LoTR was intended to be one very long book, but yes, they split it up for marketing and distribution purposes. Epic length by the standards of its time, and of course it tied in with the Hobbit and with his Simarillion (which he couldn't publish until later). But I'd call LoTR as epic on its own, because you saw a large slice of Tolkien's world and its history in that one story, and of course the conflict had potentially world-ending stakes. Plus, the focus was on the end of an era.
I wouldn't call my world that way. I have a world (with a history, cultures, geography, biology and religions) that exists beyond the parameters of the current story. I think it's important for all writers to have a good feel for the world they're writing in, even for a short story. This allows you to have internal consistency, believable character motivations, and the ability to open those little windows that give the reader the feeling that this is taking place somewhere "real" and not just on a cardboard set that jiggles every time someone closes a door. But I only focus on a relatively small slice of my world in the novel I'm polishing up now. The next one will take some of my characters further afield and expand the conflict and stakes somewhat. Still not sure if it would cross the line into what I consider epic fantasy.
For the sake of argument, though, what is the definition of:
High Fantasy
Low Fantasy
Epic Fantasy
Sword and Sorcery
Heroic Fantasy
Adventure Fantasy
Steam Punk
Romantic Fantasy
That agents and editors use specifically? Also, how much do these categories overlap? I know that something can be both epic and high fantasy. But can something be both high fantasy and steampunk? How about epic and romantic?
The Encyclopedia of Fantasy defines high fantasy as: "Fantasies set in
Otherworlds, specifically
Secondary Worlds, and which deal with matters affecting the destiny of those worlds. [JC]"
Doesn't say anything about elevated language. By the above definition, my novel is possibly high fantasy (as matters dealing with the destiny of those worlds is rather vague. I mean, the price of tea can affect the destiny of a world)
But their definition of low fantasy is: "The introduction to
The Fantastic Imagination (anth
1977) ed Robert H Boyer and Kenneth J Zahorski defines
High Fantasy and implies LF as an antonymic description of fantasies not set in
Secondary Worlds, nor elevated in their literary style."
which sort of implies, by default that high fantasy is elevated in literary style. So no F bombs allowed in HF? Or does elevated literary style mean it's literary fiction? If so, lots of novels most people consider HF (like Robert Jordan's books) would not be, since I don't think even his biggest fans would call his style literary.
I notice that the Encyclopedia of Fantasy is pretty out of date, so none of the authors I've been reading recently are on the list (I've been focusing on newer authors lately).
