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

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(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)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(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)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

[VibrantFox]

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

[Zhengo]

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.

This is not at all an equivalent comparison. And the reading I took from it is not at all "a whole new sentence". The title of the thread is "Fantasy should focus on medieval settings" not "I prefer fantasy to focus on medieval settings". It is stated in objective language and not subjective language, so I will argue against it in an objective context. I will say you are right, "focus" is the main point of contention. But your video title example only says that Lord of the Rings is worthwhile to learn from. It is not titled "We should only learn from Lord of the Rings", "We should mainly learn from Lord of the Rings", "We should focus learning to Lord of the Rings", or "We should all learn from Lord of the Rings above all".

If the title of the thread was "Fantasy is heavily influenced by medieval themes", "Medieval settings deserve to be a stereotype of fantasy", or even "Fantasy should take inspiration from medieval works" and you used the same supporting argument in the devil's advocate, I would not be stating my arguments the same way, nor would I say the title implies discounting of multiple arguments.

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?

Am I not participating in this discussion? As you said, no one in this thread so far has agreed with the statement posited in this thread title. It seems like everyone here has been arguing against the "most idiotic and close-minded interpretation of a discussion topic". Most people here are saying that no, fantasy should not be strictly "medieval". They have all took the post title to mean fantasy should only be one setting. Most of them have not even mentioned your devil's advocate supporting argument regarding the apprenticeship arc trope in their opinion. You put a "True/False" poll with only black and white answers and most of them answered no. No one in this thread has even seemed to catch your interpretation that the title actually means "Medieval settings deserve to be the stereotype". I have not seen anyone arguing for or against if the stereotype of fantasy stories should be medieval.

Yet, when I'm trying to address this supporting argument directly in the opening post and engaging in a debate with this hypothetical person who would argue this, I am "just taking the least charitable reading". It seems like you're the one taking me uncharitably

If you just wanted a subjective discussion on what are people's most favorite fantasy subgenre and why, or a discussion about why medieval stories is a default stereotype of fantasy, I would then participate in this thread in that way. Like I said, if it was titled slightly differently, such as my previous example "Fantasy should take inspiration from medieval works", I would not even fully disagree. As there are many inspirations that can be taken from medieval era and it does not discount the taking of inspiration from other settings. I would even participate in your interpretation of the title of if medieval fantasy "deserves" to be the stereotype.

It sounds silly that I'm arguing so deeply on the semantics of this discussion, but if you are going to take my honest attempt at debating the topic and the hypothetical arguments that have been laid out as me taking uncharitable readings from the statement in the title and subsequent arguments in the post, or that my argument is that "I don't like there being multiple arguments" when I'm just saying the title of this thread just seems like it's only arguing one argument, then I feel like I have to defend myself here.

Here, I will even state my subjective opinion on fantasy subgenres - Medieval setting is fine and can be fun, but I don't find myself preferring it over other settings, and I care more about the general creativeness of the setting and how well it ties into the story's themes

And here is my opinion on your interpretation of this guy's statement as "do medieval settings deserve to be the stereotype of fantasy" based on the fact that there is a structure of the apprenticeship arc that is found in a lot of fantasy stories (but more commonly in medieval stories)

No, I don't believe so because fantasy only posits that there is at least some recurring element in the setting of the story that does not exist in our real world. It does not necessitate the need for a character to have to undergo apprenticeship. It is not like the romance genre that necessitates at least two characters interacting in a relationship context. The genre is called "fantasy" and not "apprenticeship", or heck, even "adventure" for a reason

[BoomerZ]

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.

[vfaqvrf]

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

[Tubacabra]

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.

@SpectreFirst Wow. So you're the final arbiter of what constitutes art? Surely as human beings we're allowed to formulate our own opinions, or are you the judge of that as well?

[Zhengo]

If the title of the post was from the get-go talking about if the medieval European fantasy "deserves" to be the fantasy stereotype, or wanting to discuss why it is the stereotype, I can guarantee you there will be less confusion and the poll would be less one-sided. All I've been seeing is disagreement with the statement "fantasy should focus on medieval settings" and saying that fantasy obviously focuses on a lot of other settings.

If the intention of the post was just to discuss why the medieval setting is so prevalent, and whether or not it's deserved, then sure. Here, I will present arguments for and against whether a medieval European setting "deserves" to be the face of fantasy. I will also sprinkle in why I feel like the medieval setting is so prevalent in fantasy. For the purposes of this argument, I consider the definition of the fantasy genre to be a story that contains some kind of magical element that does not clearly exist in our world.

For:
- Famous fantasy works such as LOTR take inspiration from medieval era and other historical European folklore
- Many fairy tales - which share many traits with modern fantasy stories (whether or not fairy tales should be considered part of the fantasy genre is a separate discussion) - tend to take place in a medieval backdrop with kings and castles, etc
- The medieval time period is still considered a time where people generally believed in superstitions, which play well into fantasy settings focusing on magic
- In the case of fantasy that takes place in a setting not on earth, prior to LOTR, I don't recall a famous story off the top of my head where it focuses on an entirely different world completely divorced from ours (stories about Orpheus going through the underworld doesn't count as even though the underworld could be considered a world different from ours, it is not complete divorce as people can come and go from the underworld to our world). Though I will say what constitutes what is and isn't a "divorced world" can be arguable to some

Against:
- Part of the reason why medieval settings have basically become stereotype in both western and non-western fantasy work is because of the prevalence of western pop culture globally. In this way, saying the medieval genre deserves to be the stereotype of fantasy settings feels Euro-centric and disregards a lot of stories in non-western cultures that also contain themes of magic and otherworldly settings.
- Countering point 2 in the "For" list, folk tales and legends can also be considered to share traits with modern fantasy stories, and many do not take in a medieval backdrop. Even more if you take into account non-European folklore, and it should also be considered that many iterations of fairy tales could have its roots traced back to Asia originated stories
- There are many other time periods other than medieval period where people still believed in superstitions, but also had some significant advancements in technology
- "Apprenticeship arc" in stuff such as JRPG could be explained by the medieval setting, but it could also just as much be that the inspiration actually comes from Chinese cultivation stories and Journey to the West given Japan's proximity to China
- Fantasy has no rule that it needs to focus on a specific arc or setting. The reason why medieval setting is the stereotype to me is not because the medieval setting "just fits" a fantasy story, but that it's just a combination of factors surrounding how western pop culture dominated the global sphere for a period of time and the stories that got famous in that region focused on a medieval backdrop. In short, it's just a big coincidence. If we were in some alternative timeline where say, the Mongol empire was still ruling a large chunk of the world or just stopped their empire half a century ago, we would probably be arguing about why it is a stereotype that fantasy settings focus on some time period in Mongolian history

[cherrystark]

Girl this. Eurocentric medieval fantasy works. It's the go-to for high fantasy stuff and if you love complex worldbuilding. But there shouldn't be a requirement that if it's fantasy it HAS to be medieval.

[vfaqvrf]

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

[vfaqvrf]

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

[Zhengo]

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