T/F: 'Fantasy *should* focus on medieval settings'

[Tubacabra]

Something I've noticed is that a lot of authors who claim to be using a medieval setting usually end up with more of a Renaissance feel to them, either due to a lack of research or just a misunderstanding of the difference between medieval and Renaissance.

[KevinReijnders]

The issue there is also that the Middle Ages is a time period of a thousand years. It's a highly dynamic period that varies depending on the specific point you focus on.

[SpectreFirst]

Looks like it was already already mentioned in this topic, but I want to reiterate that you've missed the point of what fantasy in general actually is. For example, both regular Warhammer and Warhammer 40K are both fantasy and the only difference is that regular Warhammer is set in medieval setting while 40K is exactly the same thing but with guns and spaceships so fantasy is never limited by setting, the key element here is that fantasy means creating a custom world with custom logic that fits your needs.
Second most important thing is that fantasy is not just about one poor schmuck who learns how to fart out fireballs, it’s about exploration of the unknown and this is why medieval setting is prevalent because it provides a lot more opportunities for exploration compared to “modern” setting where everything is already explored and mapped but it still can be a simple dungeon or a new uncharted planet.
Third most important aspect is variety and freedom - in fantasy you can create custom logic, monsters and technologies, construct different events with action and exploration elements and utilize them in many different ways, realistic settings are more grounded so there are more limitations to what you can do and what you can’t.

So bottom line is that fantasy is about creating your own custom assets and fitting them for your needs, it’s about action, exploration of the unknown and expanding life experience by doing things you can’t do in real life; it doesn’t matter how “truly medieval” your medieval fantasy actually is, it doesn’t matter if you use spaceships or dragons and it doesn’t even matter if your character can hit a brick wall head-first and survive as long as your world logic is solid and doesn’t contradict itself, your action and pacing is dynamic and your story is interesting.

And I refuse to consider “urban fantasy” as fantasy simply because it’s usually based in quasi-real world with mostly realistic logic but with some random fantasy element just thrown into it without any plausible explanation which in most cases completely breaks the logic of the world, not to mention that most of the time “urban fantasy” is just another high school teenage wangst with someone randomly farting out a fireball once in a while.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

but I want to reiterate that you've missed the point of what fantasy in general actually is.

I'm not 100% how much of this was directed at me, but I figured I'd try to answer anyway:

So personally, I said the journey of apprenticeship and 'learning a trade' was a STAPLE of fantasy fiction, not that it was the actual definition. It's just a common story structure, enough to be stereotypical of the genre, just like the medieval setting-- that's what's being discussed here. At least, that's what the OP was discussing: the fitness of that stereotype; whether or not it 'deserves' to be stereotypical, if that makes sense. It's a bit of an odd argument, but that's why I wanted to bring it here. ^^;

Secondly:

And I refuse to consider “urban fantasy” as fantasy simply because it’s usually based in quasi-real world with mostly realistic logic but with some random fantasy element just thrown into it without any plausible explanation which in most cases completely breaks the logic of the world,

I've never liked arguments like this; they just feel mean-spirited for no reason. But more importantly, they imply that a whole genre should be considered invalid because somehow you can't imagine any way a writer could possibly use it well. Sounds like a skill issue to me

For one thing, I think logic-breaking elements are quite common in ALL fantasy, just like they are in sci fi...that's why 'suspension of disbelief' exists. As a biological scientist, I notice a lot of issues that other fans don't, but I don't mind as long as I can tell what the writer was going for. And I'm sure other fans notice issues that I don't...the most important thing is the reason why the fantasy element exists, and whether it uplifts the story or not. If a world where everyone gets a dragon for a graduation present when they leave high school uplifts the story, more power to it.

And for another thing, not all urban fantasy is ^that. I think I write a lot of urban fantasy, not to throw random fantasy elements into a realistic world, but to do the opposite: to work realistic elements into a fantasy world. How do you build an economy around the manufacture and trade of demonic computers; how do the police and military operate when they could get attacked by an undead dragon at any time? How do you assign homework to a student in your class who lives in another dimension...?

There are so many creative ways to mix the worlds of reality and fantasy; to write it all off as just lazy YA tropes...I mean, like I said, you have to be ignoring the potential of the genre on purpose, just to get an opportunity to be mean.

[Tubacabra]

Third most important aspect is variety and freedom - in fantasy you can create custom logic, monsters and technologies, construct different events with action and exploration elements and utilize them in many different ways, realistic settings are more grounded so there are more limitations to what you can do and what you can’t

And I refuse to consider “urban fantasy” as fantasy simply because it’s usually based in quasi-real world with mostly realistic logic but with some random fantasy element just thrown into it without any plausible explanation which in most cases completely breaks the logic of the world, not to mention that most of the time “urban fantasy” is just another high school teenage wangst with someone randomly farting out a fireball once in a while.

@SpectreFirst
Um, you kinda contradicted yourself here...
If one of the main points of fantasy is the ability to "create custom logic" as you put, how can it be possible to "break the logic of [your] world"? Your complete dismissal of urban fantasy as a genre is a heinous disregard for the concept of fantasy as you, yourself, described it. It's clear that you've never read The Dresden Files.

[cherrystark]

So bottom line is that fantasy is about creating your own custom assets and fitting them for your needs, it’s about action, exploration of the unknown and expanding life experience by doing things you can’t do in real life; it doesn’t matter how “truly medieval” your medieval fantasy actually is, it doesn’t matter if you use spaceships or dragons and it doesn’t even matter if your character can hit a brick wall head-first and survive as long as your world logic is solid and doesn’t contradict itself, your action and pacing is dynamic and your story is interesting.

You're literally proving my point about fantasy. People opt for a medieval-style setting so they can go crazy with their worldbuilding. There are plenty of examples of fantasies that are based in other times and they work just fine.

[SpectreFirst]

@DokiDokiTsuna

the journey of apprenticeship and 'learning a trade' was a STAPLE of fantasy fiction

Except that it’s not exactly a staple and more of just one of the tropes, I don’t even recall that trope being used much in LoTR, Dragonlance, Witcher, Conan and many other influential works; this trope seems to be abused all the way in fantasy like JRPGS with very young protagonists.

whether or not it 'deserves' to be stereotypical

Simply put, yes it does, because most fantasy in a traditional sense is derived from LoTR so most people assume medieval setting when they hear the word “fantasy” without any prefixes, this is literally what stereotype is.

For one thing, I think logic-breaking elements are quite common in ALL fantasy, just like they are in sci fi...that's why 'suspension of disbelief' exists.

First of all, logic-breaking happens when you introduce a rule and then do something that contradicts it or when you introduce several rules which contradict one another; fantasy elements can easily break realistic logic but cannot break a custom one as long as it doesn’t contradict itself. “Urban fantasy” logic usually contradicts itself when realistic and custom rules are just mashed together without any attempts to make them work together.
Second, suspension of disbelief is when you don’t explicitly explain every single rule and rely on events to look plausible based on rules you did explain and rules people assume by default; in a quasi-realistic setting the default is, well, a real world, so when someone just throws in random elements without even trying to make them work together the whole thing becomes, as you’ve called it, “a skill issue”.

to work realistic elements into a fantasy world

...Which is exactly the opposite of “urban fantasy” because it’s essentially adding realistic elements into a more abstract setting to make it feel more plausible.

@Tubacabra

how can it be possible to "break the logic of [your] world"?

If we are talking about “urban fantasy”, it usually relies on a quasi-real world setting which brings a very strict set of rules and limitations and throwing in random fantasy element should change the whole set completely but in most cases it doesn’t, everything stays exactly the same as in a realistic setting except that one element which creates lots of contradictions where realistic logic clashes with custom logic; you can’t just put a giant flying lizard into a modern setting and expect everything to function exactly as it was without it. Yes, technically you can change the world logic in accordance with the newly introduced element but that will require so many changes it will stop being an “urban fantasy” and will become just a regular fantasy in a quasi-modern setting.
If we are talking about “your world” which implies custom logic, your rules must not contradict each other and you shouldn’t do anything that contradicts these rules. The most notorious example of breaking the logic is a Mary-Sue character which doesn’t follow the established set of rules and\or bends the whole system in its favor.

[cherrystark]

Except that it’s not exactly a staple and more of just one of the tropes

You're also forgetting that there is more to fantasy than just tropes. LoTR for example is a classic example of the Hero's Journey story outline, as is most classical high fantasy stories.

Simply put, yes it does, because most fantasy in a traditional sense is derived from LoTR so most people assume medieval setting when they hear the word “fantasy” without any prefixes, this is literally what stereotype is.

High Fantasy and low fantasy are two very different things. A story doesn't have to be a derivative of LoTR or Wheel of Time to qualify as fantasy.

First of all, logic-breaking happens when you introduce a rule and then do something that contradicts it or when you introduce several rules which contradict one another; fantasy elements can easily break realistic logic but cannot break a custom one as long as it doesn’t contradict itself. “Urban fantasy” logic usually contradicts itself when realistic and custom rules are just mashed together without any attempts to make them work together.Second, suspension of disbelief is when you don’t explicitly explain every single rule and rely on events to look plausible based on rules you did explain and rules people assume by default; in a quasi-realistic setting the default is, well, a real world, so when someone just throws in random elements without even trying to make them work together the whole thing becomes, as you’ve called it, “a skill issue”.

So it's this type of "logic" that makes the entire fantasy umbrella very difficult for newer writers to get into. It comes off as very cold and mean-spirited. Fantasy is anything that goes outside of traditional logic: vampires, werewolves, fairies, magic, time travel, etc. It's all fantasy.

The worldbuilder mindset says that you have to build your world from scratch and have a complicated magic system where you have to explain every rule and barrier. The web gets more twisted when the rules start to contradict each other.

Stepping away from the worldbuilder mindset opens a lot of doors for writers. You can focus more on the story and the crucial worldbuilding elements of the plot rather than giving readers an in-depth breakdown of gnomic economic politics because it gets mentioned once in two chapters.

Urban fantasy works because it literally makes the storytelling process easier. You get the chance to mix science with fantasy and get cool elements. But even from a worldbuilding POV, urban fantasy just means that those magical creatures had to move into human-style housing and adapt to human culture. Technology is used because sending a text message or an IM is 10x easier than explaining why owls are flying around delivering letters. Or having bicycles and public transit available is easier to write about than realistic/logical horse care.

so when someone just throws in random elements without even trying to make them work together the whole thing becomes, as you’ve called it, “a skill issue”.

Couldn't "skill issue" also be the reason why so many newer indie writers opt to writing medieval style fantasy in the first place?

[DokiDokiTsuna]

much in LoTR, Dragonlance, Witcher, Conan and many other influential works; this trope seems to be abused all the way in fantasy like JRPGS with very young protagonists.

Legitimate question: Does the fact that Lord of the Rings doesn't do it mean it can't be called a staple??
Like, you say 'JRPGS' in a hand-wavey way as if they somehow don't count, even though they've been a very popular and influential form of consuming fantasy for...decades at this point. ._. There are definitely many fantasy fans out there who interact with the genre exclusively through JRPGS, or other media directly inspired by them. And that's...still valid. They're not just consuming 'abused tropes'; they're consuming a subgenre of fantasy.

I'm not discounting LotR's influence on our modern perception of the genre...but LotR and its contemporaries are quite old at this point, and fantasy has branched out a lot since then. They shouldn't be the be-all and end-all of any discussions of the genre...

...Which is exactly the opposite of “urban fantasy” because it’s essentially adding realistic elements into a more abstract setting to make it feel more plausible.

Second legitimate question: what would you call it, then? ^^; If there's a more accurate genre descriptor for the kind of stuff I write, I'd love to start using it, but I haven't heard one yet.

To be honest, your description of what I'm supposedly doing doesn't really make sense to me...why would I add realistic elements to 'make it feel more plausible'? It's still very blatantly a fantasy story; the fact that the leader of a country is called a president instead of a king doesn't change the fact that there are literal wizards running around...maybe to you that feels more plausible, but it's the same thing in my eyes.

If I had to explain why I add in realistic elements, it would be because I want to explore the concepts of technological progress and 'modernity' itself within an alternate reality that operates by different rules. Or, to interestingly juxtapose the familiar with the unfamiliar, to create an intriguing setting. Or, to model how our current societal norms are fit or unfit to handle paradigms with higher stakes.
^That's my thought process. I don't really expect my readers to feel like the things I write are at all plausible, and I don't see a need to. =/ That's...not really the point.

[aquashark]

I mean sure a medieval fantasy is fun but i feel its too cliché. I want to see new thing. That's why my action fantasy is set in an ocean setting, a world under water. I want to make stories that steer away from the norm. Fantasy within different worlds or within different types of societies. Things like that.

[vfaqvrf]

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)

[Tubacabra]

brings a very strict set of rules and limitations

@SpectreFirst
Art is a very abstract concept. As an author, the only "rules and limitations" that exist are the ones you create for yourself, which can be changed at the drop of a hat. If I want a dragon to land on the Empire State Building with no explanation and no reaction from the local populace, by Jove I'm gonna do it. Your claim that fantasy = LotR is an antiquated notion that denies the very concept of creativity.

you can’t just put a giant flying lizard into a modern setting and expect everything to function exactly as it was without it

As I said before, I'm free to do exactly that. Fantasy is fantasy. That doesn't change just because "rules are contradicted". Your narrow view of fantasy does not alter the genre of a novel in the slightest.

And if we're getting nitpicky, urban fantasy is just fantasy in an urban setting. It doesn't even have to be modern.

[remiquise]

I write pretty stereotypical high(/medieval, as i think it's being used here) fantasy, because I do prefer it, and it is what I think of when someone says "fantasy". But when someone says "sci-fi" I think of the future with super high tech computer stuff, that didn't stop me from writing a sci-fi with robots with barely working senses, pumps and cogs and whatever to function, set in the 1800s.
So "should" fantasy be strictly "medieval"? No. Fantasy should be whatever the author wants it to be. I don't believe in restricting creativity like that. Genres aren't bludgeons to limit people with. Fantasy, like any genre, is so vast. High, low, urban, romantic, grimdark, epic, ect ect. Pointing at high fantasy and calling it the "true fantasy" is just silly. I don't go pointing at gothic horror, my absolute favorite and what I think of first when people mention horror, and claim all other horrors aren't really horror! Obviously supernatural horror, slashers, psychological, ect ect are also in horror as a genre, so why wouldn't I extend the same energy to fantasy just because it seems more rooted in one subgenre than others?

[vfaqvrf]

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)

[Zhengo]

I don't really agree that the "apprentice arc" is a "staple" in the fantasy genre to be honest. Sure maybe this trope is seen enough times in fantasy works where it feels like its used not uncommonly, but it's only one of many plotlines used commonly in fantasy, and that brings into question why this specific trope gets to be a "staple" and not the others. Since other fantasy subgenres are grouped in here, I don't find this trope used a lot in steampunk fantasy and it's a mixed bag in urban fantasy depending on if the work is directed towards a YA audience from what I've seen. And as mentioned there are famous works of fantasy that do not use this trope. I also don't conflate this trope with the hero's journey as the latter is much more broad.

This is like if I said that a lot of romance has a process where the two leads start off abrasive but get closer ("enemies to lovers") is a "staple" in the romance genre just because it's seen a non-insignificant amount of times in the genre, even though there is also a great amount of other plotlines that are used in romance genres. Do these other plot structures not have the honor of being a "staple"?

Now, you may argue with me that you never mentioned that other commonly used tropes can't be a "staple", and that many different plot structures can be "staples" simultaneously in fantasy. But this brings into question about using the "apprenticeship arc" as a supportive argument for fantasy needing to focus on medieval settings, because medieval times is where this kind of lifestyle is common.

This kind of plot structure is used a lot in....medieval fantasy subgenre, but not used much in other subgenres. As I've said, this plot structure is not seen a lot in steampunk fantasy. Steampunk fantasies tend to focus more on characters trying to navigate their lives in hostile situations. Should I then say, the plot structure of "characters trying to survive in society" is a "staple" of fantasy, and so every fantasy story should focus on industrial revolution era settings because that matches up with the lives of people living during the industrial revolution trying to navigate through a period of time where they are abused by capitalism? I find this devil's advocate argument does not work because it means I can just grab an alternative trope used a lot in another fantasy subgenre to argue that actually fantasy should focus on a different era setting.

It feels like this argument has already started out pre-establishing the medieval setting as the "default", taking a trope commonly used in medieval setting fantasy stories to illustrate its point. Even though the medieval setting may be the "stereotype" of what people first think of for fantasy stories, we should still be reminded that medieval fantasy is still a subgenre

[VibrantFox]

100% agree

this is literally my moto with fantasy and like the same ones who pearl clutch over setting also often fall into being super gatekeepy about other things being involved in fantasy stories and the irony is the reasoning usually being it's "unrealistic" ...in a fantasy story

so yeah it's not that deep imo

[DokiDokiTsuna]

I find this devil's advocate argument does not work because it means I can just grab an alternative trope used a lot in another fantasy subgenre to argue that actually fantasy should focus on a different era setting.

...Maybe this is a little weird, but: what's wrong with that...? ^^;;; Like....can't multiple arguments make sense simultaneously...? This is art we're talking about...

My devil's advocate argument wasn't there to prove that OP was 'correct', it was to try and figure out how they were thinking-- why they would see the stereotypical medieval fantasy as so foundational and important. The apprenticeship arc was just the first answer I came up with: it's pretty common; you see it a lot in JRPGs, anime (even in other genres!) and YA novels. Thinking about connections between fantasy tropes and the way people behaved in IRL medieval times (which was the thrust of their argument) got me thinking about that, so I proposed it as something they might have been seeing.

The thing is, though...fantasy is such a vast genre. ^^ Like you said, there are so many other subgenres, and you could make compelling arguments for any one of them. If you were to argue that the tropes of medieval fantasy are too varied to even be useful in this discussion, and that if there's anything fantasy * should* focus on, it should be something else entirely, that's valid.

And this is also a valid argument to make:

Should I then say, the plot structure of "characters trying to survive in society" is a "staple" of fantasy, and so every fantasy story should focus on industrial revolution era settings because that matches up with the lives of people living during the industrial revolution trying to navigate through a period of time where they are abused by capitalism?

To be perfectly honest, I don't think industrial-revolution era fantasy is widespread enough to be called 'stereotypical' of the genre as a whole (I think I know maybe...2 or 3 popular works that most people would recognize immediately...?) but whether it is or it isn't, you could make this argument anyway. Characters being abused by capitalism is an important central theme in many different genres of storytelling, the idea that the fantasy genre * should* focus on the subgenres that emphasize it is not unreasonable.

Basically: you can be right, too. ^^; We can all be right in some way...the question itself is obviously incredibly biased, you can argue for or against it from a million different angles.

[Zhengo]

...Maybe this is a little weird, but: what's wrong with that...? ^^;;; Like....can't multiple arguments make sense simultaneously...? This is art we're talking about...

My devil's advocate argument wasn't there to prove that OP was 'correct', it was to try and figure out how they were thinking-- why they would see the stereotypical medieval fantasy as so foundational and important. The apprenticeship arc was just the first answer I came up with: it's pretty common; you see it a lot in JRPGs, anime (even in other genres!) and YA novels. Thinking about connections between fantasy tropes and the way people behaved in IRL medieval times (which was the thrust of their argument) got me thinking about that, so I proposed it as something they might have been seeing.

And I'm trying to counter what the OP was possibly thinking by your guess. The implication of the statement with the use of the word "should" implies that other settings other than medieval are less valid as a fantasy setting, so it does not make room for multiple arguments for other settings. I'm trying to argue that other settings are just as valid as the medieval setting because commonly used tropes are just one of many, and the (assumed) supporting argument that a certain trope is used a lot, particularly only in certain subgenres, to prove OP's point is not a good reasoning as it actually emphasizes how much they are only thinking of specific subgenres in fantasy, instead of thinking of fantasy as a whole.

At this point, the only thing this argument has going for it is that it's a "stereotypical" setting, it's the first thing people think of when they hear fantasy, and they start thinking of only stories within the medieval subgenre. But this just illustrates the point that this argument has already trapped itself in its own subgenre, a "missing the forest for the trees" if you will. Though I guess in this case these are some pretty big trees

[DokiDokiTsuna]

The implication of the statement with the use of the word "should" implies that other settings other than medieval are less valid as a fantasy setting, so it does not make room for multiple arguments for other settings.

That's your interpretation...personally, I simply took it to mean 'deserving'-- something that deserves to be stereotypical, because there are good reasons that writers keep propagating it and circling back to it.

Like, in a purely literal sense: just because you should do one thing doesn't automatically mean you shouldn't also do other things; all it means is that there are good reasons to do the thing.

The word 'focus' is probably the real point of contention, as it implies that one subgenre should be held up above others...but that's still subjective. ^^; A fan can totally prefer to see one form of content and think that it's the best one for others to emulate...without it actually being the best one, or believing that the others are actually less valid.

If I title a video essay as 'We should all learn from Lord of the Rings', that doesn't automatically mean I think we should learn from no other fantasy stories, or even that LotR is the single best story to learn from...like they say, 'dats a whole new sentence; wtf is you talkin about'. ^^;;; Like it or not, you are making an active choice to read it as exclusionary...to the point of denying any more charitable readings, at that.

I mean, maybe you're actually right, maybe OP actually thinks medieval fantasy is the only valid subgenre and all the other ones can suck it. I don't know. I didn't stick around long enough to find out. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
But...why would you want to assume that? What's interesting about arguing against the most idiotic and close-minded interpretation of a discussion topic? No one here actually thinks fantasy should only be medieval and nothing else; we've all said it. So why are you still trying to disprove it...?

I start these T/F topics because I think they're worthy of being discussed in-depth; that both sides are interesting in some way, even if you'd only really agree with one of them. So the idea that there "isn't room for multiple arguments"...kinda goes against the whole premise of the thread. Y'know?

[SpectreFirst]

@DokiDokiTsuna

Legitimate question: Does the fact that Lord of the Rings doesn't do it mean it can't be called a staple?

Staple is an integral part of the entire genre, a basis that exists in any sub-genre in one way or another so Hero’s Journey is a staple while journey of apprenticeship is not because, as it was mentioned above, it isn’t prevalent or doesn’t exist in many forms of fantasy.

Second legitimate question: what would you call it, then?

Mixing tech and typical fantasy elements is just basically techno-fantasy with steampunk\retro-future\modern\futuristic\fantasy technologies being used.

the fact that the leader of a country is called a president instead of a king doesn't change the fact that there are literal wizards running around...maybe to you that feels more plausible, but it's the same thing in my eyes.

Wait, so instead of adding elements and using them for something particular you’ve just went Bright (2017 movie) route and renamed random things for no apparent reason without even changing their properties? Bright is classified as urban fantasy by the way, and let’s say there are very good reasons why practically nobody heard about that movie.

the concepts of technological progress and 'modernity' itself within an alternate reality that operates by different rules

I was correct, this is literally techno-fantasy.

it was to try and figure out how they were thinking-- why they would see the stereotypical medieval fantasy as so foundational and important

The word 'focus' is probably the real point of contention, as it implies that one subgenre should be held up above others...but that's still subjective

Seriously? Do names like “Beowulf”, “Völsunga saga”, “King Arthur” and a whole plethora of other medieval folklore ring any bells to you? You don’t see any connections between those, LoTR and fantasy being established as a genre?

I title a video essay as 'We should all learn from Lord of the Rings', that doesn't automatically mean I think we should learn from no other fantasy stories, or even that LotR is the single best story to learn from

It looks like you’re seriously mixing things up here because as far as I can see it was never implied that traditional fantasy is the “best” or “correct” or “true” or anything of that sort, from what I can get is that it was stated that medieval fantasy is a default stereotype simply because fantasy as a genre was born from LoTR and its contemporaries which in turn were derived from medieval mythology.

@Tubacabra

Art is a very abstract concept

Wrong, art is a result of application of human creative abilities and it has many properties which can be used to distinct between right and wrong art within a certain context; doing this is an integral part of my job for the last two decades so let’s say I have a couple ideas of how that works.

@VibrantFox

the irony is the reasoning usually being it's "unrealistic" ...in a fantasy story

So you don’t even see the difference between realistic (as in “grounded in reality”) and plausible (as in non-contradictory to the established set of rules)?