"high" fantasy

[LordVreeg]

Of course.

BTW, I do NOT place the huge Good vs Evil battle as a necessity.  It's a factor, and can be done in a epic way, but not a critical ingredient.
Michael Moorcock and Roger Zelazny might agree with me.  These guys had a good handle on creating Epic, High fantasy with protagonists on the outside of the Good vs Evil fight.

[Elemental_Elf]

Of course.

Indubitably.
 

BTW, I do NOT place the huge Good vs Evil battle as a necessity.  It's a factor, and can be done in a epic way, but not a critical ingredient.
Michael Moorcock and Roger Zelazny might agree with me.  These guys had a good handle on creating Epic, High fantasy with protagonists on the outside of the Good vs Evil fight.

I believe the Good v. Evil aspect arises because so much of High Fantasy follows Joseph Campbell's concepts of A Hero's Journey, which typically entails a common boy finding out he's special and that he has a destiny to go on an epic journey to do defeat some terrible evil and save the kingdom/continent/world. All too often this leads to a black and white moral outlook.

Though I do not believe the Good v. Evil aspect is a key component of High Fantasy, it is none the less a piece that is typically rejected by the genre's mirror opposite, Low Fantasy, which takes a decidedly more morally gray approach.

[Ninja D!]

Before I say anything else, I'll admit that I just read the first post and skimmed the rest of the thread. I'll try to avoid the discussion of what "fantasy" and "high fantasy" is entirely.

Your first post, particularly the mention of deserts that stretch out into eternity, made me think of something like the setting of the Dark Tower books by Stephen King. Maybe you could enjoy designing a world that is so ancient no one could possibly no all there is about it. Maybe the world can't be defined, mapped, or recorded in any way because it is itself alive in a way.

[Drizztrocks]

High Fantasy and Low Fantasy are just the two basic archetypes that describe any setting (unless your playing in the real world, which make it no fantasy.)

 High Fantasy is like Eragon (if anyone's seen that). A place that is a completely new creation, even if its based on other settings. Lord of the Rings is High Fantasy, but it does not include flashy magic, destiny or many of the other things you mentioned. High Fantasy is a semi-realistic world with ALOT of fantasic elements added.

 Low Fantasy takes place in the real world with some big things added, such as magic or destiny. Harry Potter, the TV show Heroes and the Spiderwick Chronicles are all examples of Low Fantasy.
   Low Fantasy is the real world with some fantastic elements added.

  Sword and Sorcery, High Magic, Low Magic, Mystery, Hack and Slash; all of these things come after deciding whether a setting is High Fantasy or Low Fantasy. They are not up there with High Fantasy and Low Fantasy.


Please Note: I am NOT a fan of Eragon or the Spiderwick Chronicles.

[Steerpike]

Hmm, I looked it up and you're totally correct... seems like "low fantasy" actually is very rare.  Even Harry Potter might be considered High Fantasy according to the wikipedia entry on the subject, since the vast majority of the action takes place in the secondary world (Hogwarts etc) rather than the "real" world...

Colloquially I think we were all using the term to describe something quite different, a certain style of secondary-world fantasy.

[Elemental_Elf]

Hmm, I looked it up and you're totally correct... seems like "low fantasy" actually is very rare.  Even Harry Potter might be considered High Fantasy according to the wikipedia entry on the subject, since the vast majority of the action takes place in the secondary world (Hogwarts etc) rather than the "real" world...

Colloquially I think we were all using the term to describe something quite different, a certain style of secondary-world fantasy.

I remember having this debate before and I think we were all shocked to realize High Fantasy =/= High Magic.

[Nomadic]

Personally I much prefer the cbg version to the wikipedia version. The CBG version better splits things up. The other one is like... ok on one side there is a vast gigantic ocean of high fantasy... and over here we have the puddle of low fantasy

[Drizztrocks]

Personally I much prefer the cbg version to the wikipedia version. The CBG version better splits things up. The other one is like... ok on one side there is a vast gigantic ocean of high fantasy... and over here we have the puddle of low fantasy

 Not necessarily. Like I said earlier, you can have High/Low Fantasy and then choose between lots of other things like steampunk, sword and sorcery, high/low magic, epic style, Good vs. Evil or the nuetral gray area. Deciding between high and low fantasy is simply  deciding how fantastic your world will be.

[Nomadic]

Personally I much prefer the cbg version to the wikipedia version. The CBG version better splits things up. The other one is like... ok on one side there is a vast gigantic ocean of high fantasy... and over here we have the puddle of low fantasy

 Not necessarily. Like I said earlier, you can have High/Low Fantasy and then choose between lots of other things like steampunk, sword and sorcery, high/low magic, epic style, Good vs. Evil or the nuetral gray area. Deciding between high and low fantasy is simply  deciding how fantastic your world will be.

Except not taking place on earth doesn't make a setting more fantastic at all. Sorry but the wiki version not only doesn't make sense IMHO it doesn't make a good setting type divider.

[LordVreeg]

and what good is a definition without differentiation?  Especially in this case.  In this, as in most things, CBG>Wikipedia.  

[Elemental_Elf]

Of course the only problem is that if we use CBG definitions, only we the privileged few, will know what we are discussing.

[Nomadic]

Of course the only problem is that if we use CBG definitions, only we the privileged few, will know what we are discussing.

The world will come to know such things when we rule over them with an iron shell.

[Elemental_Elf]

Of course the only problem is that if we use CBG definitions, only we the privileged few, will know what we are discussing.

The world will come to know such things when we rule over them with an iron shell.

I'd like to think our Iron Shell would be shrouded behind a rainbow colored veil. Why rule outright and earn the scorn of the masses, when you can rule in secret and reap the benefits of being the World Builder of the Real World?

[Seraph]

High Fantasy is like Eragon (if anyone's seen that). A place that is a completely new creation, even if its based on other settings. Lord of the Rings is High Fantasy, but it does not include flashy magic, destiny or many of the other things you mentioned. High Fantasy is a semi-realistic world with ALOT of fantasic elements added.

I wouldn't say that Lord of the Rings is completely without destiny.  True, there aren't grand prophecies or extensive discussions about destiny, but there are implications of destiny.  Aragorn's birthright, implications that Frodo was "meant" to have the ring (and destroy it), etc.

[Seraph]

I believe the Good v. Evil aspect arises because so much of High Fantasy follows Joseph Campbell's concepts of A Hero's Journey, which typically entails a common boy finding out he's special and that he has a destiny to go on an epic journey to do defeat some terrible evil and save the kingdom/continent/world. All too often this leads to a black and white moral outlook.

Ah, the monomyth.  It is a very High Fantasy-ish idea.  Not essential, but VERY characteristic of that kind of setting.  They represent one of those cases where you can find each in the presence of the other, but they are really meant for each other.  They feed into each other very well, even if it evokes a sense of cliche.