seriously.

"Seriously" isn't about what's possible or not possible, what's real or what's fantastic. "Seriously," or "believability," if you will, is about whether or not a writer can make me suspend disbelief for the duration of the novel.

It isn't up to the reader to have imagination, it's up to the writer to make the reader believe just long enough to read the story front to back. Some writers do this for me, some don't. Le Guin doesn't.

When a writer fails to make me believe, anything they write tends to come across as silly. When a writer makes me believe, anything they write, however fantastic, comes across as serious and wonderful.

HConn

10-12-2005, 10:26 PM

Fantasy is becoming more popular and more acceptable.

Silverhand

10-13-2005, 01:27 AM

Ok so you are breaking religion into something entirely different...fair enough. But, that doesnt take away the fact that those same people STILL believe in things that are unthinkable by todays standards.

Also, I want to point out that out of all the elder fantastical mosters and races, ALL at one time or another were considered 100% real.

Norse, romans, greeks, and even the early persians used pantheons of gods. Norse talked about trolls and dwarves. Celts and pagans in general considered elves (Sihhe), fairies, brownies, leprechauns all real. Magic was thought to be a way of life for most cultures pre-christian. Greeks used giants, minotaurs, etc etc etc. Most of the things from today are derived from historical faiths of ancient times.

Anyways, I guess I just do not understand how a person can identify with faith using the same princples that they consider imaginery. We all know silver dragons do not exist, BUT in certain religions or social structures...cultures will argue their existence to the end.

Heh, needed to address Victorias point too. If you were to ask a person believing in the bible if they thought X was possible rigth now. They would say 'no'. If their faith beleives and accepts magic as 'real'...then magic is a basic principle that should considered possible regardless of extreme cicumstances. Does that make sense?

brinkett

10-13-2005, 02:39 AM

Ok so you are breaking religion into something entirely different...fair enough. But, that doesnt take away the fact that those same people STILL believe in things that are unthinkable by todays standards.

But they do believe them, so it's not fantasy to them. To you it might be, but it isn't to them. Therefore, you're not drawing a valid analogy when you say they should like fantasy because they believe in things like God and angels and miracles. You're talking apples and oranges.

The people I know who don't read fantasy say they don't like it because they can't relate to the characters and situations. As someone once put it to me, "I don't give a sh*t about characters who aren't human."

Mike Coombes

10-13-2005, 03:03 AM

Jamesaritchie

10-13-2005, 04:41 AM

Heh, needed to address Victorias point too. If you were to ask a person believing in the bible if they thought X was possible rigth now. They would say 'no'. If their faith beleives and accepts magic as 'real'...then magic is a basic principle that should considered possible regardless of extreme cicumstances. Does that make sense?

No, if you ask the majority of Bible believers if X is possible today, they'll say "Absolutely yes!" Believe me, I know hundreds of Bible believing Christians, and I am one, and every last one I know believes anything possible long ago is still possible today.

Where you're going wrong is with the word "magic." I've never met a Bilbe believing Christian who believes in magic. You can't mix magic and miracles. They aren't the same thing at all. They aren't even related, at least in the minds of those who believe the Bible.

Magic is Hollywood, fairy tale, folklore silliness. Miracles come from the power of God, and aren't magic in any way.

If you're looking for people who take fantasy seriously, you're unlimkely to find them in any mainstream religion.

MadScientistMatt

10-13-2005, 07:14 AM

And another note: It is perfectly possible, and probably relatively common, for Christians to believe that while God has worked miracles in the past and will work miracles in the future, God currently choses not to work spectacular miracles today, for whatever reason. A lot of Christian fiction has God stay off-stage the whole time. Belief in miracles alone does not make a story involving a fireball-throwing sorceror realistic. Supernatural pyrotechnics do appear in the Bible, but only on a few occasions where God chose to send them. They weren't something that man could command at will, but instead acts of God to God's own purposes.

By spectacular miracles, I mean the sort of miracle that the only possible responses are, "This must be the power of God," "This is some trick," or "Tell me I didn't see that!" The sort of miracles that suspend the laws of nature rather than merely the laws of probability. I don't mean things like praying for a way out of a financial difficulty and getting an unexpected gift or unexplained healing, but miracles that go to such extremes as sending fire down from the sky exactly when a prophet asks it to come down, walking on water, parting the Red Sea, or having a crack suddenly open in the earth and entomb your enemies. Many Christians believe that God has, at least for the time being, refrained from doing that sort of miracles.

When magic, as opposed to miracles, turn up in the Bible, it seems far more limited. There's Pharoah's magicians who use "their secret arts" - whether that is genuine magic or parlor tricks is never explained, but the most impressive thing they do is appear to change a stick into a snake. There's the Witch of Endor, who summons Samuel's ghost. And there's Simon Magus, but not much account of what his magic did other than impressing people. You certainly won't find a Belgarath or Walker Boh among the sorcerors in the Bible.

So, like James pointed out, religious belief does not imply that readers will find fantasy believable. Both C.S. Lewis and Tolkein were Christians who wrote fantasy, but both Narnia and Middle-Earth were an escape from our real world, not an extension of it.

As for what people believed in hundreds of years ago - they aren't your audience.

My-Immortal

10-13-2005, 08:49 AM

Fantasy will never get wider mainstream readership because too much of it is formulaeic and two dimensional.

Yeah, yeah, get off my back, unicorn lovers, I know there are exceptions, but all the time they're buried in the slurry of mediocre Tolkein wannabes, they won't get recognised.

Le Guin's Left Hand of Darkness is an outstanding exploration of isolation and loneliness, which is why it broke out of the genre ghetto and got read by people who don't read SF.

Perhaps I'm still just fired up by the way the Sox stole the game from the Angels earlier this evening thanks to a terrible call by the home plate umpire but this post really struck me wrong. Fantasy is a "genre ghetto"? Really? And what do you read or write? Mainstream novels? Is that supposed to be "genre high-class"? Oh, and I suppose mainstream novels NEVER follow ANY kind of formula...?

Perhaps fantasy novels don't gain a wider readership because too many people have a narrow minded opinion about what 'fantasy' really is. They'd rather not try to stretch their imagination and allow "suspension of disbelief" for even a moment. Perhaps they see 'fantasy' as childish and immature and beneath them...

Their loss.

Let those people read their mainstream novels. I read them too from time to time...but then I creep back into the "genre ghetto" and allow my mind to escape the boundaries of the real world for a while as I enjoy my fantasy books.

Whew...I'm done letting off steam. :)

victoriastrauss

10-13-2005, 09:15 AM

Fantasy is a "genre ghetto"? Really?Yup. Really.

Well, actually, SF is in there with it. But it's still a ghetto.

Separate imprints at publishers.
Separate shelving in bookstores.
Special labeling at libraries.
Separate reviewers.
Separate readership.

From a writer's perspective, this is not necessarily a bad thing. There are advantages to a smaller market, where it's a bit easier to reach the audience and to stand out among a smaller field of competitors. Still, it can be frustrating.

I don't believe that fantasy/SF is ghettoized because a lot of it is formulaic and two-dimensional--the same can be said of any genre, and probably of a good portion of the commercial mainstream fiction that's being churned out at any given time. I just think that it's not to everyone's taste. A lot of people simply don't like reading about invented worlds. Historical fiction has a small readership also, for similar reasons.

- Victoria

Birol

10-13-2005, 09:20 AM

Ah, this is a topic I'm caught in the middle of right now.

When I write fiction, I lean toward fantasy and science fiction. It's the genre I love. I'm also a graduate student working on my Master's in English.

My program has an option that permits English students to present a novel-length creative work instead of a thesis. My advisor, after reading the opening three chapters of my current WIP, did not tell me no, I could not use the novel, but encouraged me to work on a traditional, critical thesis instead, which I have agreed to do.

In academia, science fiction and fantasy just aren't regarded as serious literature.

My-Immortal

10-13-2005, 09:21 AM

Yup. Really.

Well, actually, SF is in there with it. But it's still a ghetto.

Separate imprints at publishers.
Separate shelving in bookstores.
Special labeling at libraries.
Separate reviewers.
Separate readership.

- Victoria

Hmmm...and here I had always thought it meant SF and Fantasy were special. :)

Mike Coombes

10-13-2005, 12:42 PM

Hmmm...and here I had always thought it meant SF and Fantasy were special. :)

They are - really 'special'.

I write SF, and have written fantasy. And have read both genres widely, along with mainstream literary.

Let me rile you up a little further. One reason that fantasy is wallowing in the ghetto and not getting wider readership is down to the narrow minded conservatism of a large number of those who write it. Again, yes, I know there are exceptions, but if anyone dares to criticise your cosy little genre you scurry around like ants making cross little noises, all puff and posture and no substance.

Do yourself a favour - rather than automatically dismissing what I say because it's not what you want to hear, do some real re-appraisal of the genre - what you put in, and what you want out. If the word you come up with is 'niche', then I'm sorry I troubled you.

My-Immortal

10-13-2005, 07:32 PM

Let me rile you up a little further. One reason that fantasy is wallowing in the ghetto and not getting wider readership is down to the narrow minded conservatism of a large number of those who write it. Again, yes, I know there are exceptions, but if anyone dares to criticise your cosy little genre you scurry around like ants making cross little noises, all puff and posture and no substance.

Do yourself a favour - rather than automatically dismissing what I say because it's not what you want to hear, do some real re-appraisal of the genre - what you put in, and what you want out. If the word you come up with is 'niche', then I'm sorry I troubled you.

Unfortunately, it's not the writers that decide what gets published and what gets rejected by the editors. Instead of assuming it is narrow minded conservative 'authors' perhaps you should focus your criticism on the editors of sci-fi and fantasy publishing houses. Of course, you could take it the next step and say the editors are simply publishing books by authors that sell - and those are usually the books by big-named authors that after a handful of books seem to fall into a rut and repeat themselves. But couldn't that be said of any genre?

I suppose what I found to be disturbing was the tone of your post - but perhaps I misread it. Perhaps you weren't trying to be condescending and insulting to those of us that write in either the sci-fi or fantasy genre. Perhaps when you said 'ghetto' you weren't trying to offend the hard work of struggling authors that are trying to break into the business and perhaps change the way people view sci-fi or fantasy. Or perhaps that was your intent all along.

Good luck in your writing - and I'll get back to trying to get out of the fantasy ghetto. LOL

victoriastrauss

10-13-2005, 08:36 PM

badducky

10-13-2005, 09:24 PM

That's odd because I find fantasy in every stinking section of the bookstore.

"The Oddyssey", and "The Fairy Queen" is in the poetry section, and most Romantic Poets.

Pynchon, Garcia Marquez, Borges, and Calvino are in the Literature section.

The Romance Section is chock full of witchcraft and wiccans (with bulging, rippling muscles, mind you... hey, they call that kind of stuff "Fantasy", right?)

The Children's Book Section contains little else but various fantasy and horror books.

The History Section contains lots of information about ancient mythologies that read like fantasy texts (Egyptian Book of the Dead, anyone?)

Plays are full of Shakespeare's fanciful fantasies of ghosts, fairies, and magic.

The Business Section is like a modern-day alchemy academy.

I think what we're missing out on here is the word "Demographic". Fantasy is everywhere. Science Fiction is everywhere. The Fantasy/Sci-Fi Demographic is geared towards a certain style of story-telling. It just so happens that this style (in our culture) has wrapped around fantasy and science-fiction.

Lietmotifs and simplicity of design mark this section as a whole. These are the books that are just as concerned about the plot as they are with the characters involved. The "Literature" section as a whole evolved away from plot as a driving force, and moved towards characters and themes.

It's in the proverbial "ghetto" because smart people are all-too-often narrowminded, and just cannot acknowledge that Tolkein was as much of a visionary as Faulkner.

Basically it's about an attitude. Genre readers often try, primarily, to enjoy what they're reading. "Serious" writers are supposed to require a Ph. D. to even comprehend.

The Fantasy is everywhere, though. The Science Fiction is everywhere. We're in the ghetto because we're just as smart as everyone else, with just much of an education, and just as much talent, but we choose to be genuinely accessible to a wide audience.

A hundred years from now, will people still read the latest MFA authors attempt to belittle and smear their own minority culture into a cushy tenure, or will the people still read the hilariously insightful fantasy authors Piers Anthony and Terry Pratchett? I know who I'm betting on.

HConn

10-13-2005, 11:25 PM

I write SF, and have written fantasy. And have read both genres widely, along with mainstream literary.

Let me rile you up a little further. One reason that fantasy is wallowing in the ghetto and not getting wider readership is down to the narrow minded conservatism of a large number of those who write it.

The biggest problem with this statement is that fantasy's readership is expanding. It's not static or shrinking. It's growing.

Wanna know which readership is shrinking? Science fiction. Hope that doesn't rile you.

Again, yes, I know there are exceptions, but if anyone dares to criticise your cosy little genre you scurry around like ants making cross little noises, all puff and posture and no substance.

Rude.

The second biggest problem with your statement is your obnoxious tone. Ill-informed and impolite are not a good combination.

Birol

10-13-2005, 11:33 PM

It's in the proverbial "ghetto" because smart people are all-too-often narrowminded, and just cannot acknowledge that Tolkein was as much of a visionary as Faulkner.

The most intelligent, widest read people I know read science fiction and fantasy.

badducky

10-14-2005, 12:05 AM

I hope you include me among the most intelligent, and widely-read...

If "Intelligent" and "Smart" meant the same thing, we wouldn't have two words.

Intelligence implies a depth and education and a complexity. Smart is sharper, and shorter, and prone to mere cleverness.

I said Smart People are narrow-minded. Not Intelligent People.
My personal favorite for awful individuals masking themselves as intelligent through mere smartness is R______ R______ (name taken out because I do not have nice things to say about someone I knew personally). Ick. She's the kind of woman who is a writer because she lives next door to Billy Collins. The sun rises on Long Island and sets in Connecticut. Her books are all re-mixes of every WASP-y archetype of which you've ever heard told with an unfelt infatuation with the realism so en vogue at the moment. And when you press her to truly use her mind, she falls back on snarky, irrational criticism of anything diferent from her own preferred genre. That's "Smart" writers. They're on the cutting edge of literati fashion, but lack the depth of a truly well-read individual that transcends cocktail parties in Manhatten.

Intelligence wouldn't judge a book by the publisher's logo on the cover. Good examples? Neal Stephenson. Stephen King. Ursula K. LeGuin. Margaret Atwood. The list goes on. Hopefully, someday, we'll be among them.

victoriastrauss

10-14-2005, 12:31 AM

We're in the ghetto because we're just as smart as everyone else, with just much of an education, and just as much talent, but we choose to be genuinely accessible to a wide audience.This makes no sense. If fantasy (and science fiction) were accessible to a wide audience, a wide audience would read it. Certainly genre prejudice plays a part in limiting readership--all those mainstream readers who fear fantasy because of the funny names or science fiction because of the nonhuman characters--but the fact is, it's a specialized taste, just as mystery and romance and biography are specialized tastes. Even if HConn is right, and the fantasy readership is growing (and I'm not sure I agree) I think it will always be a relatively small segment of the audience.

A hundred years from now, will people still read the latest MFA authors attempt to belittle and smear their own minority culture into a cushy tenure, or will the people still read the hilariously insightful fantasy authors Piers Anthony and Terry Pratchett? I know who I'm betting on.IMO, it's as silly to dismiss all literary fiction as MFA twaddle as it is to dismiss all fantasy as formulaic and derivative.

- Victoria

Birol

10-14-2005, 01:11 AM

IMO, it's as silly to dismiss all literary fiction as MFA twaddle as it is to dismiss all fantasy as formulaic and derivative.

Yes. Absolutely. This also goes back to what you were saying about the SF/Fantasy community complaining about the lack of respect AND complaining about mainstream authors using elements of SF/Fantasy in their works.

There is no perfect genre. There is no one correct way to write. There is no one proper style. Regardless of whether we are talking science fiction, fantasy, romance, mainstream, or historical fiction, it is all a matter of individual preference. The hope all writers have is that enough individuals will prefer our style, our genre, our way of writing enough to want to read more of it.

My-Immortal

10-14-2005, 01:22 AM

There is no perfect genre. There is no one correct way to write. There is no one proper style. Regardless of whether we are talking science fiction, fantasy, romance, mainstream, or historical fiction, it is all a matter of individual preference. The hope all writers have is that enough individuals will prefer our style, our genre, our way of writing enough to want to read more of it.

Exactly!! :) Good post.

Silverhand

10-14-2005, 02:19 AM

Heh, this has turned into a good debate like I knew it would :)

I understand the difference between miracles and magic...magic was simply a word I used as an example. However, there was magic in the bible. For the life of me I cannot remember the characters name, but Peter, after coming to Rome, made the real magician (using black magic), who was posing as a false Christ, to drop over dead in the Bible.

Also, if you have read the Apocothery, The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Council of Nicea notes, among various other Christian documents...some considered legit some not, there are fantastical stories all over the place. (some considered legit, some not)

My point is not to denounce what religion beleives...I am simply stating that if you beleive the Bible to be 100% true, and that faith in that particular truth happens to include miracles, magic, etc etc...then by all means it should not be a stretch of the imagination to accept other fantasticly plausible things.

Anyways, back to where the convo has turned. I find that most people when hearing that I write fantasy take whatever I say much less meaningful. It always make me take the time to explain that IMO, especially these days, the only way to say something without pissing anyone off is to do it in a fantastical background. Though that seems to loosen my writing up some, I still strive to get out of the shackles of what I consider frowned upon by the majority.

victoriastrauss

10-14-2005, 03:01 AM

Also, if you have read the Apocothery, The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Council of Nicea notes, among various other Christian documents...some considered legit some not, there are fantastical stories all over the place. (some considered legit, some not)Do you mean the Apocrypha? They do indeed include some strange stuff. But if you think the documents associated with the (two) Nicean Councils contain fantastical stories, all I can say is that you've been reading too much Dan Brown.

My point is not to denounce what religion beleives...I am simply stating that if you beleive the Bible to be 100% true, and that faith in that particular truth happens to include miracles, magic, etc etc...then by all means it should not be a stretch of the imagination to accept other fantasticly plausible things.No offense (really), but I don't think you have a very solid grasp of religion.

- Victoria

zornhau

10-14-2005, 04:01 AM

No offense (really), but I don't think you have a very solid grasp of religion.
- Victoria

Perhaps, rather, a less than soldi grasp of religious thinking. Those of a religious persuasion don't see the kinship between their (to a materialist) improbable world view. Thor and St Anthony generally don't coexist.

fallenangelwriter

10-14-2005, 09:12 AM

I was amused by thebstatement that fantasy is mroe about plot and mainstream mroe about themes.

funny, i always found it the opposite; one of the beautiful things about writing fantasy is the ease of creating strong themes. i cna build them into the veyr world itself. on a basic level, if the themes are about love, or fear, or courage, or guilt, or determination, or inner peace, or death, i need only make a magic system based on that and it instantly assumes a huge role in the story.

every fantasy world i create is designed entirely around certain fundamental themes. one is about flaws (nothing is perfect, there were flaws in teh beginning which accumulate over time, eventually destroying and resetting the system) another about cycles of growth and decay (the character initially view growth as good and death as evil, but then contend with harmful growths, metaphoricial cancers).

Phoenix Fury

10-14-2005, 11:45 AM

Wow, is everyone just in a bad mood, or am I misreading the tone of this thread? What's with the zingers and vitriolic one liners?

Anyway, I think the question revolves around what you want from your fantasy. I think the majority of non-fantasy fans imagine some component of the following when they hear the words "fantasy fiction":

1. Lord of the Flies, or whatever those three movies were called that came out a couple of years ago.

2. Dungeons and Demons, or whatever that weird game was that "those people" played when I was in college.

3. Carter the Barbarian, or whatever that movie was called that had Arnold Schwarzenegger in it.

And for non-science fiction fans, when they hear those two magic words?

1. Star Wars. (Everyone thinks it's cool, even if they don't like science fiction...and since it's really space opera anyway, and in a different category, this might not even count.)

2. Star Trek. (Such a huge part of the culture that everyone has at least heard of some ship that flies around with aliens in it, maybe one with pointed ears.)

And that's it. Try to explain that a lot of fantasy is much deeper than the D and D stereotype, or that some of the universally acknowledged "great works" of literature are works of fantasy (as already mentioned: The Faerie Queene. The Tempest. A Midsummer Night's Dream. Beowulf, for heaven's sake!), and a lot of the mainstream reading audience's eyes will start to glaze over--because to be quite frank, many of them simply aren't all that imaginative. Bills to pay, work to do, kids to raise--there just isn't that much time in the day left, in some cases, to be creative or think creatively. If you force them to sit down in front of a movie screen and watch something like The Fellowship of the Ring, though, you'll find the vast majority of those people shocked at how good the story is. "Wow, that wasn't weird at all!" they'll say, after getting over the goblin/orc/dwarf/elf/hobbit/wizards and magic rings hurdle. And they'll be right--it isn't weird. It is yet another doorway into the totality of human experience, and such doorways are never "weird," immature or pointless.

But no matter how unimaginative these "mainstream" readers can sometimes be, Victoria is right that most fantasy fans don't take the time to welcome them into the fold. It might stem from many fantasy types feeling isolated when young and wanting to stay with their own group now that they're older, or it may just be a kind of smug self-satisfaction that one of the "outsiders" wants to get into the private club that is fantasy fiction, but any way you look at it there is something exclusionary about the attitude, in many cases, and in my opinion it is something we need to fight against at all costs. I love sports, and if I wear my Red Sox jersey into a bar in Cambridge I won't be quizzed on Dwight Evans's OBP in 1987 and kicked out if I can't answer. But if I were just now getting into fantasy, my sense is that I would have a hard time connecting to it in part because of the unwillingness of "those in the clique" to reach out to others. Until that changes, fantasy will continue to be a bit out of the mainstream. I do believe that it is gradually changing--Harry Potter, anyone?--but it's up to those in the field to reach out to those outside of it, and up to those outside of it to take the plunge and give it a try.

P.F.

P.S. I am a college professor who both writes fantasy fiction and teaches a course in it--so I would be careful about the claim that academics and fantasy/sf don't mix. There are now several academic conferences that look exclusively at the fantasy genre, and I promise you that attendance and participation in such conferences does indeed "count" in the academic world.

zornhau

10-14-2005, 04:27 PM

I think you've nailed it.

Is there also, among educated people who read, a discomfort with cold steel and the traditional masculinity manifested in fantasy classics, e.g. Conan?

MadScientistMatt

10-15-2005, 03:26 AM

Silverhand, it may be that your posts have been giving me the wrong impression. But it appears that there are two assumptions behind your posts that I find, well, a little bit strange, and possibly offensive. I apologize if they aren't what you mean to say, but here's what I am hearing:

1. A notion that fantasy fans find fantasy books realistic.

There's a reason they call speculative fiction publishing "the ole' balony factory." I can enjoy space opera even when I know the way they propose their spaceships to work breaks several rules of physics, and I can enjoy fantasy while knowing that magic is fake and the gods in the fantasy world are fictitious. If you are looking for readers who actually believe your fantasy world is the same world they live in, then you definitely aren't going for a mainstream audience.

2. The assumption that religious people should believe all the magical underpinnings of a fantasy world are real.

This is probably what's bothering many posters here. It seems you are focusing on some similarities, and ignoring how fantasy mythos usually contradicts most real-world religions in some ways. At best, this comes across as the equivalent of saying that people who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution should also believe in Lamark's theory of the inheiritance of acquired characteristics because at a glance they appear similar. At worst, this comes across as saying that Christians should believe in sorcery because Christianity and sorcery are equally absurd!

Silverhand

10-15-2005, 04:25 AM

I am a theologan with a minor in philosphy, Victoria. I think I grasp the notions ok. Don't be blown away by how much my grammar sucks...or the concepts I am throwing out there. :)

Madscientist,

Fantasy fans DO find fantasy at its base realistic...not REAL...but realistic. Though I do not speak for everyone, I sure as heck know that I hate fantasy that is absurdly unrealistic. Space Opera might break several rules of physics...BUT unless those physics can be proven at all times to be 100% accurate...that means nothing. Though this isnt physics...a good example would be our knowledge being limited in thinking that the world is flat...though one of the Greeks did project its roundness. The point here is that WE could be wrong about whatever fact that we think is certain...thats happened all through history.

Of course, there are things that are, well, unrealistic, BUT if i told you a story about 2+2=5...then the story would have no basis in reality whatsoever, thus would not be read.

Do I think people who read fantasy consider the worlds they read exist...c'mon now...I am a fantasy author as well as a reader. I am talking about principles man...nothing more. Like I said..if you lay down a foundation of what truth is...then if you read a story using those truths...it should not be looked down upon because its unbeleiveable.

To point #2..maybe they should.

If you are taking my posts as offensive...that is not my intent. And, as much as you think I might have it wrong, I in turn think both you and Victoria have it wrong. Now, prove either of us right or wrong. :) Good luck.

Anyways, my argument is not that you have to beleive fantasy as 'real'. I am not looking at the word real...though I bring it up as an example a few times. I am looking at plausible...plausible does not make things 'real'. However, if you define something as 'real' such as magic, miracles, God, etc etc, then by all means you cannot say it is fantasy. Fantasy=NOT real. Middle Earth=NOT Real. The world of Arsgoth=NOT real. 2+2=5=NOT real. A sword=real. Black Magic=real(If you beleive the Bible is 100% accurate) Magic Swords=plausible. Notice I did not say real...on the same note...because you beleive in both black magic and swords...you can also not call it unreal. Therefore, it is NOT a blatantly lie which fantasy 'is' IMO.

The key here is IF YOU define those things as existing in a holy tome which you consider to be 100% accurate. if you do, it should not be a strecth of the self to think of fantasy as 'plausible'. I am NOT saying that a Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc etc should consider any fantasy real. What I AM saying is that most people who dislike fantasy think of fantasy as not ONLY not real, but at the same time impossible and fake. Yes, the worlds are fake. Yes, there are no dragons running around. Yes, we have never seen elves, fairies, blah blah blah. BUT, the principles of miracles, magic, and other fantastical beings and places should NOT be considered unreal...based upon what religion defines as 'real'.

Victoria,

You are right...the nicean councils are not fantastical themselves. What IS fantastical are the books which they removed from the Bible, Enoch? (maybe mispelled..among several others. I should have been more clear. I apologize.

MadScientistMatt

10-15-2005, 06:29 AM

Kind of funny, I didn't realize that my 666th post included debates over religious matters...

Anyway, when you get down to it, the fact that those books were rather fantastical was one of the major reasons why they weren't included in the Bible. I have a few partial excerpts of some of these, such as the Acts of Peter. Not only did some of them contradict some of the theology taught elsewhere, but they definitely tend more towards resembling fantasy fiction than the books that did make the cut. Skepticism is not exactly a modern invention. :)

At any rate, there's a definite difference between internal consistancy and real world possibility. It seems that you were more arguing for what we've often called internal consistancy on this forum - that the laws of magic should apply with just as even a hand as the laws of physics.

And by the way, the cases of breaking the laws of physics that I'm talking about are not relying on edgy science or inventing new principles. They're blatant goofs, such as having a gravity-based shield that is on all the time and capable of stopping lasers - but the characters can still see through the shield! Other examples include such things as reactionless drives that only work because someone analyzing the motion neglected an important step in the calculations, or the like. Inventing new and undiscovered laws of physics doesn't bother me - it's the times when the author has carelessly misapplied known laws that does.

victoriastrauss

10-15-2005, 06:34 AM

You are right...the nicean councils are not fantastical themselves. What IS fantastical are the books which they removed from the Bible.I'm confused. In my admittedly rather spotty recollection, neither Nicean Council dealt with the canon of the Bible. Again, this makes me think of The Da Vinci Code, and Dan Brown's incredibly inaccurate historical account of church history.

- Victoria

Phoenix Fury

10-15-2005, 12:39 PM

I think you've nailed it.

Is there also, among educated people who read, a discomfort with cold steel and the traditional masculinity manifested in fantasy classics, e.g. Conan?

I'm not sure if it's that so much as the perceived quality of the given work. Beowulf has as much cold steel and traditional masculinity as you could possibly ask for (to say nothing of monsters and dragons, by the way) but you'd be hard pressed to find an academic who didn't take that work extremely seriously. But it takes time for something to reach that level--John Gardner's Grendel, for instance, is an extraordinary work of serious literature (and fantasy) which has been around for over thirty years, but it's only in the past ten years or so that it's started to really take off as a work considered worthy of serious criticism. To me, you could have skipped the intervening two decades and elevated it to the status of classic right after publication (read it and you'll see what I mean), but twenty years was the time it took.

Of course, this isn't something confined to the genre of fantasy alone...but the state of critical inertia around most new works, no matter how good, is a difficult thing to confront at times.

P.F.

MadScientistMatt

10-15-2005, 07:50 PM

Ah, yes, that idea about the Nicean Council deciding what books to include in the Bible pops up so often that I'd almost forgotten that it was meant to settle the Arian Controversy, and had nothing to do with what books were included in the Bible. That particular debate spanned centuries, and I can never seem to remember the name of the council where they did make that official.

If you go by the description of black magic in the Bible, I can't quite see what a black magic sword would do. Forbidden sorts of magic seem to mostly involve talking to the dead or fortelling the future. The only exception I can think of where magicians did something else that was clearly described was in Exodus, and even then, it wasn't much of anything particularly useful unless you wanted your sword to turn into a snake. And in the case of those magicians, there's enough speculation that they were pure charlatans that it even shows up in Spielburg's Price of Egypt.

MarkButler

10-15-2005, 10:31 PM

Didn't someone throw firebolts.. or was that just Tim the magician?

DOn't forget the food magic, never-ending loaf of bread and wine.

Mark

TeddyG

10-16-2005, 05:04 PM

Just saw this incredibly interesting thread...

Am a bit confused though..

Some seem to be speaking of "religious" works as fantasy while others are talking about the "pure" fantasy realm.

I think they are much one and the same, HOWEVER, I have learned that publishers in the fantasy genre such as Daw etc. will not touch any fantasy book or series the uses any religious system as a backdrop.

Thus while fantasy writers may combine the two, the mainstream publishers clearly seperate the two for reasons that I understand and some that I don't agree with. But it is a very hard sell if you use any religious system as a backdrop, something I have and am learning because of an ms. of mine which my agent is handling.

As to the original "mainstream" argument. I honestly don't know what is "mainstream" today and what is not. The categories in any book store are so specifically divided to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and desires. But it seems to me and I could be totally off here, but just by looking at numbers at Amazon and B&N on line..that fantasy literature is bought and accepted and read more these days then it once was.

When I was umm 12 which was way back in the middle ages, I remember that my father had to go to a specialty book store in Manhattan (Brentano's) to get a copy of LOTR. Even the Tom Swift series was not sold everywhere as Burroughs etc.

Now every book shop has a wide selection of fantasy literature. And people did buy percentage wise a great deal of books in the 60's. (TV was not the drug of choice then.) So I think we may not be looking at the "popularity" or "non-popularity" of the fantasy genre correctly.

Maybe it is not "mainstream" but it seems to me a lot more accepted and read than it was just 15 years ago.

Teddy

zornhau

10-17-2005, 01:32 AM

This weekend's Guardian (big liberal UK paper) had an advert for George RR Martin's next volume. Funnily enough, it has zilch chance of being reviewed by the paper. Perhaps the publisher's marketing dept. knows more about the readers than the paper's editor. Or is fantasy the genre that dare not speak its name?

victoriastrauss

10-17-2005, 03:00 AM

Jon Courtenay Grimwood occasionally reviews SF/F for The Guardian.

- Victoria

Euan H.

10-17-2005, 04:25 AM

For those who are interested:

First Council of Nicea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea)(Arianism)

Second Council of Nicea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Nicaea)(Iconoclasm)

Of course, the most interesting and critical of the many Ecumenical Counc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_Councils)ils was the First Council of Lyons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Lyons), which decided that Cardinals should wear a red hat. Green just was right out. And blue made them look like smurfs.

My-Immortal

10-17-2005, 09:16 AM

If you go by the description of black magic in the Bible, I can't quite see what a black magic sword would do. Forbidden sorts of magic seem to mostly involve talking to the dead or fortelling the future.

Wouldn't a black magic sword capable of foretelling the future and talking to the dead be able to 1) tell you when you would die...2) taunt you afterwards with "I told you so!"...?

Just a thought... :)

Gogonith

10-18-2005, 01:40 AM

Let's not forget the age factor. I'm in a writer's group with a wide range of ages and genres represented. The younger folks read my sword & scorcery fantasy and "get it". Members of older generations, not so much.

For instance, when I presented a scene where an elf fights some humans, then is pursued by a nasty dragon, one elder man in the group said he couldn't "see" it. When I asked how he pictured the elf, he basically described a garden gnome weilding a sword! (LOL) Instead of "seeing" the dragon as looking like Smaug, he saw in his mind Puff the Magic Dragon! This was true for some other older members, too. Among writers, no less!

So, I think older generations are more likely to see traditional fantasy in childish ways, and younger generations are more used to the icons of the genre and more accepting of the stories. It is a growth industry, in my mind, which will appeal to more generations as time goes by. Now is the time to be a writer in the field!

badducky

10-18-2005, 02:14 AM

No, no! I really got the answer this time!

We're an ugly bunch of geeky nerds. We don't look good on amagazine covers. If you run a special about fantasy/sci-fi genre authors you'll be lucky if everyone has all of their teeth in one mouth.

Except for us, of course.

What I'm really referring to is how often the picture of the author is splayed everywhere when that author is good-looking enough for their age to merit magazine covers. If only I had larger pecs!

Mike Coombes

10-18-2005, 02:39 AM

Jon Courtenay Grimwood occasionally reviews SF/F for The Guardian.

- Victoria

Michael Moorcock regularly reviews SF/F for the guardian.

Sakamonda

10-18-2005, 02:50 AM

I have an advanced degree in literature and I am also a rabid SF/horror fan. I also read romance and chick lit----I have written (and been published) in both genres. I've never been much of a mystery reader save for Alexander McCall Smith and Raymond Chandler, and some Walter Moseley (who also writes excellent SF).

I think this is an old debate that never seems to end. In fact as an undergraduate English major I took an honors seminar course titled "Mystery Fiction: Literature or Trash?". The consensus of that course was that any style of writing in any genre (including literary!) can be classified as either "literature" or "pulp trash" depending on its quality. However, defining "quality" will always be a matter of taste, and taste really can't be defined.

I believe that there is high quality writing to be found in all the various so-called "pulp" genres. I know that the monthly Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction (Gordon Van Gelder, editor) consistently has some of the best, most intelligent, most well-crafted writing I've ever come across----you don't necessarily have to be a fan of speculative fiction to love that mag. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the writing quality of the stories in F&SF is on a par with the most prestigious lit journals (Ploughshares, Paris Review, Missouri Review, etc.) There are of course other spec-fic mags that are not as good as F&SF. The same can be said for novels. For every Piers Anthony or Terry Pratchett, there are a couple hundred formulaic hacks. For every Nora Roberts and Danielle Steele, there are thousands of pale imitators who try to capture the secret ingredient that these authors have that makes their books sell by the millions, but fail to do so. Some might call these big name authors forumlaic hacks. But there is still a large segment of the population who enjoy reading formulaic hack writing, and buy it by the bushelful. In my opinion, any writer who has the privilege of a large, loyal reading audience should be considered "quality". But different reading audiences have different tastes, certainly.

By the way, I challenge anyone to say fantasy/sci fi is not "mainstream" when J.K. Rowling is the bestselling author of all time, and authors like Stephen King (who writes fantasy/horror), Dean Koontz, Terry Brooks, Anne McCaffrey, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Jean M. Auel, Frank Herbert and Peter Straub all sell books by the millions.

Euan H.

10-18-2005, 04:02 AM

By the way, I challenge anyone to say fantasy/sci fi is not "mainstream" when J.K. Rowling is the bestselling author of all time, and authors like Stephen King (who writes fantasy/horror), Dean Koontz, Terry Brooks, Anne McCaffrey, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Jean M. Auel, Frank Herbert and Peter Straub all sell books by the millions.
But they're not really fantasy. Rowling doesn't write fantasy; she writes Harry Potter books. Same with King, he doesn't write fantasy, he writes Stephen King books. He is his own genre.

The label of fantasy/sci-fi used in most of this thread is *mostly* a marketing/sales tool. Sure there are types of fantasy that could *only* be shelved in the fantasy section of the bookstore, like G. R. R. Martin's work, for example. But much of what is labeled fantasy could be placed in a number of different places.

I know that the monthly Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction (Gordon Van Gelder, editor) consistently has some of the best, most intelligent, most well-crafted writing I've ever come across----you don't necessarily have to be a fan of speculative fiction to love that mag.
This is off-topic, but I'm not sure I wholly agree with this. The writing certainly is well-crafted (and most of it far more so than I'm capable of), but as to whether it's the best, hm. I would have said Black Gate, but there y'go...

Sakamonda

10-18-2005, 04:13 AM

"But they're not really fantasy. Rowling doesn't write fantasy; she writes Harry Potter books. Same with King, he doesn't write fantasy, he writes Stephen King books. He is his own genre."

---Ummm, no. Both of these authors follow the long-established conventions of the fantasy and horror genres (sometimes together). And they will tell you this themselves. (King definitely says as much in his own essays). Rowling's books are heavily inspired by the children's fantasy books of L. Frank Baum (which were written a hundred years ago) and C.S. Lewis (which were written sixty years ago). So she is hardly inventing a new genre, either. Rowling and King are just very, very successful at bringing a unique voice to long-established genres.

brokenfingers

10-18-2005, 04:31 AM

Rowling and King are just very, very successful at bringing a unique voice to long-established genres.Hmmm, I think that's a very, very good point Sakamonda. I think this is one of the major stumbling blocks for writers looking to break into sf/f publishing. Many, unfortunately, tread old ground and rehash the same old tropes and cliches and things used well by other writers in other stories.

It really is a challenge to construct a unique vision that agents and publishers will believe in enough so that you can share it with others - but I feel, ultimately, that it is this very challenge that keeps the majority of us in the ring.

Nateskate

10-18-2005, 04:40 AM

People can jump into great fantasies, but I think the reason why modern fantasy is such an acquired taste is because there is a higher degree of difficulty to get into it.

If you stay with a series, you learn enough to stick with it. But some books have a high learning curve, and some people become disinterested before they even get to the actual story.

I'm game, but when I open a book and read, "The Balooga of Fratooga, splanotated the Amelian with Tongaboo...and yet, he couldn't Fanorkulate the Penddog in the Vula-mina.

"Vaponabe," he cried. "Why did Endowi spool Yana Swell?" - By this time I don't care who Yula Bula Vula'd who.

veinglory

10-18-2005, 05:19 AM

As far as I can see 'mainstream' is just a shelving convention--a place to put things that aren't clearly something else. Why aspire to that? It's like wanting to be a muggle ;)

Euan H.

10-18-2005, 05:27 AM

Both of these authors follow the long-established conventions of the fantasy and horror genres

Yes, but:

The label of fantasy/sci-fi used in most of this thread is *mostly* a marketing/sales tool.

genre (1): cluster of characteristics used to differentiate relatively stable groups of novels. Necessarily a fuzzy category, better defined through exemplars rather than defining edges.

genre (2): category into which a book is placed which determines where it is shelved in a bookstore. Necessarily non-fuzzy--but novels may move from one category to another without any actual change of content--the move would reflect a change of perception of where the novel belongs.

There's a large amount of overlap between the two, but they are still different. King may fit into the fantasy genre (1), although that's debateable, but he doesn't *really* fit into fantasy genre (2).

Another example: the Handmaid's Tale. The book fits into the genre (1) of science-fiction, but it doesn't fit into genre (2) of science-fiction.

So: the question "Why isn't fantasy mainstream?" IMHO has two answers:

Fantasy (genre 1) *is* mainstream (King, Rowling et. al.)

Fantasy (genre 2) *can't be* mainstream, because if it was, it would stop being fantasy (books are AFAIK shelved in one section in bookstores).

inanna

10-18-2005, 06:31 AM

I'm game, but when I open a book and read, "The Balooga of Fratooga, splanotated the Amelian with Tongaboo...and yet, he couldn't Fanorkulate the Penddog in the Vula-mina.

"Vaponabe," he cried. "Why did Endowi spool Yana Swell?" - By this time I don't care who Yula Bula Vula'd who.

Hee...thank you for giving such a spot-on demonstration of my pet peeve. I was more tolerant of this sort of thing when I had more time on my hands (like, in high school), but these days if I open a book and the names and places are seriously lacking vowels for no good reason, the book goes bye-bye.

fallenangelwriter

10-18-2005, 07:02 AM

on the whole fantays vs. religion thing....

first, i challenge the assumption that religious views are significant in this context. plenty of chrisitans i know read fantasy and don't even think about how it relates to their religion because it's just a story.

but, if they did only read books consistent with thier philosophy, that would probably turn them off fantasy.

Dungeons and Dragons, as well as many fantays books, are basically materialist. magic just is, a basic part of the universe. it comes, generally, form within the wielder, has no intrinsic moral value, and is a learnable skill like any other.

on the other hand, AFAIK, anything supernatural in teh bible is either a miracle granted throuhg the grac eof god or the result of trafficking with dark powers.

thus, teh bible does not at all support the concept of magic as it appears in many fantasy books. of course, there are christian fantays stories- in LOTR, the only "magic" is miracles worked by angels- but that's a subgenre within the fantasy genre as a whole.

MadScientistMatt

10-18-2005, 08:24 PM

Didn't someone throw firebolts.. or was that just Tim the magician?

DOn't forget the food magic, never-ending loaf of bread and wine.

Mark

I think you're talking about miracles here. There's a difference between magic and miracles, at least in the sense I was using. Miracles are acts done specifically by God, sometimes with a person asking him to do them. Magical acts, in this case, are done without any assistance from God.

trebuchet

10-18-2005, 09:42 PM

Correct me if I missed one, but I cannot think of a single act of magic in the Bible, "done without the assistance of God," that was not therefore performed with the assistance of Satan. Many Bible believing Christians blanket-categorize anything labeled "fantasy" as Satanic.
************

There are two reasons people read:

1. To escape from reality

2. To explore and celebrate the truth, the depth, the nature of the human spirit whether within or without the confines of what any particular individual would call "reality."

Fantasy falls into both categories. "Mainstream" does too. Milton does too. How wide is the main stream? Someone mentioned that fantasy being considered a separate fork is a boon to those seeking publication. Thank God, or the marketing powers, for that!!

Edit: I mean, true magic and not tricks; and I mean, read fiction.

trebuchet

10-18-2005, 09:58 PM

OOpsie, there are three reasons. Silly me.

The third and most ubiquitous reason:

They have to read the onerous book in school or they'll fail the class. :)

Birol

10-18-2005, 10:16 PM

Nah. Just buy the cliff notes, look up reviews and summaries of the book online, or skim the texts.

(NOTE to any of my professors reading this: I would never, ever do any of the above. I always read all assigned literature and texts thoroughly and in minute detail.)

trebuchet

10-18-2005, 10:35 PM

All that? I'm too lazy. Easier just to read the book.

Birol

10-18-2005, 11:03 PM

The label of fantasy/sci-fi used in most of this thread is *mostly* a marketing/sales tool. Sure there are types of fantasy that could *only* be shelved in the fantasy section of the bookstore, like G. R. R. Martin's work, for example. But much of what is labeled fantasy could be placed in a number of different places.

Euan, all genre labels are a sales/marketing tool. That's all genre is. It's really the only reason it exists. The issue of genre is designed to let readers know what books by authors they are otherwise unfamiliar with they might enjoy based upon their past experiences and own known preferences.

That's not to say it's a bad thing. Imagine going into B&N or Borders if books were not sorted by category/genre or if they were only sorted by fiction and non-fiction. You could spend weeks and never find a book you were interested in buying and reading.

Pthom

10-19-2005, 03:07 AM

... if books were not sorted by category/genre or if they were only sorted by fiction and non-fiction. You could spend weeks and never find a book you were interested in buying and reading.Unfortunately, this is exactly how my county library sorts fiction--exclusively by author. Fortunately, they do stick labels on the spine for some of the more popular genres: a unicorn for fantasy, a rocket ship for science fiction, horse for western, etc. Still, I'm used to looking for books by genre first, then by author. I suppose there isn't any best way, but I'm glad they don't just have you pawing through boxes.

Euan H.

10-19-2005, 03:59 AM

All genre labels are a sales/marketing tool. That's all genre is. It's really the only reason it exists.

Well, yes and no, I think. In the sense of the first type of genre, then you can identify broad-stroke types of books. Genres in this sense do have conventions, and they're not solely marketing tools. Frex, in The Compass, Borges exploits the unspoken conventions of the mystery genre to create a great short story. it's wonderful precisely because he breaks one of the conventions (If you haven't read it, I won't spoil it for you by telling you which one).

If genre had *only* the meaning of a merketing tool, he wouldn't have been able to do that.

There is a sense in which the fantasy genre (in the sense of characteristics) is different from the mainstream, but I think that it's a more or less distinction, and not a binary one. Frex, an exemplum of the fantasy genre would:

Be set on a world different to our own
Have mythical/magical creatures
Have a medieval level of technology
Have magic
Have an aristocratic/feudal society
Have some evil force/being as antagonist
Have a male hero who is called from a previously humdrum existence to defeat the evil force/being

Okay, so you may disagree with my characteristics, and different fantasy books may possess more or fewer of these characteristics, but I would say that the more of them it possesses, the closer to fantasy it becomes, or the better an exemplum of fantasy it becomes.

So: IMHO, it is possible to identify rough clusters of books with similar characteristics, and so I don't think that genre is *only* a marketing tool--but I also think that where a book is shelved in the bookstore is not determined solely by its content. So genre as a marketing tool exists, but so does genre as a cluster of similar books. They overlap, but they're not the same.

Anyway, that's my 2c. Which works out to 0.06c/word. So there y'go. :)

kristin724

10-21-2005, 05:03 AM

Interesting topic.

I do think fantasy is becoming more recognized and acceptable that just the orphan of SF. I've debated with Borders co workers why it isn't a separate section. 75% of the books wer put out have dragons on the covers, not space ships. It would seem easy to separate them ,but when authors write both, it's tough to go to a different section.

I don't think of fantasy and religion together at all. I think with the success of the Rings movies, people are finally realizing that fantasy isn't necessarily kiddie, stupid, or poorly done. It can be a very serious, emotional, adventure, and character driven saga.

trebuchet

10-22-2005, 04:08 AM

If it were a matter of dragons vs. space ships on book covers, it would be easy to separate them. But it ain't that simple. They don't. And bookstores don't have the time to read the backs of everything or look inside to separate the genres. (Boy, I wish they did!) Not only that, but there are so many books that contain elements of both. I guess they could have a middle section and set up the bookstore like a rainbow, with the genres as colors melting one into the next!

HConn

10-22-2005, 07:12 AM

And there's a lot of overlap in the readership. A lot.

Silverhand

10-24-2005, 10:44 PM

I just want to make sure everyone here realizes that I am not looking down on religion at all. AND, I am not solely using Christianity as my example for religion versus fantasy.

I have recieved a few Private Messages from people who found my analogy offensive, and just wanted to disclaim that I don't think people must believe in fantasy is they believe in 'The Bible'. I am using this example as an example of basic principle of realitym probability, and plausabilty.

My entire point is there are certain laws of reality that we all follow. If a persons beleif structure says X exists...then a book talking about said X should not be disclaimed as unrealistic and unplausable. Though a person might not recognize this openly, on a sub-conscious level political, social, cultural, and religion all play a major part in reading and suspension of disbelief.

I also wanted to point out that I find Rambo no less of a fantasy then A Song of Fire and Ice. I find cheesy romance novels no less fantastical then The Dark Elf Trilogy. In fact, I think authors can convey morals, ethics, and controversial subjects better in traditional fantasy then in most modern action, romance, and other various genres (There ARE exceptions of course).

fallenangelwriter

11-04-2005, 06:51 AM

Silverhand-

talk about going out on a limb. so many unsupported categorical statements. I'm not sure whether i find your continued attempts to ignroe the philosophies behind supernatural events in religious theory, your lumping of all fiction in with fantasy, or your blanket statement that what's usually called fantasy is better than other writing more qustionable. (parenthetically excusing yourself for your generalization doesn't help.)
I've been away from this board for a while, adn didn't see this post, but you might really want to consider your words a little more before you post them, next time.

Silverhand

11-08-2005, 01:32 AM

Since the last response was to me directly, let me reply. I am not ignoring anything. Any response to my 'blanket statement' is pure conjecture....as my own statements are pure conjecture.

I have been told I do not understand such and such....ok and i say they do not understand such and such to be commenting on whether or not I understand. Now who is right? The ONLY thing I hold to be absolute in this entire conversation people seem to be having with me is that 'IF YOU believe something to be TRUE, in a source you deem to be infallible, then you CANNOT dismiss it out of hand. Like I said, we know that make believe worlds are not real. We know dragons are not real. BUT, if I had a source which I deem to be 100% correct...and that source stated hands down that dragons DO exist...I cannot simply roll my eyes at a stroy about dragons, because dragons are NO LONGER fantastical.

Also, fallenangel, if you would like to give me imperical data proving that my unsupported information is incorrect, I would appreciate it. Of course, the only data anyone could provide is speculation about theological philosphy that have been raging for the better part of 2000 years.

In conclusion, you call literary fiction what you want and i will do the same, how about that? However, saying that, I DID Not claim that all fiction is the same as fantasy, nor did I state all fantasy is superior in every way to mainstream normal fiction. It is called reading comprehension. I said that Rambo was just as much of a fantasy as "XXX", I said cheesy romance novels were just as much fantasy as "XXX". I said, "I think," which states that my opinion is now available, that "fantasy does a better job at certain subject matter." Of course, since you wish to judge me...let me take it to that level...ok?

Unless you can prove that fiction is indeed non-fiction, I am entitled to my opinion, and think there is a chance that I am correct in my assertation.

Definition: fiction. Search dictionary for. Source: WordNet (r) 1.7 fiction n 1:
a literary work based on the imagination and not necessarily on fact 2: a ...
dict.die.net/fiction/ - 6k - Cached (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:mtFAXtFg-t8J:dict.die.net/fiction/+definition+fiction&hl=en) - Similar pages (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=related:dict.die.net/fiction/)

fan·ta·sy (făn'tə-sē, -zē) http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/pron.gif
n., pl. -sies.

The creative imagination; unrestrained fancy. See synonyms at imagination (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=64q8ib2sp5hoj?method=4&dsid=1555&dekey=I0042600&gwp=8&curtab=1555_1&sbid=lc03b).
Something, such as an invention, that is a creation of the fancy.
A capricious or fantastic idea; a conceit.
a. Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements.
b. An example of fiction.
There are your definitions comprised by Wordnet...do you see any resemblence? They are BOTH a work of the imagination...and if you notice that definition 4.b is an EXAMPLE of fiction. (For whatever reason I cannot get the processing of our forum to recognize that b. is its own line and NOT #5)

Is that enough support?

Out...

fallenangelwriter

11-11-2005, 02:51 AM

OKay... the point i was making about religion is as follows. You've said repeatedly, it's about basic plausibility. this is because you separate thigns into the categories of "supernatural" and "not supernatural." you then assume that all supernatural thigns are equivalent.

to a christian, however, AFAIk it's a quesiton of "miracles through the will of God" versus "magic through the will of men." to a christian, one is far mroe plausible than the other. a chrisitan may read fantasy, but they'll usually have to suspend disbelief just liek you. you know why? because although you don't belive the world is a kind of place where people can summon fire wiht a word, NEITHER DO THEY.

In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with consideirng msot ficiton fantasy, but this thread was about the Fantasy genre, sometimes known as Fantasy/Sci-Fi. however unrealistic you find romances and mysteries or whatever, they're not part of Fantasy-Sci-fi. the definiton of fantasy you posted even mention supernatural elemtns in it's description of fantasy fiction.

now, I happen to feel that Fantasy does provide some useful tools for stroytelling, especially for morality plays. that's why i write it. and fantasy is my favorite genre. but simply stating that fantasy handles morals and controversial subjects (one or the other of which is the core of essentially every story) better than other genres is not really a "safe" comment to make.

To be honest, i didn't understand most of your reply. the drgon analogy wans't analgous to anything we were discussing, because you miss the essential point that most of what's in fantasy bears no resemblance to what's in the bible. you mention "speculationn about theological philosophies" as though that were the only way to find out how religious people think. i would try asking them. anyway, we needn't speculate about what the prvailing theologies are when we oculd just ask someone/read about them.

so no, it's not enough support.

anyway, the point Im trying to make here is that, while you've claimed innocence, and i belive you aren't trying to be offensive, you manage to sound prejudiced against religious people, christians particularly and non-fantasy books, and ignored what the thread was supposed ot be about.

none of these are habits which will endear you to the public generally.

Silverhand

11-11-2005, 04:12 AM

Fallen,

I started the thread my friend...I know what I originally asked...which is "why isnt fantasy mainstream if people deam certain fantasy elements as plausible?"

You might not find the question relevant...you might even offer a objective opinion...some here havent. But to me, and there are others out there who have asked the question, as this isnt an old argument, this question is VERY important.

And, I am not just talking about the super natural. As it stands, things lumped into medevil time frime...and has any mention of dungeon crawling, gets pigeonholed into fantasy. The point is, if you are taking a source of information you deem as infallible, and in that tome things of the super-natural exist...then a book talking about super natural events should not be considered fantasy. Since my dragon analogy didnt work...lemme try a different one. Lets say we were using the sky being red as an example. AND, the majority of the world having no source other then opinion beleived the sky was blue. However, you have a book, a source that no one else does...and in that book, they give absolute information that the sky is indeed red. Now, if a novel came along talking about how the sky was a shade of crimson (deep red), it should not be so far of a stretch of the imagination that it is lumped into completely unrealistic. I know I keep referring to religion, but its only because you have the source. Leave Christianity out of it ok....put it away...if anyone...just happens to be religion at this point believes in X...then if X is written about it should not be considred crazy *** fantasy...make sense?

Oh, and finally a friggin answer. Ok so the real issue is that you cant accept magic because it is not granted from God, rather it is the will of man magic. THAT is the answer I have been waiting for. At least it really begins the argument IMO. Let me ask now...for books like Dragonlance...which are god granted miracles (Well the first 6 anyways :) ) Or other fantasy novels dealing with things directly relating to a monotheistic God...and God granted abilities...why is THAT considered fantasy?

The comment about fantasy doing one thing better then another is my own. Never said it was public fact, but in my own experience...and I have read over 300 novels now, to me anyways, my statement holds validity. /shrug

BTW, I want one comment said in quotes where I sound prejudiced in any way. I said straight up in every single thread, as people were chirping relentlessly that I am NOT talking about Christians, rather ALL religions. It just happened that the chirpers find themselves important enough to think that I am talking too and about them. Basicly, I mentioned you as a passing statement, because you happen to be one of the examples needed to explain, thus I am biased against your beleif. /sounds ridiculous doesnt it?

Ardellis

11-11-2005, 06:06 PM

Let me ask now...for books like Dragonlance...which are god granted miracles (Well the first 6 anyways :) ) Or other fantasy novels dealing with things directly relating to a monotheistic God...and God granted abilities...why is THAT considered fantasy?

I'm making an assumption here, since I haven't read any of the Dragonlance novels, but if the God in those books isn't the Christian God, then I'm guessing your average Bible-believing Christians will simply not find it sufficiently analagous to their God and will therefore consider it to be unrealistic. Same thing with any other faith group whose religion teaches that what they believe is the only Truth: nothing else, if it doesn't conform to their theology within a certain level of parity (which varies from person to person, of course) is simply going to be, by definition, a fantasy.

Silverhand

11-11-2005, 10:11 PM

Ardellis,

Well Dragonlance is a pantheon of gods, but in the beginning wizards had to more or less pray for their spells. It might not be perfect, but I see the wizards of Dragonlance being miracle workers since their spells are granted by their respective gods.

Interesting, so yer theory is that since the magic in relgion stems from said God, religous people cannot relate to anything in fantasy besdies a story about said God which uses the concept of said God perfroming miracles. That is, unless the story involves said God which people would already accept as fact? Furthermore, if they do suspend their beleif in a sotry not involving their own God, anything not relating to the stories of said God, now become fantasy and unrealistic?

I like it...at least there is some thought into it.

I still want to stay away from the word God though. I am not really talking about Him in particular...though it always come back to that. Maybe I am not conveying what I mean too...its about the principle of reality mainly. heh Lemme ask this....if a writer correlated said God into his story...stating that a world was an extension of the Christian God, and theres no way to really know one way or the other what God can or cannot do or will or will not do, then does THAT make fantasy more real?

My-Immortal

11-11-2005, 10:14 PM

"why isnt fantasy mainstream if people deam certain fantasy elements as plausible?"

The point is, if you are taking a source of information you deem as infallible, and in that tome things of the super-natural exist...then a book talking about super natural events should not be considered fantasy. Since my dragon analogy didnt work...lemme try a different one. Lets say we were using the sky being red as an example. AND, the majority of the world having no source other then opinion beleived the sky was blue. However, you have a book, a source that no one else does...and in that book, they give absolute information that the sky is indeed red. Now, if a novel came along talking about how the sky was a shade of crimson (deep red), it should not be so far of a stretch of the imagination that it is lumped into completely unrealistic. I know I keep referring to religion, but its only because you have the source. Leave Christianity out of it ok....put it away...if anyone...just happens to be religion at this point believes in X...then if X is written about it should not be considred crazy *** fantasy...make sense?

Oh, and finally a friggin answer. Ok so the real issue is that you cant accept magic because it is not granted from God, rather it is the will of man magic. THAT is the answer I have been waiting for. At least it really begins the argument IMO. Let me ask now...for books like Dragonlance...which are god granted miracles (Well the first 6 anyways :) ) Or other fantasy novels dealing with things directly relating to a monotheistic God...and God granted abilities...why is THAT considered fantasy?

I think I understand what you are trying to ask and/or state. I know you didn't claim the above "source" was the bible (you didn't want to single out one religion) but for this example I will use just the bible.

It seems you are saying that IF a group of people believe in the spectacular events that happened in the bible and state everything in the bible is FACT - then why is it that they don't believe in the spectacular events that occur in a fantasy book as FACT...

From that statement one could think either 1) you are trying to argue that the bible is not based on fact or 2) you must believe in both the bible and fantasy or neither at all.

People that read the bible and have faith believe that the bible is real - or NON-FICTION. Fantasy is based on stories created by writers and even if they write scenes that have events that match up with bible stories - it is considered FICTION. Compare the Bible with The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. You may say that they must both be FACT, or both be FICTION - but I don't believe many people will agree with you - one is set in the real world - the other in a make-believe world.

Just because you write a fantasy story where there is a god (or multiple gods) and the magic or power is god-given doesn't make it automatically "real" just because it mirrors what (many believe) is real and happened as recorded in the bible.

I'm sure you could argue that the bible is fantasy - stories created from the minds of many writers and that would be your opinion. Many do not believe that opinion. Does that make them right? Does that make you right...I guess we won't know for absolute certainty until we die and either nothing happens or we pass on to the afterworld. That is why it's called 'faith'.

Also, on a slightly more humorous side - not all, but many fantasy (and fiction) books include this statement (or something similar):
"This is a work of fiction. All the characters and events portrayed in this book are either products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously."

I don't recall ever seeing that written at the beginning of any bible.

Take care - and good luck with your writing endeavors.

Silverhand

11-11-2005, 10:23 PM

I think I understand what you are trying to ask and/or state. I know you didn't claim the above "source" was the bible (you didn't want to single out one religion) but for this example I will use just the bible.

It seems you are saying that IF a group of people believe in the spectacular events that happened in the bible and state everything in the bible is FACT - then why is it that they don't believe in the spectacular events that occur in a fantasy book as FACT...

From that statement one could think either 1) you are trying to argue that the bible is not based on fact or 2) you must believe in both the bible and fantasy or neither at all.

People that read the bible and have faith believe that the bible is real - or NON-FICTION. Fantasy is based on stories created by writers and even if they write scenes that have events that match up with bible stories - it is considered FICTION. Compare the Bible with The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. You may say that they must both be FACT, or both be FICTION - but I don't believe many people will agree with you - one is set in the real world - the other in a make-believe world.

Just because you write a fantasy story where there is a god (or multiple gods) and the magic or power is god-given doesn't make it automatically "real" just because it mirrors what (many believe) is real and happened as recorded in the bible.

I'm sure you could argue that the bible is fantasy - stories created from the minds of many writers and that would be your opinion. Many do not believe that opinion. Does that make them right? Does that make you right...I guess we won't know for absolute certainty until we die and either nothing happens or we pass on to the afterworld. That is why it's called 'faith'.

Also, on a slightly more humorous side - not all, but many fantasy (and fiction) books include this statement (or something similar):
"This is a work of fiction. All the characters and events portrayed in this book are either products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously."

I don't recall ever seeing that written at the beginning of any bible.

Take care - and good luck with your writing endeavors.

MyImmortal thank you for the intelligent response.

I am not looking to call the Bible fantasy or fact for that matter. Really it isnt my place to judge that. :) Rather then fact, I would like it to be called plausible. People read a romance and think "wow, what a good story that did not suspend my belief." So basicly, you know it's made up, BUT you can accept it as "well maybe it could happen" or "...plausible".

You know ITS not real, but its based around things that are. The sky is still blue....up is still up....2+2=4. My premise is that if you accept things such as supernatural are true...then books about such an event or not 'true', but at the same time are not so implausible that they should be considered fantasy. Fantasy is a demeaning term that alot of people give our genre as so far-fetched that you are utterly escaping reality. Now, of course you are escaping reality, but I consider it on par with a romance which also makes things up to get the story conveyed....make sense?

Once again, thank you! I appreciate the good response

My-Immortal

11-11-2005, 11:30 PM

MyImmortal thank you for the intelligent response.

I am not looking to call the Bible fantasy or fact for that matter. Really it isnt my place to judge that. :) Rather then fact, I would like it to be called plausible. People read a romance and think "wow, what a good story that did not suspend my belief." So basicly, you know it's made up, BUT you can accept it as "well maybe it could happen" or "...plausible".

You know ITS not real, but its based around things that are. The sky is still blue....up is still up....2+2=4. My premise is that if you accept things such as supernatural are true...then books about such an event or not 'true', but at the same time are not so implausible that they should be considered fantasy. Fantasy is a demeaning term that alot of people give our genre as so far-fetched that you are utterly escaping reality. Now, of course you are escaping reality, but I consider it on par with a romance which also makes things up to get the story conveyed....make sense?

Once again, thank you! I appreciate the good response

First of all, I don't see "fantasy" as a demeaning term. It is a simple marketing device used by book sellers, publishers, editors to differentiate one type of book from another. Yes, some fantasy requires the readers to completely suspend their disbelief before they can enjoy the story - I think some fantasy does not require it as much. I enjoy a wide range of fantasy stories - however, I try to write a more gritty fantasy (fantasy noir perhaps?) with "real-seeming" characters involved in sometimes "real-seeming" problems, however the setting is not "earth" but perhaps 'earth-like' and the magic element to most of the 'residents' is a fact of life for them so 'wizards' are not written with grandiose style. (I also don't include elves, dwarves etc. so far in my writing, but that's just because I haven't had a story come to me where they are needed). I've had many non-fantasy readers read my work and actually tell me, yes, it has a fantasy element but they found many other parts of the story engrossing so they weren't put off by the 'fantasy'. I don't take what they say as a slam against fantasy - each person will have their likes and / or dislikes and calling fantasy mainstream isn't going to "trick" non fantasy readers into reading the 'fantasy' books - (and quite honestly, wouldn't you rather have people that WANT to read fantasy find your book and perhaps recommend it to their non-fantasy reading friends rather than having non-fantasy fans pick it up and at the first hint of fantasy toss it aside feeling as if you've misled them?)

Take care -

Ardellis

11-11-2005, 11:51 PM

Lemme ask this....if a writer correlated said God into his story...stating that a world was an extension of the Christian God, and theres no way to really know one way or the other what God can or cannot do or will or will not do, then does THAT make fantasy more real?

I think it might make a story seem more realistic to a reader who holds to a particular belief system if the story reflects that belief system, too, yes. If someone holds something to be a fact, then fiction that jibes with it will seem more realistic while fiction that doesn't will seem more fantastic. The further you distance what you write from the basic underpinnings of a reader's personal worldview, the further into fantasy you will be, in that reader's opinion. Look at the success of the "Left Behind" series.

victoriastrauss

11-12-2005, 01:20 AM

Look at the success of the "Left Behind" series.And there are plenty of Christians for whom that series is fantasy, even though it's based on precepts other Christians accept.

Religions aren't monolithic. Even within a single faith there can be many, often wildly differing and contradictory, belief systems. But they all have in common the religious mindset--for which the system, no matter how fantastical it may seem to someone who doesn't accept it, is revealed truth, supported by tradition, theology, scripture, ritual, and the community of other believers. An established religion isn't just some airy-fairy nonsense a bunch of people made up one day and decided to believe on a whim; it's a real thing existing in the real world. A Christian, or a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu, may never meet up with God(s), but they can look around them and see the real-world presence of their faith. Which is yet another reason why religion is fundamentally different from fantasy.

- Victoria

Ardellis

11-12-2005, 04:48 AM

And there are plenty of Christians for whom that series is fantasy, even though it's based on precepts other Christians accept.

I don't disagree, Victoria. But for those whose precepts come close to the premise of the book, it's closer to plausible and further from fantasy.

Religions aren't monolithic. Even within a single faith there can be many, often wildly differing and contradictory, belief systems. But they all have in common the religious mindset--for which the system, no matter how fantastical it may seem to someone who doesn't accept it, is revealed truth, supported by tradition, theology, scripture, ritual, and the community of other believers. An established religion isn't just some airy-fairy nonsense a bunch of people made up one day and decided to believe on a whim; it's a real thing existing in the real world. A Christian, or a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu, may never meet up with God(s), but they can look around them and see the real-world presence of their faith. Which is yet another reason why religion is fundamentally different from fantasy.

Well said.

fallenangelwriter

12-01-2005, 01:50 AM

Silverhand- I am not assuming you are talking about me. I am not, in fact, a christian. what i am doing is explaining the religious mindest, as i understand it. and the religion i understand best is chrisitanity.

the point i am trying to make is that you are refusing to see distinctions between types of supernatural events. you say that if someone belives that supernatural events have happerned on earth (perhpas because they are chrisitans) then they should find supernatural events in fantasy mroe plausible.

my point is that the contents of the bible and the contents of your average fantasy aren't analogous.

to take up your sky analogy form a page back, this isn't a case of arguing over the shade of red. it's a case of you being colorblind in the red-green area.

Silverhand, you belive the sky is blue ( i think) in some fantasy book, the sky is red. you turn to your friend who doesn't like fantasy (and who belives the sky is green) and say "why can't you accept the sky being red? I mean, if you belive the sky's not blue, then it's all pretty plausible, isn't it?"

see the problem?

Silverhand

12-01-2005, 04:24 AM

A better annalogy would be this. I think the sky is blue, they have proof that the sky is blue. But, a fantasy is written where the sky is Teal (a blue/green combo). We both know its not, BUT I ask the question that, if you have proof that the sky is blue....and what were talking about in essence is a blue/green sky...then why is it so hard to consider that statement plausible?

MadScientistMatt

12-01-2005, 05:40 AM

That depends. If you've written a space opera book where a planet has a teal sky, you may get things overlooked. Write a hard-SF book set on a planet with a teal sky, and you had better nail the details of the atmosphere's composition or you will get scorn from astronomers who know that an atmosphere you described would not be teal.

Same goes for religion in fantasty. If you are trying to write a fantasy world where the supernatural is meant to be explicitly Christian, and want Christians to find a "You believe the Bible, so why isn't this plausible?" arguement acceptable, you had better get an explanation for why the magic works that is in accordance with your audience's beliefs about Christianity and the real world. And you had better explain why the supernatural is taking a more active role in your book than they take in the present day, too. Otherwise, you will get scorn from Christians who think you're a heretic. The sort of Christians who take the entire Bible literally are also the most likely to consider their religious beliefs to be just like a science - and will be just as critical as scientists are of hard-SF stories. Except that their opinions are even more divided on theological issues than scientists will be on science questions!

Much safer to classify your fantasy as pure what-if in a world that you know doesn't mirror the real world.

Higgins

09-08-2006, 12:35 AM

I was having this wonderful convo with my friend over the last few nights, and I have to ask this question of our lil writing community.

Why isnt fantasy main stream?

I mean when you think about it, a whole lot of people in the world beleive in some type of religious tome, Each one of these sacred documents have stories about magic, miracles, demons, angels, God, gods, etc etc etc. Note: Not ALL of them have exactly the same fantastical based creatures. The point is to some extent ALL of them do have unbelievable stuff a reader must take on faith)

Thus, why is it that fantasy doesnt reach a larger base of people?

Areck

My favorite novels are not fantasies exactly (though AS Byatt does call Possession a Romance and it does have major "imaginary" elements) and I really don't much care for "High" fantasy..however it seems to me that the distinction between fanticiful mainstream books like Cold comfort Farm or Possession and some of the better Sci-Fi/Fantasy books is not all that worthwhile.

But you might say that the mainstream aims to pull the reader into some strange realm gradually while fantasies push the strangeness into the reader's attention to a possibly distracting degree.

This requires slightly different ways of reading and some people prefer to be a bit more relaxed in their approach to strangeness.

Shweta

09-08-2006, 07:42 PM

This is a fascinating thread. Been resurrected after quite a while, huh.

I don't see this alternative mentioned in the thread so far, so I'm throwing it out: I think sometimes people just don't read very many books, and it's not that they cannot read fantasy, just that they get more enjoyment from something else in their limited time.

My sister-in-law simply isn't hooked by the weird. As far as I can tell, she'll read fantasy if I can convince her that the weirdness is minimal and it's "really just like" something mainstream.

I have a cousin who's similar; but she likes historical fiction, and will read historical fantasy.

I think in both cases their problem isn't with the quality of writing. I'm not recommending anything but the best writing I'm aware of that might match their interests. I think they just don't really see the point of being lost in an imaginary world, when they could be lost in a previously-unknown facet of this world, and come out of the book knowing a little more about that...

I don't think it's lack of imagination, in either case, or inability to suspend disbelief. It's simply... preferring one type of suspension of disbelief, one type of new-cool-information, to another. They're excited by settings that are or were "really there".

And yeah, they'd neither of them be happy with cookie-cutter characters or predictable plots, and neither of them believes in unicorns; but I think this is irrelevant, in both cases, to either of them preferring non-fantasy.

Qelenhn

09-09-2006, 03:43 AM

Well, this is an old thread. But I had a few thoughts:

First, I think part of the original question involved not why people who believe the Bible is fact don't believe fantasy is fact, but why don't they believe fantasy is plausible? Christians who believe in the possibility of magic and such generally are the ones whose kids aren't allowed to read Harry Potter, because they are threatened by belief in supernatural things other than their religion. Those who understand that fantasy literature is completely separate from religion are going to feel more secure reading it. People who dismiss fantasy as unrealistic probably aren't basing that on their religious backgrounds in any way, they probably have trouble seeing how they could relate to characters so different from themselves, or they just really love the real world so much they don't see the point of thinking beyond it. I write fantasy because I could never make the real world all that interesting.

The kinds of themes and symbolism that have been around since ancient religions and exist even in Christianity, like resurrection, are used in all types of literature. Those things are mainstream. They resonate on some level with anyone who has read the Odyssey, studied mythology, been part of a religion, has any knowledge of ancient cultures, etc. It's how these things are used that makes something a fantasy. If something uses these elements but doesn't fit into a fantasy sub-genre (such as high fantasy, sword and sorcery, etc) it could be classified as mainstream, especially if it has a hook that a wide range of people can connect with.

Look at Gregory Maguire... he takes fantasies from childhood and gives them an adult twist and gets shelved in mainstream. I can write a fantasy in a brand new world that is intended for adults from the beginning, but it will get shelved in fantasy. People will have no prior connection with my world, as they have with Oz and Cinderella and such, so they're not going to read it unless they are led to believe they want something it has to offer (dragons, hunky stablemen, whatever). So the stores will shelve it in fantasy, where people who want to read about dragons are likely to be browsing. Even though it's far more realistic, as far as the amount of geographical and biological research I get into to make sure the world is believable, it's harder to connect with. I think that has more to do with it than realism. Creatures from mythology taken from their traditional roles and recreated in a world of our invention are not familiar territory even for those who like to read mythology. It can work to put them in a modern setting, like Harry Potter, but a lot of people have more trouble identifying with characters from a medieval setting than with a modern schoolboy from England. Some of us are actively seeking new experiences, new worlds, when we go to the bookstore. But mainstream fiction seems to appeal to those who want to see familiar things in a new way, or with a twist, rather than enter a world that has familiar elements but is in essence foreign.