As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Why is fantasy so appealling?
Shinto
__BANNED USERS regular
__BANNED USERS regular
Why is fantasy such an appealling genre to modern audiences?
It almost invariably invokes political ideas of monarchy and aristocracy that western civilization have long considered anthema. The operation of magic and the figure of the sorceror as a lone, uncollaborative possessor or knowledge is the opposite of the modern scientist. We regularly relish entering into worlds with values so different than those of our modern society. Why?
It almost invariably invokes political ideas of monarchy and aristocracy that western civilization have long considered anthema. The operation of magic and the figure of the sorceror as a lone, uncollaborative possessor or knowledge is the opposite of the modern scientist. We regularly relish entering into worlds with values so different than those of our modern society. Why?
Shinto on
0
Posts
Either way, it's a popular genre because people like to be taken out of the everyday world and brought to something totally new. It's always been that way, really.
Why do we keep coming back to such a set formula? What is it about it that captures us beyond it just being different?
Which definition of fantasy are you going by?
Is it just speculative fiction in general? But that would include sci-fi.
Nah, the sword and sorcery stuff.
Tolkien, Weis & Hickman, Martin, Jordan, Feist - all markedly similar settings. What is it that we love about it?
Sword and Sorcery, or Sword and Sorcery as well as Epic?
There's a shit load of genres.
Do you mean "Why do people like settings ripped off from Tolkien, and popularized by Dungeons and Dragons?"
Because some of us get our Fantasy On with stuff like Planescape.
Anyways, as Death of Rats said, people just want to be taken out of their lives into something different.
As I said, without defining a domain of fantasy, theres no way to be assured of what formula you're asking. However, if you're referring to the generic "swords, dragons, wizards, hobbits and haunted gold rings," it's probably because its such an easy thing to get into and work with.
People like to the seemingly carefree and simpler way of life that is glorified in fantasized medieval-setting. They like the mystique and undiscovered elements in the world; the thought that there's things like "magic" that hasn't been scrutinized, studied, tabulated, and published and never can be.
It is... well more complete and good and evil are frequently more clear. The heros more... heroic, tautology whoooooo, and decisive. Thing are more exciting and there is typically justice or at least a happy ending. The physically weak, can be strong and powerful.
I suppose this implies that those things I listed are missing, or at least percived to be missing, in those who read fantasy and their lives.
Personally, I read it cause I think terry pratchet is funny as hell. Expand it to all genera work, and well... I'm a technology whore and think that eventually I'll be able to use it to make myself more complete. Which in some ways kinda resembles the kid who want's to be harry potter; I find horses to be hot. err... I mean a lot of mine are kinda actually getting their in one way or another so it is a little less hopeless, but still just about as sad.
For example, in Tolkien we love the rich world and likeable characters, but we also love the complex history and fabric of the environment.
Also, with Martin the characters are just shy of being real, in their mannerisms and in the way they interact with the other characters. The political intrigue making everything feel so human, along with the dose of magic make a very unique and realistic experience.
Though, in the end, it's just that we all love escapism. We want a world we can stay in for a time, and when our time is up in that world, we wish we could be there forever.
Fantasy lets us imagine, if only for a while, that we are more, that are special. That the king is really that, a king, not a pawn, just like you, but someone of real power who really can't be replaced by just anybody. That good and bad are real forces not broad ideas and concepts that we have to spend every day trying to work out and understand. That magic really can happen and somebody really can make it.
But most of all, it's simple. No matter how involved or realistic, the age was simpler, no computers, no instant communication, no street corner philosopher. We know that world, we know to some extent it was real. Sci-fi is far more complex, and full of what-ifs, full of unknown that we have to learn anew which each book movie or series. It gives you questions, not answers and it revels in the act of doing so.
With reality, WE DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING. So we can only say so much.
When you create a reality, you CAN know everything, and there is a long history of people loving something they feel there is total knowledge of.
People like to be in on the Mystery.
And Vetinari is an awesome political character.
You can only fit so many riddles in to Rainbow Six.
Howard's Conan stories, Moorcock, all things Warhammer, the Odyssey, and any sensationalized pseudo-historical (movies like Gladiator or just about any pirate movie ever). Tolkien's ok, but I generally can't stand any of his derivatives or modern generic fantasy authors. I'm still enthralled by weirder D&D settings too; Dark Sun, Planescape.
I utterly loathe Anime-style fantasy and stuff that feels like it's different just to have a gimmick. Warcraft, most D&D settings, and many shelves of books easily fall into this "hyper-generic" category. My wife loves Martin, Jordan, and all those types, but I'd rather study baseball stats or do math than delve into that type of fantasy.
There's certainly some common or frequent factors:
1. History; in particular classical, bronze age, and Renaissance or Age of Sail European history. I once spent an entire day wandering around the middle of Rome trying to identify roads and crumbled civic buildings. I'm fascinated by the idea of walking down the same road as Caesar.
2. Concept-heavy. Moorcock writes metaphorical epic heroic fantasy. Planescape features places literally formed of ideas. Settings that take concepts and give them metaphysical paths to "reality" fascinate me. What would the end of time look like? Would a soup of despair taste bitter or sickly-sweet?
3. Exploration. Just like my love of history and travel, a detailed and vast fantasy world is a new place to poke around. New stories, new history, new sights and views.
4. Escapism and power fantasy, of course. Bad commute where I could only shake my fist at idiot drivers? Conan would've cut their heads off, fucked their women, and killed a Thing From Outside Space instead.
I'm sure there's more, but these are the first that come to mind. These also explain my vast and absurd love of Warhammer. It combines all of these elements, removes them from the ego of a single writer, and tweaks them all to be a playground for gaming and participation.
When you're no longer barred by reality, you have much more you can do.
If I want to make a world that's run by a sexy species that keeps humans at bay by sexing them up and chemically reducing their fertility rates, I'm going to need some sort of crazy I can use.
--
Fantasy: It's everything that life can't be.
Hi!
Could you go into a wee bit more detail with that, because otherwise when I start calling you a moron and perhaps a bigot, we might be talking at cross purposes.
So, go ahead flesh that out a bit and maybe throw out an example of what you are talking about, because well... there is a whole lot of fantasy in anime, and there really several genres and sub-genres that would fall under a pretty reasonable interpretation of the fantasy umbrella.
mmmkay. You go on and have a good night now, and I'll be back in the morning, so I can rip you a new asshole.
If that is the case, I'll just be calling him ignorant.
It should be a default assumption, even on the internet.
Most people don't even know about stuff like Voices of a Distant Star.
Which is why there is still war.
...but it's hardly limited to them.
Just like sci-fi could be "Zomg, alien cyborgs!" or "Zomg, Soylent Green!"
Freud?
My general notion was that men gravitated more towards sci-fi, women towards fantasy.
While there's some pretty obnoxious chauvinistic traits in lots of fantasy, you also have a good dose of women kicking serious ass.
I think sometimes people confuse Conan and Dungeons and Dragons with all of fantasy.
Considering some of the coolest characters in ASOIAF are women(Dany, Cersei, Arya), you'd think it would be the opposite for readers of Martin's epic.
Also, there isn't a whole lot of the character archetypes of "muscle bound men" and "large breasted women"...I'm not so sure about Tolkien, but Martin's series is far above even one descriptor. You cannot lump it into one category like that at all.
Don't worry, no matter what I mean, that throwaway comment won't make you less of a person. Really.
That wasn't necessarily a reference to actual anime, but rather anything that plays to stereotypes often found in anime. Basically, anything that takes Western fantasy tropes and exaggerates them in particular fashions. Warcraft does this to some extent, though I made the comment primarily in reference to JRPGs; Final Fantasy and its ilk. Giant hair, huge swords, movement lines, frail giant-eyed maidens. So, no, I'm not going after anime as an art form or medium.
I find that style irritating and unpleasant to watch or play.
That was also a poorly constructed sentence; the "gimmick" thing was a separate clause, examples being: "orcs that are noble and shamanistic" or "D&D, but with spaceships!".
This guy is so awesome, even his typos are true.
In the traditional works--Arthur, Lord of the Rings, Narnia--we have a clear-cut good vs. evil construct, and it's set in a world we can recognize: a field/keep/castle/dungeon where the good guys can attack/defend... I mean, let's review the following:
Mines of Moria: the Purest Heroes of the World descend into hell to do battle against the unclean beasts living below... the "Archangel" (Gandalf) raises his staff and sword against the very living Flame and Shadow rising from Below (the Balrog of Morgoth).... "You cannot pass. Go back to the shadow." Living in the west, and more specifically the U.S., it'd be super-keen to have Gandalf sweeping clear all the terrorists in the world... and doing it in a manner where our own personal social and political views wrap Gandalf in a glowing halo of righteous indignation.
Excalibur/Sword in the Stone: Wouldn't it be sweet if you were so fucking right about shit, you could pull a sword from a stone and all the best knights/lords/squires (i.e., anyone who has any real say in how things go down in the "real" world) just bowed down in front of you and said, "hey, this dude knows what's true about the world." Arthur/Excalibur is about the few men who lead the many soldiers and peasents... the fact that a magic sword identifies the leader makes it cooler and easier to accept. I'd probably be more apt to ride to my death on a battlefield if my leader said he had a bitchen' +5 vorpal sword.
Narnia: It cannot get more black and white than this. Even though I'm agnostic, I love Lewis, Aslan and the world of Narnia. This is the world of "Good" vs. "Evil" before you read Tolkien: you're a knight in full plate mail with a glimmering sword riding on a (fucking, yes) Ivory-horned Unicorn, charging across a field into a line of goblins, harpies, and other foul creatures... and you never, ever have to worry about the fact that your actions could possibly hurt the innocent or take the life of a child... cuz, that never happens to "heroes."
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
The present-day version of Swords-and-Sorcery fantasy date back to Middle-ages European legends. The fantasized tales of King Arthur date back to the 12'th century, and they include, and indeed, probably inspire many of the current-day fantasy elements. Magic Swords, Wizards, and romantacized Knights all make their appearance in this early literature. Today, widespread literacy allows writers to borrow elements of the older literature in order to create compelling stories.
Additionally, I think that the death of "Heroes" in the modern-day through the greater exposure in media of celebrities starting in the mid-twentieth century has caused many to look for their role models through fictional sources where there exists a less-blurred line between right and wrong.
Not to derail the thread, but I'm saying that it's not just great leaders, it's real people that others strive to emulate. Do you know that saying, "Never meet your heroes?" Well, the magic of modern-day press coverage has certainly caused me to question whether or not we all have already met them before they have the chance to become our heroes.
The bit about great leaders was an analogy. I say that you don't have anywhere to stand when you proclaim your own time bereft of heroes - you need to see them in retrospect, after the events which make them heroes, since their heroic status is determined by whether or not their actions are remembered and have an effect upon history.
Authors rarely describe characters as such, but just look at pretty much all book cover art that has characters on it, or your average Magic: the Gathering card.
Let me clarify my point.
First of all, being a hero to the masses does not at all imply that their actions are remebered or even important. Let me give an example:
"Shoeless" Joe Jackson was a hero to many because his extraordinary skill on the baseball diamond was something to be greatly admired and emulated. People on the streets looked up to him, and were crushed ("Say it ain't so, Joe") when he was accused of fixing the 1919 World Series.
Today, people hold more reasonable expectations of failure for their celebreties, either through more exposure to the personal lives of our idols, or just through becoming jaded with romanticizing real people only to be dissapointed.
Evidently we are working with different definitions of "hero". I do not consider sport stars and big name actors to be heroes. They have not accomplished anything significant, they will not affect the course of history, they do not display qualities to be emulated in one's life (skill at playing baseball notwithstanding). These people may be the target of hero worship, it is true, due to their huge exposure to the public through the marvel of television, but they do not match the qualifications of historical heroes. Nobody remembers the 1299 English jousting champion, no matter how good he was with a lance.
I define heroes to be people like, for example, Margaret Thatcher, or Martin Luthor King Jr.; people who make an impression, regardless of whether that impression was wholly good or not (you'd have a hard time finding a historical hero with a spotless record). These heroes are much rarer than baseball champions and celebrity actresses, but they are no rarer than their equivalents in the past.
The black and white dichotomy is hardly to be assumed in fantasy.
Modern fantasy often features a great deal of gray area.
Even Tolkien had some hints of it, despite his "The Enemy" stuff.