High and Low Fantasy

[Deleted]

i'd like to know how people define or distinguish between high and low fantasy. from the conversations here and elsewhere on the web, i had deduced that the distinguishing characteristic between the two were high and low levels of magic along with a high and low availability of magic. however, the wikipedia entries and definitions contradict these notions in my comprehension.

i felt compelled to hit up wikipedia for the definitions because Middle Earth is frequently referred to or considered high fantasy while the works of REH are considered low fantasy. I've been reading REH lately and noticed that magic and supernatural more commonly occur there than in Middle Earth.

[Deleted]

after some soul-searching, i reached a conclusion of how i would define low and high fantasy. then i did some internet searching and found material that supports my judgement.

while the current 'top-level' definitions of high and low fantasy on wikipedia revolve around the world-setting, the deeper, low-level analysis in those entries flow toward my own definition. discussions here: forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?474042-Conan-Is-Conan-High-Fantasy and the links to the older wikipedia entries for the two sub-genres also support my current viewpoint. high and low fantasy have nothing to do with setting. neither do they have anything to do with prevalence or amplitude of magic. it has more to do with plots and characters.

high fantasy involves a 'chosen one' or 'chosen few' that are fated to save the world from an ultimate evil. this definition would encompass the works that are usually regarded as high fantasy: Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc. The main characters are moral and portrayed as saviors.

low fantasy lacks an epic struggle between good and evil. the plot is not to save the world. low fantasy is more about the main character or characters saving their own asses or each others asses or protecting their own interests. it is less epic and more episodic. the main characters are amoral and portrayed as adventurous rogues. Conan stories definitely live in this category.

G.R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire is lumped into high fantasy in most places on the web. i have rebellious feelings about this. however, i have not read the books. i decided i would not read the books until they were all written and the full story is completed. i don't want to find myself in a Robert Jordan/Wheel of Time situation. however, i did read half of the first book before making this decision. i am following the HBO series. so far, it seems low fantasy to me. even though i can see the 'epic struggle against epic evil' on the horizon, i cannot fathom how any of the current characters could be transformed into moral, shining champions fated to become saviors of the world...except for Danny. i would whole-heartedly and eagerly rush to bow before her as a subject to a Queen! (and not for the obvious, physical reasons) but still, i can't see her as becoming the sole savior of Westeros. i think actions of many hands acting without unison, harmony, or knowledge of the other will converge to bring about salvation. i would still call this low fantasy but unreservedly acknowledge that it blurs the lines and could be considered high as well.

[Deleted]

very good post here: www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=59045#p1305150
i wish the guy had quoted his source

high fantasy - romanticism, idealism, moral
low fantasy - realism, cynicism, pragmatism, self-interest, amoral

edit: i do think the fantastical/magical level of the setting is a significant factor but not the core nucleus or determining factor. an atom can gain or lose electrons and still remain an atom of the same element. take away or add too many electrons and the whole thing will likely explode and produce a different type of element.

[zendog]

I think you're onto something with your second post, but isn't there some confusion with Epic/High and Heroic/Low Fantasy?

I always took High and Low to relate to the amount of fantastical elements and Epic and Heroic to relate to the steaks involved.

So in High fantasy you have Griffin riders, wizards all over the place, magic and monsters everywhere, and in Low fantasy you might have one monster, and one type of magic, both of which are rare and subtle (the difference say between Dragonlance and Game of Thrones).

Where as with Epic vs Heroic you've got to do x to save the world from the dark lord (LotR/Quest fantasy) vs kill the sorcerer to save yourself, maybe the girl, and maybe get some sweet loot, but if it all goes pear shaped just curse Crom and move on to the next adventure (Conan/S&S).

Obviously there's a sort of Venn-diagram situation going on between High, Epic, Heroic, and Low fantasy. to complicate things further there's also a fantasy utopia vs fantasy dystopia dynamic as well (Blue Rose vs The Seven Kingdoms).

[Deleted]

you're right-on with the venn-diagram and the overlapping nature of this stuff. i'm also with you on the description of Epic. however, your description of Heroic doesn't really put the character(s) in a very heroic light, imo.

i haven't thought much about 'Heroic'. my first inkling of thoughts is that 'Heroic' is about a 'larger-than-life' character or characters...of legendary proportions...like Hercules or maybe even Conan. neither figure is very heroic in a moralistic sense, but very heroic in a 'bad-ass dude' sense.

you're description of Low fantasy seems to apply to LotR (the actual books), imo. magic was rare and subtle in the books. lots of orcs/goblins but ignoring those, monsters were rare too. maybe what i'm trying to say is this: for an Epic struggle, LotR is kinda low-fantasy, imo. i think there's been some distortion of LotR because it's been raped into game settings quite a bit.

high/low fantastical elements do seem to go hand-in-hand with my own definition of high/low fantasy. however, the plot and characters seem more important to that high/low feel. what if you put Conan into a typical D&D world where people were slinging spells left and right and Conan's mount was a griffon...but Conan still had the same motivations and basically the same adventures but with more spell-dodging? it would still seem like low-fantasy to me.

it has occurred to me that 50% or more of all RPG adventures have non-epic, non-romantacized, amoral plots, themes, and schemes, no matter the level of fantastical elements. before your post, i was already considering my posts to be better suited for a definition of high/low fantasy fiction while the seemingly more popular definition of a high/low fantasy setting is better suited for gaming vernacular...which would explain why it came to exist in the vernacular. yes, i am slowly back-sliding toward the popular opinion. not 100% converted yet, but i'm getting pretty close

i want more convincing/teaching so it doesn't feel like i'm shoving a square peg into a round hole in my head...just to avoid being different or looking stupid.

[Deleted]

maybe i'm already convinced...
movie: Clash of the Titans (original 1979ish) - high or low? i'm leaning low, mostly because of the setting but partly because he wasn't on an epic quest. it was a 'romantic quest' though...he did it all for the 'booty'

the newer Clash of the Titans - definitely high, mostly because of setting...but wasn't his motivations a little higher too? (can't remember)

(original is my favorite. didn't care much for the remake. thought the Wrath of the Titans was a little better than the first)

[Deleted]

ok. something is clicking here. it makes sense that the high/low setting goes hand-in-hand with high/low minded characters. if you want to tell a tale about low-minded, gritty characters, it makes poetic/artistic sense to put them in a low fantasy setting. if you want to tell a tale about high-minded, ideal-ish characters, it makes poetic/artistic sens to put them in high fantasy setting. i'm onboard now

this hit me when i looked up the plot of the 2010 Clash of the Titans. Perseus' had higher motivations than gettin' some booty in the 2010 remake. then it hit my why they made the setting so 'high fantasy' (which really turned me off when it came out). i'm sure they also wanted to show off the advancement of special effects.