Why Imaginative Fiction Is Important

[Andy]

For all those fantasy and sci-fi writers out there who are tired of being treated like you write a second-class genre, here's some relief. I found an article on the importance of these genres that brought great joy to my heart - after my English teacher asked why anyone would want to read a nonsensical story about little people ("The Hobbit") or some story with wizards in it ("Harry Potter").

The Link! (http://www.sawf.org/newedit/edit06112001/sciencefiction.asp)

[Rafael Domination]

It's actually a pretty good motivational essay. Very good arguments, especially with the Aliens symbolyzing the 'others'.

I however, don't really have much of a problem dealing with those kinds of people. I just ask them: can you write?

If the answer is no, I say, "then turn those eyes away before I poke them, cuz' you haven't a jack of a right to judge me."

If the answer is yes, then I say, "stick to your writing, I'll stick to mine. Kapish?"

:D

[Imelda]

Alison Croggon's essay on it might be of some use. It's so clever and high-brow that I only understand about 25% of it. :p

[Rafael Domination]

I'm wishing I would one day have a teacher like Andy's, so I can tell him/her to *!#cuckoo@#* off, and after 30 minutes of arguing, I can rub it in that Sci-fi and Fantasy will never die no matter what he/she says ! :P

[Andy]

I'm wishing I would one day have a teacher like Andy's, so I can tell him/her to *!#cuckoo@#* off, and after 30 minutes of arguing, I can rub it in that Sci-fi and Fantasy will never die no matter what he/she says ! :P
No, under no circumstances would you want a teacher like mine. Her talk about the importance of expressing yourself while simultaneously forbidding certain genres is not worth an argument, especially if the teacher is stubborn and will change the subject. Just be glad your teacher(s) is probably not as bad. :)

[Rafael Domination]

I've encountered people like that before, too. Some have a problem with the genre I write AND draw with. One of my favorite things to do is send them packing. I make sure they get the message not to mess with me. And that's why I have to thank you again for the link to that essay - it's more ammo for me :D

[Andy]

I intend to send her packing when I write my "manifesto" for the end of the semester. It's supposed to be personal, and I intend to cite that resource when I write it. :devil:

[Rafael Domination]

Oho! That would be excellent.

I hope she chokes on it.

TAKE THAT FROM THE INTERNATIONAL FANTASY/SCI-FIERS LEAGUE!

[Andy]

When I use the devil smiley, you know I'm serious. Muahahaha!

I'll post it here when I'm done. Or maybe get critiques first. :)

[Rafael Domination]

Way Ta Go ANDY! :D

Lemme know how she takes it. If she continues to harrass you about it lemme know and I'll pay her a little visit. She'll wake up in the middle of the night to find me standing over her bed with a knife...and a fork...and some salt. ^^

[Shaun]

You should quote half my articles on my blog, Andy. I go on a rampage against the literary academia from time to time :P.

Science fiction and fantasy are real literary forms. Anyone who thinks it is not is retarded. Yes, I mean that literally. You should probably be removed of any position of power and put in a special class because you are a moron. Fantasy has had vast influences on culture since the dawn of time. Beowulf, King Arthur, Robin Hood, the Greek Epics (or anything to do with the Gods, Hercules, etc.), Wagner, Fairy Tales, Poetry (The Fairy Queen, Milton's Paradise Lost, etc.), and the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on. It has had such a profound impact on culture and society that we can't imagine it never existing. It is burned into our cultural retina like an image we can't escape from, only it is a glorious image created and build upon human experience and human values, born of greatness and magic and the wonders of the world still to be understood.
Science Fiction has, by and large, served a vital part in the structure of the world, too. Without Science Fiction we would probably be a scientifically dead culture, or world for that matter. SF is known for its wild and often 'fantastic' predictions of the future. Would we think twice about books supposing that in the near future we'll have private space programs sending people up to a space station or the moon or some place? No, but sixty years ago it was unfathomable to think that we would even get into space. And before that we never believed we could fly either, yet those things are realities, common and untouchable in their cultural and historical place. The cell phone, the personal computer, the car, solar power, etc. are all creations of science fiction minds, all realities and all existent today. To go beyond that, science fiction has addressed real issues of humanity that literary fiction has failed to properly bring to the light. With SF we have seen issues of race, government, human rights, war, etc. Without SF, what sort of world would we live in? It would be a desperately dull one and I probably wouldn't want to write at all.
There's a reason why people want to read and write SF and F: it allows them to see and believe in things that otherwise don't exist for enjoyment and amazement. You can learn and develop by reading it just as you can from fiction. For me, however, I find SF and F to be more interesting that regular fiction because I already live real life...and I don't really want to read about someone living a life similar to mine, or even remotely similar. That's boring as hell. What the hell is fun about stories of high school students doing the same crap high school students have been doing for decades? If I wanted to read or hear about that stuff I would still be watching 1980s Dramas...

I rest my case.

[Rafael Domination]

You should quote half my articles on my blog, Andy. I go on a rampage against the literary academia from time to time :P.

Science fiction and fantasy are real literary forms. Anyone who thinks it is not is retarded. Yes, I mean that literally. You should probably be removed of any position of power and put in a special class because you are a moron. Fantasy has had vast influences on culture since the dawn of time. Beowulf, King Arthur, Robin Hood, the Greek Epics (or anything to do with the Gods, Hercules, etc.), Wagner, Fairy Tales, Poetry (The Fairy Queen, Milton's Paradise Lost, etc.), and the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on. It has had such a profound impact on culture and society that we can't imagine it never existing. It is burned into our cultural retina like an image we can't escape from, only it is a glorious image created and build upon human experience and human values, born of greatness and magic and the wonders of the world still to be understood.
Science Fiction has, by and large, served a vital part in the structure of the world, too. Without Science Fiction we would probably be a scientifically dead culture, or world for that matter. SF is known for its wild and often 'fantastic' predictions of the future. Would we think twice about books supposing that in the near future we'll have private space programs sending people up to a space station or the moon or some place? No, but sixty years ago it was unfathomable to think that we would even get into space. And before that we never believed we could fly either, yet those things are realities, common and untouchable in their cultural and historical place. The cell phone, the personal computer, the car, solar power, etc. are all creations of science fiction minds, all realities and all existent today. To go beyond that, science fiction has addressed real issues of humanity that literary fiction has failed to properly bring to the light. With SF we have seen issues of race, government, human rights, war, etc. Without SF, what sort of world would we live in? It would be a desperately dull one and I probably wouldn't want to write at all.
There's a reason why people want to read and write SF and F: it allows them to see and believe in things that otherwise don't exist for enjoyment and amazement. You can learn and develop by reading it just as you can from fiction. For me, however, I find SF and F to be more interesting that regular fiction because I already live real life...and I don't really want to read about someone living a life similar to mine, or even remotely similar. That's boring as hell. What the hell is fun about stories of high school students doing the same crap high school students have been doing for decades? If I wanted to read or hear about that stuff I would still be watching 1980s Dramas...

I rest my case.

*gives standing ovation*

[Imelda]

Shaun, Robin Hood isn't fantasy.

Andrew, don't quote that or you'll look like an idiot. :p

[Shaun]

The mythological representation of Robin Hood is fantasy. You can't deny that. Just because he was a real man doesn't mean accounts of his existence are true. A lot of what we know about Robin Hood from media forms such as literature are fanciful tales of Robin and his Merry Men robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. It's fantasy.

[Andy]

The version that has Robin Hood as a fox is fantasy. *Shuffles away*

I haven't read any Robin Hood books, however. But it would only be fantasy if there's magic or supernatural stuff involved. Historical exaggerations - unless magic in nature - aren't fantasy, though.

[Imelda]

It's not fantasy! Who spent 18 months studying the Robin Hood legend? Me, not you. It's not fantasy. A few more modern tales incorporate mystical elements in (The Forestwife Trilogy by Teresa Tomlinson, for example), but the legend itself is not. And whether or not he was a real man doesn't make a jot of difference as to whether it's fantasy--it just makes deciding whether it's myth or legend much harder.

[Shaun]

Okay, so everything about Robin Hood ever told is all true then? All the legends and folklore, it's all true and real and entirely infallible? Or is the underlying issue true. There was a guy known as Robin Hood (or Robin, or, as legend grew, he became Robin Hood) that did some of the things thought of him, but other things were fanciful creations of the public? There isn't a whole lot that we know about the actual man for a reason...we know bits and pieces, but not the whole picture, and some of that picture is clearly fantasy. A lot of what we think we know is unsubstantiated in much the same way that what we actually know about Jesus doesn't add up to the big picture. While you might say the Bible is real, it can't be proven, and a lot of what is written could very well be fantasy re-tellings of events and things that were never understood by the people of that time.
Basically, there's a reason why Robin Hood has become a part of English medieval folklore, because he's a fantasy element.

[Crocolyle]

I think they're saying that Robin Hood is fictional, but not fantastic. Fantastic implies, as Andrew said, an element of magic or the supernatural. Robin Hood does not have that. It is a folktale, but a folktale without the presence of the supernatural. The account of what he did is possible to do.

In your argument about why it is fantasy, you say that it is made up. This is true and that is why it should be considered fiction. Nowhere in your argument, however, do you identify any magical or supernatural occurrence that would make it qualify as fantasy. Unless you can cite specific examples of magic and the supernatural, Robin Hood will remain in the fiction category and not make the half step to the fantasy category.

[Imelda]

Thank you, Crocolyle. You're a man of sense.

Shaun is not.

[Shaun]

I think they're saying that Robin Hood is fictional, but not fantastic. Fantastic implies, as Andrew said, an element of magic or the supernatural. Robin Hood does not have that. It is a folktale, but a folktale without the presence of the supernatural. The account of what he did is possible to do.
In your argument about why it is fantasy, you say that it is made up. This is true and that is why it should be considered fiction. Nowhere in your argument, however, do you identify any magical or supernatural occurrence that would make it qualify as fantasy. Unless you can cite specific examples of magic and the supernatural, Robin Hood will remain in the fiction category and not make the half stuff to the fantasy category.

Fantasy doesn't have to have elements of the supernatural to be fantasy. That's a misconception about what fantasy has to be in order to be considered such. Magic doesn't have to exist. It usually does, but doesn't always have to. One can easily write a fantasy story about a world that doesn't exist that has no magic, no dragons or weird creatures, etc., and have it be fantasy.
If fantasy has to include elements of the supernatural then it has no claim to consider itself a real genre of literature, since what we regard as supernatural is something that we know doesn't exist, but in the time of many written works that are considered flights of fantasy were considered legit claims. People used to believe in faeries...they wrote books about them, poems, etc. They had folklore and entire mythologies about them. But since we know there is a real basis for what they thought was faeries (little bits of science that explains what really happened), that makes them flights of fantasy rather than tales of reality. The same can be said of Robin Hood who was a man that existed, but whose tale has been shaped and altered in society to be something it is not. It is a fantasy, a fairy tale, and not something rooted in a standard fictional existence. George R. R. Martin has called his work, which is regarded as fantasy, as low-magic (meaning very little magic in the sense that his work doesn't use magic as a device of the characters). In a lot of ways Martin's worlds are examples of a realistic world. So, do we consider them to be fiction? What about other writers who write about worlds that could have existed, but simply don't?

[Andy]

Wasn't it just last week that you agreed on my definition of fantasy, Shaun?:

So my definition is: A story that takes place in a world/universe with different natural laws than our own, or a story that takes place on our own world, but where the natural laws are either different or extended beyond their known capabilities.

Though I guess I would agree with that definition.
Robin Hood takes place in this world. And the natural laws are not different. Therefore, not fantasy.

[Imelda]

Note: I'm no longer contributing to this thread since the main opponent is Shaun and I already broke my head arguing with him over it.

So much for the 'she's a woman, she's always right' thing ...

[Carraka]

Shaun:

I won't pretend to understand this thread. I won't argue with you on the definition of fantasy (and I agree with Andy and Crocolyle and Imelda and everyone except Shaun) but since my series has been mentioned, I'm under obligation to say something.

George R. R. Martin has called his work, which is regarded as fantasy, as low-magic (meaning very little magic in the sense that his work doesn't use magic as a device of the characters). In a lot of ways Martin's worlds are examples of a realistic world.

First of all, I have no idea how you're using GRRM to advance your argument. Yes, I have no doubt that he called his work low-magic, and I would say that it is low-magic, for the reasons you mentioned. It's not like Harry Potter, where everything revolves around spells. In most parts of GRRM's world, magic is myth and legends, as it is in our world. Some creatures, such as super-intelligent wolves/crows that would be considered fantasy in our world are considered normal in his world. Freaky, yes, but not magical.

But although GRRM's world does not rely entirely on magic, there still is magic. Central plot points still revolve around magical beings, such as the Others, the dragons, and the scary stuff that Melisandre does. There are a lot of prophecies (all of which don't make much sense but are still beautiful -- ahem).

So although the characters do not depend on magic, the plot definitely does, and winter is coming, and magic is returning.

I'm not really debating, but I want to clear that up. Under Andy's definition, GRRM is definitely fantasy. I don't understand what your definition is, but if you could tell me that, then I could tell you whether GRRM is fantasy. I kinda consider myself to be the expert on him, and

I urge you all to read the book, because otherwise your life is empty and full of sadness.

On the other hand, after you read his books, your life will be empty of his fifth book, and therefore also full of sadness. But I am smiling as I write this, so it must be a good thing.

I'm done. Women are always right.

[Shaun]

I said "I guess I agree". What I mean is that yes, of course fantasy can be determined by whether it has elements of magic/supernatural, but that some fantasy doesn't have that at all. It doesn't require it.
The problem with trying to pin down ALL fantasy as having to have the supernatural and magical elements we are all familiar with is that you narrow the genre to something so specific and entirely to easy to discount as valid literature. There are plenty of novels that would be considered fantasy that don't have magic as a real force. Certainly there are novels that have magic, but that magic might be only magic from the perspective of the people in the story. In medieval times there were a lot of things that we didn't understand and sometimes we attributed such things to being magic. The Egyptians practiced various forms of magical ceremonies and thought that the things done were actually magic. We know today that's not true, but in that time it seems like magic to those people. So, by narrowing it down you ignore all of those works which address magic not as a truly magical force, but as a force of the unknown.
Then there are stories that really don't have magic at all. If you were to create your own history of the world, where everything is like Earth, but you have your own invented history and medieval society populated by Kings and Queens and religion, does that mean it isn't fantasy? What is it? It can't be historical because it isn't actually historical at all. It's not a real world. It's fake and imagined. The only thing that is 'real' is the fact that it is based on the laws of our world and set on our world, but the society and the people are different (while being human of course) and the animals are the same. Explain to me why magic HAS to exist in order for something to be fantasy? There's a reason why they call it "speculative fiction" (the big genre term given to all forms of fantasy and science fiction).
If all fantasy has to have magic and has to be outside of the bounds of reality then you are in for a long and hard fight to have that accepted as curriculum in schools or to be accepted as a legit form of literature. This is why the academia calls fantasy on a regular basis as escapist and ONLY escapist. While that may not be true from my definition it is true of the definition that it has to have magic/supernatural to be considered fantasy. Broaden your understanding of fantasy.

[Shaun]

Robin Hood takes place in this world. And the natural laws are not different. Therefore, not fantasy.

To this point: Okay, then Homer's works are not fantasy, nor are any of the ancient myths, stories, fairy tales, etc. When you claim that something can't be considered fantasy because it follows the laws of our world, you are also claiming that so much of what has been considered fantasy already can't be so. From the perspective of the ancient Greeks the things Homer wrote about are real. Achilles really was the greatest warrior ever who could only be killed by cutting his heel. Odysseus really went on a grand voyage meeting the Cyclops and the like. These were the types of stories told and believed in at the time. They believed in the gods and from their historical framework it was all born of the natural laws they understood.
Natural laws don't determine something to be fantasy. That's absurd. There's no such thing as a natural law. Much of what we see in the type of fantasy you are talking about was believed to exist thousands of years ago. Just because we know it isn't true now doesn't mean it wasn't believed in so long ago.

[Andy]

Don't go changing the subject. We were discussing whether or not Robin Hood was fantasy. Don't go bringing in all these other myths and all.

The ancient Greek myths are indeed fantasy because they involve gods, prophecies, otherworldly creatures, people with superhuman abilities, etc. You don't see magic, or any of that, in Robin Hood.

Alternate histories are not fantasy either, unless you see something like dragons in a World War II setting. Otherwise, it's considered science fiction, because parallel universes fall into the same category as other multi-dimensional and time-travel stories. Alternate history does not even apply to Robin Hood, so I don't know why you brought that up, either.

[Rafael Domination]

I thought this was the 'Why is SF/Fanstasy important' Thread, not the 'What is Fantasy debate?' :D

Should I go make one in the Debate Forum?

[Shaun]

Don't go changing the subject. We were discussing whether or not Robin Hood was fantasy. Don't go bringing in all these other myths and all.

The ancient Greek myths are indeed fantasy because they involve gods, prophecies, otherworldly creatures, people with superhuman abilities, etc. You don't see magic, or any of that, in Robin Hood.

Alternate histories are not fantasy either, unless you see something like dragons in a World War II setting. Otherwise, it's considered science fiction, because parallel universes fall into the same category as other multi-dimensional and time-travel stories. Alternate history does not even apply to Robin Hood, so I don't know why you brought that up, either.

Raf, it's supposed to be, but now we're in disagreement as to what fantasy actually is.

I'm not changing the subject. The whole purpose of defining fantasy is so that people know what it is. But when you define it the way it has been defined here as requiring magic you alienate an entire audience and provide plenty of fuel for the fire already burning. That's being narrow-minded in that approach.
Alternate histories are not science fiction unless we're shown such a world from a future society traveling into that time. Science fiction requires, first and foremost, a speculation no the FUTURE and the introduction of technology or its effects. Not going backwards.
I'm not even talking about alternate histories, since in theory my point was that someone could create their own history. Alternate histories are, by and large, generally the 'what if' of a single change of some event. What if Hitler Won WW2. Not an entire rework of history itself from the ground up. So what I'm talking about is completely redesigned human societies from start to finish (with finish being the medieval world).
The whole subject of this argument is the nature of exclusion and if you're going to exclude some forms of literature you narrow the perspective on what fantasy actually is and isolate those works by calling it something else.
This is a narrow view of fantasy, that it must have magic, especially since you have said in your definition that you are holding on to that it not only has to have magic, but it must operate on natural laws that aren't our own. Seeing how that's so, then all the great Greek epics that you say are fantasy cease to be so, since in the time they were written they WERE operating in the natural laws that were understood at the time.
So by your definition no historical fantasies that we know of can even be considered as fantasy unless it deals with a different world or a world like our own where new laws and new realities are created.

[Andy]

You are misinterpreting everything I say.

This is a narrow view of fantasy, that it must have magic,Nobody here said it must have magic. Only that the story could not possibly occur in real life, or could have possibly occurred under any alternate history.

especially since you have said in your definition that you are holding on to that it not only has to have magic, but it must operate on natural laws that aren't our own. I am not saying it must have a different form of gravity or anything like that. But only that all supernatural and magic forms in fantasy do not fall under the natural laws of our universe. Our universe has no explanation of magic because it doesn't exist here. Thus, magic does not fall under natural law, which I say makes it fantasy.

Seeing how that's so, then all the great Greek epics that you say are fantasy cease to be so, since in the time they were written they WERE operating in the natural laws that were understood at the time.They were not. Explain Zeus, if you will. He's supernatural -> it's fantasy.

So by your definition no historical fantasies that we know of can even be considered as fantasy unless it deals with a different world or a world like our own where new laws and new realities are created.By your definition a story about a nasty cafeteria lady from my school would be considered fantasy because it is based on a real person, but with exaggerated elements. That's the exact same interpretation you're using to say Robin Hood is fantasy, that it's a real person but with exaggerations that did not actually happen in our history.

By my definition, a different history is only fantasy if it has otherworldly elements (such as...wizards), and could not possibly exist. Otherwise it's science fiction because it's based on scientific speculation regarding quantum mechanics.

[Shaun]

Nobody here said it must have magic. Only that the story could not possibly occur in real life, or could have possibly occurred under any alternate history.

If you're not saying it, then you need to explain what you mean. At this point the whole statement being made is hypocritical. This is fantasy, but not that, this can't be fantasy, but this can, etc.

I am not saying it must have a different form of gravity or anything like that. But only that all supernatural and magic forms in fantasy do not fall under the natural laws of our universe. Our universe has no explanation of magic because it doesn't exist here. Thus, magic does not fall under natural law, which I say makes it fantasy.

...Just because magic doesn't exist here doesn't mean you can't write a story centered around characters that think it exists and have it be fantasy. The only difference is that your story will revolve around characters that believe it is real, when in actuality it isn't.

They were not. Explain Zeus, if you will. He's supernatural -> it's fantasy.

Actually they were. We know now that they really weren't, but to the people of that time it all seemed a part of the natural order of all things. Zeus was a god, end of story, there were spirits and the underworld and everything, and to all of them it was 100% the truth, at least until other religions came along and changed their minds. But in the time and place that such things existed it was all thought to be a part of the natural world.

By your definition a story about a nasty cafeteria lady from my school would be considered fantasy because it is based on a real person, but with exaggerated elements. That's the exact same interpretation you're using to say Robin Hood is fantasy, that it's a real person but with exaggerations that did not actually happen in our history.

No because your story about the nasty cafeteria lady has absolutely nothing to do with typical settings of fantasy, nor does it have any context. We're talking about the difference of worlds set in medieval times and the cafeteria, which is ridiculous.
And we've already argued the Robin Hood bit. Robin Hood was a real man, but his story is not. His story is a fantasy, a wild, exaggerated tale about his supposed exploits that never happened, but have still captured he world. That's exaggeration in a medieval setting. The events about Robin Hood never happened, at least the exaggerated, fantastic ones we know of.
The lunch lady analogy, however, isn't fantasy because it is based in the present and does lack the magical elements that are required for Urban Fantasy, which is a single subgenre of Fantasy that absolutely must include the supernatural or magical in order to function as such. But since we're talking about fantasy as a whole we have to acknowledge that it doesn't have to have magic or the supernatural to be fantasy.

By my definition, a different history is only fantasy if it has otherworldly elements (such as...wizards), and could not possibly exist. Otherwise it's science fiction because it's based on scientific speculation regarding quantum mechanics.

Good lord. Alternate history has nothing to do with science...not even in the slightest. Quantum theory doesn't even show up in alternate history stories, unless there's something to do with time travel. Some stories simply speculate about what could have happened at some event in the past.
But again, I'm not talking about the same type of alternate history you're thinking of. In fact, I never gave you an alternate history, since AH stories are not entire rewritings of Earthen history, but the supposed what-ifs of a single change in the historical landscape. I gave you the example of a story that had no magic, no gods, but simply a medieval society on the same terrain as Earth, with the same animals, but different people, and a whole different history that has nothing to do with what we know about our own history. That would be fantasy, not alternate history in the same sense as the genre supposes.
Your definition lacks the depth and breadth to provide fantasy with the kick it needs to keep it alive. You're definition offers only the ability for fantasy to repeat itself ad naseum, which is what will kill the genre. Broaden your fantasy horizons and see that fantasy doesn't have to have magic or the supernatural or anything in order to be so.

[Andy]

Your definition lacks the depth and breadth to provide fantasy with the kick it needs to keep it alive. You're definition offers only the ability for fantasy to repeat itself ad naseum, which is what will kill the genre. Broaden your fantasy horizons and see that fantasy doesn't have to have magic or the supernatural or anything in order to be so.
I highly doubt 99% of readers will judge fantasy on so fierce a standard as you have. They'll keep reading the stories they've always been reading, whether it's fantasy because it has magic or not. My definition is not going to kill the genre.

Ugh....I give up. I'm just tired of arguing over this.

[Shaun]

It will kill the genre if everyone sees fantasy in that way and only in that way. If they look at fantasy as encompassing both magic and non-magic stories it leaves a lot of room for originality.

And feel free to give up :P. I take genre fiction very seriously and will defend it to the death if I must. :P

[Andy]

Uh-huh. I'll let you know when midterms are over, and I don't have any projects left to do. By then, I'll be more than happy to argue with you and face your tendency to post 3 paragraphs in reply to every one paragraph you disagree with.

[Shaun]

Okay...if that's what you want to do, go for it. I argue vehemently. You should know this.

[Carraka]

Gah. I don't see why a narrow definition of fantasy kills the genre.

So you're saying that if the definition of fantasy is limited to magic and the supernatural (and I think it is, at least for most of the world,) then that would leave out things like alternate histories, such as What If some guy Won some war, or entire separate worlds that aren't parallel to our world, but don't have magic either.

I suppose even if it wasn't fantasy, it would still be speculative fiction. But how would calling it speculative fiction kill it? People will still write it. It'll still be read. I'm a bit confused on that.

[Shaun]

So you're saying that if the definition of fantasy is limited to magic and the supernatural (and I think it is, at least for most of the world,) then that would leave out things like alternate histories, such as What If some guy Won some war, or entire separate worlds that aren't parallel to our world, but don't have magic either.

Alternate history is sort of a genre all on its own. Most of the time it doesn't fit into science fiction or fantasy, however there is a difference between stories that just propose that one little event went differently and ones in which entirely different histories or entirely different worlds in medieval times without magic exist. The former is alternate history, since it is actually only rewriting history due to an event change (or a couple event changes). The latter is actually developing an entirely new history from the ground up just as you would do in any fantasy novel on a different world, except this might not have magic. So I don't see why fantasy HAS to have magic and the supernatural when one could easily write a fantasy story without either. In fact, there are a lot of editors who prefer stories without magic and they consider them fantasy.

I suppose even if it wasn't fantasy, it would still be speculative fiction. But how would calling it speculative fiction kill it? People will still write it. It'll still be read. I'm a bit confused on that.

What you're doing is placing limitations upon the genre that are ridiculous. It can't be this, and it can't be that, it can ONLY be this. In this case the limitation basically leaves fantasy with an overabundance of repetition and cliches without giving it the chance to free itself of the Tolkien stigma. Science fiction, on the other hand, doesn't have this problem because it is rooted in reality and as the world changes, so does SF. It will continually evolve and adjust and address new issues as they arise, or make up issues all on their own. There are so many different kinds of SF too, and some of the forms aren't thought of as SF by some people, even though they are. We see a lot of technothrillers in the movies these days, but all of them are SF stories (well maybe not all, but a good portion).
Fantasy by this definition, however, doesn't have the luxury of developing entirely new takes on magic. You're supposing that if the public accepts that all fantasy must have magic, that there will be an overabundance of fresh material. What you get is all these stories with magic and the supernatural repeating themselves ad naseum without and escape for the readers into something fresh and new. Yes, the occasional fantasy novel comes along that fiddles with the conventional rules or makes you forget, but unlike SF, that can't last. Fantasy may be selling well now, but in another fifty years it might get really old.
On the flip side, by pointing at the genre and saying "it has to have magic/supernatural to be fantasy" you're telling the literary academia that they are right. That's something I don't want to do because I happen to like fantasy and I think the genre can be a lot broader than the definition provided here suggests.

[Crocolyle]

I would consider Robin Hood to be a folktale or historical fiction. I mean, a lot of characters in Robin Hood were real historical figures and there are real events tied into the story (i. e. the Crusades). Just because a story takes place in a medieval world, a typical fantasy setting, it does not become fantasy.

Fantasy does not necessarily need magic, but it needs something supernatural or something like magic. Like for example, in Robert E. Howard's Conan stories, there isn't really magic, but rather unexplained things that are like magic. All the magical creatures and magic in Howard's stories, having been influenced by Lovecraft, are actual aliens or beings from another planet (same with the magic and monsters in Lovecraft). There needs to be an element of the impossible in order for something to be considered fantasy.

Though, not all stories with an element of the impossible can be considered fantasy. I would not call The Scarlet Letter or Young Goodman Brown fantasy, and yet in both stories there are fantasy elements.

On a slightly unrelated note, I personally do not consider folktales or mythology to be fantasy. I think, despite their supernatural elements, should be their own genre. I'm not saying that they aren't or shouldn't be considered fantasy; I just don't consider them to be. Like, then Paul Bunyon and Johnny Appleseed are thrown into the mix.

Oh, by the way Shaun, George Washington by your definition is a fantasy character because of the cherry tree story. That story was fabricated to encourage morality in school children. It was written by a minister trying to write a biography on him, but couldn't find any facts about his childhood. He simply made them up.

[Shaun]

I would consider Robin Hood to be a folktale or historical fiction. I mean, a lot of characters in Robin Hood were real historical figures and there are real events tied into the story (i. e. the Crusades). Just because a story takes place in a medieval world, a typical fantasy setting, it does not become fantasy.

The story of Robin Hood is fantasized. That's the whole point. It's a story about a guy and his merry men going around and saving England from oppression by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. None of it is really true, but it's certainly a story that is fantasy. Just like the Three Musketeers.

Fantasy does not necessarily need magic, but it needs something supernatural or something like magic. Like for example, in Robert E. Howard's Conan stories, there isn't really magic, but rather unexplained things that are like magic. All the magical creatures and magic in Howard's stories, having been influenced by Lovecraft, are actual aliens or beings from another planet (same with the magic and monsters in Lovecraft). There needs to be an element of the impossible in order for something to be considered fantasy.

Give me a valid reason why it must include something unexplained that might be perceived as magic or the supernatural.
On the subject of the impossible, the Robin Hood story is impossible...generally that's what folklore is, things that are believed in, but are impossible, though certainly not in every case. Given England's political/social/religious climate, it is very likely that Robin Hood could never have existed as the folk character we know him.

Though, not all stories with an element of the impossible can be considered fantasy. I would not call The Scarlet Letter or Young Goodman Brown fantasy, and yet in both stories there are fantasy elements.

Very true.

On a slightly unrelated note, I personally do not consider folktales or mythology to be fantasy. I think, despite their supernatural elements, should be their own genre. I'm not saying that they aren't or shouldn't be considered fantasy; I just don't consider them to be. Like, then Paul Bunyon and Johnny Appleseed are thrown into the mix.

Paul Bunyon and Johnny Appleseed are pretty interesting little stories though, and if you included Folklore and myth as fantasy they would certainly fit. Not to mention that Paul Bunyon is practically the fantasy character you'd want. He's a giant and he has a big blue ox...

Oh, by the way Shaun, George Washington by your definition is a fantasy character because of the cherry tree story. That story was fabricated to encourage morality in school children. It was written by a minister trying to write a biography on him, but couldn't find any facts about his childhood. He simply made them up.

George Washington = Colonial Times/Industrial Revolution/Etc.
Not fantasy for the very same reason that something written in modern times without magic or the supernatural cannot be fantasy. It falls within the same field.

[Crocolyle]

The story of Robin Hood is fantasized. That's the whole point. It's a story about a guy and his merry men going around and saving England from oppression by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. None of it is really true, but it's certainly a story that is fantasy. Just like the Three Musketeers.[/quotes]

Because the story isn't true it becomes fiction, but does not become fantasy. Three Musketeers takes place in the 17th century and isn't fantasy. It's a historical fiction novel.


[quote]
Give me a valid reason why it must include something unexplained that might be perceived as magic or the supernatural.
On the subject of the impossible, the Robin Hood story is impossible...generally that's what folklore is, things that are believed in, but are impossible, though certainly not in every case. Given England's political/social/religious climate, it is very likely that Robin Hood could never have existed as the folk character we know him.


It doesn't have to be unexplained. It can be explained--like with magic or the supernatural or some other force. By definition, fantasy needs to defy some kind of physical law, otherwise everything written before Robinson Crusoe (the first novel in English) becomes fantasy.

Robin Hood is not entirely impossible. It's just extremely unlikely. And by impossible, I mean more like physically impossible.

What exactly makes him a fantasy character?
The story is grounded in the physical laws of our universe, includes fictional and historic characters, and includes both events that did not happen and events that physically could have happened (but didn't). To me, that sounds like historical fiction or just plain fiction, not fantasy. Unless anything that takes place in Medieval Europe instantly becomes fantasy.



George Washington = Colonial Times/Industrial Revolution/Etc.
Not fantasy for the very same reason that something written in modern times without magic or the supernatural cannot be fantasy. It falls within the same field.

So any story--even one with real historical characters and without an element of the supernatural--that takes place in medieval Europe can be considered fantasy as long as it's not entirely true?

[Shaun]

What exactly makes him a fantasy character?
The story is grounded in the physical laws of our universe, includes fictional and historic characters, and includes both events that did not happen and events that physically could have happened (but didn't). To me, that sounds like historical fiction or just plain fiction, not fantasy. Unless anything that takes place in Medieval Europe instantly becomes fantasy.

There's no logical reason why something has to defy conventional laws of nature in order to be fantasy. None at all.
And a lot of things in Medieval European literature are fantasy, and some are not. It all depends on the type of story, a factor which seems to be ignored.

[Imelda]

Holy chocolate, period literature isn't fantasy! If so, then Pride and Prejudice, etc are all fantasy. Which they aren't.

[Shaun]

Holy chocolate, period literature isn't fantasy! If so, then Pride and Prejudice, etc are all fantasy. Which they aren't.

Then neither are the epics or mythological stories, since all of those are period literature.
I already covered works like Pride and Prejudice. There's a type of story that fills the shoes of fantasy.

[Imelda]

And Robin Hood ain't it.

[Shaun]

Okay, so then fantasy is only something modern. Congrats, now we've managed to put even more restrictions on the genre.

[Andy]

Shaun, this entire attempt to add more books to the category of fantasy than it deserves is getting ridiculous. You're categorizing works as fantasy when they don't deserve it, purely because, it seems, not doing so would "choke the genre."

George Washington isn't fantasy, he's FICTION/HISTORICAL depending on the story. Robin Hood isn't either, because there is NOTHING even remotely fantastic about his story. It's about a rebellion - which has happened plenty of times throughout history, but you don't see anyone calling the American Civil War a fantasy, do you?

Go and find me a good dictionary definition that supports your argument, Shaun.

The story of Robin Hood is fantasized. t's a story about a guy and his merry men going around and saving England from oppression by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. None of it is really true, but it's certainly a story that is fantasy.When a story isn't true, we call that fiction. What you're saying is that a story becomes fantasy based solely on the merriness of the people in it? Awkward.....

Give me a valid reason why it must include something unexplained that might be perceived as magic or the supernatural.Fantasy is by definition, "Something which could not happen in real life." That's where supernatural and magic often come into play.

Given England's political/social/religious climate, it is very likely that Robin Hood could never have existed as the folk character we know him.Unlikely, but not impossible. Historical fiction is full of author-made diction spoken by real people. And yet even though it's pretty much guaranteed that not all that diction happened, we don't classify it as fantasy.

That's your problem, Shaun. You're saying that any story which is very unlikely (yet possible) to have happened should be considered fantasy. I suppose that makes all fiction fantasy, since it's pretty certain that not all of it happened, right?

*Waits for 20-paragraph reply by Shaun to appear, with subsequent eye-rolling*

[Imelda]

Given England's political/social/religious climate, it is very likely that Robin Hood could never have existed as the folk character we know him.

Umm ... how long did I spend last night telling you how much evidence there was that RH did exist in some form? Half an hour? Good god, I spent 18 months researching it, but apparently knowledge counts for nothing ...

[Shaun]

George Washington isn't fantasy, he's FICTION/HISTORICAL depending on the story. Robin Hood isn't either, because there is NOTHING even remotely fantastic about his story. It's about a rebellion - which has happened plenty of times throughout history, but you don't see anyone calling the American Civil War a fantasy, do you?

I didn't say George Washington was fantasy. Croc tried to use that to argue it to me. I never said that at all.
When we talk about Robin Hood, his fantasized story is about a rebellion upheld by a small group of ordinary people. Not an entire nation defended by the money of the French nobility. Big big big big difference. We're talking a ragtag group of lowly farmers and brigands running around with poorly crafted weapons against an entire nation. That's fantasy.

Go and find me a good dictionary definition that supports your argument, Shaun.

Yes because dictionary definitions are the end all be all for every argument. Because words don't change and have never done so in the history of words. But since you want definitions:
1. imagination, esp. when extravagant and unrestrained.
2. the forming of mental images, esp. wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing.
3. a mental image, esp. when unreal or fantastic; vision: a nightmare fantasy.
4. Psychology. an imagined or conjured up sequence fulfilling a psychological need; daydream.
5. a hallucination.
6. a supposition based on no solid foundation; visionary idea; illusion: dreams of Utopias and similar fantasies.
7. caprice; whim.
8. an ingenious or fanciful thought, design, or invention.

Some of those involve the supernatural, some of them don't. And if we want to go a step further we'll look up fantastic:
1. conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque: fantastic rock formations; fantastic designs.
2. fanciful or capricious, as persons or their ideas or actions: We never know what that fantastic creature will say next.
3. imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish or irrational: fantastic fears.
4. extravagantly fanciful; marvelous.
5. incredibly great or extreme; exorbitant: to spend fantastic sums of money.
6. highly unrealistic or impractical; outlandish: a fantastic scheme to make a million dollars betting on horse races.

Again, the same thing. Some of them imply elements of the supernatural/magic and some of them don't.

When a story isn't true, we call that fiction. What you're saying is that a story becomes fantasy based solely on the merriness of the people in it? Awkward.....

No, I'm saying the placement in time, the nature of the fictional elements, etc. are all factors by which fantasy is determined. And fantasy is fiction, by the way, it's just a subgenre of it.

Unlikely, but not impossible. Historical fiction is full of author-made diction spoken by real people. And yet even though it's pretty much guaranteed that not all that diction happened, we don't classify it as fantasy.


Historical fiction is writing based on real events. We've already discussed this ad naseum, but it's not sinking in. The only thing real about Robin Hood is that he was alive and he stole some stuff, but all the things that we seen in movies and literature are fantasy tales. The character we see and know is not the real Robin Hood no more than the fanciful renditions of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid are real (look those up, almost all the movies about them are bull...they were cold-blooded killers). And before you stick the words into my mouth, no I'm not saying the story of Butch Cassidy is fantasy, because it's position in the historical spectrum is too modern for a fantasy tale to exist without magic.

That's your problem, Shaun. You're saying that any story which is very unlikely (yet possible) to have happened should be considered fantasy. I suppose that makes all fiction fantasy, since it's pretty certain that not all of it happened, right?

I'm saying any story that isn't true, is placed in a medieval or earlier time, and takes on certain elements of the adventure story, including tales of Romance literature, are likely candidates to be considered fantasy.
The difference between "Fiction" and "Fantasy" is the type of story. Fiction stories, particularly in the time that Robin Hood would have sprouted up, were not tales of high adventure and merry men running around in the forest singing songs and what not.

Get over it. It's fantasy.

[Crocolyle]

The Satyricon is fantasy? (Roman story)
The movies Ben Hurr and Gladiator are fantasy?
The Vinland Saga is fantasy? (It's exaggerated)
The television series Rome is fantasy? (it's not true to history at all)

Apparently you have a unique view of the fantasy genre. I commend you on your originality and your ability to look past the usual requirements of the genre to cram whatever literature you want in. I agree with you 100%. 1,000 years from now, ALL FICTION WRITTEN TODAY WILL BE FANTASY!

Hopefully whoever continues your fantasy canon project 1,000 years from now will remember it and your completely correct view of what the genre is.

[Shaun]

I'd have to be more familiar with those works to make an accurate judgment, however I did clearly state that fantasy in the modern world cannot exist without magic. Apparently that part was left ignored. As soon as the industrialized world starts showing up is when things really have to have magic.

[Andy]

I meant a definition of "fantasy literature", not fantasy or fantastic. Passing all my classes is fantastic. Yet it fails to fall under the genre of fantasy (at least, under my definition it doesn't). :rolleyes:

I'm saying any story that isn't true, is placed in a medieval or earlier time, and takes on certain elements of the adventure story, including tales of Romance literature, are likely candidates to be considered fantasy.
All fictional adventure stories that take place in the past are fantasy? Yikes. Cavemen come to mind. So does the tribal warfare of African and Native American villages. I'm sorry, but place in history has nothing to do with whether something is fantasy or not. It's all about the unnatural elements.

The difference between "Fiction" and "Fantasy" is the type of story.

Fiction stories, particularly in the time that Robin Hood would have sprouted up, were not tales of high adventure and merry men running around in the forest singing songs and what not.
In the same way, fiction stories, particularly our time, are not tales of a person going on an adventure to count as many squirrels as he can before he dies.

But that's not fantasy is it?

[Crocolyle]

http://www.findmeanauthor.com/fantasy_fiction_genre.htm definition actually used some of the same words as I did in their definition. I don't feel like copying and pasting it, but you can take a gander if you wish.

Encyclopedia Britannica (a legit Encyclopedia) agrees with me:

also spelled phantasy imaginative fiction dependent for effect on strangeness of setting (such as other worlds or times) and of characters (such as supernatural or unnatural beings). Examples include William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels, J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, and T.H. White's The Once and Future King. Science fiction can be seen as a form of fantasy, but the terms are not interchangeable, as science fiction usually is set in the future and is based on some aspect of science or technology, while fantasy is set in an imaginary world and features the magic of mythical beings.

Most of these also agree with me in that myths are the roots of fantasy but technically not fantasy themselves.

I cannot find any websites that agree with you. Do you have any source to prove that fantasy literature is what you say it is? So far, it seems that you decided and since you decided it it must be so. Where have you read anything that has defined fantasy your way?

Your definition is the real fantasy here.

[Shaun]

I meant a definition of "fantasy literature", not fantasy or fantastic. Passing all my classes is fantastic. Yet it fails to fall under the genre of fantasy (at least, under my definition it doesn't). :rolleyes:

The definition of fantasy and the definition of fantasy literature have the exact same roots.


All fictional adventure stories that take place in the past are fantasy? Yikes. Cavemen come to mind. So does the tribal warfare of African and Native American villages. I'm sorry, but place in history has nothing to do with whether something is fantasy or not. It's all about the unnatural elements.

You need to read what I post, Andy, because I never said that actual history is fantasy. Not even close. You're grasping at straws here.

In the same way, fiction stories, particularly our time, are not tales of a person going on an adventure to count as many squirrels as he can before he dies.

But that's not fantasy is it?

Never said it was. If you read my posts you'll actually see I already addressed this very issue...twice...maybe three times.

[Shaun]

I base my definitions on what actual writers of fantasy say. Fantasy is like science fiction in that the debate of its definition is never-ending. So, you can quote definitions of it all you want, but if you ignore where it came from it won't do you any good. You're looking at modern misinterpretations of genre.

Edit: If we want to take this a step further you should look up magical realism. It's being called fantasy, but people like you guys are vehemently denying it its right to be included in the genre simply because it's not flashy stuff...

[GeorgeMichael]

ok bumping in here from what I've heard so far in the chatroom :)


Fantasy is not any old story placed in medieval times with knights and warriors, there has to be that unexplainable and impossible feature in the story... for example immortality is often found in fantasy but not limited to it, magic of course is a big one that is often included but not necessary, non existent races such as elves or dwarves. Fantasy is anything and pretty much everything that could never have or can't ( as far as we know) happen in our world. At least that's how I see it.

[Andy]

The definition of fantasy and the definition of fantasy literature have the exact same roots.
I'm not arguing over their roots. I'm arguing over their definitions. Something can be fantastic but not fantasy literature. Such as my good grades example. You can't use a definition of fantastic to define fantasy literature.

All fictional adventure stories that take place in the past are fantasy? Yikes. Cavemen come to mind. So does the tribal warfare of African and Native American villages. I'm sorry, but place in history has nothing to do with whether something is fantasy or not. It's all about the unnatural elements.
You need to read what I post, Andy, because I never said that actual history is fantasy. Not even close. You're grasping at straws here.
I never said it was, either. Note the word "fictional" in my quote. Now answer it properly.:rolleyes:

The difference between "Fiction" and "Fantasy" is the type of story. Fiction stories, particularly in the time that Robin Hood would have sprouted up, were not tales of high adventure and merry men running around in the forest singing songs and what not.
In the same way, fiction stories, particularly our time, are not tales of a person going on an adventure to count as many squirrels as he can before he dies.
Never said it was. If you read my posts you'll actually see I already addressed this very issue...twice...maybe three times.
This is how I debate, Shaun. I use your definition to show the kind of absurd examples it allows, thus justifying that is cannot possibly be correct. Using the one from the first quote, I made a similar one for the second quote. It follows the exact same wording as yours, but it is not fantasy. Therefore, your definition is flawed.

[Shaun]

http://library.thinkquest.org/C003239/data/history/asitdeveloped.html
A link for you. Look at Chaucer. Not fantasy by your standards, but it is still considered a fantasy traveler's tale.

[Shaun]

I'm not arguing over their roots. I'm arguing over their definitions. Something can be fantastic but not fantasy literature. Such as my good grades example. You can't use a definition of fantastic to define fantasy literature.

I can and have used the definition. You're ignoring the roots and by doing so disregarding hundreds, if not, thousands of years of literature that would otherwise be considered a part of your landscape of fantasy, but have been lost simply because you can't accept that elements of the fantastic don't have to be magic or the supernatural.

I never said it was, either. Note the word "fictional" in my quote. Now answer it properly.:rolleyes:

You said: Yikes. Cavemen come to mind. So does the tribal warfare of African and Native American villages.

Those are historical elements. Tribal warfare says history. You didn't say that they were fictional stories, you simply asked if all fictional adventure stories were fantasy. Big difference. I'm talking about fictional stories, actual STORIES. Not historical stories. I'm talking about King Arthur, Folklore, Myth, etc. Many of which include magical elements, but some of which don't.

This is how I debate, Shaun. I use your definition to show the kind of absurd examples it allows, thus justifying that is cannot possibly be correct. Using the one from the first quote, I made a similar one for the second quote. It follows the exact same wording as yours, but it is not fantasy. Therefore, your definition is flawed.

You failed to address the issue at hand. My definition was never flawed because I already explained things to you and you ignored that. I can't help it that you either didn't read it and are missing the information, or you've chosen to ignore it.

[Andy]

Closed due to Andy wanting to throw something and his hands getting tired. And also because this thread is turning int a warzone.

[Andy]

Okay, after a very lengthy (2 hours) discussion in the chatroom with Shaun and GeorgeMichael, here is what Shaun said. What do you think?

"Shaun says that everything invented by humans is fantasy in the sense that it is an imagined conceptualization brought to life. This is not referring to the argument over what fantasy literature is, but an argument about the nature of the human mind"

There was also unanimous agreement that that humans create books.

[GeorgeMichael]

Yes, that is the basic gist... well no actually it's not, but yeah that is the only thing we agreed on Shaun with. Humans create books... that is all, two hours of debating and we agreed on that alone. You all missed a lot of "fun" in the chatroom :)

[Shaun]

Great, now I am the bad guy. Wonderful.

[GeorgeMichael]

No he's a very good guy with his own opinions that not many (not many at all) agree with. I mean come on... Newton and Galileo were highly scrutinized... but I doubt your arguments will go to that height against ours Shaun :P

[Andy]

Shaun, 5 (me, George, Imelda, Crocolyle, Carraka) against 1 (*cough*) does not necessarily make you the bad guy. It just makes you stand out a little. :)

[Imelda]

Fiction stories, particularly in the time that Robin Hood would have sprouted up, were not tales of high adventure and merry men running around in the forest singing songs and what not.

*Goes insane*

Say what you like about anything else, I no longer care, but don't make stupid, WRONG, statements about something you know very little about especially when you know an expert on the subject is watching this thread like a hawk that eats carrots and can see very well in the dark.

You seem to have a very misguided view of what people were like in the Middle Ages. The first mentions of Robin Hood show up in ballads. The earliest was in the 1200s, I think, in a ballad about somebody whose name began with W, I think ... anyway, there was a brief reference to RH. Which totally debunks the people who say he didn't live during the third crusade, or around then. Anyway, that has nothing to do with anything ...

People had fun then. Lots of it. They had dances, they made merry, they also worked hard. But they had holidays, festivals, bards and whatnot roaming the country entertaining people for a fee. Kind of like a television licence, except they only show stuff a few times a year. When it's cold, dark winter and there's nothing to be done with the fields, and you're sitting there ... darning your clothes, and mending your tools, what is there to be done? Sit around chatting about how cold it is? Or listening to news from around the country, made exciting with accounts of the fights, the villainy, and all the trappings of a good story?

If you had the faintest idea what you were talking about, you'd know that the original stories were not about merry men running around singing songs (indeed, the only song version I can think of are the Mel Brooks version, and Disney). The original ballads were brutal. Robin ruthlessly murders many people. He doesn't give to the poor. Most of the merry men didn't exist, only John and Much have been a constant. The villians have remained constant as well--the fat, selfish clergymen, the sheriff of Nottingham. They were harsh, gritty tales, but embellished with jokes and pretty language until they were something along the lines of a modern-day thriller.

The Gest is one of the oldest ballads surviving, but even then you can see the corruption into entertainment and merry men ('proud outlaw' and the appearance of Scathlocke):

Robyn was a prude outlawe,
Whyles he walked on grounde:
So curteyse an outlawe as he was one
Was nevere non founde.

Robyn stode in Bernesdale,
And lenyd hym to a tre,
And bi hym stode Litell Johnn,
A gode yeman was he.

And alsoo dyd gode Scarlok,
And Much, the millers son:


Robin Hood and the Monk is a good example of where the 'merry' came from:

"This is a mery mornyng," seid Litull John,
"Be Hym that dyed on tre;
A more mery man then I am one
Lyves not in Cristianté.

"Pluk up thi hert, my dere mayster,"
Litull John can sey,
"And thynk hit is a full fayre tyme
In a mornyng of May."

"Ye, on thyng greves me," seid Robyn,
"And does my hert mych woo:
That I may not no solem day
To mas nor matyns goo.


Notice it's the forest that's merry, not Robin.

Very few of the themes you'll be thinking of were around when the stories first began. Robin, John, Much, and a strong regard for women and the Virgin Mary are pretty much the only things that were there in the beginning, and are mostly still there now (the Mary worship is mostly just religion, but then they could have been corrupted when England became Catholic).

So no, they weren't about singing (ever) and they didn't start out as merry men (the forest did ... but the forest was seen somewhat as freedom from the Forest Law, as that's where the outlaws hid), but they were about high adventure. They evolved, to include villains of the time (King John appeared at some point, probably to parody a king people were rather sick of), to include giving to the poor, when the poor needed a bit of a boost. It's so hard to track, because the ballads only really start to survive from Tudor times, and it's appalling what they did to them--they added in 'Queen Catherine' and all sorts and generally mutilated them to make them more light-hearted and less violent towards authority (you think sword fights are violent nowadays?

Many a sturdy blow the Shepherd gave,
And that bold Robin found,
Till the blood ran trickling from his heaad;
Then he fell to the ground.


She laid the blood-irons to Robin Hoods vaine,
Alacke, the more pitye!
And pearct the vaine, and let out the bloode,
That full red was to see.

And first it bled, the thicke, thicke bloode,
And afterwards the thinne,
And well then wist good Robin Hoode,
Treason there was within.


There's also a really gross fight with Gisbourne, but I can't find it ... it was stomach-churning).


The point is: they had fun, they had adventure stories, they had entertainment in the Middle Ages. Don't be another ignorant fool who takes that away from them. They had an awesome sense of humour.

[Shaun]

So all you've gone and done is basically proven my whole point. Thank you.

[Imelda]

Yeah if you didn't actually read any of my post ...

[Shaun]

We're talking about the differences of the original story of Robin Hood and the stories we all know today. The latter is fantasy. You've proven my point. Thanks again.

On a side note: the original store might very well have been fantasy too, but I think that depends entirely on what we actually know about those times and whether or not they really did run around as merry men singing cutesy songs. Somehow, given the political and religious climate, I see that is very unlikely.

[GeorgeMichael]

It's not Fantasy Shaun! Robin Hood is a folk tale told in real life settings. I could personally re-enact completely the tale of Robin Hood. (but I would do it much less gruesomely) I could steal from the rich people, and give to the poor. I could have a gang with me to help me along, or that one snooty guy who's always one step behind me. That CAN happen now, it is possible in our world, and because it can be done in OUR world it is NOT fantasy.

Imelda showed you the reality of Robin Hood, and in showing you that it was a story based on real world situations and events she showed that it is not in any way Fantasy.

[Shaun]

It's not Fantasy Shaun! Robin Hood is a folk tale told in real life settings. I could personally re-enact completely the tale of Robin Hood. (but I would do it much less gruesomely) I could steal from the rich people, and give to the poor. I could have a gang with me to help me along, or that one snooty guy who's always one step behind me. That CAN happen now, it is possible in our world, and because it can be done in OUR world it is NOT fantasy.

Imelda showed you the reality of Robin Hood, and in showing you that it was a story based on real world situations and events she showed that it is not in any way Fantasy.

She showed me A STORY, not every story of Robin Hood. One story doesn't necessitate the inclusion of all the Robin Hood tales as a single unit. They all take different approaches.

And, no, the Robin Hood presented isn't a realistic approach to a real world. That's not what is being presented. And no, none of that can happen in our world, since we don't live in the middle ages or in medieval times. You're making a comparison of themes. If you want to go for a comparison of themes, then we could point to a vast majority of fantasy stories and show you that those sorts of things very well could happen. The only thing you have to cling to in your argument is that the majority of fantasy books involve magic and the supernatural. That's it. But you fail to recognize stories that don't have that as fantasy because of a delusion that everything fantasy has to be all magical and supernatural and filled with impossible things, which is not what fantasy is at all, since much of what is in modern fantasy (and look at that phrase to get an understanding of the position you're arguing) is realistic, but set in other worlds that are, by and large, by Andy's argument, possible. There are scientific explanations for just about anything in fantasy. Magic can be explained and has been explained. So, now we're going to narrow the filed even more because anything that presents magic in a way that could be explained by science is no longer fantasy. Now the only thing that is fantasy is magic shown in a way that doesn't involve anything other than pointing a finger and going 'poof', which is such a small portion of modern fantasy tales as it is.
There are plenty of things in fantasy that can be done in our world, but you call it fantasy. That's hypocrisy.

Now I'm going to close this thread to save my time that could be spent doing something else. We're not going to agree on this and you all know it. So we should just end it now, agree to disagree.