Talk:High fantasy

This article has little bearing on the genre as it now stands. "High fantasy" is now treated as meaning "contains a lot of magic". Conversely, publishers and readers clearly refer to "epic fantasy" as a subgenre within fantasy, but Wikipedia does not have a distinct second for this, but instead, merely redirects requests for "epic fantasy" to this page.

The result is that while the real world of publishers, agents, editors, booksellers, and readers, clearly recognise the subgenre "epic fantasy", Wikipedia clearly does not. Which clearly puts Wikipedia in the wrong.

Additionally, note that "low fantasy" these days refers to fantasy stories with little magic in it. For reference, see "Joe Abercomrbie", who is commonly referred to - within the industry - as the UK's best selling epic fantasy author, and low-fantasy author (his most recent novels have no significant mangic in them). However, Wikipedia does not recognise the distinction.

Frankly, someone needs to come in and clear up the fantasy genre definitions on Wikipedia, because they are severely selective in promoting a minority point of view which is not reflected by the market sensibilities of the industry.

I would write them myself, but past experience shows that they will be deleted, because someone preferred the original version.

So it seems like you've got a lot of bees in your bonnet, the first of which is that there is no "epic fantasy" genre page and that the term "epic fantasy" redirects here. You are obviously correct that epic fantasy and high fantasy have two very different meanings, but if you're not willing to write a page for epic fantasy and defend your edits without whining about your "past experience," then I doubt someone will do the work for you.

Second, you seem to think that high fantasy should have a definition which would arguably exclude Tolkien. Seriously, think back to how much actual magic there really is in those books. There's the ring, the palantir, and Galadriel's mirror, and in The Hobbit Gandalf lights some wood on fire. Nearly everything we would call magic (elven cloaks, weapons, etc.) is actually portrayed as a combination of knowledge and craftsmanship that ignorant humans (or rope-loving Sam Gamgee) would call "magic." The term high fantasy has nothing to do with magic at all. In fact, a fantasy series where there are ogres and dragons and goblins that humans, elves and dwarves fight with just weapons and skill would still be high fantasy, as long as it's set in an alternate world that has ogres, elves, etc. You can go on about publishers and "the real world" all you want, but this article has a lot of sources that make the meaning of the literary term "high fantasy" very clear. Wikipedia is about providing the best sourced information, the work of experts, not common misconceptions.

Also, please sign your comments. Pwoodfor (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Tolkien is excluded by the current definition of high fantasy, which makes an imaginary world rather than Earth as a setting part of the definition. Well, as any Tolkien scholar can tell you, his tales are set on "our" world. So as it stands the "best sourced" Wikipedia definition is internally inconsistent. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:54A9:FFC0:BC70:19E8 (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

should we seperate high fantasy from heroic fantasy ? Imran 00:04, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

i dont think Christopher Paolini's Inheritance trilogy is high fantasy, the first book ain't more than sword and sorcery. camara

why is george rr martin on both the high fantasy and low fantasy pages as an example?

perhaps because it's possible to write books in two different genres? -Norph

The A song of Ice and Fire cycle of novels have several features which makes it acceptable to think of it as both high fantasy and low fantasy. It is high fantasy because it focuses on nobility, it deals with epic themes and has a larger-than-life scope. But there are equally valid reasons to call it low fantasy: The amount of magic is far less than in the majority of high fantasy novels(this is the most important reason). Characters are not "protected" by fate, as they are in, say, the Wheel of Time cycle. And also, the feudal system is not glorified. This is why I wrote on the low fantasy page that A Song of Ice and Fire belongs to the high fantasy GENRE, but often is categorized as low fantasy. sindreman

The high/low distinction has nothing to do with the amount of magic whatsoever. Harry Potter and the Dresden Files are low fantasy because they have a real world setting in which there is a ton of magic revolving around the main characters. You can find a whole list of high fantasy works with no magic at all here. I think people keep screwing this up because they think the high/low thing is a ranking of how fantastical the work is. Really it's a distinction of whether the work is fundamentally fantastical (i.e. is the entire world in which it takes place a fantasy or does it take place in the real world but a bunch of fantastical crap happens).Pwoodfor (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I realise your ambition, but please consider that 20 titles are enough. Please stop putting any more books or authors' exemples, because I will subsequently delete them. Please be so kind and do not this anymore. 20 books and authors, are completely enough for such an article. Thank you for your attention: Painbearer 23:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Since my edit was reverted on the grounds that "twenty books was enough", I produced a new one. Obviously, it is more important to put the really major works at a higher priority, but the question is, which ones are they, and whose opinion determines? But I think it's clearly idiotic to leave E. R. Eddison off, and insist that D&D books such as Salvatore and Dragonlance go on. An an article just on gaming inspired fantasy would be nice, actually. I suggest if someone wants to both insist that the list be kept to twenty books {\it and} that they determine which books, they are not being reasonable. If someone wants to insist that the list be limited to twenty books, but doesn't like my present suggestions, that would be reasonalbe. But if someone decides to boot one selection in order to return The Sword of Terrible Writing to the list, they should justify it here. Gene Ward Smith 03:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've split the list off into its own article, List of high fantasy fiction. It can now grow or shrink to whatever size is appropriate without impacting this article about the genre in general. Bryan 06:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it would be useful to categorize works of fantasy by the period they were written? Eddison has a special role because he was an early author of fantasy, influencing later authors. Roleplaying or other game influenced fantasy could be a special category, too.

I've reworded this section. Perhaps some sections of the original text were not written by a native English-speaker? I tried to clarify the meaning of some of the sentences.

The opening sentence remains somewhat vague, in my opinion. It states "Role-playing campaign settings like Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance [1] are an excellent basis for many fantasy books and many authors continue to contribute to the settings." I think this could be clarified somewhat.

Does the sentence mean that the settings in the books are a basis for many fantasy books? That would seem like putting the cart before the horse. Or does it mean that, once written, the settings provide a basis for many additional books in that series? I would imagine it's the latter. If the original author would care to clarify, please do so. If not, I may change the sentence structure to more clearly convey the latter interpretation.--Dunedan 05:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think there should be a topic concerning criticism of High Fantasy. All those "Tales of the Forgotten Magic Dragonlords of Darkness" books (usually trilogies) are widely considered as pulp fiction. Here's a good aritcle about it: http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/gulliver.htm

Matter of opinion, that. Changed to 'common' basis instead.

There is no indication in the article about when high fantasy as a genre started. At the very least, someone needs to track down when the term "high fantasy" was FIRST used, as that would at least give some context to all this. Personally, I would date the start of high fantasy as a recognisable subgenre to the 1950s (when Lewis and Tolkien were publishing), and the explosion in imitations of this style to the 1960s - but I am just guessing here, really. Some sourced statements would be nice. Carcharoth 15:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

The image currently in the Genre Overview section really should have some sort of caption. I would give it one, except I have no idea what its supposed to be an image of, exactly, or where the image is originally from. Unless someone can give this image a good caption, I think we should replace the picture with a different one. - Runch 19:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is Siegfried killing Fafnir really appropriate? That is arguably legend, not fantasy. Solri (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The article says:

'In some fiction, a contemporary, "real-world" character is placed in the invented world, sometimes through devices such as portals to other worlds or even subconscious travels. Purists might not consider this to be "true" high fantasy, although such stories are often categorized as high fantasy due to the fact that they've yet to be classified as their own distinct subgenre, and often resemble this subgenre more closely than any other'

I'm nigh on certain I've seen this named in more than one place as a 'secret garden' fantasy, or something very similiar, but the search is swamped on google by the novel. Anyone else heard anything like this, maybe with a source? I will have a look through some of my books on fantasy and see if I can find anything. --KharBevNor 01:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is this author a good example? Me, I would think The Tough Guide to Fantasyland would be a better cite of the satirical attacks on this genre. Goldfritha 03:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Out he goes, then. Goldfritha 21:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is pretty bad, clearly written by several editors putting in their own two cents:

The term can also distinguish between high fantasy and low fantasy—or to be more precise, low fantasy can be contrasted with high fantasy, as the term "low fantasy" has been defined in varying ways that contradict each other—but all contrast with high fantasy. In the commonest, "low fantasy" is distinguished by the relative amount of supernatural forces in the world—low—or by its setting in the real world with fantastical elements intruding. Brentt 04:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I completely agree. This paragraph is awkward, makes almost no sense, and has been sitting for a year and a half without having the circular structure addressed. I'm trying to reword the sentence so its structure isn't so circular. If I miss the meaning and mis-edit, which would be easy to do with as unreadable as this is, feel free to revert, but then please edit the sentence so it makes sense.

Jamesfett (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

"While it is far from being the oldest fantasy subgenre"

Does anyone have any references to the relative ages of the subgenres? Goldfritha 04:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that when we go further back in history, it is harder to apply the subgenres we are familiar with or even to say what is or is not fantasy. Some people count Beowulf as the oldest fantasy (thus making low fantasy the oldest subgenre) but I would not count it as fantasy at all, since the orginators of the story (and probably the author of the poem) probably thought that Beowulf was a real person and Grendel was a real monster, thus making it legend rather than fantasy. However, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, while classed as a romance, can also be seen as one of the earliest fantasies (again low fantasy) since it is unlikely that the author believed (or intended his audience to believe) that Bercilak really picked up his severed head. Elizabethan fantasy, such as The Faerie Queene or A Midsummer Night's Dream, tends to be low fantasy too. On the other hand, if you discount romance, fable, epic poetry etc., then the earliest fantasy in the strict sense is high fantasy (Ruskin, MacDonald, Morris). Solri (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I deleted the following paragraph from the end of "genre fantasy" because it injected too much p.o.v. into the article, although the criticisms are certainly common. Maybe there's a better way to make this point? "Recycling of ideas sometimes makes high fantasy dull or repetitive. Many of the novels are strongly influenced by Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, which is considered the groundwork of the genre. Others lift generously from real-life myths and legends, which can also result in a very familiar feel." Chris Hall 14:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I changed the D&D example from Forgotten Realms to Greyhawk. This is the standard D&D Setting and follows the high fantasy concept more strictly than the Forgotten Realms. They are much more oriented towards magic users, not in a mentorway but as main characters. The Forgotten Realms are the most popular example, but not the best for high fantasy. --Sturmwolf 16:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Removed Greyhawk mention since it is stated on the D&D settings wiki page as being more sword and sorcery, so this keeps it more consistent, but is also more truthful as Greyhawk fits the low fantasy/sword and sorcery definition better and, what with it being the first published setting of the game, was NOT more oriented toward magic users as earlier editions of the game were far more lethal with far more restrictions and defenses on magic use and ability.Crun31 (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I added Lyra Belacqua to the list of heroes, since I felt that this was a boy's club from reading the article. Except for two authors and two sources, all the characters and authors are male. Other possibilities would be Beagle's Amalthea, Hodgell's Jame, Lackey's Talia, McKinley's Aerin, or Moon's Paksenarrion. Actually, most of the examples cited on the page are strongly sword and sorcery (with maybe the exception of Tad Williams, which I read long ago.) There seem to be many other examples on the list of high fantasy fiction which are not S&S. Kvon 02:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)kvonReply

I agree with this statement, and I think it's an unfair underrepresentation, since the examples seem to be random rather than illustrative of anything (periods, styles, age group, etc.). I think the examples should use a criterion like, "examples of "pure fantasy are ..." or something along those lines. The article cites a source written by Patricia A. McKillip but doesn't even mention her work in the examples?! Also, couldn't it be argued that David Edding's Belgarion, due to his often less-than-heroic actions, doesn't exactly qualify as high fantasy? There should at least be an explanation of examples. --Mistsrider (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am inclined too agree with you on the count that female protagonists are a highly undeveloped aspect of fantasy and need better recognition. But scince the begining of human kind, men (like myself) have devloped a tendancy to be very teritorial when it comes to including women in fine arts (like writing). Altho this tendancy was eraticated as womens writes came along men are still in preference to male protagonists as this reassures us of our (subconcious) dominace. Please forgive us when we display are preferance to "Boys clubs" as this is a display of our (subconcious) dominace. Please forgive me if this addition in any way seems sexist belive me I didnt intend it to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissblade13 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

High fantasy as a genre that we recognise today has its roots in British/Northern European myths. Indeed the majority of "High fantasy" output today is still centered on fictional Nordic/European Medieval universes. Is it worth mentioning this? At the moment readers are not given much of an impression of the clear cultural influences on the genre. I know there are exceptions, which should be noted, such as oriental influences, but at the moment readers are not told much of the "feel" of High fantasy 16 August 2007

What does that image show? It looks like some piece of impressionist art. Surely there's something more relevant, like something related to a high fantasy book or film. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually Tolkien explicitly said that his stories were set in the past of our world. To be true, this was essential to his conception, because one of the inspiration for his works was to provide a genuine anglo-saxon mitology (beside creating "speakers" for his imaginary languages). So, saying that a feature of high-fantasy is to be set in parallels or invented worlds is plainly wrong just for the most prominent writer cited. [excuse me for poor english] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.100.146.29 (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this. For example, you'd be hard-pressed to find a more quintessential High Fantasy story than the tales of King Arthur, especially Le Morte d'Arthur and The Once And Future King, yet they are both set on earth, during the Age of Camelot. Now, while there is no clear time as to when Camelot is supposed to have existed, it is still understood that Arthur is part of "history," and is universally accepted to be part of our world (again, whether or not Arthur actually lived is irrelevant - he is considered a "true" part of history, and no one will debate that Camelot is to be considered from another world). What may be more intuitive is to say that High Fantasy is set in Parallel or Invented Worlds or TIMES, as the Age of Camelot can be said to be an invented/parallel time period, and the same is true for the Ages of Middle Earth, as well as the Cimmerian time periods presented in the Kul and Conan series'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.18.57 (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

NOPE. >> Yes, the story of King Arthur was written with the intention to "convince us" that it was a real happening, BUT, this is another genre of fairy tale, its ishistorical fantasy.--189.102.230.12 (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Paolini was not involved in the beginning of high fantasy in the 1950s, so it doesn't really make any sense to add him to the intro paragraph where it talks about High fantasy coming to fruition under Lewis and Tolkein. I've reverted that change. Psychobunny2412 (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

"...one of the two genres most commonly associated with the general term fantasy." So what's the other? Low fantasy? Clarityfiend (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Lol, not quite. Read the whole sentence, my dear: "While it is far from being the oldest fantasy subgenre, high fantasy, along with sword and sorcery, has become one of the two genres most commonly associated with the general term fantasy." (yes, I added the bolding!) How should this be changed? —the_ed17— 17:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

D'oh! Clarityfiend (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sword and Sorcery is Low Fantasy Psychobunny2412 (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is! I didn't know that! Low fantasy is a term that encompasses a few different genres, one of which is S & S...thanks, Psychobunny...By the way, have I said anything about your awesome name? —the_ed17— 17:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think Peter Pettigrew makes a good example of Lord Voldemort's very loyal servants. He is mostly driven by his cowardice. A good example, IMHO, would be Bellatrix Lestrange. Any ideas? Hom sepanta (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't even know why voldemort is mentioned at this article since harry potter is not high fantasy, it is contemporary fantasy, we should take that out of the article (I know it is a cliche dark lord but it just does not fit the genre) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.173.147.73 (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

FTA:"By contrast, low fantasy is characterised by being set in the primary world, or a rational and familiar fictional world, with the inclusion of magical elements." I agree that sounds like harry potter (not meant as a slight to H.P. fans) and so I don't think any elements from that mythos should be included in this article.

I'd recommend removing it from this article. Alan16 (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC).Reply

I must side with Hom & the rest on. Harry Potter while a good modern work of Fantasy is not really high fantasy. If we clamed that it was then Artemis Fowl would also mbe mentioned with the Lord of the RingsApplechair (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree... harry potter (and all "worlds within worlds") are exactly low fantasy..

If Harry Potter is low fantasy, then so are the Narnia books.

Agree on H.P., but Narnia is more of a grey area. The H.P. world isn't a world within a world like Narnia, the magical world of H.P. actually physically exists in the real world. Besides, it turns out [SPOILER!!!] that in the Narnia books it's is actually the real world that is a world within a world (sort of, there's the real world, Narnia, lots of other worlds, and then a super-world/heaven that encompasses them all where god and all the dead people are).Pwoodfor (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

In the genre overview it states that "The secondary world of high fantasy exists, or may be entered, in three different forms" and in the first form "where the primary world does not exist". His Dark Materials is listed here. However in the series, one of the main characters goes from her fantasy word (secondary world) to the primary world (or seems to be from what we see) then leaves again. This means that although the character goes through a portal as in the third form it is the reverse going from the secondary to the primary then back again. As such would this merit A) a fourth form B) a rewording of the third form or C) just leaving the series out all together?

Sorry if my wording is confusing. :)

92.10.202.25 (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree. His Dark Materials is so hard to pin down that it would be confusing to include it in a list of typical examples. Although it's classed as fantasy, it is close to being science fiction.Solri (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

While it's not clear from Lord of the Rings and Hobbit, that Arda is actually "Earth". Actually if you go into some of ther writings of Tolkien such as comments in his letters, and the HoME series one finds out that Arda is actually earth. In Tolkien's vision, Middle-Earth represents distant ages in Earth's past.

One example is in Letters 169 (P. 124), in which Tolkien discusses that he devised the geography of Middle-Earth dramatically rather than geologically or paleontologically. He mentions that he sometimes wished that he had some how incorporated some of the ideas with the ideas from geologists, but knows that it would have only caused more trouble with human history.

Furthermore in Letters 211, he discusses that Arda (meaning 'realm') is the name given to our world, since it would be the seat and special domain of the King, because the Children of God would appear there. He also goes onto say that if his stories were history, it would be difficult to place the locations, but that Middle Earth is more or less in the location of modern Europe, with the Shire expressly stated to be in that region. He mentions he could have tried to tie things into known history even more but feels that the time gap between the Fall of Barad-dur and his present to allow for his history to fit into our own. He states specifically that he "...constructed an imaginary time, but kept my feet on my own mother-earth for place." He places his present in what he calls the end of the Fifth Age (pg 283), and that the events of LOTRO occured about 6000 years before, though the present might be near the end of the Sixth Age or Seventh.

He mentions that many of his reviewers thought that Middle Earth was on another planet, but that that was never his intent.

If i'm understanding the wiki article correctly then it wouldn't fit into the idea of being in a "secondary world" with the primary world in non-existence, but rather he viewed Middle Earth being in the past of the primary world. Granted that would sort of tie it into one of the definitions of "Low Fantasy" which places the story in the "primary world" with elements of magic added. But Tolkien's works really can't be definied by either definitions. 76.232.176.26 (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The source for that is "Exploring Children's Literature" by Nikki Gamble and Sally Yates. I hadn't noticed the fact tag so I didn't expand the citation templates to each entry. I know that Middle Earth is supposed to be in pre-history, like Howard's Hyborian Age, but I believe the reasoning is that it is so far removed from the primary world that it counts as the secondary world (in a similar way that Hogwarts counts as the secondary world for Harry Potter despite being in Scotland). I won't revert for a while just in case this is to debated. The book can be read through Google Books if you are interested. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, it can't. Three of the 216 pages from the Gamble & Yates book are available through Google Books. 96.35.172.222 (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure Gamble's interpretation is necessarily accurate, and the end all and be all definition, its much too restrictive to shoe horn every type of high fantasy out there into those three spaces. Tolkien himself spent years writing letters to his critics "correcting them" whenever they assumed his books were somehow in a "secondary world", when he intended for them to fit into "our world" in a distant epoch. He argued that it fit into the themes he was going for essentially set in Midguard the inhabited lands, in North West Europe its own age.

Beyond that I know there are other books out there with different authors giving there interpretation of what "high fantasy" is, so it would help to give alternative views in the article.137.222.231.108 (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

This issue keeps coming up, so I thought I'd point out a few things. First, the genre of Tolkien's works is decided by their content, not his intentions. If LOTR is high fantasy without Tolkien's letters then it's high fantasy, because his letters aren't part of the world portrayed in the books. That said, there are references in the books from time to time to Arda being Earth (mainly in The Hobbit; back then there were hobbits but today it's too loud, goblins invented explosives, etc.). This brings us to second, what Tolkien said and the reality of his works, even his intentions, are pretty different. The man clearly didn't believe that the events depicted in his works actually occurred, and he wrote LOTR partly as a response to his experience of so much meaningless horror in the Great War. Tolkien was using LOTR to rewrite the world as a place where there was such a thing as clear good and evil and where Alfred Nobel didn't have to feel guilty because only a goblin would invent something as cruel as dynamite. Tolkien was well aware that Geoffrey of Monmouth, Vergil, Homer, etc. did not believe the things they wrote were historical, and he's doing the same thing they did. He's invented a fantasy earth where things are the same today but weren't then because the idea that world wars are just another chapter in a cyclical fight between good and evil, that somehow 1,000,000 men dead at the Somme means something, is a therapeutic fantasy.Pwoodfor (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

We don't need to bring up the Letters to tell the stories were set on this earth. Its content says so. The Cirth and Tengwar on the title page of each book say: "The Lord of the Rings translated [into English of course] from the Red Book [primarily in Westron] / of Westmarch by John Ronald Reuel Tolkien: herein is set forth the history of the war of the ring and the return of the king as seen by the hobbits" (Readers can easily decipher these with the help of Appendix E - II Writing). Also, in the Prologue Tolkien referred to the Hobbit as "the selection from the Red Book of Westmarch". And Tolkien constantly referred to the Third Age as "that (vanished) time" as if it existed a long time ago. In Appendix F - II On Translation, the author, pretending to be the translator of as always, discussed in detail how some of the names were translated into English (e.g. Karningul > Rivendell), and how he felt like to translate some other names into Old English (e.g. kûd-dûkan > holbytla), Gothic and other primary world languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.65.40.210 (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

So in the very LotR books, Tolkien claimed (for fictional purpose of course - I'm not sure why you need to say that Tolkien didn't believe his stories actually happened) somehow he was in possession of one of the copies of the Red Book, and he translated it into English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.65.40.210 (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Again, the internal evidence of the tales itself makes clear that they are set on our Earth. This is Tolkien scholarship 101 and no convoluted "what he stated outside the text" type argument is required. The issue keeps coming up because Tolkien is not consistent with the definition given in the article. I do not care if JRRT is high fantasy or not, but if he is to be the number 1 example, then the definition does not agree with its prime exemplar. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:54A9:FFC0:BC70:19E8 (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Re "The man clearly didn't believe that the events depicted in his works actually occurred, and he wrote LOTR partly as a response to his experience of so much meaningless horror in the Great War." The first statement is a Red Herring, a fairly preposterous one at that. A fantasy author does not have to be deluded to the point he believes the tale actually happened for the setting to be real Earth. The second statement is indubitably correct, but once more not to the point. More relevant would be another component in his motivation, which is that he wanted to provide something like "an Anglo-Saxon (creation) mythology." 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:54A9:FFC0:BC70:19E8 (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

While it indeed follows the general storyline for high fantasy, I think you'd need a cite to establish it as belonging to that genre. It's normally regarded as space opera science fiction.

I was going to cut all references to it, but maybe that's best left to a regular editor, if there's agreement. 192.91.147.34 (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

NO. It doesn't fit any of the subtypes.

"A setting in which the primary world does not exist" SW is set in our universe, just in a different galaxy.

"The secondary/parallel world(s) is entered through a portal from the primary world" Again, it's only just far far away.

"A distinct world-within-a-world as part of the primary world" Once more, distinct but not within our world. Just far far away.

-G

One question... What subgenre is Peter Pan? Is it not high fantasy?? :O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.230.12 (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have altered a phrasing claiming that there are three ways to enter a secondary world (clearly too restrictive) and removed the incorrect example of Thomas Covenant. Notably, the latter moves by losing consciousness and there is some room for interpretation whether his adventures really do happen. Similarly, Narnia (at least in some books) could be interpreted as children playing. Similarly, Stephen King's The Talisman could be a case of alcohol abuse.

Other possibilities include transportation by means of e.g. a spell rather than a portal (IIRC, Kay's Tapestry of Fionavar and Dickson's The Dragon Knight---which is on the border line between alternate reality-time travel). Other possibilities yet could likely be found on closer investigation. 88.77.180.185 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can't shake off the feeling that the numbered list in the genre overview clashes rather a bit headlong with the definition of the genre. The issue is later adressed in the "Settings" section, but rather inelegantly, and I'd say the problem still remains. As far as the traditional definition of High Fantasy is concerned, it just seems wrong to try and extend it to include works like Harry Potter and Percy Jackson. They are rather unambiguously defined -- though not explicitly -- as "low fantasy" just a few lines above. As a fan of High Fantasy (i.e. Secondary World fantasy), I can't help cringing to find the definition made to fit those books, even though I quite like them. Trigaranus (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are some problems with Gamble's interpretation and definition of high vs. low fantasy, and as you said its much too restrictive. She is clearly at odds with definitions, and comments made by the authors and other literary critics. For example she apparently claims that Tolkiens works exist in a "secondary world", when Tolkien himself spent years writing to his critics and fans telling them, no they were wrong it was in our world. Rowling has stated that Hogwarts exists in a secluded spot in Scottland... rather than in "another world". While I certainly would agree that these fall into high fantasy rather than low fantasy. They don't fit into the molds that she defined, and they can't be 'sho-horned' in either.137.222.231.108 (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I, as an avid reader of Tolkien, (and fan of harry potter) would also never talk about HP as High Fantasy, she gives some dates for her world of the past, but mostly she uses the real world as the setting for her own places, it's just not anyway near high fantasy, they are good books, but definitely not high fantasy, if harry potter is high fantasy, than conan the barbarian should be too, at least he has his own world with history and all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.82.191 (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Conan the Barbarian should indeed be classed as high fantasy! Solri (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

An interesting sidebar to this is that the geography of the Conan world fits the land masses during the last Ice Age, both in regard to where the coastlines were (more land was "dry") and where the Ice sheet started (approx. Northern Germany/France). 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:54A9:FFC0:BC70:19E8 (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

High/low fantasy isn't great fantasy vs. ok fantasy, it's fundamentally fantastical world vs. fantastical events/premise. This has nothing to do with whether Conan or H.P. is as good as Tolkien. Conan and LOTR are set in worlds that are, at best, loosely based on the real world; Potter is set in the real world, positing that there is such a thing as magic and we all just don't know about it.Pwoodfor (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

You keep imposing your opinion without addressing the issue. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:54A9:FFC0:BC70:19E8 (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Currently classified under type one "primary world does not exist" but in fact its type two or three if anyone has finished it. Shouldnt it be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.216.86 (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

You can change it, sounds like you know the series better, and can cite directly from the books.137.222.231.108 (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

There doesn#t seem to happen anything here, but as mentioned above Frodo is no young hero archetype. so i remove him, it can be discussed, but by the definiton of tolkiens work he was not a young boy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.82.191 (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think it should be clear, that Nikki Gamble actually only defines three characteristics for "high fantasy". Anything more or less would be outside her definition (and 'original research'). Lord of the Rings doesn't really fit into the box she created. If anyone knows any other reference works in which someone defines additional definitions for "high fantasy" they should be included. But we should avoid original research.76.232.176.26 (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm troubled by the use of the word "characteristics" here. "Three characteristics of high fantasy" ought to be three things or qualities shared by all examples of high fantasy. But the items listed seem to be different and mutually exclusive. I guess that this is an indirect quote, and to change "characteristics" to "subtypes" would be wrong. Can we quote from somebody more literate? Agemegos (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Aren't there any other sources other than her definitions? Somehow I doubt her restrictive definitions and odd classifications would find much purchase with fantasy fans. Saint91 (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not a fan of her third one. What is the difference between Harry Potter and Gaiman's Neverwhere, or some of Clive Barker's hidden worlds? I don't think any of my acquaintances who read fantasy would really associate HP/PJ as "High Fantasy" in that sense. They're pretty clearly "real worlds" with fantasy added. Any setting in which the majority of the populace does not know about the "fantasy" elements thus becomes high fantasy? This complaint is primarily to encourage people to look further, as I am not sure that this should be as prominent as it is. Dilute it with other sources? :) - BalthCat (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Frodo is put into the category of immature heroes, but he is fifty years old when he starts his quest. Although this is younger in hobbit terms than it would be in human terms, he is still older than the typical youthful hero (hobbits come of age at thirty-three and live to be a hundred or so, so a fifty-year-old hobbit would be equivalent to a human in their late thirties, I think). Solri (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Furthermore he takes and mature and responsible attitude towards his cousins Merry and Pippin, who are young. It is significant to the work that Frodo is not young.

Agemegos (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The definition of High Fantasy given by wikipedia seems to not match up with the definition held by pretty much everyone else, but the cited sources. If I were to ask a fantasy fan what high fantasy is, most would say that high fantasy works tend towards functional magic, black and white morality, and non-human races. Low fantasy is the opposite—really alternative medieval history. This definition seems far more consistent with the things that are being called high fantasy here. Now I'm sure the wikipedia editors like that they have citations for the definitions listed here, but I don't think many people would every give those definitions. It sounds like the authors of this article went with a source they could cite, and that led them away from reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snookumz (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Where do you put Dunsany? —Tamfang (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank god. Full ack. The article starts out about right but then completely distorts the definitions. --92.202.12.71 (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

The problem here is general: there are two common definitions of high fantasy: 1. Fantasy set in another, complete world; 2. Fantasy dealing with "high" characters and epic themes. Similarly, low fantasy can be definied as 1. fantasy set in our world or 2. fantasy about low-level characters. Prototypical members of the high and low fantasy categories tend to have both features (e.g., The Lord of the Rings and the Harry Dresden novels respectively) but we would do well not to conflate them. The introduction contrasting high fantasy with sword and sorcery is a case in point. Solri (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi there!

I'm used the article for a quick reference working on my paper and then decided to look further into what Gamble and Yates are said to argue. I just realized that the page numbers are wrong in the footnote. it must be pages 120-122 (that's the pages on Low Fantasy and High Fantasy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.5.64.141 (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

So, what is the differences between High Fantasy and Heroic Fantasy? The descriptions from the wikipedia entries are pretty much the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.95.69 (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Given the arguments about whether such-and-such a book is high fantasy and the different ways of defining "high fantasy", I would suggest replacing the current introduction with something like this ...

High fantasy is a sub-genre of fantasy fiction, defined either by its taking place in an imaginary world distinct from our own or by the epic stature of its characters, themes and plot. Quintessential works of high fantasy, such as The Lord of the Rings or The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, have both of these attributes. Accordingly, works where the fantasy world impinges on our world, or where the characters are concerned only with adventure or personal goals (as in sword and sorcery fiction) are less likely to be classed as high fantasy.

Any suggestions for improvement? --Solri (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am concerned that this section -- especially the second and third paragraphs, are (almost) entirely unsourced in defining the typical/common characteristics of the high fantasy genre. The first paragraph has a lot of references to examples of what the writer means, which is nice, but no citations of critical analysis that support the contents of the section. The whole section seems to be some mixture of original research and uncited generalizations, and needs attention. I am not an aficionado nor scholar of the genre, but surely there must be some books, columns or articles by known writers or editors out there that offer some documentation of typical characters in high fantasy. I mean, from what I can tell, debates over proper categorization of stories are a commonplace; so some writers or editors somewhere have weighed in to try to clear things up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmyb10 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

The definition of "High Fantasy" here seems to ignore and in some ways somewhat contradicts Ursula McGuin's important essay "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie", in which she seems to argue that the distinguishing features of "high fantasy" include the dependence of the story on the fantastic elements - if the novel _could be_ set in the mundane world, then it's not high fantasy whether its nominal setting has "high fantasy" characteristics at all. I'm not sure how best to address this, so I'm bringing it to the community's attention here.

-- Resuna (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree that this essay should at least be mentioned. Why don't you give it a shot? Solri (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

In the genre overview, the article currently states that The Lord of the Rings and The Wheel of Time take place in a setting where "the primary world does not exist."

The two series are supposed to be set in the primary world, but in the distant past (in the case of LOTR) and the distant future (in the case of Wheel of Time). WoT's futuristic setting is easily noticed by contemporary references spread throughout the series. (The books refer to their setting as the "Third Age," with the Age of Legends sitting between it and the present.) Tolkien specifically stated that Middle Earth supposedly existed ~6,000 years ago, and that the Shire would be roughly in the same latitude as Oxford.

Redwall hp (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Fair points, but it is still the case that the primary world in the sense of our world does not exist in the book. Fantasy can still be set in an alternative past of this Earth (or future, as in WoT or Shannara) so long as it is not regarded as an actual or possible past. It remains high fantasy because it is still another world. Solri (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree on the above comment from @Slori. We all know about Tolkien's statement about the setting of Middle Earth, but while as it might have been set on Earth, the point that it was all created by Tolkien's imagination with hardly any of the geography or eras of "Earth" that we are know of, the novel is considered falling under the high fantasy category. TheeChEese (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

This entire thing is completely nonsense. "High fantasy" refers to a setting in which only the elite have magic/power. "Low fantasy" refers to a setting where everyone has magic/power. Middle fantasy, obviously, is where it falls in between. Allow me to explain why the current asinine definition is worthless.

Consider Xanth. Xanth is unabashedly based on Florida, and is a world where everybody has magical abilities. By both the correct and the stupid definitions, this is low fantasy. But there is absolutely no reason why this needs to be the case. Xanth could just as easily have been based in a theoretical world that happens to have a large peninsula, and there would be no difference at all in the stories. By the stupid definition, this would mysteriously become high fantasy, a distinction which therefore would be absolutely worthless.

Similarly, consider the Lord of the Rings, which is often considered the epitome of high fantasy. Unfortunately, Middle Earth is England. (Valinor is the Isle of Wight.) Stupid people might never have realized that, but no proper Englishman would write about anything else. So by this #^#!@*%#*^# definition, LotR is low fantasy, while by the proper definition, it is high fantasy. Again, arbitrarily changing this setting in insignificant ways would change the distinction. In what fucking way does that make any sense?

Now consider fantasy role playing. If you have a gaming session, and you say, "This is high fantasy" it should tell your player that magic is rare and special, and they shouldn't expect to find magic items in every dungeon and village they encounter. Likewise, if you specify that it is low fantasy, they know that magic is easy to find, and they shouldn't be surprised if the random farmhand they encounter has some magical ability. This is a useful thing to understand, and has a consistent and meaningful definition across settings.

I hope you will all consider this, and pull your collective heads out of your asses.

You posted this on the Low Fantasy page too. You may have a pet theory about the difference between high and low fantasy, but unless you can find some citations to show that the words are actually used like this outside your own coterie, this is just POV. It doesn't matter if the term "high fantasy" as it is used makes no sense; our job is simply to describe how it is used, not tell people how they ought to be using it. Solri (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I did cite examples. Middle Earth is the very definition of high fantasy. Yet, by the incorrect definition given on this page, it is low fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.17.244.46 (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

That isn't exactly a "source." Go and find reputable source, either online or book & pg number (which wasn't written by you and not a blog/forum), that backs up your interpretation of the meanings. Those are sources.Coinmanj (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

The OP used the word retarded as an insult. This shows a lack of class and intelligence by the poster and needs to be discouraged.

It should also be pointed out that the article's first paragraph claims that High fantasy and epic fantasy are extremely similar, yet but this makes no sense using the article's own definitions of the fantasy subgenres. It'd be insulting to say that this article is mess, so I won't do that, but it certainly is not self consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.40.182 (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure that the Discworld is really an example of a setting in which the primary world does not exist. In "The Colour Of Magic" Rincewind & Twoflower do briefly swap places with characters in the primary world. They go from riding a dragon to being passengers on a TWA aircraft. Tindwcel (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

The first paragraph says that epic fantasy is different than high fantasy, but yet epic fantasy redirects to high fantasy. If they are different then they shouldn't all be under one topic. The wiki-hive mind needs to make up it's mind here.

I encourage you to be bold and edit it out for yourself. Though I salute your choice to actually visit the talk page to discuss it. Ging287 (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would edit it if I knew the topic better. I feel I need to leave that to the experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.40.182 (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

recent edit "added homestuck to the list of quintessential high fantasies". While it might have the features of high fantasy can it really be called an example of quintessential high fantasy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.167.180 (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The usage of Epic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:epic poetry -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

If it is then it should be added somewhere in this article. I believe Hyboria is the fictional world he resides in.2602:306:36A6:C919:686C:B6B0:3BD2:5D4F (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

If you can find a reliable source that supports that opinion, feel free to add it. Please do not just add unsourced opinion, the article already has too much of that. Edward321 (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Agree with Edward, this article needs its content to be more sourced and personal opinions to be removed. It won't help to add more unsourced examples, it already has too much. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I did not want to ensue into an edit war with you but i see this seems to be a hot topic of discussion , which is why i asked here, i don't really care either way if its in here but what kind of sources when it seems so obvious that Conan stories are set in Hyboria, a fictional world which is the definition of this article no? if it doesnt fit then thats alright with me. :) 99.106.108.145 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

There is no absolutely no need in including this definition of Nikki Gamble, I googled her and I couldn't find any kind of references to her so-called defintions of high fantasy. High fantasy is just high fantasy no matter how many worlds are involved into it. Harry Potter for exemple is not high fantasy, it is urban fantasy. I am qualified librarian, @Dl2000: and the last thing I think need is someone to give me lectures how to use my edits like I am some diletant novice beginner. There is absolutely no need in this section, it isn't even referenced that well, so please spare me the spasmalgons, for section that is virtually useless and have no good referencal point in it and is essayish like the top template suggests and the article just doesn't need it the last 2 years here. The article seems well covered, but no need for it. I was called by @Taeyebaar: as a qualified editor and librarian in order to help so please stand aside so I can finish my job.

The Mad Hatter (talk)

@Dl2000:Let him add them, I will edit them appropriately if he makes any mistakes, but let him add them first. @Mad Hatter: go ahead and add them. I have told user:Dl2000 to leave it for now. If you make any mistakes, I will correct them later as I did on Space opera and Military science fiction. --Taeyebaar (talk) 23:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think when future Harry Potter books/films are made that are set only in the magical world should be listed here and introduced in their articles as high-fantasy films.--Taeyebaar (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it should be considered High Fantasy, besides it has many elements taken from high fantasy novels, it's clearly designed to be an historical novel set in a fantasy world, that to me excludes this saga from the High Fantasy definition

Alphac (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High fantasy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060304092129/http://www.dragonlance.com/ to http://www.dragonlance.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please delete the examples box. This is unnecessary and redundant with the List of high fantasy fiction and the related redundant lists currently in WP:Articles for deletion/List of high fantasy works AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Per the discussion result at RFD, I'm going to be bold and remove this examples box from the main page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Mad Hatter if you are restoring this box, please trim it down to the most prominent examples. Use the ones that multiple book and news sources have consistently associated as examples of high fantasy like Tolkien / Middle Earth, Martin / Westeros, and Le Guin / Earthsea. [2] [3] If only one small review calls it high fantasy, remove it from your list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Much as I enjoyed Stephen Donaldson's books and agree that they are high fantasy, I don't think they are significant enough to be one of only three examples given - Donaldson is nowhere near as well-known or influential as William Morriss or J.R.R. Tolkien. If I were to add a third example, it would be an author with a literary stature close to Tolkien (e.g., Ursula LeGuin) or approaching him in popularity (e.g., G.R.R. Martin), but that would only start arguments, so I think we should leave it at two examples. Citing the (allegedly) earliest example of modern fantasy and the most representative case is enough. Pengliujian (talk) 08:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

At the risk of re-opening the Gamble can of worms, the first paragraph of the "Characteristics" section belongs in the introduction because it's about a definition of the genre, not typical features. It's high time we followed the example of the Low fantasy article and just admit that there are two definitions that overlap but often contradict each other. Personally I wish Gamble had used a different word to describe secondary world fantasy, but "high fantasy" has stuck, and we're stuck with it. Pengliujian (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I would like to include examples of high fantast video games such as The Elder Scrolls series, which I believe contains many characteristics and themes of high fantasy, such as taking place in a completely different world (Nern) with a completely different history to our own world. The Elder Scrolls series seems to match the characteristics described in the article, and therefore I believe it should be included in the article. Keyboards123 (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Aren't these novels high fantasy as well? If we're talking about famous examples in the second section, this series should be included.PNSMurthy (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

The lead sentence of the "Characteristics" section, if taken seriously, would lead the reader to conclude that Tolkien's "Middle Earth" represents low fantasy and Leiber's Nehwon carries the banner for high fantasy. It is therefore not fit for purpose - surely we can use sources other than Stableford, ones that say more sensible things. Newimpartial (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The only source for this assertion is a blog that seems unreliable. I think this is OR. The other sources in the article don't conflate the two terms. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply