Fri 26 Oct 2007
Report on the Symposium: Definition of Epic^H^H^H^H Second-World Fantasy
Posted by admin under Symposium , Writing[I have been convinced in the comments that second-world fantasy is a better term for what I’m talking about. The “epic” aspect will be addressed in a later report.]
Even as I sit down to write this, a very small Nick Mamatas homonculus in the back of my head is flipping me off, calling me stupid and storming away in a huff. He’s got a point.
Definitions are tricky by nature, and offering one up gives the impression of having solved a puzzle. What is Epic Fantasy? Well, this is, and anything that doesn’t fit the definition isn’t. That kind of proscriptive rigor is doomed, but being doomed doesn’t take away from the essential dignity of the effort. I’ll just take a moment to point out that what I’m saying here isn’t intended to tell the reader what they should think but rather to clarify what I do. When I say Epic Fantasy, I mean this. If you mean something else, please do make that explicit. Thanks.
Epic fantasy is (1)fiction in (2)an ahistorical setting with (3)magic, and usually but not exclusively with (4)preindustrial technology. I should say that I don’t draw a distinction between Epic and Heroic. If you do, you’ll want to make that explicit. (The homonculus waves its arms in rage at my refusal to stand and fight. Hard life, bein’ a homonculus.)
So let’s start in.
1) Fiction
The least controversial point in this formulation is that epic fantasy is a subset of fiction. These are invented stories about invented people taking part in actions that (at least on the small scale) didn’t happen. They don’t even have the dubious claim to reality of history or religious texts. More importantly, they don’t assert themselves to be real in a way that is intended to convince the reader. Even if the narrator of the story says that the recounted events really happened, this is recognized as part of the fiction.
It’s ain’t real. Cool?
2) an ahistorical setting
Here, things start getting tricky.
Looking at a few of examples of epic fantasy may help here. Tolkien’s Middle Earth is alleged to be in a sort of human history, but not ours as we know it. As we look at our historical timeline from prehistory to the present, there is no place where Middle Earth would fit. Donaldson’s Land in the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant is explicitly a different world existing outside our history (though Covenant himself is placed within our world as a man living in the late 20th century). George’s Westros is clearly not intended to be read as connected to our own world. And so on.
There are also a lot of fantasies that do occur within history. Crowley’s Little, Big; Most of Charles de Lint’s work, any of the hundred thousand urban fantasies in which elves and vampires inhabit modern Chicago or similar settings. I don’t intend to dismiss those, except in the sense that they aren’t what I’m talking about here.
Another term that gets used here often is “second world” and I suppose that’s just fine. Explicitly, epic fantasy (as I use the term) involves the existence of a second world either in relation to ours (a la Donaldson) or as an entirely separate reality (Martin). The important thing is that the story happens outside our history.
What about Naomi Novik? Not epic fantasy? Nope, not for the purposes of this discussion. Maybe alternate history would be a better fit.
China Mieville, on the other hand, could be. It would be impossible, for instance, to relate the founding of New Crobuzon to (for instance) the Truman presidency. The two exist in separate worlds, and that separation is central to the reader’s experience of the story. I’ll go into this again in the report on setting as character. (As an aside, I agree with Jeff VanderMeer’s assertion that Mieville specifically and the New Weird in general makes the most sense when considered as a marriage of epic fantasy and visceral horror as championed by Kathe Koja and Clive Barker.)
3) Magic
This is the second least controversial point about fantasy (be it epic, urban or any other flavor); It’s got magic. It is possible, I believe, to write an epic fantasy in which nothing particularly magical happens (Ellen Kushner’s Swordspoint is an excellent example), but those are few, far between, and not typical of the genre. Fantasy without magic is like a bird without flight — it happens sometimes, but not so often as to spoil the point.
As another aside, we broke magic down into three rough categories:
A) Magic as alternate physics: magic is a set of universal rules accessed by anyone with sufficient technical knowledge. If you wave the wand the right way and say the right words, the effect occurs reliably and for anyone.
B) Magic as negotiation with a sentient universe: magic is a suspension of physical laws mediated by some entity that exists outside those laws and is not subject to them. The mage is in the position or prayer, supplication, binding, etc., and the magic requires more than technical knowledge. It’s only available to special people who the universe as a whole or the magical entities in specific can recognize as special.
C) Magic as an extension of the body: magic is the direct exercise of will over matter. Most of us are able to move our bodies simply through an act of will — I decide to move my hand, my hand moves. There is no intercessor. Magic can also be an extension of that past the limits of the body. The mage focuses on the candle, and the flame appears and so on.
So why magic? Descriptively speaking, because when I get together a bunch of fantasy books, they’ve pretty much all got magic in ‘em. When I get a book with just a little magic, it’s called the “fantastic element” (Niccolo’s divining in Dororthy Dunnet’s House of Niccolo series — which is otherwise strict historical novels). In practice, the existence of magic marks something as a fantasy.
Proscriptively, I can speculate, but there are a lot of folks out there who’ve done a much better, deeper, and more footnoted version than I can muster.
4) Preindustrial technology
A large part of the conversation revolved around Tolkien. Love him or hate him, his work is the touchstone of modern fantasy, and pretty much everything since is either an homage or a critique. There’s actually some variation of tech level even within Lord of the Rings, but the vast majority of fantasy involves an explicitly preindustrial technological bent.
And, what the hell, let’s put too fine a point on it. Most fantasy is a vision of Europe sometime after 500 and before 1450. Merely preindustrial isn’t enough. Very little fantasy is set in an explicitly Sumerian milieu. Likewise the Indus Valley. Likewise Han China or sub-Saharan Africa. There are a lot of civilizations and epochs that could be borrowed from the way that Tolkien borrowed English culture. And while they are used occasionally, and some gain notice, the standard setting remains the European dark ages.
One theory put forward to explain it runs like this: Tolkien tapped into a literature of childhood for many of his readers. People picking up Lord of the Rings when it first was published had grown up on Robin Hood and King Arthur and other source material from which Tolkien drew. There was a resonance with the reader’s childhood that gave the books a power which other settings would not have.
In the generations since then, Tolkien himself became that literature of childhood. Terry Brooks and Stephen Donaldson got something like the same resonances because they were reacting to Tolkien (as have we all, one way or another and whether we like it or not).
It’s a pretty theory, and I want to be convinced by it. So far, I’m not totally sold. I do agree, however, that there is something nostalgic about epic fantasy’s harking back to times that we imagine to be simpler than our own. Like political conservatism (but not identical with it), epic fantasy seems to indulge the longing to return to a better age. That in this case the age is explicitly mythical forgives a lot in my book.
I’m not sure what this implies for those of us who are writing fantasy now. Certainly there are a wealth of writers who are chafing under the expectation of kings, knights, and barons. I’m one of them. Reader’s expectations, however, may still be such that these excursions into other places and times are done at the author’s risk.
So, as groundwork: Epic fantasy is fiction in an ahistorical setting with magic, and usually but not exclusively with preindustrial technology.
Next up: The Role of Setting
October 27th, 2007 at 5:09 am
What I notice is that this definition basically names a number of the traits shared by a lot of fantasies, but I’m not sure how far it goes to describing the “epic” part of “epic fantasy”, which I think is at least as important as the “fantasy” bit.
Indicating Kushner’s excellent Swordspoint as an example of a low-magic epic fantasy, for example, leapt out at me. There’s really nothing _epic_ about it. By the definition you’ve got, I suppose it counts — it’s ahistorical, there’s something magical about it (even if it’s in the past and referred to obliquely and vaguely), it’s pre-industrial — but I think a lot of people are going to wonder about the epic side of it.
When I think of epics, I tend to think that the stakes have to be larger than just the lives of a handful of people. The Dark Lord that has to be defeated is an easy way to start off an epic, of course, but you don’t really need that. “The fate of nations” will do. Maybe this fits into the other point in your outline, the “big picture”, but I think it’s absolutely integral to defining an epic fantasy.
Linda and I have also been discussing the “ahistorical” thing. It can get tricky. Jordan’s Wheel of Time purports to take place on Earth, but one that exists in an epoch (one that is past and future both, given the circular nature of time) so far removed from our own that it can’t be proved it hasn’t or will not happen. Is it ahistorical?
And then what of fantasy novels set in the future? Vance’s Dying Earth, of course (although I would say there’s nothing really epic about that one, either), C.S. Friedman’s Coldfire Trilogy, and Brust’s Dragaera novels are all set in some sort of future history, although the latter two take place on planets that are not Earth. Since it’s history that doesn’t exist, I suppose it’s ahistorical, but all three of them do seem to relate to history by accepting the idea that they share a common past that happens to be our present.
Finally, a conundrum. I was considering various children’s books and realizing that for some reason, I don’t tend to think of them when thinking of epic fantasies, even though they share a lot of the traits (including my own requirement for big stakes). Narnia, for example, or The Hobbit, or Cooper’s Dark is Rising, or more recently Pullman’s Dark Materials probably all fit as epic fantasies and yet something prevents me from really considering them this way. It could be a matter of tone…
OTOH, interestingly, I don’t know whether Harry Potter qualifies. Too contemporary, maybe? Or perhaps because there’s such a strong schoolboy book flavor to it that it overwhelms the epic side of the story.
October 27th, 2007 at 5:22 am
Elio pretty much covered my thoughts on the ahistorical setting, though the part that I probably find most interesting about epic fantasy and fantasy in general is the issue of resonance with earlier works and the limits that may place on the setting.
I can’t speak for any other readers, of course, but for me reading fantasy is all about resonances. I came to it by way of myths and legends, and I have found that if something strays too far from familiar territory, it doesn’t work for me. The most obvious example for me would be Ricardo Pinto’s Stone Dance of the Chameleon. It simply felt too alien and it didn’t evoke any of those feelings of recognition that I usually find in fantasy.
I think that this is a core component of fantasy, because it goes back to how myths and legends and fairytales have functioned in all societies throughout history. The element of recognition, even if it is in a very changed form, is crucial.
That’s not to say that just knights and castles can work. Fantasy can resonate with any legends, from any time or place (for my own part, I tend to say that as long as its ‘indo-european’, it works for me). But the less ‘mainstream’ the legend, the fewer readers will experience it as it should be experienced.
October 27th, 2007 at 8:45 am
The “epic” part dropping out is a fair cop. Steve Leigh suggested that this was a better definition of high fantasy than epic. I may be using those as synonyms. I’ll have to think about that.
Part of the problem, looking back, is that the “large scale” thing is weirdly elusive. You’ll notice it has its whole own post later in the report. That’s partially because it kept coming up, but in terms that were more evocative than useful.
Linda’s myth and legends thought is interesting to me too. It sounds right, but I’m failing in application (my fault, not a criticism). Linda, could you do me a favor and talk a little about the mythic/legendary aspects of — fer instance — George and Robin Hobb? I point them up as two very successful authors whose work doesn’t (to me at least) seem engaged with myth or fairy tale.
As opposed to Catherynne Valente, who is all about the fairy tale, and is certainly high fantasy, and yet seems to belong to a very different branch of literature than those two…
October 27th, 2007 at 11:22 am
I think you’ve actually just defined “secondary-world fantasy.” The epic part is still to come, I hope. As Elio said in another way, you can tell many different kinds of stories against a similar backdrop, so the backdrop itself isn’t necessarily the most important part.
(A few years back, in rec.arts.sf.written, someone — I now forget who — was dividing fantasy into bits, and coined a useful term: Castle Opera. It described all the tales of skuldguggery and intrigue, which might not involve saving a world or a kingdom — and so weren’t really epic fantasy — but clearly were secondary-world fantasy. Much of that is mannerist, true, but not all of it. I point that out just as another example of a kind of secondary-world fantasy that I would consider distinct from epic fantasy.)
And, just to be devil’s advocate, what about epic fantasies set in the primary world, like Stephen King’s The Stand or Terry Brooks’s “Word & the Void” trilogy? The vast majority of epic fantasies are set in secondary worlds, yes, but I’m not convinced that’s a requirement of the genre, myself. For me, “epic” is the limiting factor: an epic fantasy story is on a large scale, and important things are at stake. (It’s the fantasy equivalent of Space Opera, if you will.)
October 27th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
There’s absolutely a big difference between how Valente directly uses fairy tales and how, in my mind, various familiar concepts and stories are echoed by George and Robin Hobb. With Valente, she explictly works within the fairy tale genre. With George and Robin Hobb, I think its all about the subtle resonances.
I should note that when I say myths and legends (and fairy tales), I am definitely including things such as the Arthurian stories, Robin Hood and similar things. And as soon as you add in dragons, even if you make them very different from the traditional dragons, you’ve got one very strong resonance right there. Both George and Robin Hobb also have legendary races (the Children of the Forest and the Elderlings) that, intentionally or not, can echo all sorts of stories about elves or assorted mysterious beings.
Looking at how fantasy readers tend to discuss books, it is very common that you will find people trying to find parallels between what happens in the books and both historical and legendary events. There’s been quite a few discussions, for example, drawing parallels between Valyria and Atlantis. Being able to anchor the fantastical to something that you consider part of your cultural heritage seems to be important to a lot of readers.
For my own part, I’d say its because that essentially gives them a place somewhere inside the expanded reality that our story-universe is. They happened in that nebulous place of ‘once upon a time’, but they did happen.
October 29th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
[…] You can find the sub-genre article HERE. […]
November 1st, 2007 at 5:24 am
Ditto Andrew. I look forward to the “big canvas” part, which presumably is where the epic comes in.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
In helping you probe the merits of your definition
An interesting fantasy that does not fit your definition, is Gaiman’s _American Gods_. It is a fascinating exercise in setting, and as such doesn’t fit the second world part of the definition. The way he weaves together the fantastical and the common day is masterful. And the fate of the world is at stake,and there is self-sacrifice for something bigger and all that, so its epic. And there’s magic everywhere. Seems like an epic fantasy, though not a second world. Interesting, and I would guess enormously hard to do.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Where Naomi Novik is concerned, the impression I got from His Majesty’s Dragon was that she thought it would be cool to have dragons in the Napoleonic Wars. But then commenters at her LiveJournal pointed out a few things. Such as the fact the presence of dragons as large as hers would change the face of warfare.
Then I, in a comment, pointed out, “In any world where dragons exist, elephants can run.” She evidently ran with that thought in her own way, and thus we got Empire of Ivory.
This all fits in with setting and milieu, with the additional consideration of how even a simple addition can radically alter a world. My impression of A Shadow in Summer is of a marriage of Oriental and Arabic culture, with a touch of Sumerian city states in decline and a disquieting re-imagining of the jinn. Grim and gritty high dark fantasy with a touch of social realism. The heart of all the changes to this world being the andat, and how they embody magic and the essential nature of the social compact.
But, I’m babbling. I’ll have more thoughts on your essays once I’ve had the chance to read them.