The Nature of Fantasy

[Epic Meepo]

the Wikipedia definition[/url] only takes the introductory text of their article into account. The "Genre Overview" presented in the same article presents a full definition that is hard to reduce to just "it takes place on a different world." For example, there definition also suggests that high fantasy stories "are generally serious in tone and often epic in scope, dealing with themes of grand struggle against supernatural, evil forces," among other things.

[Kindling]

I'd actually kind of agree to some extend with that fragment of the Wikipedia article that Meepo quoted... Again because of high FANTASY being the context not high MAGIC.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

So you would say that a story epic in scope, even when the characters have very little magic, is still high fantasy?

Is a story filled with magic but limited in scope low fantasy?

[Raelifin]

Well, I guess it isn't as clear as thought. Let me lay out a few worlds, just for my sake.

Low Fantasy:
Hyborian Age (Conan)
Westeros (Game of Thrones)
Weyrth (The Riddle of Steel)
Firefly
Dune
Call of Cthulhu
Most Sci-Fi

High Fantasy:
Narnia
Middle-Earth
Warhammer
Greyhawk
Eberron
Forgotten Realms
Harry Potter
Star Wars
Redwall
Most Traditional Fantasy

There are a few more which I'm having trouble placing. If anyone has opions on this, go ahead. I am tempted to create an additional category of "Medium Fantasy."

???:
Wheel of Time
World of Darkness
Unkown Armies
Seventh Sea
Most Noir or "Dark Fantasy"


I certainly don't believe that there's a clear border between Dark Fantasy and High/Low Fantasy. Dark describes a core theme for these ethocentric worlds, but aside from that I can have dark high fantasy (Ravenloft) or dark low-fantasy (Night of the Living Dead). Part of the problem above is that of a "secret world" of magic and fantasy. The WoD is certainly high fantasy when observed by itself/made a central focus, but there is the gritty, human side as well which marks low fantasy if given focus. I'd put WoD in low-fantasy if only it wasn't so heavy on the focus on the supernatural.

Anyway, from my list, I can see that the idea of "High Fantasy" being alternate earth is bogus (by this, I mean it is a poor definition that is likely to lead to confusion, definitions can never be "wrong" because they are association to symbols) as is the idea that heavy magic makes a high fantasy setting (Redwall is clearly high fantsy). Now then, does the tone/nature of a setting make it high/low? Perhaps it is. I like to think that the defining nature of low fantasy is in the clear portrayal of human nature. High fantasy has the focus of "magic" in the sense of something unexplainable, something fantastic. Therefor, I will come to the end of this with the idea that low fantasy is fiction describing humanity with minor fantastic elements in the background & high fantasy is fiction that is inherently fantastic and places focus on the fantasy.

I like this definition, and I find that several of the "???" I posted up there are worlds that could be seen as conflicted between focus on fantastic elements and human elements.

[Numinous]

When Rael's definition is applied, Hubris fits firmly in the middle.  Although the ethos of the world is a focus on human nature, the fantastic is everywhere you don't look, like in the closet, a remote cave, or the mysterious fog-shrouded lake.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

Interestingly, even a few you group in high fantasy are called low fantasy.  Middle Earth is sometimes called the origin of high fantasy, but others call it low fantasy, especially compared to things like Narnia or Greyhawk.  Warhammer is basically marketed as low fantasy (certainly in the sense it is a "Grim, gritty world," and focused on the personal conflict more than the epic clash.

I am unfamiliar with Redwall.

As for dark fantasy, I'm thinking it usually works better in a low fantasy setting.  Ravenloft always seemed a little off to me, despite my having tried to get into to it from a running or playing perspective.  Granted, it does feel darker than Greyhawk, but it still feels like D&D, and still feels lighter than, say WoD of CoC, or most other dark games.

I'd place Wheel of Time in low fantasy, personally.  It's got fantastic elements (obviously, that's why it's fantasy), but they're rare, and the focus seems to be on the people.

Which kind of makes me like your definition - a focus on people, versus a focus on fantasy.  But I think any definitive answer we do try to find has to take into account the degree (or apparent frequency) of the supernatural.

If the supernatural is commonplace, I see high fantasy.  If it is rare, scary, and possible to doubt it even exists - it is low fantasy.

[snakefing]

So how would people classify Arabian Nights or Orlando Furioso?

Personally, I think I'd go with the term heroic fantasy rather than high fantasy. In this genre, you tend to focus on epic battles, larger than life figures, and legendary feats. This doesn't really imply that it has to be high magic. In practice, it often is because there is a tendency to make the magic just as epic and legendary as the feats of arms.

But I don't think it has to be that high in magic to be heroic or "high" fantasy. One could imagine a setting where the magic is epic in scope, but much more subtle in effects, and/or much more difficult to put into practice. In such a setting it might be possible for player characters and their to wield only minor magic on a daily basis, and powerful magic would require weeks of preparation, ritual sacrifices, pacts with dark powers, or the like. Pure spellcasters could be rare and maybe not viable as player characters.

(Hey, if anyone wants to work on a setting like that, I'd be game for a collaborative effort.)

Anyway, I'd think a setting like that could still be high fantasy, even though there wouldn't have to be lots of demons, dragons, fireballs, etc. Think of an ongoing battle between rival Caliphates - epic battles against the heretic, dashing deeds of derring-do, spiritual warfare, etc. The presence of magic could even be quite keenly felt as a thematic element, despite a lack of any powerful magic wielding characters.

D&D tends to go the heroic and high magic route, but primarily because they wanted people to be able to play heroic spell casters as well as rogues and swordsmen.

[Epic Meepo]

So you would say that a story epic in scope, even when the characters have very little magic, is still high fantasy?

Is a story filled with magic but limited in scope low fantasy?

high fantasy is any fantasy storyline that involves events of magnitudes not seen in the real world[/b] (witnessing Creation first hand, preventing the literal end of the world, handling a single object that has willingly guided the course of history, killing a primordial god or source of evil, rewriting the laws of magic/physics). Examples would include The Chronicles of Narnia, The Dark Tower, The Lord of the Rings, most Forgotten Realms storylines involving Elminster, and most Greyhawk storylines involving deities (Vecna in particular).

In contrast, low fantasy is any fantasy storyline that instead revolves around events of magnitudes that actually exist in the real world (assassinations, high-stakes diplomacy, intrigue, personal conflicts, wars, etc.). Examples would include Eberron, Harry Potter (at least what I've seen of it), the Hyborian Age (Conan), Warhammer, most Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk storylines not involving divine intervention.

Note that I say "fantasy storyline" not "fantasy setting." I think it possible that high fantasy and low fantasy can both exist in the same setting. For example, The Hobbit is low fantasy because the earth-shattering powers of the One Ring are incidental to the main plot, while The Lord of the Rings is high fantasy, because that entire story revolves around those earth-shattering powers and their consequences.

[f_hayek]

Looks like this thread's days have gone by, but in case anyone is still interested - I think high and low fantasy both exist in any d&d world. Because every setting needs a high-level overview, there is a tendency to pigeon hole any given world into a being a certain type. But even in a dramatic landscape where brave knights wield swords and magic against the invading demon hordes, the party might find some time to drop by a local tavern and have to leave town when the party rogue is caught in the store room with the innkeep's daughter ("She told me she was 18, but I didn't realize that was still underage for an elf!"

That said, I think any good adventure/campaign will have times of both low and high fantasy. Every minute of every adventure can't be a do or die epic moment where the fate of the world is on the line. And even the most nit-picking realistic role-players eventually need some dramatic, out-of-the-ordinary conflict to come into their characters' lives to make them worth playing. Most good adventures will have a natural low-to-high progression - setting the stage with a simple, realistic and believable beginning and proceeding to an out-of-this-world dramatic climax.

[Kalos Mer]

While I agree with f_hayek on the need for something dramatic to happen in order to make the characters worth playing, I disagree with him in that I do not think it is necessarily the case that the 'something' must be high-magic, high-power or 'out-of-this-world'.  Many good plotlines revolve around personal, rather than world-changing, conflicts.

[f_hayek]

It's true, it's not necessary to have a crazy climax to a story line, but my personal preference is to include a little of the down-to-earth, and a little of the out-of-this-world.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

I think if we accept that high/low fantasy is determined by the story and not the world (as Meepo put forth, whether or not you accept it is up to you), we are making that definition based on the summation of the events.

If the climax is the "hero" fighting the villain, that may very well be action packed, but it doesn't mean it's necessarily high fantasy.  E.g. Conan has many dire battles, but they're generally to save his own life, not the world.

[khyron1144]

The trouble is that a term like high fantasy has too many definitions.

Some define high and low fantasy entirely in terms of visible magic levels of the setting/ storyline: Conan and Lord of the Rings would both be relatively low fantasy on this scale.  A City Watch novel of Discworld is also about here usually.  Almost no spells cast.  A relatively small amount of magical items. You get the idea.

Default D&D is relatively high on this scale.  One of the Death and Susan novels of Discworld is probably high on this scale.  Everybody and his brother either casts spells or has a load of magical equipment.


Some define it in terms of scope: saving the world is high.  Saving your neck is low.  That would make Lord of the Rings high and a Death and Susan discworld novel high.  Again a Conan story or City Watch Discworld would be low.

Others define high fantasy as any fantasy that takes place in an entirely fictional world.  That would make Lord of the Rings, Discworld, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Xanth, and Robert Asprin's Myth series high fantasy.  
Fantasy that takes place in a historical or future historical Earth with magic-added is low, then.  That would make Conan, The Tales of Alvin Maker, and even Dune low fantasy.

[Bill Volk]

Low fantasy and science fiction actually differ from high fantasy in the same way. They both indulge rational analysis of the physical realities of the setting. They're part story, part puzzle. Some authors, like Asimov, go a little too heavy on the "puzzle" part and include almost no story at all. In high fantasy, there's no point in asking why or how things are as they are. High fantasy stimulates other kinds of thought processes: feelings, intuition, the senses, and the unconscious.

I'd disagree with the statement that Superman is science fiction. He used to be in the thirties, but every contemporary portrayal of him (including the movies) treats him as a mythical figure. There's no point in asking how he can fly, or how he can shrug off a nuclear blast but still get a haircut, or how astronomically improbable it would be for an alien species to look exactly like humans (and WHITE humans at that!) In fact, he couldn't even fly when he first appeared, and he didn't have heat vision or super-ventriloquism or any such ridiculousness. Those traits emerged as he became a symbol and went into the realm of high fantasy.

Of course, I respect the people who define "high" and "low" by scale instead. Still, the stakes can get pretty high in the real world, too, and the frequency of globe-spanning events is only increasing. Would a fictional account of the Cuban missile crisis be a high fantasy, even if it were perfectly plausible?

As for dark fantasy, the closest thing to a definition I've ever heard came as a joke from a friend who was poking fun at Vampire players: "Their real lives aren't bad enough to justify how much they like to whine, so they get together and pretend to suffer from the curse of le vampyr"
This is going a little too hard on our friends in the White Wolf camp, but it's funny because there's a kernel of truth in it. Dark fantasy gives an outlet for negative emotions like fear and sorrow. We can't explain why, but sometimes we like to seek out an emotional state that we would avoid in real life.