T/F: ‘Fantasy *should* focus on medieval settings’

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?

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

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

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)?

I'm more than aware the difference but people will try to toss around both definitions to justify the inclusion or exclusion of certain things in fantasy stories or as a reason to exclude them from being fantasy stories altogether

i personally am writing stories set in a created universe that spans from "traditional" fantasy setting into the modern world. there's magical science, existence of fantasy creatures, a broad span of human racial demographics and tons of different fantasy creatures. some thing have detailed explanations for why or how they exist others fall into "because magic" or "because i can" since it's my story set in a world i've framed and constructed and i can do with that world what i chose.

like i get the need for logic grounded in reality or things being 'plausible' but at the same time in a fantastical setting where real world logic may not work you've got to just rely on suspension of disbelief or whatever the phrase is called and let the story do its thing to me anyone that hung up on certain details is either way more invested in such a thing than the writer and may just be better of making their own stories or if only there to criticism and pick apart something that's just meant to be enjoyed for fun

and I'm saying this as someone whose been a long time fan and enjoyer of different fantasy stories so all the infighting and debate on what defines fantasy and what suits a fantasy story is honestly tiring as hell and something i feel like i've only seen more of with older crowds than a lot of young people unless they've also been steeped in these kinds of discussions or fed the same rhetoric other folks go throwing around

i am here to tell stories and have fun and if people wanna pick apart details they can make their own stuff

The apprentice trope is there from D&D and from historical fact. If you wanted to be a tradesmen and not a serf/peasant, you needed to learn a trade. The people that were doing that trade wasn't going to allow just anyone to be in their trade. It was part gate keeping, part quality control, and part free labor. But it was a way to not be a person that works the land. You would never be wandering around, armed, in a historic setting. It makes for a boring setting, so I wouldn't be to concerned about history.

The more realistic you make you medieval/fantasy story, the more shit it will be. You need a certain about of disbelief to allow you to write the story. A dark age world could not survive against dragons or giants. Castles as we know them would be worthless and wouldn't be built like they are in real life. And to put any type of fantasy creature in the modern day, you have to make the magical. I saw in a earlier post about a dragon showing up downtown. Modern weaponry would kill a dragon in a heartbeat. They use AKs to kill elephants, that's a medium sized bullet. Imagine what a hellfire missile would do. There would be nothing left.

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

Well, I'm not saying anything about what fantasy should or shouldn't be. As I said, I'm addressing the topic of the medieval settings' popularity in fantasy and presenting the points I think trace back to its popularity in the genre and whether, as the author of this thread states, this popularity is deserved. Nowhere did I say that fantasy needs to adhere to folklore it's based off of closely or that it needs to be historically accurate. Nowhere did I say anything about how fantasy should be written, other than my initial point that fantasy doesn't need to focus on medieval settings, but that has already been shown to be irrelevant to the topic.

If you want to keep out of this discussion, fine. But don't put words in my mouth

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