TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Rework: Low Fantasy

Go To

Autarch For the Troperium! from the Land of the Beatles. Since: Aug, 2010
For the Troperium!
#1: Sep 3rd 2010 at 5:49:08 AM

Dear god, this page is terrible. Low Fantasy is (according to this) everything that doesn't fit into High Fantasy. It defines itself on what another trope isn't despite the fact I'm fairly certain that Low Fantasy was the ORIGINAL fantasy concept.

The worst parts have to be the examples that don't really work like most of those anime ones. Low Fantasy is more about the morality and subject matter than the idealistic High Fantasy, although less magic can come along with that. People don't seem to be realising this.

What should we do for this? Start a crowner and see what should be on the page and what shouldn't?

Worst Example: "Aqua Knight, a manga by the author of Battle Angel Alita. Shows hints of High Fantasy, but is far lighter in spirit. High fantasy would not have knights in Magitek amphibious armour jousting on orcas, for instance." HOW IS THIS LOW FANTASY WTF?!

edited 3rd Sep '10 5:50:31 AM by Autarch

DoktorvonEurotrash Lex et Veritas from Not a place of honour (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#2: Sep 3rd 2010 at 6:29:08 AM

Is there a generally accepted existing definition of Low Fantasy? Because I've read a couple of books on the history of the fantasy genre, and none of them mentioned this genre. The usual sub-genre put in opposition to High Fantasy is Heroic Fantasy / Sword and Sorcery (the Conan books being the Most Triumphant Example).

Oh wait, found one (from Dave Langford's review of a novel called Have Demon, Will Travel by John Brosnan, available here):

"The forthcoming Fantasy Encyclopedia has an entry entitled LOW FANTASY, and this is a perfect example. You know High Fantasy: the characters are posh, speak a bit poetically, lack humour, and never, ever visit the loo. John Brosnan definitely writes Low Fantasy. Damned and Fancy, his first comic novel of the magic land of Samella (probably short for Salmonella) was replete with sweaty pongs, halitosis, farting and bad sex, and a major goal of the hero's Quest was to attain the glorious fulfilment of even one roll of soft toilet paper."

Which isn't a single thing like our page on the sub-genre. (I haven't been able to get hold of the Fantasy Encyclopedia, so I can't vouch for the entry.)

Oh, and that Aqua Knight example is indeed awful.

robert Pending from Ynys Prydain Since: Jan, 2001
Pending
#3: Sep 3rd 2010 at 7:31:49 AM

What the original meaning of the name was doesn't really matter, though calling the genre low fantasy wouldn't make much sense unless their was already some other type of fantasy to contrast it with.

The Encylopedia of Fantasy, which is a massive collection of genre works and tropes, merely quotes someone else's definition of Low fantasy as not been in another world and not being in an elevated style — not quite the same as our definition, but like ours, a case of defining it by what it's not.

Wikipedia describes low fantasy as the opposite to high fantasy, but uses a wider definition of high fantasy than we do, a definition which, strictly applied, would exclude Tolkien.

The problem is two fold. The opposite of high fantasy is not a coherent genre - there are too many different ways of forming that opposition - yet that is what people naturally expect the term to mean. What coherence low fantasy originally had has dissolved as other subgenre emerged, leaving low fantasy to be the label of the stuff left behind, when it has any name at all.

If we carve out a coherent definition for low fantasy, we're still going to need a home for the left-overs, which is the same as now with only the names changed. If we don't have a page for low fantasy at all, people will inevitably try and create one, to give high fantasy the opposite it 'obviously' must have, and again we'll still need a miscellaneous page somewhere.

Rather than end up with much the same page under a different name, we should just prune this page of examples that fit better elsewher, and see if there are any fantasy subgenres we're missing.

Cattle die, kinsmen die. You yourself will surely die. Only word-fame dies not, for one who well achieves it.
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#4: Sep 3rd 2010 at 8:34:47 AM

Low Fantasy is almost always being defined as not High Fantasy. As the defintion of the latter shifts a fair bit from person to person, we just need to set a bar somewhere and stick with it. That said, Low Fantasy is an actual genre if one that's loosely defined. I see no reason not to keep it.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
TotemicHero No longer a forum herald from the next level Since: Dec, 2009
No longer a forum herald
#5: Sep 3rd 2010 at 8:42:38 AM

Because someone had to link to this at some point: the definition according to The Other Wiki.

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
eX 94. Grandmaster of Shark Since: Jan, 2001
94. Grandmaster of Shark
#6: Sep 3rd 2010 at 9:01:47 AM

Low Fantasy is more about the morality and subject matter than the idealistic High Fantasy, although less magic can come along with that.

Wrong. Where on the Sliding Scale of Cynicism Versus Idealism a work lies has nothing to do with it. Low Fantasy just means that the world has less fantastic elements than a High Fantasy setting. That does not just mean the "number" of this elements, but also how they interact with the society.

yeah, wrote bullshit again

edited 3rd Sep '10 9:16:15 AM by eX

Autarch For the Troperium! from the Land of the Beatles. Since: Aug, 2010
For the Troperium!
#7: Sep 3rd 2010 at 9:08:12 AM

Wrong. Where on the Sliding Scale Of Cynicismversus Idealism a work lies has nothing to do with it. Low Fantasy just means that the world has less fantastic elements than a High Fantasy setting. That does not just mean the "number" of this elements, but also how the interact with the society.

Then Lord Of The Rings counts as Low Fantasy. Any series without mages farting fireballs now counts as Low Fantasy. That's, what, almost every fantasy series out there?

See the trouble? You can't define Low Fantasy as just having few "fantastic elements".

"How the magic interests with the world"? So, basically, how magic is viewed in terms of morality?

edited 3rd Sep '10 9:11:30 AM by Autarch

eX 94. Grandmaster of Shark Since: Jan, 2001
94. Grandmaster of Shark
#8: Sep 3rd 2010 at 9:25:18 AM

No, how magic is available for the general public. Is there a magic transportation system between larger cities? Do every mountain has a small population of dragons. To you call the exterminator because your garden is invested with gnomes? Are there kingdoms of dwarfs and elves? Than it is High Fantasy.

In general, it is about how magical things are treated, as something exceptional, or as an everyday occurrence.

I'd say Lord Of Rings lies between High Fantasy And Low Fantasy. It is even said in the book, that the ages of magic are over and that the last fantastic elements are too leave Middle Earth.

edited 3rd Sep '10 9:27:04 AM by eX

Yamikuronue So Yeah Since: Aug, 2009
#9: Sep 3rd 2010 at 9:30:25 AM

I've usually seen Low Fantasy to mean Like Reality Except Where Noted series, like "supernatural horror" type stories, that are written fairly plainly (not a lot of conlangs or technical terminology).

edited 3rd Sep '10 9:30:33 AM by Yamikuronue

BTW, I'm a chick.
TotemicHero No longer a forum herald from the next level Since: Dec, 2009
No longer a forum herald
#10: Sep 3rd 2010 at 9:47:57 AM

Basically, I see it like this:

  • High Fantasy - fantastic elements are integral to the main plot. This is to the point where if you attempted to remove them, the plot would have to be rewritten heavily to accommodate the changes. Of course, having a smaller number of fantastic elements makes it harder to put the necessary emphasis on them.
  • Low Fantasy - fantastic elements play little or no role in the main plot. They exist, but are not the focus of the story. They could be excised from the story without any major rewrites. Naturally, an increased number of fantastic elements makes it increasingly difficult to write a story that fits this category..

Obviously, there's a sliding scale here, based on the emphasis given to fantastic elements. In fact, I think this would work a lot better if we merged the two pages into a Sliding Scale Of High Fantasy Versus Low Fantasy page.

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
robert Pending from Ynys Prydain Since: Jan, 2001
Pending
#11: Sep 3rd 2010 at 9:55:59 AM

Lord of the Rings is the canonical High Fantasy; any definition of that tropes which excludes it is suspect.

Fantasy has lists the subgenres we have. The most relevant ones for contrast are High Fantasy, Heroic Fantasy (Conan the Barbarian), and Urban Fantasy, which includes most of the real world stuff. Where should Low Fantasy fit, relative to those three?

A simple High versus Low Fantasy scale won't work. Tolkien, the Discworld, the Dresden files, and Conan are four different genres, which aren't captured by a one dimensional scale.

edited 3rd Sep '10 10:01:16 AM by robert

Cattle die, kinsmen die. You yourself will surely die. Only word-fame dies not, for one who well achieves it.
Yamikuronue So Yeah Since: Aug, 2009
#12: Sep 3rd 2010 at 10:00:00 AM

The stuff I read that's labelled Low Fantasy is usually Urban Fantasy.

Wiki says "Low fantasy is characterised by being set in the real ("Primary") world, or a rational and familiar fictional world, with the inclusion of magical elements." That's been my experience, I just happen to like Urban Fantasy; our page lists a lot of things that are in their own fantastic worlds, though, which I'd call high fantasy anyway.

In regards to edit ^, works tend to fall into multiple subgenre; there's overlap.

edited 3rd Sep '10 10:04:16 AM by Yamikuronue

BTW, I'm a chick.
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#13: Sep 3rd 2010 at 10:31:40 AM

Urban Fantasy is a subgenre of Low Fantasy. Low Fantasy covers all fantasy set in the real world be it in the cities, or out in the farm lands, in the middle ages, or the middle kingdom of Egypt. That's what the textbook definition of Low Fantasy is.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Yamikuronue So Yeah Since: Aug, 2009
#14: Sep 3rd 2010 at 10:42:55 AM

Our page says it has to be medieval fantasy, which appears to be utter nonsense.

BTW, I'm a chick.
robert Pending from Ynys Prydain Since: Jan, 2001
Pending
#15: Sep 3rd 2010 at 10:47:45 AM

Which textbook? There are multiple definitions of low fantasy floating around. Note too, Lord of the Rings, the Shannara series, and even Wheel of Time are all set on this earth. Is a definition of low fantasy that includes all three really useful?

You can define low fantasy has everything that isn't high, with both urban and heroic fantasy as subgenres of it, but that definition covers such a broad range there's nothing that can usefully be said about it that doesn't apply to all fantasy, which isn't a useful definition.

The restriction to medieval is indeed nonsense, which has crept in at some point. The list under fantasy describes the distinctions between the genres we're using.

edited 3rd Sep '10 10:52:48 AM by robert

Cattle die, kinsmen die. You yourself will surely die. Only word-fame dies not, for one who well achieves it.
Yamikuronue So Yeah Since: Aug, 2009
#16: Sep 3rd 2010 at 11:16:11 AM

Lord of the Rings isn't really set here; it's basically set in an ancient alternate prehistory that might as well be its own world. The difference, to me, is that you can go to Chicago but you won't find Harry Dresden; you can't go to Mordor at all. If you lived long enough ago, you could go to Middle Kingdom Egypt, but you won't find living mummies; you can't go to Discworld.

The definition of Low Fantasy on our Fantasy page seems the reverse of what is defined elsewhere - it's explicitly NOT set in our world, and the only thing that can be is Urban Fantasy. I think what we're calling Magical Realism on that page is what I've seen as Low Fantasy.

Except the Magical Realism trope seems to be depicting something different: Realism, except for that one nagging supernatural thing that's never explained, like when you get to the end of a mystery novel and they explain how the bad guy did everything and then someone goes "But wait, what about the ghost in the graveyard?" and the detective is utterly stumped and it's implied it was a REAL GHOST OMG!!! Kind of like, you got your supernatural stuff in my realistic story. Low fantasy explicitly says there is magic/supernatural stuff, it works like this; often there's a masquerade in place, but it's basically a feature of the world, rather than there just to add a little twist to the story.

edited 3rd Sep '10 11:21:13 AM by Yamikuronue

BTW, I'm a chick.
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#17: Sep 3rd 2010 at 11:44:32 AM

Robert, the terms were defined over a century ago and if you peeked the the article on the Other Wiki you would know that. It actually has citations and proof of these things.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
DoktorvonEurotrash Lex et Veritas from Not a place of honour (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#18: Sep 3rd 2010 at 12:03:22 PM

As I see it, if a definition of Low Fantasy exists in the wider world, our definition should match it. If not, the term is fair game for us to use for whatever we see fit.

robert Pending from Ynys Prydain Since: Jan, 2001
Pending
#19: Sep 3rd 2010 at 12:42:46 PM

I have read the wikipedia page (obviously, since I referred to it earlier) but I've also quoted a different definition, from a no less authoritative source. The Encylopedia of Fantasy is a comprehensive description of the genre tropes, at great length.

For reference, they define High Fantasy as works in secondary works, which deal with matters affecting the destiny of those worlds, a narrower definition than Wikipedia's. Heroic fantasy is listed as being an upmarket equivalent of Sword & Sorcery, a term invented specifically to describe Conan-like fantasy. Urban Fantasy is anything set in a city, real or fictional.

The Encylopedia also has a 'adventurer fantasy' category, a term invented in 1995, which describes stories whose protagomnists are normal people, not heroic types, just trying to make a living in fantasy worlds. We don't have this category, but The Encylpedia does say it hasn't yet entered general use.

Notice too, that to get Harry Potter to fit under High Fantasy, that wikipedia page has to be rather flexible about what counts as a different world, not a good sign.

What it says about the historical meaning of the term is true, no doubt - a split of the fantasy genre by style and tone, high or low - but history is a poor guide to current meanings.

These days, there are more than two fantasy genres. Attempting to fit them into exactly two categories, high and low, or even onto a one dimensional scale, will inevitably fail to capture the actual state of the genres, shoving together works with only one thing in common, while ignoring that they've got just as much in common with ones of the other side of the divide.

Publishers don't use the term 'low fantasy' at all, that I've notice, and everyone talking about the field seems to have come up with their own slightly different definitions, leaving us with quite some leeway.

Cattle die, kinsmen die. You yourself will surely die. Only word-fame dies not, for one who well achieves it.
Yamikuronue So Yeah Since: Aug, 2009
#20: Sep 3rd 2010 at 12:47:25 PM

You said yourself that your source's definition of Low Fantasy is problematic. What exactly do you want us to do with your source, then? If it has a bad definition, even by your standards (defining it only by what it's not), we have to go to another source.

Also, what you claim it says meshes well with what I've been saying - not in another world, aka, in our own world, and not in an elevated style, which I believe I mentioned a few posts back. As I've seen happen a few times in these types of threads, we all seem to be getting at the same core idea, but we're using different words to do so, making it seem like there's conflict.

V It feels to me as though it's approaching the same midpoint from different ends: Start at our own world and add a good amount of magic versus starting with a wholly different world and adding in familiar elements for the reader to connect to. In theory the midpoint would be something that's no longer recognizable as our own world yet which feels intimately familiar in an odd way.

edited 3rd Sep '10 12:51:56 PM by Yamikuronue

BTW, I'm a chick.
VincentGaribaldi Since: Mar, 2010
#21: Sep 3rd 2010 at 12:49:30 PM

According to the definition on TOW (assuming that I read it correctly) the difference is if the work takes place in our world + magic = low, if it takes place in a separate world it's high fantasy...even if that separate world is in ours like a Masquerade situation. So works like Final Fantasy Tactics and the entire Discworld series would be High Fantasy. Also according to the definition, Low Fantasy and High Fantasy are discrete rather than continuous, i.e. it's either or, not a sliding scale.

Our definition needs work, but TOW's seems even more useless.

Maybe we could measure fantasy on two counts: cynicism and location.

edited 3rd Sep '10 12:53:13 PM by VincentGaribaldi

TotemicHero No longer a forum herald from the next level Since: Dec, 2009
No longer a forum herald
#22: Sep 3rd 2010 at 12:51:36 PM

Sources? You want them? Here you go.

Besides the definition given by The Other Wiki (which I agree is somewhat stupid), here is another, and here is a third.

All three are very different, so I think you get the idea.

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
Yamikuronue So Yeah Since: Aug, 2009
#23: Sep 3rd 2010 at 12:55:33 PM

Definitions that seem to gel together well:

"A definition put forwards in the monthly sales catalogue and newsletter of the Fantasy Book Club in Sweden is that low fantasy is set in our world with fantastic elements, like magic and monsters. Whereas high fantasy is set in a world that might have some elements of resemblance to our world but is distinctly fantastic and its own."

"[Low fantasy] is now used to describe fantasy literature that has a relatively low amount of magic and the supernatural."

"Low fantasy contrasts with the sub-genre of High fantasy. Low fantasy is characterised by being set in the real ("Primary") world, or a rational and familiar fictional world, with the inclusion of magical elements. The opposite, high fantasy, is set in an alternative, entirely fictional ("Secondary") world with its own, albeit internally-consistent, rules that separate it from the real world. Low fantasy can be described as non-rational events occurring in a rational setting"

—-

Definitions that don't gel:

"There are many arguments about what constitutes the line between Low and High fantasy, but invariably in High Fantasy there is a moral dichotomy of altruistic good and irredeemable evil, and in low fantasy there are many shades of gray, where the "main character" is often an anti-hero. For instance, immoral elves or mercenary dwarves could commonly appear in a low fantasy tale, but rarely in high fantasy."

"anything not set in our world which isn't one of the others."

edited 3rd Sep '10 12:55:45 PM by Yamikuronue

BTW, I'm a chick.
TotemicHero No longer a forum herald from the next level Since: Dec, 2009
No longer a forum herald
#24: Sep 3rd 2010 at 1:13:52 PM

The problem being is that our current page on Urban Fantasy already covers the whole "works set in our world with fantastic elements" bit. If we rewrite Low Fantasy to go with those definitions that you described as fitting together, I think there would be too much overlap to justify having separate pages.

And before anyone asks, Urban Fantasy as a term is just as (if not more so) loosely defined than Low Fantasy. I'd hate to have to get into that though, as this thread is already a very large can of worms.

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
robert Pending from Ynys Prydain Since: Jan, 2001
Pending
#25: Sep 3rd 2010 at 1:41:58 PM

The problem is that there aren't any widely used unproblematic definitions of low fantasy. It's a term that ought to exist, but which history has left without a clear meaning.

The original sense of low fantasy would include Harry Potter, Conan, the Discworld and arguably a chunk of horror - the boundary between the genres has shifted somewhat over the years. It's a consistent definition, but not one I'm convinced is useful for us.

Rather than starting out with names and attaching definitions to them, what we probably ought to do is work out what the fantasy subgenres actually are, and only then name then. There will inevitably be a residue that don't fit in any of the genres, which can get shoved into some miscellaneous category, or listed under fantasy itself.

Cattle die, kinsmen die. You yourself will surely die. Only word-fame dies not, for one who well achieves it.

Total posts: 56
Top