"Epic Fantasy"

epic means big. It can be a big story, or big characters, or big-friggin-poem. If readers buy it, then who cares how they define it?

Re: Epic Fantasy

glutton said:

Anybody hate this term, used interchangably with "high fantasy", like I do?

Click to expand...

Before this causes your dear old moderator to go ballistic, let's be careful about the terms "love," "hate," "best," "worst," "bad," "good," etc. Using them without being absolutely clear that such is your opinion and not something you demand of the others in the forum.

I agree that epic does mean big, in whatever sense. Long series with many viewpoint characters in which the world is saved are epic in that sense, because they're big.

A story can be epic without those elements, but those stories are still epic. And besides, language changes, word meanings shift - It doesn't really matter what it's described as so long as you're happy with what you're writing (although, I've never heard any 'must have multiple viewpoints to be epic' stipulation).

Glutton:

I think you bring up a good point. Horror, westerns, romance ... these are all well-defined, for the most part. But the landscape of fantasy has become blurred. I've always thought of epic fantasy in terms of what dclary described: large in scope, setting, terrain, number of characters, overall length ... mixed in with an even larger dose of nobleness. But I'm sure there are those who will respectfully disagree.

I still think that you should just stick whatever names fit on your story. If your story doesn't fit in one genera, then stick two names on it!

Like you could say you write Action Adventure Epic Heroic Bad Ass Woman Fantasy novels.

Isn't that the best genera ever! The only thing better is a Romantic Comedy Fantasy Horror Supernatural Drama Splatter Zombie novel with satirical overtones and a faint whiff of cheese. Mmm...cheese.

So who cares what a fantasy story is called? The people who file them, and those strange people who obsesses about stories...you know, the weirdos that sit around all day and just think of stories and do nothing else. You know those guys...writers, that was their name! I've noticed, as a reader, that only one person I've ever known actually cared about what genera a book fell under, and he's this guy who barely spoke english and sits in front of me in Literature class, reading Halo books all day. And he calls MY books weird. Jasper Fford could beat up every Halo book ever written with three arms tied behind his back...grumble grumble.

Where was I? Oh yes, don't worry about what your story is filed under. Just write it, then string together as many names as you want. I find the wider a story is, the better it is. A story that can make you laugh, cry, fall in love and feel all warm and tingly is better than a story that just makes you cry, or just makes you laugh and such.

If we're going to be nit-picky, epic doesn't mean "big", and neither does it refer to the heroic. It's a "mode of presentation". Like many of the terms used for literary genre, "epic" goes back to Aristotle. There are three genres of poetry: lyric, drama, and epic.

Lyric: the poet speaks
Drama: the characters speak
Epic: both the poet and the characters speak

So, basically what we have in the epic genre is verse with guest speakers. Of course, this makes the poem quite big. Now, who would have wasted an epic poem on a farm hand? ("Oh, cow thy milk invigorate the master/and I the implement of dairy's ample flow")

A lot of things have changed since then (prominence of prose, mass literacy, an interest in the story of the little man...). Restricting the use of "epic" to subject matters deemed worthy in the past is justifyable, but so is expanding it. The "epic poems" have been called "epic" because of their form, not their content, anyway.

Heck, why shouldn't I argue that James Joyce's Ulysses, using the epic form on a contra-traditional subject matter, deserves the term "epic" more than any fantasy ever did?

Does it matter?

I like to read some of the stuff referred to as "epic fantasy" (most recently Scott Bakker's books), and I'd enjoy them under any other name as well. I don't think it matters much what we call genres, as long as we have a basis for communication.

I have to admit being a bit surprised to see epic used as a synonym for high when combined with the word fantasy.

As I have come to understand the terms epic fantasy is simply large scale fantasy. Save the world for those involved and those they care for, which could be a single city in a large world.

High fantasy always meant Walmart magic for me, by which I mean that all or most of the fantastic, and often clicheed, attributes of fantasy are present in such a way that the presence in itself is not the least fantastic for the characters involved.

glutton said:

I enjoyed David Drake and David Farland's books in this category, and some of the (don't kill me) Sword of Shannara books.

Click to expand...

I'll let this pass...for now.

It's appalling to see someone apparently identify the term "epic", with the cliche plot of the farmboy fulfilling his prophesized destiny to save the world (or something like that).

Click to expand...

I personally can't stand the farmboy prophesy, or hitching a plot to a prohpecy at all.

I don't know if it's high or epic. The terminology is tough to determine, but the writer does have to classify it, at least to an agent or editor. Maybe tag it as fantasy, and describe the rest, letting the ed/agent sort out which bin to put it in.

Big Fantasy

deathwizard said:

Glutton:

I think you bring up a good point. Horror, westerns, romance ... these are all well-defined, for the most part. But the landscape of fantasy has become blurred. I've always thought of epic fantasy in terms of what dclary described: large in scope, setting, terrain, number of characters, overall length ... mixed in with an even larger dose of nobleness. But I'm sure there are those who will respectfully disagree.

Click to expand...

It probably looks blurred right now because fantasy is changing. Everybody seems to be tired of whatever "Epic" fantasy was. I would say fantasy is evolving to fill many of the niches that used to be filled by Sci Fi: Alternative Worlds have replaced Alternative futures. I suppose once you arrive in one of the Alternative Futures postulated by Sci Fi, then it is time to turn to fantasy and think about Alternative Worlds.

Fantasy is now a genre that contains so much diverse subgeneric material that it is no longer easy to define...which, as everyone has been pointing out, is all for the best.

I see the problem, but for some reason it's not one that bothers me. My own fantasy novel involves prophecy and a lost Emperor, but I consider it heroic fantasy not epic. Of course it's as much about manipulating prophecy as following it, there are no farmboys in it, and the protagonist is not the lost Emperor.

Having said that, I see epic as being more a description of the scope of the work than anything else. Epics have a greater scope than smaller works.

All I worry about though is that when opinions differ we spend the time to make sure everyone understands what each thinks a term means.

I hate this too. I wrote a book and was told it's 'Epic' Fantasy' which it is, but there ios no prophecy, no destiny, no wise old mentor, and no one in my books even comes close to saving the world, the most they ever come to is saving a small city.

Epic

The word "epic" is used to describe novels in pretty much every genre. The are epic fantasies, epic westerns, epic you name it. And movies were using the word for darned near every genre there since long before I was born.

And the word "saga" is often thrown in. "An epic sage of one family's adventures in settling a continent.

I think you're taking the word "epic" too personally. All genres use it, and have for a long, long time. So do movies.

Just don't use the word yourself. Write the book you want to write, and never use the word "epic" to describe it. Such labels are best left to others.

My favorite epic is Weird Al Yankovic's tune "The Saga Begins". That is epic sci-fi/fantasy at its best.

It's true, "Epic Fantasy" and "High Fantasy" have become almost synonymous. I think epic implies serious themes and problems, though. Overthrowing a king. Stopping the world from being destroyed by evil. Saving human civilization.

If you have a story where your next door neighbor is a misunderstood demon who gives you tips on horse races, it may be fun, but it's probably not epic.

glutton said:

Um, I think you misunderstand. It's not the word "epic" that I dislike; I love the word. Nor is it the wide usage of the term for anything "big", I'm aware of and perfectly fine with that.

It's the narrowing of its meaning within the fantasy genre, ie. the way the categoric term "epic fantasy" implies that if your stuff isn't "High Fantasy", then it can't be "epic" that annoys me.

Eg. you call your book an epic story, and somebody who identifies the word "epic" with high fantasy says "no, it's not epic because it's not High Fantasy" (like in my original example about the "epic heroes"), that's what makes me groan.

Click to expand...

I think at the point where you're kvetching over what subgenre you're writing, you probably need to just step back, maybe knock back a Corona, and refocus on the important things. Nitpickiness is not a virtue.

I think I'll just withdraw from the topic. Sorry.

Well, there's a genre, within fantasy, that focuses on an event rather than on a character. People usually call this genre "epic fantasy". You follow the life of an epic hero: not "epic fantasy". You detail the way an epic event evolves: epic fantasy. (Iliad: epic fantasy; Odyssey: heroic fantasy) You seem to understand this, but don't like the term "epic fantasy" for this genre. If I'm wrong, tell me.

Now, I have a clarification question:

Do you think it's useful to posit the genre (independantly of how its called)? Or do you think the genre-limits are arbitrary and not useful? Are we talking about narrow genre limits, or are we talking about naming?

I have a hunch we're talking about naming. If so, what alternate terms would you propose? How about Expansive Fantasy?

Sokal said:

It probably looks blurred right now because fantasy is changing. Everybody seems to be tired of whatever "Epic" fantasy was. I would say fantasy is evolving to fill many of the niches that used to be filled by Sci Fi: Alternative Worlds have replaced Alternative futures. I suppose once you arrive in one of the Alternative Futures postulated by Sci Fi, then it is time to turn to fantasy and think about Alternative Worlds.

Fantasy is now a genre that contains so much diverse subgeneric material that it is no longer easy to define...which, as everyone has been pointing out, is all for the best.

Click to expand...

Well put.