Terry Pratchett descibed it the best. O: You’re quite a writer. You’ve a gift for language, you’re a deft hand at plotting, and your books seem to have an enormous amount of attention to detail put into them. You’re so good you could write anything. Why write fantasy? Pratchett: I had a decent lunch, and I’m feeling quite amiable. That’s why you’re still alive. I think you’d have to explain to me why you’ve asked that question. O: It’s a rather ghettoized genre. P: This is true. I cannot speak for the US, where I merely sort of sell okay. But in the UK I think every book- I think I’ve done twenty in the series- since the fourth book, every one has been one the top ten national bestsellers, either as hardcover or paperback, and quite often as both. Twelve or thirteen have been number one. I’ve done six juveniles, all of those have nevertheless crossed over to the adult bestseller list. On one occasion I had the adult best seller, the paperback best-seller in a different title, and a third book on the juvenile bestseller list. Now tell me again that this is a ghettoized genre. O: It’s certainly regarded as less than serious fiction. P: (Sighs) Without a shadow of a doubt, the first fiction ever recounted was fantasy. Guys sitting around the campfire- Was it you who wrote the review? I thought I recognized it- Guys sitting around the campfire telling each other stories about the gods who made lightning, and stuff like that. They did not tell one another literary stories. They did not complain about difficulties of male menopause while being a junior lecturer on some midwestern college campus. Fantasy is without a shadow of a doubt the ur-literature, the spring from which all other literature has flown. Up to a few hundred years ago no one would have disagreed with this, because most stories were, in some sense, fantasy. Back in the middle ages, people wouldn’t have thought twice about bringing in Death as a character who would have a role to play in the story. Echoes of this can be seen in Pilgrim’s Progress, for example, which hark back to a much earlier type of storytelling. The epic of Gilgamesh is one of the earliest works of literature, and by the standard we would apply now- a big muscular guys with swords and certain godlike connections- That’s fantasy. The national literature of Finland, the Kalevala. Beowulf in England. I cannot pronounce Bahaghvad-Gita but the Indian one, you know what I mean. The national literature, the one that underpins everything else, is by the standards that we apply now, a work of fantasy. Now I don’t know what you’d consider the national literature of America, but if the words Moby Dick are inching their way towards this conversation, whatever else it was, it was also a work of fantasy. Fantasy is kind of a plasma in which other things can be carried. I don’t think this is a ghetto. This is, fantasy is, almost a sea in which other genres swim. Now it may be that there has developed in the last couple of hundred years a subset of fantasy which merely uses a different icongraphy, and that is, if you like, the serious literature, the Booker Prize contender. Fantasy can be serious literature. Fantasy has often been serious literature. You have to fairly dense to think that Gulliver’s Travels is only a story about a guy having a real fun time among big people and little people and horses and stuff like that. What the book was about was something else. Fantasy can carry quite a serious burden, and so can humor. So what you’re saying is, strip away the trolls and the dwarves and things and put everyone into modern dress, get them to agonize a bit, mention Virginia Woolf a few times, and there! Hey! I’ve got a serious novel. But you don’t actually have to do that. (Pauses) That was a bloody good answer, though I say it myself.
The guys sitting around the campfire 10k years ago haven't told fantasy, they told myths. The Myth was not told as a Fantasy, it was the way people saw the world works. Fantasy is more often than not a lesser genre because it does not focuses on real things and has nothing to do with reality, and even if it does, it is on the 2nd plan usually. You can't relate to Rand, Harry Potter or Kvothe, no magic artifact will save your father from cancer. Nothing wrong about liking fantasy, just don't treat it as if it is something worth more than Entertainment.
@@milospollonia1121 Not really, the real meme is the people who keep making this a debate. I for one, had never seen this answer, since I don't see interviews at all, nor argue about literature much either.
Guernica is one of my all time come back to favorites that depict a period of time in which a civil war destroyed a country. Picasso painted it in such an abstract view so we could handle all the pain, death and destruction.
As I’ve studied more and more fantasy, I now believe fantasy is the most superior genre. It the words of Brandon Sanderson: “I can do anything your Genre can do, plus I get to have Dragons.”
Yep! Fantasy is technically about the decorations and props, not the plot. I've been thinking about writing a realistic short story, then remake it in fantasyland, pitch both to some literature experts and watch the results.
@@kacperdrabikowski5074 I'm going to argue against that point, but in a way that actually reinforces your message. Fantasy and sci-fi elements aren't necessarily just props. Frequently they are allegory tools that allow a concept to be explored that can't be done in "realism" literature. One of the best examples I can think of is the Takeshi Kovacs trilogy by Richard Morgan. If a human consciousness can be digitised and downloaded into a fresh new body (or "sleeve" in the in-universe jargon), what actually makes us human any more?
Or to quote Pratchett again; "you can write about all the big issues of living; life, death, economics, racism, equality, seksism. But throw a dragon or two into your story and suddenly you're being classified as a fantasy writer." 🤣🤣🤣
I have not read a single one of Pratchett's books and he's still somehow like my favorite person of all time. He never seems to run out of good quotes.
@@yannickjohansson5631 Pratchett is probably the best author I've ever read, even though my favourite book is Lord of the Rings. The reason I say that is because I've never read, played or watched other people's work that so perfectly blends philosophy, world building, social criticism and entertainment. Usually, authors focus on one specific area with their work, but he for some reason manages to do all of it in a single novel while also making it extremely fun to read.
The story of my life: why don’t you read some ‘real’ book? 50% of those people have never read a fantasy or sci-fi book in their whole life, the other 50% have never read a book period.
Same. My father is asking me to stop reading fantasy and read something useful and I'm like WHAT is useful in your eyes?! I've read around 100,000 pages in my life (maybe even more) and my dad's only read user manuals for electronic equipment >.>
@@elrilmoonweaver4723 I was about to say, the only thing "useful" in the practical sense are instruction manuals or scientific studies. But you don't really expand your view of the universe by reading manuals. (Unless you're in a video game lol)
@@Nerobyrne I don't consult user manuals for video games. I prefer to play them and if I'm stumped I ask other people in the game for help OR consult the internet for answers. User manuals and tutorials are... boring to read. Helpful, but boring in a videogame. Plus a player experiencing something themselves, within a games makes them retain it better than reading instructions.
@@elrilmoonweaver4723 You're not wrong, although the older Blizzard games had manuals that were actually genuinely fun to read. They even had backstory and lore that wasn't always in the game, because back then game sizes were heavily restricted by CD/Diskette storage space. This meant that a lot of things had to be in the manual that are just in-game lore exposition these days. One very interesting thing that Diablo 1 and 2 did, for instance, was explain the game basics to you but only showcare a few enemies that you'd meet in act 1. That meant that even if you read the manual, you'd still get a lot of exploration from playing the game. And World of Warcraft originally had a manual so large it was an actual paperback book with close to 100 pages.
@@DanLyndon yeah so? I don't know where you are going with this? Are you so limited in your scope of mind, that you need books to tell you stuff to believe? Why not just read user manuals and cookbooks then.
"To declare one genre, realism, to be above genre, and all the rest of fiction not literature because it isn't realism, is rather as if judges at the State Fair should give blue ribbons only to pigs, declaring horses, cattle and poultry not animals because they're not pigs. Foolishness breeds ignorance, and ignorance loves to be told it doesn't have to learn something." - Ursula K. Le Guin
Also from the same essay, "I often wish I could indicate to such people that there are pleasant and easy ways to remedy their ignorance. I would ask them to read J.R.R Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, because to me the book is in itself a sufficient demonstration of the value of fantasy literature; but if they don't know how to read it, it will do more harm than good. They'll come away snarling, childish, primitive, escapist, simplistic, and other mantras of the school of anti-wizards, having learned nothing."
That's because in the past, people lived in a world where monsters and magic were (thought to be) real. This distincting between "realism" and "fantasy" simply doesn't exist in a world where you think actual witches live in the woods and they can summon actual demons. Where humanity understands so little about science that they see a man having a seizure and think "ah yes, clearly this man is possessed and needs a priest." It wasn't until the enlightenment period that we started to generally think that everything has a scientific explanation.
If you ever hear anyone deriding the so called 'lesser genres' - fantasy, sci fi and horror - then you know you are in the presence of a literary snob. Slowly and calmly leave, making no sudden movements. They tend to be highly strung...
@@milospollonia1121 or use their favorite topic of classics to slowly reel out enough for rope for them to hang themselves on the fact that many classics which are pillars for modern literature and entertainment check every single box of "fantasy"
gonna retract the picture of dorian gray as my favourite classic as it has a magic element at the core of its message so i guess it doesn't count as literature anymore
The title of this video reminded me of this quote by Tolkien "Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer." - J.R.R Tolkien
My dad was one of those literary snobs. I got him to read The First Law trilogy. He is not a snob anymore. One of his all time fave books now. He is starting Malazan now. Checkmate.
At one point, dyslexia stops being a valid excuse. And it happens often. Pronouncing authors' names? Do what everybody does, put on the work and check it on Google before filming. To me, he comes off as lazy way more than legit dyslexic.
Well said! I’m a college professor who teaches a course called Fantasy Novels. My students would tell you that fantasy can do what all great literature does: It takes us on a cathartic journey that gives form to the struggles, triumphs, sorrows, and joys of life. I appreciate you making this video!
Mr. Chase here also has a great booktube channel with a fantasy focus. Highly recommended. He takes more of an academic approach, so no disheveled goblins to be seen, but nothing wrong with that.
@RaniaIsAwesome Quite possibly one of the dumbest book related comments in the history of youtube...if it is so easy to write something "interesting and fun to read" in fantasy, please do share your extensive list of interesting and fun published novels that you wrote!
@RaniaIsAwesome So you are doubling down on your dumb! Don't get me wrong, you are certainly entitled to your opinion! ... and I am entitled to point out the fact that your opinion is garbage. By the way, I avidly ready every genre (except romance) so I am not some fantasy honk. Also love how you said: "I don't have the time or mental energy for it." Translation: "I do not have the talent or ability to write a novel, but I can't admit I was wrong."
@RaniaIsAwesome That’s an idiotic comment. There’s some bad stories out there of course and there’s also great ones. Fantasy elements don’t diminish the value of a story.
“Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed.” ― G.K. Chesterton I think this summarizes well why fantasy is important as well
I don't think so. When making fantasy, even though it stems from this world, there will be differences. That's why the "Orcs are blacks" stories (Bright) fail miserably. That isn't to say there can't be a message, but that allegories will fail 95% of the time.
I doubt it's even possible! There are even real life stories out there that some people wouldn't believe is real, and would try to ban it for not being non-fiction. The whole "post truth" thing that people call nowadays is not really new is it? Folklore and real life stories that others didn't believe has always been a matter of "my personal truth" to a degree. That's why it's so ignorant to suggest that, you're right.
The communist regime of Romania (1947-1989) tried to ban all fiction literature in the country during the Ceauscescu Era, because the official doctrine of the regime was based on Soviet Realism, which was against "non-real" happenings, even in fiction.
Tolkien also talked at length about how scars really cannot heal with time. Frodo having to "die" by going to undying lands is a sort of harken back to the idea that some scars stay with us.
Like everything, it can be boiled down to Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is garbage. The reason why most classics are praised is because the 90% is sorted out by time. In 300 years, I'm 100% sure that something like Discworld, Malazan or Wheel of Time will be discussed as the literary masterpieces that they are.
The idea that fantasy(or science fiction) isn't literature is utterly demonstratively wrong ...is the novels of Cervantes Shelly Stoker Dickens Mallory not literature,most books that are considered literature today were just the most popular books of their day...
"Modern metal is not real metal", "digital art is not real art", "Marvel movies are not real cinema", "videogames are not culture" It's the same line of thought. [Subgenre I don't like of a media I like] are not real [media I like].
Indeed. And he didn't even use the argument of The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner, one of the most famous and revered pieces of poetry in the English language. Which also happens to be fantasy/horror. It doesn't get more literary than that piece of genius writing, which all in itself completely invalidates the idea that fantasy can't be literature.
the thing is, you don't actually need to make an argument against them, considering that as Fantasy is the foundation of literature, its validity is self evident. But good video anyways.
About the end of The Lord of the Rings: at the time I read it, there was alot of attension in the media about Viet Nam veterans who were having problems readjusting to civillian life. I realized that like them, Frodo was a veteran who couldn't really come home. So then I figured that this must happen with every war, given Tolkiens direct experience of the trenches in World War I.
I think this is a topic where I can add my two cents, since, after all, I have been studying English Literature for nearly six years now. Whenever someone argues that only certain genres are “real” literature, I love to ask them what constitutes “real” literature. What characteristics does a work need to possess in order to be characterized as such. In most cases, they give really vague answers, like the Guardian author did. I mean, if one criterium is, as this author suggests, that “real” literature “change[s] your life, your beliefs, your perceptions” (10:43), then fantasy books would fit that description way better than most of the literary classics I read. Mistborn, The Name of the Wind, The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, Earthsea, all of these books were more significant in my personal life than the works of Austen, Joyce and co. (Although, I do enjoy their works as well). Whenever I encounter this argument, all I hear is the following: “I have read these works that hold such academic esteem. Oh look at me, aren’t I great? Of course, having read these marvellous books, I would never stoop so low as to touch that fantasy drivel.” It’s an arbitrary distinction made only to appear more intelligent. A part of me thinks it’s just their loss; I won’t force them to read these great stories.
I have always though literature is defined as art in a written format (I'm not an english speaker so my literature lessons in school may differ a lot from English ones, forgive my ignorance please). So I am very confused about this "not real literature" label. What are they then?
In my country what literature is determined by a group of writers/publicers (that totally coincidentally kuchkuch write "literature"). Yeah totally no conflict of interest here. Nope none at all. And boohoo, why doesn't the youth read anymore? Why does nobody give a damn about "literature" anymore? I had countless discussion with my teachers about this. They complain about something: I offer the solution, they reject it and continue complaining.
fantasy is literature, it would be dumb to say otherwise. For me personally though, it s subpar. Like nothing the fantasy genre has produced in recent years has come close to Ulysses or The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
I absolutely love fantasy. Specifically epic, high, and dark fantasy! My wife does not share that same love for fantasy. She is a historical fiction and mystery novel type of person. I can't read those. But we respect each others selected genres and we always have conversations about the books we are reading!
Love to hear it. We're the same way. I'm all things fantasy and my wife reads history and all kinds of other stuff. We respect each others' interests, don't talk down to each other, and share though-provoking parts. Keep reading!
@@the_corvid97 Yeah, its strange considering how similar the two genres are. If I feel like a fantasy story and don't have any on hand, I sometimes will read a history instead.
I remember seeing that article a few months ago and losing my mind to my housemate over how truly stupid that article about Pratchett is. However I would like to add that the journalist did come out with another article after ACTUALLY reading his work and said he retracted everything because it was incredible. Takes a lot of guts to come out and admit you're completely wrong to me
Imo good prose is like good cinematography, you don't really notice them so much if the book/movie is great, but they really stand out if they are bad.
@@AkashSingh-jv5im While it definitely depends on the person, great prose is very clear. When I read Dunsany for the first time, I cried because the prose was so beautiful, now Dunsany is one of the best writers of all time in terms of prose. I agree on your second point, bad prose can absolutely ruin a book (for example most YA).
The same thing happens with animation in relation to live action. Animation is considered to be "just kids' stuff", just cause it's colourful and bright, when it can be so, so much more, and in many cases can depict things far better that live action ever could. Thanks for making this video
Honestly I have seen more consistent quality in Animation that in most live action products. There is a lot of Live Action movies and shows that I Love, but I have seen that in the animation field there is more consistency in the Quality of Stories and the art and visuals. There is some animated products that are trash, that's true, but Honestly is not compared of how many trash Live action movies I have seen in my life.
If you can get him to watch it that is great but I know many people are hesitant to watch a 15 minute video of someone trying to convince them of something they do not currently believe. If he will not watch it or it does not convince him any then maybe give him a list of fantasy/sci fi authors and works which are considered true literature by virtually every university the next time he says something about it. Here is a small beginning list for you to work from and of course you could expand it much more to make it a more comprehensive list for him. Epic of Gilgamesh All religious texts ever written for any current or defunct religions. This includes the Bible, Torah, Koran, Book of Mormon, Bhagavad Gita and the Vedas of Hinduism, the Egyptian mythos, the Greek mythos, the Roman mythos, Norse mythos etc. etc. The Iliad The Aeneid The Kalevala Dante's Inferno The Grimm fairy tales collection Metamorphosis Frankenstein The Invisible Man The Pilgrim's Progress Beowulf Shakespeare Le Morte d'Arthur Jules Verne H.G.Wells Isaac Asimov Robert Louis Stevenson Gulliver's Travels H.P. Lovecraft Lewis Carroll Frank Baum J.M. Barrie There are hundreds more works and authors you could add to this list. All of which have fantasy elements such as witches, magic, fantastical beasts and mystical locations to be visited. Or sci fi elements like robots and rocket ships long before such were created. Almost all a hundred years old or much much older and considered true literature.
UGH slightly unrelated BUT. I was told I wouldn’t get anything higher than a C in my senior year art class because I wanted to illustrate a fantasy series for my final portfolio. It wasn’t “sophisticated” enough for her class. I’m fine. It’s fine. 😑
@@dj_koen1265 well I didn’t end up doing it because I was too much of a grades perfectionist haha, but I probably would have chosen The Lost Years of Merlin by TA Barron- it was one of my favorites as a kid!
I had a lit professor who was very pro-fantasy as literature. An exchange in that class that was particularly memorable for me: A student suggested that fantasy serves as a distortion of reality that allows us to explore ideas that would be harder to articulate in a grounded, real-world setting. The professor said, best as I recall, "I agree, but I'm not convinced that it isn't our world that's the distorted one." Made me think.
And you'd win because you actually have read him so you can have an informed opinion. By the way enjoy the rest I have yet to read one I didn't find a surprise in and made me laugh and think all at the same time :)
This is another great one from Rothfuss "The problem with a lot of people who read only literary fiction is that they assume fantasy is just books about orcs and goblins and dragons and wizards and bullshit. And to be fair, a lot of fantasy is about that stuff. The problem with people in fantasy is they believe that literary fiction is just stories about a guy drinking tea and staring out the window at the rain while he thinks about his mother. And the truth is a lot of literary fiction is just that. Like, kind of pointless, angsty, emo, masturbatory bullshit. However, we should not be judged by our lowest common denominators. And also you should not fall prey to the fallacious thinking that literary fiction is literary and all other genres are genre. Literary fiction is a genre, and I will fight to the death anyone who denies this very self-evident truth. So, is there a lot of fantasy that is raw shit out there? Absolutely, absolutely, it’s popcorn reading at best. But you can’t deny that a lot of lit fic is also shit. 85% of everything in the world is shit. We judge by the best. And there is some truly excellent fantasy out there. For example, Midsummer Night’s Dream; Hamlet with the ghost; Macbeth, ghosts and witches; I’m also fond of the Odyessey; Most of the Pentateuch in the Old Testament, Gargantua and Pantagruel. Honestly, fantasy existed before lit fic, and if you deny those roots you’re pruning yourself so closely that you can’t help but wither and die." -Patrick Rothfuss
But how is Rothfuss defining literary fiction? I suppose it must be a real genre with real genre conventions, but I only ever seem to hear the word used in two senses: one, as a synonym for "good literature", the other as a synonym for "bullshit". At least most genres seem to have very clear tropes and conventions and rules, whatever value judgements someone may then make of that genre, but I don't seem to hear the phrase "literary fiction" used as anything but a value judgement.
@@becky3983 I believe he's attacking the notion that literary fiction isn't a genre and that it has its own tropes and trends that provide just as much bullshit as any other genre and shouldn't be seen as higher or lesser than others for it
@@becky3983 The best definition I've heard of literary fiction, although it isn't a very good one, is that it doesn't come with expectations of what it should be. As in, it doesn't have to look a certain way. But that's a problematic definition too, because fantasy doesn't have to look a certain way. The good guys can lose (The Children of Hurin shows that Tolkien can get really dark if he wants to), or there are no good guys, or it's a tragedy. Or you have magical realism, which is basically urban fantasy, Neil Gaiman-type stuff, literary fiction with magical elements. Which I think is cheating, because that's actually fantasy. We all know that literary fiction comes with certain expectations. Some sort of anguished main character, deep interpersonal conflict, past trauma, family drama, dark secrets, depression, suicide, existential musings, wartime romance and tragedy, blah blah blah. If a book that calls itself literary fiction doesn't have a few of these elements, we think it's not actually literary fiction. For instance, the Remains of the Day. It's got a doomed romance, a big country house, political intrigue, an observation of the British class system and a misguided sense of duty. It's archetypal literary fiction. Or is it? Is it a romance? A tragedy? A political commentary? It could be any or all of those. Angela's Ashes. Another such book. Wrenching poverty, weird sex, tuberculosis, abusive alcoholic father, POV of a young adolescent boy. Definitely literary fiction. Or is it a tragedy? Another commentary on the class system? A discussion of illness? Then it came out that Frank McCourt just plain made up the nastiest stuff (the weird sex) and other people who knew his family at the time said that conditions weren't as bad as he made them out to be. And a lot of recent literary fiction is even worse, basically misery porn. So...whatever.
I mean, to be fair, while it is possible for fantasy to be great literature, WoT just isn't. It is very high quality in some ways, but the character work, theming, and symbolism (which is what makes a book literature imo) isn't there. It's just a really fun yarn, with cool world building and grand strategy. So I could see being concerned seeing someone pick it up, because since it's purely for enjoyment it's basically empty calories. Of course, I disagree with that view, because even things that are just really fun can stick with you and have a lasting improving impact on your life. And I'm saying all this as someone who really likes WoT.
@@alexisdumas84 you mean, aside from very fundamental/existential questions (is a world filled with suffering worth existing, etc.), psychological explorations, and debates on the nature and necessity of both good and evil?
@@GeneralAblon I've only gone as far as book seven, and although I would like to think I'm pretty good at spotting that kind of stuff, I haven't come across any of those things yet. I was operating on the assumption (which I thought was reasonable) that the later books of the series will be, at least on the level of the skill which with they were written, roughly equal to the ones I've read so far, since the writing quality hasn't improved through the first seven books. As far as character explorations go, most of the characters don't have a whole lot of depth to them, so there isn't that much to explore. They generally have one or two personality traits, nothing from their childhood or past or family life that deeply influences who they are, no particular ways of thinking that cause them problems, etc. What depth they do gain so far comes from external factors: what they have to do, or the limits of the magic system. There are exceptions to this, in that some characters have one or another of the missing things I mentioned (Mat has ways of thinking that get him in trouble), but there's never a character that has all of the components I think are necessary for a well-rounded character. Additionally, the characters don't really seem to develop.
Reminds me of the time someone told me that I should put down the fantasy book I was reading at the time and pick up "Real" literature. The example they gave me for "Real" literature? "The Picture of Dorian Gray"... Ah yes. The book about a man who can't age because a magical painting of him is doing all the aging for him.... No fantasy elements there.
That's philosophical literature with some gothic framing. Fantasy is a form of genre fiction that didn't exist until the glut of Tolkien knockoffs of the 50s and 60s, just because a story has speculative elements does not actually mean anything for its genre - same reason Handmaid's Tale and Testaments are spec fic, not sci fi. Gotta love how genre readers know their slop is impossible to defend on its own merits so they just resort to dragging everyone else down to their level.
@@goldenhorde6944 Generally, at least by historians, George Macdonald is considered the first modern fantasy author, who was very influential on Tolkien and Lewis. I guess you're talking about Ballantine books that were capitalizing off the sucess of LoTR. Many would argue Mary Shelley wrote the first Sci-Fi with her Modern Prometheus, not that it was called Sci-Fi at the time. Because genres are labled to be used as advertisement for publishers for the most part, not as hard catagories that won't ever change in our history. There wasn't a detective genre at the time, but The Murders in Rue Morgue by Poe is very similar to Holmes. Seems silly to not call it a detective story just because the detective genre didn't exist yet in publishing.
@@KGDavis-fi2tq Good literature doesn't need genre to advertise itself, its just good literature. Tolkien, Shelley, and Wilde were all successful by virtue of writing good literature, Sanderson, Jemisin, or Corey are all successful by virtue of writing for an established genre with a built-in target audience they didn't have to worry about challenging.
@@goldenhorde6944 Not in their time. Many didn't consider Lord of the Rings literature, until years of debate (Some still don't of course). And Lord of the Rings was heavily advertised for a long time. Tor books stil advertise them today. LotR was also made to entertain, not solely thematic value. Same with fantasy today. There is a built-in audience for every single genre, because people love to read. That's why the term genre exists in the first place. NK Jemisin's Dreamblood could not exist without Egyptian and Numian mythology, but Lord of the Rings also would not exist without Norse and Catholic mythology. If LotR didn't exist, would people still want to read Dreamblood or Way of Kings? Yes, of course they would. Unless your definition of literature is only the classics, which you would have to wait until the authors are all dead typically speaking. Sorry for the length, trying to be concise. But my last point is that Dreamblood happens to have one of the same themes as LotR, which is that power corrupts. It challenges the reader in the same way as Tolkien and the same way as Julius Caesar by Shakespeare. Many themes are common to different genres of litterature taken from different angles, and readers are emotionally affected by art differently from other people.
Daniel when someone tries to downgrade the fantasy genre: *raises great debate points and argues properly Me when the same thing happens: "yes, but the thing is....fight me!!!!"
I'm certain someone else has mentioned this but JRR Tolkien phrased this quite wisely: "In experiencing the fantastic, we recover a fresh view of the unfantastic, a view too long dulled by familiarity."
I love that you brought up Shakespeare, because for his time he was considered "lowbrow" and what we would call mainstream today, entertainment for the masses.
Journey to the West was the same way. There will always be that class of people who want to be "superior" to the common man in some way, and it's easier to tear other things down than to make something of actual value.
I chafe at the arbitrary distinction between "literary" and "genre" fiction. I've always had to defend fantasy and science fiction as "real" literature. I was one of the most prolific readers in my school, yet I was always questioned for reading sf/f. In creative writing classes in college, I was told I had to write "real" fiction instead of what I actually enjoyed. In my brief time as an English teacher, I was told I had to teach the same "classics" that had already been taught to death for decades. Not once have I ever received a good explanation as to why the books I read were somehow less challenging, important, and valuable than the books I was "supposed" to read.
SAME. I had a very well-meaning college professor who I loved very much tell me that I was a good writer, so, if I wanted, I didn't have to write fantasy. I am still Very Puzzled about what that meant. Like I wasn't writing fantasy because someone stuck a gun to my head, or because I thought "Oh I'm a bad writer, guess I better stick to fantasy", I was writing because I ENJOYED it and consequently CHOSE to. In return, you can always ask those people if they think the Iliad is good literature, and then ask them what genre they think it is.
You can tell a lot about a society from the way it uses fantasy, because fantasy fiction rarely just references itself. It's always a reflection of the context of the day. I feel like the metaphorical lens actually allows fantasy to be more honest, a lot of the time. I'm an historian and I find that reading the fantasy of the time is a valuable window into a particular culture.
Of course 1984 and Animal Farm are often considered "serious fiction," but both of those books have science fiction and fantasy elements. Having Animal Farm approach ideas with the characters being animals causes the ideas to be better shown, but its still animals talking and that's fantasy.
a modern use of this is Bojack Horseman. the series uses the animal "stereotypes" as a form of magnifying glass for certain qualities of the characters while putting them in seriously shity situations.
That's BS and you know it. If Animal Farm is fantasy, then you're doing a diservice to the genre you so arduously defend. Because the fantasy elements are not what make Animal Farm important and relevant. And they're not even fantasy to begin with. You should point out the worldbuilding, the complex magic systems and the enjoyable ( yet often simplistic) prose. Because that is what modern fantasy is. And you're fueling the "fantasy is not literature" discussion by mentioning works of true art that happen to tangentially cross into your genre. Promote the actual fantasy books(Mistborn, Name of the wind, Malazan, Lord of the Rings).
Oh man. My AP Lit teacher in high school was one of my favorite teachers ever, except she didn't believe fantasy was real literature. An exact quote from her was, "I love Harry Potter, but it's not real so you can't apply it to real life." oohhhhh man that got on my nerves
Something that never really sat right with me was when Game of Thrones was at its zenith, Weiss and Benioff said they wanted to tone down the magic and fantasy... In a fantasy series... One if the things that made ASOIAF so cool was how unashamed it was to be fantastical. It was still grounded and dark, but it still said "at the end of the day, i am still fantasy." I understand they did it to appeal to a wider, less fantasy-oriented audience, but what good is it to treat the core audience like they are a liability? Imagine playing a wargame and being upset at all the violence! Yeah, it's kikda the draw!
They are different genres. Or well, subgenres. I wouldn't call One Hundred Years of Solitude low fantasy, it is magical realism (because of the way it treats both parts of this) However, García Márquez accomplishes many of the things fantasy writers do, using fantastical elements to talk about things like the social and political reality of Colombia. And it won a well deserved Nobel Prize for it. And while they are different genres, I do agree that critics do use these kind of excuses to dismiss other books that are classified different, but do very similar things.
@@CheyenneSedai Alright I guess I will defend my stance. I would never argue that One Hundred Years of Solitude is fantasy, its not, but it also isn’t the made up genre of “magical realism.” I would classify it under the genre of wonder fiction, where fantastical elements are present, but merely serve as a backdrop. A classic example of an author commonly placed into the “magical realism” genre is Jorge Luis Borges. Many of his stories are not magical in any sense; however, many of his stories (such as the Library of Babel) have integral fantasy elements, thus making them fantasy. The most glaring example of how “magical realism” isn’t a genre is in the definition. I have seen way too many varying definitions (including one idiot who said it was any fiction by a Latin American author), the one I see most accepted is: “Literature of this type is usually characterized by elements of the fantastic woven into the story with a deadpan sense of presentation.” If we accept that wonder fiction and fantasy are the two ways of classifying stories with fantastical elements, then all “magical realism” stories can be sorted into these categories. It is important to note that wonder fiction is not speculative fiction. The most important thing to note is that even if “magical realism” is a genre it is absolutely not speculative fiction (again some books that are classified as “magical realism” are in fact fantasy and thus speculative fiction, they just shouldn’t be put under that title if they are fantasy). We can agree or disagree on all other points, but this last point is not arguable.
Perhaps the literary aversion to fantasy elements stems from a deeply rooted sense of shame in something that Fantasy fans have cultivated for years: sincere, unironic delight in wonder.
Indeed. The example that comes to my mind is more sf than fantasy, but when I was a kid and my dad read The First Men In The Moon to me at bedtimes. The sphere. The strange moon plants. The mooncalves. The underground lake in the Selenite city. And this man, H.G. Wells, had conjured it out of his head and some printing ink. Conan Doyle's The Lost World is another one from about the same time. When they see the dinosaurs. That's what books can do. Human beings can see giant creatures that died millions of years ago. And through them I can see them, from 21st-century England. If that isn't the peak of creativity, I don't know what is.
@@becky3983 i grew up with the tales of the grimm brothers(original ones, not the watered down versions) and the one thousand and one nights. both were big anthology books and while they were pretty dark and grim for a little boy, they always gave me that sense of wonder and a vast world(and some nightmares). i didnt read anything again until i was 13 or 14 and that was "foundation" by asimov and some of the novels by michael crichton, love them to this day. i haven't seen a single thing in literature that can't be enhanced in a way by fantasy or SF. they work like a magnifying glass and open the door to experiences that cannot be done in "traditional literature".
💯 i think to Perceive the world with child like wonder, is a precious gift that we lose as we grow world weary. It's my major pull towards fantasy. It also is always touted as the one of the negatives of fantasy and given a silly title called escapism. I
I also the think it has it's roots in enlightenment philosophy. Enlightenment thinkers had a strong aversion to romanticism and anything considered romanticism was bad in their mind which came to include the fantastic. They saw romanticism as backtracking and holding society back instead of going forward.
In this discussion on fantasy stories’ ability to have deep themes and still be able to reflect elements of the real world despite the fantasy setting, I take it upon myself to mention this small series called Avatar the Last Airbender
In my undergraduate degree I took a course on the philosophy of The Lord of the Rings. What Tolkien has to say through his story on just wars, technocracy, aesthetics, etc. Not to mention everything it has to say about destiny vs. free will. It is so deeply complex and full of nuance. The idea that there is no literary value to his work is ludicrous on its face.
In highschool I was constantly put in English classes where whenever we had to write a short story we were told "no fantasy". I learned very quickly that with even a modicum of subtlety and some particular wording that I could still have fantasy in my stories and they would be none the wiser. Which just goes to show how easy it is pull the wool over the eyes of literature snobes.
I love this so much. I'm currently writing a fantastical science fiction based on my own struggle with mental illness and it allows me to take a character with a mental illness like me and make that feeling that the world is ending real. In her story the problems she's facing actually might be ending the world, it allows me to depict these experiences with the intensity they're felt without being trapped within the dryness of real life.
Although that sounds kinda pretentious for a first time writer so if anyone else asks, it's a fun story and I wanted drama and anguish for the sake of it hehe
@@lauram3440Sounds like the making of a great story, I wouldn't worry about sounding pretentious. What you said is something that fantasy has been used for forever(similar to what Daniel said) exploring/expressing things about one's self or world without the limitations of the real, world.
@@lauram3440 Dont worry in worst case it helps you get that feelings out and work through it, which still sounds like a win, dont worry. I mean you can revise it in worst case and for its own sake, or you learn in worst case. And i can work out too Just do it. :P
I'm a fan of animation, I know your struggle as a fantasy fan when it comes to being taken seriously. I was talking to a literature teacher and she said to my fucking face that she's never read comics and she never wants to because she doesn't think you need school to write one. She was right, school is shit and you kinda don't need it for anything. Actually, school is probably the reason her critical thinking is on this level.
Meanwhile, the English class I took for common core in college was specifically focused on Graphic Novels and how they use their art to enhance their narrative.
@@thatnerdygaywerewolf9559 Yep. Another example: I'm learning French and this manual my teacher uses (can't remember the name of it) mentions several times the 9 arts: 1. painting, 2. photography, 3. film, 4. architecture, 5. sculpture, 6. literature, 7. music, 8. performing (dancing, acting etc.) and 9. Graphic Novels/Comics. This still doesn't include all arts, I think (if Comics are separate to literature, then animation should be put as its own art as well imo, and there's also culinary arts I think), but at least it acknowledges that Graphic Novels have possibilities that books don't really have and it also acknowledges that photography is a thing. I'll honestly take this approach (where new arts can form over time, going from 7 to 9 and so on), over a fixed 7 arts that DON'T INCLUDE PHOTOGRAPHY WHICH MAKES ME VERY SALTY.
@@justjulia1720 i would add videogames to that list, granted most videogames are only about the entertainment but so are most movies. i think we are at a point where more and more videogames are being developed with the tools and vision to be considered art. like Journey or Gris.
i think we are at an inflection point with animation. maybe is the generational change but im starting to see animation taken more seriously recently. i was really happy with the reception Avatar:the last airbender got on netflix last year and things like bojack and over the garden wall or into the spiderverse and others as well are not only getting fans but respect.
Too be fair comics and their writers never had that much respect to begin with, hell people like Stan Lee had to change their names when writing out of shame since he wanted to be a novelist and not associated with comics
So these people are trying to say that His Dark Materials teaches no deep themes about philosophy, religion, and physics? It includes no lessons concerning maturity and trust? Lord of the Rings does not install a sense of hope and it teaches nothing about the cultural evolutions of humans and their connections to nature and industry? The Wheel of Time doesn't reflect on modern cultures, adapting them genuinely and with a creative flourish while building on lotr's magnificent themes? Sanderson hasn't reflected germane knowledge of depression, further building on religious aspects and drawing themes from the outside world while keeping millions of people entertained? Perhaps the ones writing those articles who haven't even read fantasy are the ones with the misconceptions about these themes...
Honestly, I can't belive that there are people who can still claim that fantasy and SF is not "real literature". Such a statement comes straight out of the mindset "I don't enjoy it, therefore it's bad". And since there is really nothing more behind those opinions, they are the ones that have zero value, not fantasy and SF.
the thing is i am willing to bet that some if not most of them never touched a fantasy or SF novel and their opinions are based in their parents or teachers ideas.
i've seen a post somewhere on the internet that said something along the lines of, "science fiction looks to the future to solve problems, and fantasy looks to the past to reflect on problems."
SFF also lets us examine humanity from a distance, it lets us reflect on society by presenting something that’s not our own. Literature is raises questions in the reader, and certain things can be widely presented to us in a fantasy lens.
When I was in college (way back in the day) a well respected Humanities/Classics professor told me that she felt in the future SciFi/Fantasy literature would be studied as the great works of literature written in this century.
I'm here both because of a podcast you guested on with Overly Sarcastic Productions, and because I wanted to see a fantasy author's take on the topic. Watching this brings back amusing memories of a visit to a bookstore a year or so before time got paused by a virus. Walked in, looked around the bookstore a bit, then went to the counter and asked about half a dozen authors I'd been specifically thinking of. Clerk: "I've never heard of any of those, what kind of books do they write?" Me: "They're usually put in the fantasy/science fiction section, but you don't seem to have one." Clerk: "Of course not, this is a quality book store, not--" Me: "Obviously not." And I left before they could figure out how to speak again.
“I believe that fantasy in the meaning of imagination is very important. We shouldn’t stick too close to everyday reality but give room to the reality of the heart, of the mind, and of the imagination” - Hayao Miyazaki
This reminds me of the time I took a "Creative Writing" course in school when I was 13. Wrote a story about a couple of kids finding out that a dragon was living in the nearby forest (I'd just been through reading LotR ;) ). Presented it to the teacher. Her response: "This is nonsense and not creative writing." I still don't understand the meaning of her words. Loved your video and the points you made spoke directly to my Lit student heart :)
When you get the chance try them. They are excellent pieces of work and very diverse so you are bound to find one that speaks to something you genuinely care about. Clever, funny, surprising and nicely written.
To me, fantasy and sci-fi has always been about exploring philosophical ideas while being detached from "real world" so that we are more open to ideas that may be different from our own. If you look at wizards or robots and just ignore the human conundrums hidden inside, then you're probably not good at understanding literary fiction either.
Very well articulated. The way I phrase it in my head is it disarms us and makes us more susceptible to these ideas. If someone speaks to you about that same topic in a routine conversation, it's more likely to go in one ear and out the other because the concepts always make sense but it doesn't dawn on you while in a mundane state of mind. I think in fiction (specifically sci fi or fantasy), it's so effective because we're focused on the magic and dragons and then we get hit with a ton of bricks and we can have a small version of those experiences in an omniscient way which can lead to not only realization but catharsis.
@@TupocalypseShakur well I'd say a lot of people misunderstood what Scorsese was saying, he was saying that it's not his version of cinema that he enjoys. And also he didn't say that all superheroes movies are formulaic, he was just talking about the mcu being very bland. Which I agree, the MCU is very formulaic and I love superheroes and the stories that you can tell with them and the potential that it has is pretty much limitless and there's still just have some of the most lame and recycled plots from movie to movie.
Thank you. Just, thank you! Where do you find "Dracula" "Frankenstein" and "Moby Dick"? In the literary fiction section... but they're totally fantasy/sci-fi... not that anyone seems to acknowledge that... Edit: this is like Martin Scorsese admitting he never watches marvel movies and says they're not cinema... "the category of 'literary fiction' has sprung up recently to torment people like me who just set out to write books, and if anybody wanted to read them, terrific, the more the merrier ... I'm a genre writer of a sort. I write literary fiction, which is like spy fiction or chick lit." Jon Updike.
6 out of 10 classic lit writers (at least) have fantasy elements in their books, it's ridiculous how people respect me as a reader more when I tell them I read classic lit and not "just fantasy" when so much of classic lit is fantasy. I can't.
Couple of things: 1: Sci-fi and fantasy have long been used to examine issues in our society, but by placing it in a fantastical setting allowed the reader a little distance from the issues and enables them to view those issues more critically (i.e. Animal Farm, 1984, LotR, etc.) 2: something Brando Sando once said. You have all these genres; horror, romance, mystery, thriller; and if you deviate too much your target audience will be upset. But SFF can have all those elements along with magic and dragons and spaceships. Science fiction and Fantasy are clearly the superior genres.
Yeah, almost all the media I consume is either under the fantasy&sci-fi supergenre or informative/educational non-fiction with little-to-no narrative. Tell me a story or tell me the facts. I'm not particularly interested in attempts to do both at the same time.
It's so unfair! I was studying English Philology and the English Literature teacher wouldn't let me do a paper about The Lord of the Rings because it's not literature. My god, Tolkien was an English philologist, his whole work was born around the language he created. The Lord of the Rings is a classic and I don't care what the elitists at the university say.
The problem with these discussions is that many people tends to forget that fantasy or sci-fi is not exactly a genre, I think it's more like a setting. If I write a novel about a detective who solves crimes by investigation and deductions, and the story takes place in a fantasy world with dragons and magic I'm still writing a detective novel, but with a fantasy setting, instead of a real one. That's why I'm always sceptical with those that say "I don't like fantasy", because most of the time they are referring to tolkien-like novels. But the fantasy definition is much larger than that!
The good news is we are having this conversation less than we did in the 80's and they had it less often than they did in the 50's. We are on the right trejectory.
This is mostly an American sentiment anyway. Outside the US people don't even bat their eye at something with fantasy elements. Most European movies I find on streaming are fantasy and sci fi.
I have an MFA in literature and poetry with a focus on genre studies and working towards a PhD in psych, and I can totally gel with what you're saying. Fantasy has an elevated purpose, and it deals realistically with character and psychologically sound phenomema. Plus it's a good tool in CBT.
I study to be a literature highschool teacher. This is a loooong debate among literary scholars, and a part of me always crys internaly when my teachers attack fantasy. But on the other hand i have great teachers that embrace different canons. Last week we talked about Tolkien for a subject and i might have been a little over excited, i had a pile of fantasy books next to me to talk about. Love this kind of videos to learn more opinions! (Sorry for My English 😊)
My thoughts exactly, you just say it much more eloquently. Fortunately my love of fantasy is shared by my husband and many other friends and family. We love books and fantasy in our home!!!!
Me: *reads way of kings for my first book into literature* Critics: NOOOOO you shouldn’t read fantasy you are not an intellectual, fantasy is for children Me: ahaha highstorms go brrrrr
News websites are powered by clicks and views, journalists who have nothing better to do write articles intentionally causing outrage to generate views and increasing traffic to the site.
It also hurts their credibility to the point that they'll only be able to live off of outrage clickbait, because no one will go there for a serious opinion. It's very shortsighted. Plus, "r/savedyouaclick" and the mindset behind it ("Just give me the gist of it, I don't want to give them ad revenue") is a thing, so even that's not really a safe bet, either.
Well fantasy has at least lord of the rings to prove everyone wrong I personally cant think of any scifi story that has the same impact Well i did forget about 1984, soma, and the likes of dystopian novels They seem to be considered real literature But it is such an artificial thing I am convinced “real literature” is just an academic circlejerk
@@dj_koen1265 I would argue that Dune can almost be considered the Lotr of sci fi in the sense of impact, but hardly any piece of entertainment has made an impact to the level that Lotr did. And yes, "real literature" definitely is an academic circlejerk for elites to feed their colossal egos.
That is probably for the simple fact that science is real (even if the one on the books isn't) while magic is not. Which is still a stupid reason to say such a thing, as a scientist myself reading about space travel is just as fantastical in nature as reading about dragons for me.
@@laiaal.3324 Although in reality science is real and magic is not, in fiction the boundary between the two seems to be often a matter of vocabulary. In fantasy you have explicit magic, in sf you often have some kind of "energy" or "beam of particles" with nothing beyond that to in fact distinguish it from magic.
@@becky3983 even if that "energy" is in fact electricity, if you are powering a time travel machine with it is still fantasy but called futuristic technology. So yeah, I agree. But for some people the single fact of calling it science instead will make it look "more realistic". Good for them, I will just call dragons "lizards that went through a different evolutional pathway" and call it sci fi (which is kind of what Jurrasic Park is, considering dinosaurs are probably the base of all dragons)
My grandma, who has never read a fantasy book in her life, will, anytime I come to visit and have a fantasy book with me, tell me without fail to read something sensible for a change. I'm too old for those childish stories. I wish I could send her this video, but I don't think her English is good enough to really grasp what you're saying. Maybe I'll just ask her if she liked Dorian Grey and then tell her "Ah, yes. The man has a magical painting. Yeah, that's not fantasy." I absolutely understand your anger and frustration. I feel it too.
Terry Practchett: writes novels that are translated into over 30 languages and sells in excess of 80 million copies. whoever was hired to write clickbait for the Grauniad: *was hired to write clickbait for the Grauniad*
9:06 ohhh my gooood. This is _exactly_ what it feels like taking to people who hate all forms of Mecha. Didn't know Fantasy had similar problems, but goodness does it feel cathartic to hear someone from a different genre espouse these feelings. Though, it _is_ unfortunate that this happens in any genre, it's just... I don't know how to explain.
Thank you so much for making this. My stepfather is a huge literary snob who only reads "the greats", and always criticises me when I tell him that I'm reading fantasy. I brought the Way of Kings along on a road trip with me and we got into a huge argument, with him calling it "trash" and the brain-rotting equivalent of a video game (and he's even wrong about video games as well!!). I tried to defend myself and the book but he's honestly so loud and overpowering I couldn't get a single word in. Later, he asked me to "prove myself" by quoting one sentence or passage from the book that proves its "literary merit", because obviously, all real books have purple prose. I chose the part where (spoilers!!) Syl saves Kaladin from committing suicide, one of the most emotional points in the book. But just because it didn't use long words and fancy adjectives he again dismissed it as trash. I tried to tell him that he didn't understand the context of why that scene was important but again he didn't listen to me. I hope he likes this video.
Truth and Courage Daniel! Thank you for this and let me end this with a quote from one of the pillars of Fantasy, “Fantasy is hardly an escape from reality. It's a way of understanding it.” ~ Lloyd Alexander
Terry Pratchett descibed it the best.
O: You’re quite a writer. You’ve a gift for language, you’re a deft hand at plotting, and your books seem to have an enormous amount of attention to detail put into them. You’re so good you could write anything. Why write fantasy?
Pratchett: I had a decent lunch, and I’m feeling quite amiable. That’s why you’re still alive. I think you’d have to explain to me why you’ve asked that question.
O: It’s a rather ghettoized genre.
P: This is true. I cannot speak for the US, where I merely sort of sell okay. But in the UK I think every book- I think I’ve done twenty in the series- since the fourth book, every one has been one the top ten national bestsellers, either as hardcover or paperback, and quite often as both. Twelve or thirteen have been number one. I’ve done six juveniles, all of those have nevertheless crossed over to the adult bestseller list. On one occasion I had the adult best seller, the paperback best-seller in a different title, and a third book on the juvenile bestseller list. Now tell me again that this is a ghettoized genre.
O: It’s certainly regarded as less than serious fiction.
P: (Sighs) Without a shadow of a doubt, the first fiction ever recounted was fantasy. Guys sitting around the campfire- Was it you who wrote the review? I thought I recognized it- Guys sitting around the campfire telling each other stories about the gods who made lightning, and stuff like that. They did not tell one another literary stories. They did not complain about difficulties of male menopause while being a junior lecturer on some midwestern college campus. Fantasy is without a shadow of a doubt the ur-literature, the spring from which all other literature has flown. Up to a few hundred years ago no one would have disagreed with this, because most stories were, in some sense, fantasy. Back in the middle ages, people wouldn’t have thought twice about bringing in Death as a character who would have a role to play in the story. Echoes of this can be seen in Pilgrim’s Progress, for example, which hark back to a much earlier type of storytelling. The epic of Gilgamesh is one of the earliest works of literature, and by the standard we would apply now- a big muscular guys with swords and certain godlike connections- That’s fantasy. The national literature of Finland, the Kalevala. Beowulf in England. I cannot pronounce Bahaghvad-Gita but the Indian one, you know what I mean. The national literature, the one that underpins everything else, is by the standards that we apply now, a work of fantasy.
Now I don’t know what you’d consider the national literature of America, but if the words Moby Dick are inching their way towards this conversation, whatever else it was, it was also a work of fantasy. Fantasy is kind of a plasma in which other things can be carried. I don’t think this is a ghetto. This is, fantasy is, almost a sea in which other genres swim. Now it may be that there has developed in the last couple of hundred years a subset of fantasy which merely uses a different icongraphy, and that is, if you like, the serious literature, the Booker Prize contender. Fantasy can be serious literature. Fantasy has often been serious literature. You have to fairly dense to think that Gulliver’s Travels is only a story about a guy having a real fun time among big people and little people and horses and stuff like that. What the book was about was something else. Fantasy can carry quite a serious burden, and so can humor. So what you’re saying is, strip away the trolls and the dwarves and things and put everyone into modern dress, get them to agonize a bit, mention Virginia Woolf a few times, and there! Hey! I’ve got a serious novel. But you don’t actually have to do that.
(Pauses) That was a bloody good answer, though I say it myself.
I love this answer, but the fact that this is brought up every single time this debate is held makes it kind of a meme
I think that interview was with The Onion, so the question was probably very tongue in cheek. Sir Terry still absolutely smashed it though.
The guys sitting around the campfire 10k years ago haven't told fantasy, they told myths. The Myth was not told as a Fantasy, it was the way people saw the world works. Fantasy is more often than not a lesser genre because it does not focuses on real things and has nothing to do with reality, and even if it does, it is on the 2nd plan usually. You can't relate to Rand, Harry Potter or Kvothe, no magic artifact will save your father from cancer.
Nothing wrong about liking fantasy, just don't treat it as if it is something worth more than Entertainment.
@@milospollonia1121 Not really, the real meme is the people who keep making this a debate. I for one, had never seen this answer, since I don't see interviews at all, nor argue about literature much either.
@@iAstring Did you even watch the video?
I think Pratchett put it best when he said
"Stories of imagination tend to upset those without one."
He puts a lot of things best.
Ouch that one hurts haha. Lovely quote.
I imagine that this is based on meritorious observations! 😉
I am gonna start using this with my friends who think fantasy is a kids genre.
You can bet your life they haven't read First Law.
I need that on a shirt.
"Why fantasy? You can just set it in the real world, can't you?"
Sure, and Van Gough could have just painted pinpricks of light in a midnight sky.
Best reply
Damn that's a good reply
That preaches
Damn dude, chill
Guernica is one of my all time come back to favorites that depict a period of time in which a civil war destroyed a country. Picasso painted it in such an abstract view so we could handle all the pain, death and destruction.
As I’ve studied more and more fantasy, I now believe fantasy is the most superior genre.
It the words of Brandon Sanderson:
“I can do anything your Genre can do, plus I get to have Dragons.”
Yep! Fantasy is technically about the decorations and props, not the plot. I've been thinking about writing a realistic short story, then remake it in fantasyland, pitch both to some literature experts and watch the results.
@@kacperdrabikowski5074 sounds like a really good plan! I would love to see that.
@@kacperdrabikowski5074 Do it! And let us know how it goes! 😊
EXACTLY
@@kacperdrabikowski5074 I'm going to argue against that point, but in a way that actually reinforces your message. Fantasy and sci-fi elements aren't necessarily just props. Frequently they are allegory tools that allow a concept to be explored that can't be done in "realism" literature. One of the best examples I can think of is the Takeshi Kovacs trilogy by Richard Morgan. If a human consciousness can be digitised and downloaded into a fresh new body (or "sleeve" in the in-universe jargon), what actually makes us human any more?
Or to quote Pratchett again;
"you can write about all the big issues of living; life, death, economics, racism, equality, seksism. But throw a dragon or two into your story and suddenly you're being classified as a fantasy writer." 🤣🤣🤣
I have not read a single one of Pratchett's books and he's still somehow like my favorite person of all time. He never seems to run out of good quotes.
@@yannickjohansson5631 it's never too late to fix that. Guards!Guards! or Small Gods is a great place to start.
@@archlectoryarvi2873 Thanks for the suggestion. I plan to burn through my tbr list now that school is over and Discworld is a high priority.
@@yannickjohansson5631 It's because he's one of the best authors there is.
@@yannickjohansson5631 Pratchett is probably the best author I've ever read, even though my favourite book is Lord of the Rings.
The reason I say that is because I've never read, played or watched other people's work that so perfectly blends philosophy, world building, social criticism and entertainment.
Usually, authors focus on one specific area with their work, but he for some reason manages to do all of it in a single novel while also making it extremely fun to read.
The story of my life: why don’t you read some ‘real’ book?
50% of those people have never read a fantasy or sci-fi book in their whole life, the other 50% have never read a book period.
Same. My father is asking me to stop reading fantasy and read something useful and I'm like WHAT is useful in your eyes?! I've read around 100,000 pages in my life (maybe even more) and my dad's only read user manuals for electronic equipment >.>
@@elrilmoonweaver4723 I was about to say, the only thing "useful" in the practical sense are instruction manuals or scientific studies.
But you don't really expand your view of the universe by reading manuals.
(Unless you're in a video game lol)
@@Nerobyrne I don't consult user manuals for video games. I prefer to play them and if I'm stumped I ask other people in the game for help OR consult the internet for answers. User manuals and tutorials are... boring to read. Helpful, but boring in a videogame. Plus a player experiencing something themselves, within a games makes them retain it better than reading instructions.
@@elrilmoonweaver4723 You're not wrong, although the older Blizzard games had manuals that were actually genuinely fun to read. They even had backstory and lore that wasn't always in the game, because back then game sizes were heavily restricted by CD/Diskette storage space. This meant that a lot of things had to be in the manual that are just in-game lore exposition these days.
One very interesting thing that Diablo 1 and 2 did, for instance, was explain the game basics to you but only showcare a few enemies that you'd meet in act 1.
That meant that even if you read the manual, you'd still get a lot of exploration from playing the game.
And World of Warcraft originally had a manual so large it was an actual paperback book with close to 100 pages.
@@DanLyndon yeah so? I don't know where you are going with this? Are you so limited in your scope of mind, that you need books to tell you stuff to believe? Why not just read user manuals and cookbooks then.
"To declare one genre, realism, to be above genre, and all the rest of fiction not literature because it isn't realism, is rather as if judges at the State Fair should give blue ribbons only to pigs, declaring horses, cattle and poultry not animals because they're not pigs. Foolishness breeds ignorance, and ignorance loves to be told it doesn't have to learn something." - Ursula K. Le Guin
Also from the same essay, "I often wish I could indicate to such people that there are pleasant and easy ways to remedy their ignorance. I would ask them to read J.R.R Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, because to me the book is in itself a sufficient demonstration of the value of fantasy literature; but if they don't know how to read it, it will do more harm than good. They'll come away snarling, childish, primitive, escapist, simplistic, and other mantras of the school of anti-wizards, having learned nothing."
She was a treasure along with Pratchett.
Ignorance loves to be told it doesn't have to learn something is such a raw quote
You can mock them by saying that fiction is for plebs, real literature is no-fiction only.
Gotta love Ursula. Do you have the name of that essay?
The foundations of World Literature are Gilgamesh, The Illaid, The Odyssey, Paradise Lost - all the trappings of fantasy literature!
And the Bible itself, let's not forget.
Paradise Lost is probably too new to count as a foundation, but I wouldn't sleep on The Mahabharata
That's because in the past, people lived in a world where monsters and magic were (thought to be) real.
This distincting between "realism" and "fantasy" simply doesn't exist in a world where you think actual witches live in the woods and they can summon actual demons.
Where humanity understands so little about science that they see a man having a seizure and think "ah yes, clearly this man is possessed and needs a priest."
It wasn't until the enlightenment period that we started to generally think that everything has a scientific explanation.
World Literature or Western Literature?
I am pretty sure all of those are real and not fantastical at all
If you ever hear anyone deriding the so called 'lesser genres' - fantasy, sci fi and horror - then you know you are in the presence of a literary snob. Slowly and calmly leave, making no sudden movements. They tend to be highly strung...
And don't ever, not even tangentially, mention classics. You'll be stuck in that discussion for 300 years.
@@milospollonia1121 Good point, and an essential tip for protecting your time from being consumed in a bottomless pit of condescending pomposity.
@@milospollonia1121 or use their favorite topic of classics to slowly reel out enough for rope for them to hang themselves on the fact that many classics which are pillars for modern literature and entertainment check every single box of "fantasy"
@@milospollonia1121 Classics, like Jules Verne works? Let them come, I’ll take them on.
@@Calebgoblin A slippery slope, but satisfying when it works
“Fantasy isn’t real literature”
Peace was never an option.
I'm gonna breach this peace so f*ucking hard
gonna retract the picture of dorian gray as my favourite classic as it has a magic element at the core of its message so i guess it doesn't count as literature anymore
The title of this video reminded me of this quote by Tolkien
"Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer." - J.R.R Tolkien
If this is a real quote, this man is an absolute savage! I love it.
@@waleedkhalid7486 yes it's in the author's note before fellowship of the ring.
this is like shade but make it classy 😂💓
My man Tolkien woke up that day and chose violence. Love it!
@@waleedkhalid7486 As a Tolkien fan for 28 years now I can assure you that it is real quote :)
Daniel recorded this, changed clothes, and thought “actually I’m mad now”, and proceeded to pace/rant off script to blow off that steam.
My dad was one of those literary snobs. I got him to read The First Law trilogy. He is not a snob anymore. One of his all time fave books now. He is starting Malazan now. Checkmate.
Now that's the move!
pro gamer move
You are a Chad
Indignance. Indignance is what brings us together today
At one point, dyslexia stops being a valid excuse.
And it happens often.
Pronouncing authors' names? Do what everybody does, put on the work and check it on Google before filming.
To me, he comes off as lazy way more than legit dyslexic.
@@ChristmasLore dude what the fuck
“Stories of imagination tend to upset those without one” - Terry Pratchett
Well said! I’m a college professor who teaches a course called Fantasy Novels. My students would tell you that fantasy can do what all great literature does: It takes us on a cathartic journey that gives form to the struggles, triumphs, sorrows, and joys of life. I appreciate you making this video!
I agree with your students 😉
Mr. Chase here also has a great booktube channel with a fantasy focus. Highly recommended. He takes more of an academic approach, so no disheveled goblins to be seen, but nothing wrong with that.
@RaniaIsAwesome Quite possibly one of the dumbest book related comments in the history of youtube...if it is so easy to write something "interesting and fun to read" in fantasy, please do share your extensive list of interesting and fun published novels that you wrote!
@RaniaIsAwesome So you are doubling down on your dumb! Don't get me wrong, you are certainly entitled to your opinion! ... and I am entitled to point out the fact that your opinion is garbage. By the way, I avidly ready every genre (except romance) so I am not some fantasy honk. Also love how you said: "I don't have the time or mental energy for it." Translation: "I do not have the talent or ability to write a novel, but I can't admit I was wrong."
@RaniaIsAwesome That’s an idiotic comment. There’s some bad stories out there of course and there’s also great ones. Fantasy elements don’t diminish the value of a story.
“Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed.”
― G.K. Chesterton
I think this summarizes well why fantasy is important as well
Children need to see that the monster is dead.
Damn that's amazing!
This is such a good quote! I love it
Leave my dragons alone! What did they ever do to you?! If you want to fight something, here, have some giant honey badgers, you shmuck!
I don't think so. When making fantasy, even though it stems from this world, there will be differences. That's why the "Orcs are blacks" stories (Bright) fail miserably. That isn't to say there can't be a message, but that allegories will fail 95% of the time.
Could you imagine a world where the only books were non-fiction? That would be a terrible place.
Big Faxx .
I doubt it's even possible! There are even real life stories out there that some people wouldn't believe is real, and would try to ban it for not being non-fiction. The whole "post truth" thing that people call nowadays is not really new is it? Folklore and real life stories that others didn't believe has always been a matter of "my personal truth" to a degree. That's why it's so ignorant to suggest that, you're right.
SCARY
The communist regime of Romania (1947-1989) tried to ban all fiction literature in the country during the Ceauscescu Era, because the official doctrine of the regime was based on Soviet Realism, which was against "non-real" happenings, even in fiction.
If our libraries only had non-fiction and "high literature" fiction, we'd all be boring and miserable af
Tolkien also talked at length about how scars really cannot heal with time. Frodo having to "die" by going to undying lands is a sort of harken back to the idea that some scars stay with us.
Its an iconic portrayal of veteran PTSD.
This theme really got to me the last time I watched the trilogy - so poignant
Like everything, it can be boiled down to Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is garbage. The reason why most classics are praised is because the 90% is sorted out by time. In 300 years, I'm 100% sure that something like Discworld, Malazan or Wheel of Time will be discussed as the literary masterpieces that they are.
That's what the real difference is. What can survive the filter of time.
I'm 100% sure it will not.
@@iAstring Why?
I think they already are Literary masterpieces.. 🤷♂️
The idea that fantasy(or science fiction) isn't literature is utterly demonstratively wrong ...is the novels of Cervantes Shelly Stoker Dickens Mallory not literature,most books that are considered literature today were just the most popular books of their day...
"Modern metal is not real metal", "digital art is not real art", "Marvel movies are not real cinema", "videogames are not culture"
It's the same line of thought.
[Subgenre I don't like of a media I like] are not real [media I like].
I use a simple philosophy when talking about that "If it's good or valuable it will stand the test of time."
oh and of course the classics "instrumental music isn't real music", "pop music isn't real music" and of course, "video games are not art"
"Marvel movies are not cinema."
😂😂
@@smajet5640 It's true
Fantasy haters DESTROYED by factas and logic
Indeed. And he didn't even use the argument of The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner, one of the most famous and revered pieces of poetry in the English language. Which also happens to be fantasy/horror. It doesn't get more literary than that piece of genius writing, which all in itself completely invalidates the idea that fantasy can't be literature.
@@reinierovertoom7123 it's also a great Iron Maiden song
@@mrmr9201 which song is that one?
Ben shapiro crossover when?
the thing is, you don't actually need to make an argument against them, considering that as Fantasy is the foundation of literature, its validity is self evident. But good video anyways.
About the end of The Lord of the Rings: at the time I read it, there was alot of attension in the media about Viet Nam veterans who were having problems readjusting to civillian life. I realized that like them, Frodo was a veteran who couldn't really come home. So then I figured that this must happen with every war, given Tolkiens direct experience of the trenches in World War I.
I can't believe we are still having this conversation.
And then people wonder why genre fans seem to have a huge chip on their collective shoulder (and resort to gatekeeping behaviors, etc.)
I think this is a topic where I can add my two cents, since, after all, I have been studying English Literature for nearly six years now. Whenever someone argues that only certain genres are “real” literature, I love to ask them what constitutes “real” literature. What characteristics does a work need to possess in order to be characterized as such. In most cases, they give really vague answers, like the Guardian author did. I mean, if one criterium is, as this author suggests, that “real” literature “change[s] your life, your beliefs, your perceptions” (10:43), then fantasy books would fit that description way better than most of the literary classics I read. Mistborn, The Name of the Wind, The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, Earthsea, all of these books were more significant in my personal life than the works of Austen, Joyce and co. (Although, I do enjoy their works as well). Whenever I encounter this argument, all I hear is the following: “I have read these works that hold such academic esteem. Oh look at me, aren’t I great? Of course, having read these marvellous books, I would never stoop so low as to touch that fantasy drivel.” It’s an arbitrary distinction made only to appear more intelligent. A part of me thinks it’s just their loss; I won’t force them to read these great stories.
You are right sir it's all about snobbery.
I have always though literature is defined as art in a written format (I'm not an english speaker so my literature lessons in school may differ a lot from English ones, forgive my ignorance please). So I am very confused about this "not real literature" label. What are they then?
In my country what literature is determined by a group of writers/publicers (that totally coincidentally kuchkuch write "literature"). Yeah totally no conflict of interest here. Nope none at all. And boohoo, why doesn't the youth read anymore? Why does nobody give a damn about "literature" anymore?
I had countless discussion with my teachers about this. They complain about something: I offer the solution, they reject it and continue complaining.
@@laiaal.3324 Writings without artistic value. What is that? I don't know.
fantasy is literature, it would be dumb to say otherwise. For me personally though, it s subpar. Like nothing the fantasy genre has produced in recent years has come close to Ulysses or The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
I absolutely love fantasy. Specifically epic, high, and dark fantasy! My wife does not share that same love for fantasy. She is a historical fiction and mystery novel type of person. I can't read those. But we respect each others selected genres and we always have conversations about the books we are reading!
I’m an epic, high and dark fantasy person myself.
Love to hear it. We're the same way. I'm all things fantasy and my wife reads history and all kinds of other stuff. We respect each others' interests, don't talk down to each other, and share though-provoking parts. Keep reading!
I find it interesting that for so many people there is a divide for those who like history, and for those who like fantasy.
Grimdark fantasy, dark fantasy, high/epic fantasy, horror...
I live for fantasy haha
@@the_corvid97 Yeah, its strange considering how similar the two genres are. If I feel like a fantasy story and don't have any on hand, I sometimes will read a history instead.
I remember seeing that article a few months ago and losing my mind to my housemate over how truly stupid that article about Pratchett is.
However I would like to add that the journalist did come out with another article after ACTUALLY reading his work and said he retracted everything because it was incredible. Takes a lot of guts to come out and admit you're completely wrong to me
Did not retract everything he said from what I can tell. Jonathan Jones writing for The Guardian, Google 'em.
"Pratchett's prose seemed nothing out of the ordinary."
Pratchett, known for his footnotes, all caps, dialects, and other unorthodox techniques:
?¿?¿?
It's clear he was contrary just to get a reaction... in other words, the guy was a troll.
I mean its not too far out there, sure its not standard, but its not as unorthodox as Lafferty or Vance.
Imo good prose is like good cinematography, you don't really notice them so much if the book/movie is great, but they really stand out if they are bad.
@@AkashSingh-jv5im While it definitely depends on the person, great prose is very clear. When I read Dunsany for the first time, I cried because the prose was so beautiful, now Dunsany is one of the best writers of all time in terms of prose. I agree on your second point, bad prose can absolutely ruin a book (for example most YA).
And also his refusal to use chapters!
The same thing happens with animation in relation to live action. Animation is considered to be "just kids' stuff", just cause it's colourful and bright, when it can be so, so much more, and in many cases can depict things far better that live action ever could. Thanks for making this video
Honestly I have seen more consistent quality in Animation that in most live action products.
There is a lot of Live Action movies and shows that I Love, but I have seen that in the animation field there is more consistency in the Quality of Stories and the art and visuals.
There is some animated products that are trash, that's true, but Honestly is not compared of how many trash Live action movies I have seen in my life.
I'm going to show this to my dad. He always makes fun of my books 😒
A lot of ignorant people out there. But family you can usually explain. Or let Daniel--he already did the leg work =)
If you can get him to watch it that is great but I know many people are hesitant to watch a 15 minute video of someone trying to convince them of something they do not currently believe. If he will not watch it or it does not convince him any then maybe give him a list of fantasy/sci fi authors and works which are considered true literature by virtually every university the next time he says something about it. Here is a small beginning list for you to work from and of course you could expand it much more to make it a more comprehensive list for him.
Epic of Gilgamesh
All religious texts ever written for any current or defunct religions. This includes the Bible, Torah, Koran, Book of Mormon,
Bhagavad Gita and the Vedas of Hinduism, the Egyptian mythos, the Greek mythos, the Roman mythos, Norse mythos etc. etc.
The Iliad
The Aeneid
The Kalevala
Dante's Inferno
The Grimm fairy tales collection
Metamorphosis
Frankenstein
The Invisible Man
The Pilgrim's Progress
Beowulf
Shakespeare
Le Morte d'Arthur
Jules Verne
H.G.Wells
Isaac Asimov
Robert Louis Stevenson
Gulliver's Travels
H.P. Lovecraft
Lewis Carroll
Frank Baum
J.M. Barrie
There are hundreds more works and authors you could add to this list. All of which have fantasy elements such as witches, magic, fantastical beasts and mystical locations to be visited. Or sci fi elements like robots and rocket ships long before such were created. Almost all a hundred years old or much much older and considered true literature.
And do tell what happened.
@@adarian The Metamorphosis is not fantasy, it hardly even registers as magical realism
Omg thanks for this!! I mean Faust, Metamorphosis, Frankenstein, ... sooo many examples where people just totally ignore that they are fantasy/sci-fi!
Mcbeth, that are totally not witches. And midsummers dream is totally not fantasy. With elves.
UGH slightly unrelated BUT. I was told I wouldn’t get anything higher than a C in my senior year art class because I wanted to illustrate a fantasy series for my final portfolio. It wasn’t “sophisticated” enough for her class. I’m fine. It’s fine. 😑
Out of curiosity, What fantasy series did you pick?
@@dj_koen1265 well I didn’t end up doing it because I was too much of a grades perfectionist haha, but I probably would have chosen The Lost Years of Merlin by TA Barron- it was one of my favorites as a kid!
Oh I loved that series! It is so sad you couldn't do it
@@lilwinchester1417 ikr! But ah! I've never met anyone else who has read them!
@@katymartin3924 really?
Here in Germany they were quite popular
Or I simply talked all my friends into reading it 🤔
I had a lit professor who was very pro-fantasy as literature. An exchange in that class that was particularly memorable for me: A student suggested that fantasy serves as a distortion of reality that allows us to explore ideas that would be harder to articulate in a grounded, real-world setting. The professor said, best as I recall, "I agree, but I'm not convinced that it isn't our world that's the distorted one." Made me think.
I’ve only read 2 books by Terry Pratchett and I’m ready to fight the person who wrote that article
And you'd win because you actually have read him so you can have an informed opinion. By the way enjoy the rest I have yet to read one I didn't find a surprise in and made me laugh and think all at the same time :)
I haven't read (yet) any books by Terry Pratchett and I still want to strangle the person who wrote the article
I have only read 1 and it's on SIGHT
This is another great one from Rothfuss
"The problem with a lot of people who read only literary fiction is that they assume fantasy is just books about orcs and goblins and dragons and wizards and bullshit. And to be fair, a lot of fantasy is about that stuff.
The problem with people in fantasy is they believe that literary fiction is just stories about a guy drinking tea and staring out the window at the rain while he thinks about his mother. And the truth is a lot of literary fiction is just that. Like, kind of pointless, angsty, emo, masturbatory bullshit.
However, we should not be judged by our lowest common denominators. And also you should not fall prey to the fallacious thinking that literary fiction is literary and all other genres are genre. Literary fiction is a genre, and I will fight to the death anyone who denies this very self-evident truth.
So, is there a lot of fantasy that is raw shit out there? Absolutely, absolutely, it’s popcorn reading at best. But you can’t deny that a lot of lit fic is also shit. 85% of everything in the world is shit. We judge by the best. And there is some truly excellent fantasy out there. For example, Midsummer Night’s Dream; Hamlet with the ghost; Macbeth, ghosts and witches; I’m also fond of the Odyessey; Most of the Pentateuch in the Old Testament, Gargantua and Pantagruel.
Honestly, fantasy existed before lit fic, and if you deny those roots you’re pruning yourself so closely that you can’t help but wither and die."
-Patrick Rothfuss
But how is Rothfuss defining literary fiction? I suppose it must be a real genre with real genre conventions, but I only ever seem to hear the word used in two senses: one, as a synonym for "good literature", the other as a synonym for "bullshit". At least most genres seem to have very clear tropes and conventions and rules, whatever value judgements someone may then make of that genre, but I don't seem to hear the phrase "literary fiction" used as anything but a value judgement.
@@becky3983 I believe he's attacking the notion that literary fiction isn't a genre and that it has its own tropes and trends that provide just as much bullshit as any other genre and shouldn't be seen as higher or lesser than others for it
@@mcdcurtisIs literary fiction essentially any fiction set in the real world? With no bending of the rules of physics?
Why do people need deride one genre to praise another?
@@becky3983 The best definition I've heard of literary fiction, although it isn't a very good one, is that it doesn't come with expectations of what it should be. As in, it doesn't have to look a certain way. But that's a problematic definition too, because fantasy doesn't have to look a certain way. The good guys can lose (The Children of Hurin shows that Tolkien can get really dark if he wants to), or there are no good guys, or it's a tragedy. Or you have magical realism, which is basically urban fantasy, Neil Gaiman-type stuff, literary fiction with magical elements. Which I think is cheating, because that's actually fantasy.
We all know that literary fiction comes with certain expectations. Some sort of anguished main character, deep interpersonal conflict, past trauma, family drama, dark secrets, depression, suicide, existential musings, wartime romance and tragedy, blah blah blah. If a book that calls itself literary fiction doesn't have a few of these elements, we think it's not actually literary fiction.
For instance, the Remains of the Day. It's got a doomed romance, a big country house, political intrigue, an observation of the British class system and a misguided sense of duty. It's archetypal literary fiction. Or is it? Is it a romance? A tragedy? A political commentary? It could be any or all of those.
Angela's Ashes. Another such book. Wrenching poverty, weird sex, tuberculosis, abusive alcoholic father, POV of a young adolescent boy. Definitely literary fiction. Or is it a tragedy? Another commentary on the class system? A discussion of illness? Then it came out that Frank McCourt just plain made up the nastiest stuff (the weird sex) and other people who knew his family at the time said that conditions weren't as bad as he made them out to be. And a lot of recent literary fiction is even worse, basically misery porn.
So...whatever.
Literally just gave the Wheel of Time to a friend and my housemates gave me a disapproving look
I mean, to be fair, while it is possible for fantasy to be great literature, WoT just isn't. It is very high quality in some ways, but the character work, theming, and symbolism (which is what makes a book literature imo) isn't there. It's just a really fun yarn, with cool world building and grand strategy. So I could see being concerned seeing someone pick it up, because since it's purely for enjoyment it's basically empty calories. Of course, I disagree with that view, because even things that are just really fun can stick with you and have a lasting improving impact on your life. And I'm saying all this as someone who really likes WoT.
I don’t blame your housemates.
@@alexisdumas84 you mean, aside from very fundamental/existential questions (is a world filled with suffering worth existing, etc.), psychological explorations, and debates on the nature and necessity of both good and evil?
@@JosesAmazingWorlds I don't either, but only in the sense that that friend will not be available for a long time should the books catch on.
@@GeneralAblon I've only gone as far as book seven, and although I would like to think I'm pretty good at spotting that kind of stuff, I haven't come across any of those things yet. I was operating on the assumption (which I thought was reasonable) that the later books of the series will be, at least on the level of the skill which with they were written, roughly equal to the ones I've read so far, since the writing quality hasn't improved through the first seven books.
As far as character explorations go, most of the characters don't have a whole lot of depth to them, so there isn't that much to explore. They generally have one or two personality traits, nothing from their childhood or past or family life that deeply influences who they are, no particular ways of thinking that cause them problems, etc. What depth they do gain so far comes from external factors: what they have to do, or the limits of the magic system. There are exceptions to this, in that some characters have one or another of the missing things I mentioned (Mat has ways of thinking that get him in trouble), but there's never a character that has all of the components I think are necessary for a well-rounded character. Additionally, the characters don't really seem to develop.
Reminds me of the time someone told me that I should put down the fantasy book I was reading at the time and pick up "Real" literature. The example they gave me for "Real" literature? "The Picture of Dorian Gray"...
Ah yes. The book about a man who can't age because a magical painting of him is doing all the aging for him....
No fantasy elements there.
Ironic
That's philosophical literature with some gothic framing. Fantasy is a form of genre fiction that didn't exist until the glut of Tolkien knockoffs of the 50s and 60s, just because a story has speculative elements does not actually mean anything for its genre - same reason Handmaid's Tale and Testaments are spec fic, not sci fi.
Gotta love how genre readers know their slop is impossible to defend on its own merits so they just resort to dragging everyone else down to their level.
@@goldenhorde6944 Generally, at least by historians, George Macdonald is considered the first modern fantasy author, who was very influential on Tolkien and Lewis. I guess you're talking about Ballantine books that were capitalizing off the sucess of LoTR. Many would argue Mary Shelley wrote the first Sci-Fi with her Modern Prometheus, not that it was called Sci-Fi at the time. Because genres are labled to be used as advertisement for publishers for the most part, not as hard catagories that won't ever change in our history. There wasn't a detective genre at the time, but The Murders in Rue Morgue by Poe is very similar to Holmes. Seems silly to not call it a detective story just because the detective genre didn't exist yet in publishing.
@@KGDavis-fi2tq Good literature doesn't need genre to advertise itself, its just good literature. Tolkien, Shelley, and Wilde were all successful by virtue of writing good literature, Sanderson, Jemisin, or Corey are all successful by virtue of writing for an established genre with a built-in target audience they didn't have to worry about challenging.
@@goldenhorde6944 Not in their time. Many didn't consider Lord of the Rings literature, until years of debate (Some still don't of course). And Lord of the Rings was heavily advertised for a long time. Tor books stil advertise them today. LotR was also made to entertain, not solely thematic value. Same with fantasy today. There is a built-in audience for every single genre, because people love to read. That's why the term genre exists in the first place. NK Jemisin's Dreamblood could not exist without Egyptian and Numian mythology, but Lord of the Rings also would not exist without Norse and Catholic mythology. If LotR didn't exist, would people still want to read Dreamblood or Way of Kings? Yes, of course they would. Unless your definition of literature is only the classics, which you would have to wait until the authors are all dead typically speaking.
Sorry for the length, trying to be concise. But my last point is that Dreamblood happens to have one of the same themes as LotR, which is that power corrupts. It challenges the reader in the same way as Tolkien and the same way as Julius Caesar by Shakespeare. Many themes are common to different genres of litterature taken from different angles, and readers are emotionally affected by art differently from other people.
Daniel when someone tries to downgrade the fantasy genre: *raises great debate points and argues properly
Me when the same thing happens: "yes, but the thing is....fight me!!!!"
lmao yeah basically me. But with like.. a dirty look. Either at them or my monitor.
a valid response and the main one i use (also i was the 69th like. nice, im usually the 70th.)
@@toothfairy10133 it does feel good to be barbarian... To be fair, they need a punch before the argument begins
fight me... preferably with swords and dragons
No, I just tell them "you are wrong", softly, in my killing voice.
“Tell me you’ve never read fantasy without actually telling me you’ve never read fantasy”
Grab some popcorn and get ready for the Dishevelled Goblin to spit some FACTS
"All novels are fantasies. Some are more honest about it." - Gene Wolfe
People who disagree are simply nitpicking and biased, I win bye bye.
-videogamehippopotamus
I'm certain someone else has mentioned this but JRR Tolkien phrased this quite wisely:
"In experiencing the fantastic, we recover a fresh view of the unfantastic, a view too long dulled by familiarity."
Sup Daniel, hope that sticky sticky fun scene is going good in your book.
Sticky sticky fun times are literature.
🤣
I love that you brought up Shakespeare, because for his time he was considered "lowbrow" and what we would call mainstream today, entertainment for the masses.
Journey to the West was the same way. There will always be that class of people who want to be "superior" to the common man in some way, and it's easier to tear other things down than to make something of actual value.
Exactly! Shakespeare wrote melodrama, and there's nothing wrong with that. Melodrama-- good melodrama-- is just life taken up to eleven.
Not really
I chafe at the arbitrary distinction between "literary" and "genre" fiction. I've always had to defend fantasy and science fiction as "real" literature. I was one of the most prolific readers in my school, yet I was always questioned for reading sf/f. In creative writing classes in college, I was told I had to write "real" fiction instead of what I actually enjoyed. In my brief time as an English teacher, I was told I had to teach the same "classics" that had already been taught to death for decades.
Not once have I ever received a good explanation as to why the books I read were somehow less challenging, important, and valuable than the books I was "supposed" to read.
Its just status quo stuff
I think idk
SAME. I had a very well-meaning college professor who I loved very much tell me that I was a good writer, so, if I wanted, I didn't have to write fantasy. I am still Very Puzzled about what that meant. Like I wasn't writing fantasy because someone stuck a gun to my head, or because I thought "Oh I'm a bad writer, guess I better stick to fantasy", I was writing because I ENJOYED it and consequently CHOSE to.
In return, you can always ask those people if they think the Iliad is good literature, and then ask them what genre they think it is.
@@gwendolyn5998 Gosh, that's such an odd thing to say to a student (anyone, really). Also, great point about the Iliad.
You can tell a lot about a society from the way it uses fantasy, because fantasy fiction rarely just references itself. It's always a reflection of the context of the day. I feel like the metaphorical lens actually allows fantasy to be more honest, a lot of the time. I'm an historian and I find that reading the fantasy of the time is a valuable window into a particular culture.
I can SENSE the salt
Of course 1984 and Animal Farm are often considered "serious fiction," but both of those books have science fiction and fantasy elements. Having Animal Farm approach ideas with the characters being animals causes the ideas to be better shown, but its still animals talking and that's fantasy.
a modern use of this is Bojack Horseman. the series uses the animal "stereotypes" as a form of magnifying glass for certain qualities of the characters while putting them in seriously shity situations.
That's BS and you know it. If Animal Farm is fantasy, then you're doing a diservice to the genre you so arduously defend. Because the fantasy elements are not what make Animal Farm important and relevant. And they're not even fantasy to begin with.
You should point out the worldbuilding, the complex magic systems and the enjoyable ( yet often simplistic) prose. Because that is what modern fantasy is. And you're fueling the "fantasy is not literature" discussion by mentioning works of true art that happen to tangentially cross into your genre. Promote the actual fantasy books(Mistborn, Name of the wind, Malazan, Lord of the Rings).
@@brainderp808 sometimes I do. Anything wrong with that?
The first classic works of literature known to man are essentially legitimate fantasy fanfictions, of course fantasy is literature.
Oh man. My AP Lit teacher in high school was one of my favorite teachers ever, except she didn't believe fantasy was real literature. An exact quote from her was, "I love Harry Potter, but it's not real so you can't apply it to real life." oohhhhh man that got on my nerves
She is right about Harry Potter being trash though.
I’m a goober.
I have to ask. Who said that fantasy isn't literature.
@@pablolococo3785 Many, many College Profs, a lot of High School Teachers. More personal: My parents, my English teacher, the list goes on.
@@milospollonia1121 I honestly have never met those kind of people. When I talk about books people are like "you like reading?"
It's spelled 'Goblin' though disheveled goober isn't the worst 🤷🏻♂️
The oldest known piece of literature, Gilgamesh, is suddenly not :D
If these genre's aren't literature, I haven't read a real book in a decade.
rare self own
Something that never really sat right with me was when Game of Thrones was at its zenith, Weiss and Benioff said they wanted to tone down the magic and fantasy... In a fantasy series...
One if the things that made ASOIAF so cool was how unashamed it was to be fantastical. It was still grounded and dark, but it still said "at the end of the day, i am still fantasy."
I understand they did it to appeal to a wider, less fantasy-oriented audience, but what good is it to treat the core audience like they are a liability?
Imagine playing a wargame and being upset at all the violence! Yeah, it's kikda the draw!
I’m ready for the rant 😤 😝
Remember “magical realism” a term made for fantasy books that “critics” couldn’t admit were good, so they made up a new genre.
Uh, for the umpteenth time, they were completely different genres.
They are different genres. Or well, subgenres. I wouldn't call One Hundred Years of Solitude low fantasy, it is magical realism (because of the way it treats both parts of this) However, García Márquez accomplishes many of the things fantasy writers do, using fantastical elements to talk about things like the social and political reality of Colombia. And it won a well deserved Nobel Prize for it. And while they are different genres, I do agree that critics do use these kind of excuses to dismiss other books that are classified different, but do very similar things.
Sanderson himself says 100 Years of Solitude isn't fantasy.
The ignorance is strong in this one.
@@CheyenneSedai Alright I guess I will defend my stance. I would never argue that One Hundred Years of Solitude is fantasy, its not, but it also isn’t the made up genre of “magical realism.” I would classify it under the genre of wonder fiction, where fantastical elements are present, but merely serve as a backdrop. A classic example of an author commonly placed into the “magical realism” genre is Jorge Luis Borges. Many of his stories are not magical in any sense; however, many of his stories (such as the Library of Babel) have integral fantasy elements, thus making them fantasy.
The most glaring example of how “magical realism” isn’t a genre is in the definition. I have seen way too many varying definitions (including one idiot who said it was any fiction by a Latin American author), the one I see most accepted is: “Literature of this type is usually characterized by elements of the fantastic woven into the story with a deadpan sense of presentation.” If we accept that wonder fiction and fantasy are the two ways of classifying stories with fantastical elements, then all “magical realism” stories can be sorted into these categories. It is important to note that wonder fiction is not speculative fiction.
The most important thing to note is that even if “magical realism” is a genre it is absolutely not speculative fiction (again some books that are classified as “magical realism” are in fact fantasy and thus speculative fiction, they just shouldn’t be put under that title if they are fantasy). We can agree or disagree on all other points, but this last point is not arguable.
Perhaps the literary aversion to fantasy elements stems from a deeply rooted sense of shame in something that Fantasy fans have cultivated for years: sincere, unironic delight in wonder.
I think you've hit on something there mate😁
Indeed. The example that comes to my mind is more sf than fantasy, but when I was a kid and my dad read The First Men In The Moon to me at bedtimes. The sphere. The strange moon plants. The mooncalves. The underground lake in the Selenite city. And this man, H.G. Wells, had conjured it out of his head and some printing ink. Conan Doyle's The Lost World is another one from about the same time. When they see the dinosaurs. That's what books can do. Human beings can see giant creatures that died millions of years ago. And through them I can see them, from 21st-century England. If that isn't the peak of creativity, I don't know what is.
@@becky3983 i grew up with the tales of the grimm brothers(original ones, not the watered down versions) and the one thousand and one nights. both were big anthology books and while they were pretty dark and grim for a little boy, they always gave me that sense of wonder and a vast world(and some nightmares). i didnt read anything again until i was 13 or 14 and that was "foundation" by asimov and some of the novels by michael crichton, love them to this day. i haven't seen a single thing in literature that can't be enhanced in a way by fantasy or SF. they work like a magnifying glass and open the door to experiences that cannot be done in "traditional literature".
💯 i think to Perceive the world with child like wonder, is a precious gift that we lose as we grow world weary. It's my major pull towards fantasy. It also is always touted as the one of the negatives of fantasy and given a silly title called escapism. I
I also the think it has it's roots in enlightenment philosophy. Enlightenment thinkers had a strong aversion to romanticism and anything considered romanticism was bad in their mind which came to include the fantastic. They saw romanticism as backtracking and holding society back instead of going forward.
In this discussion on fantasy stories’ ability to have deep themes and still be able to reflect elements of the real world despite the fantasy setting, I take it upon myself to mention this small series called Avatar the Last Airbender
Avatar has a double problem, its fantasy and animated......and you know what this people would say....."animation is for kidzzzzz".
@@nicolasinvernizzi6140 Animation being conditioned this way to western culture by corporations/publishers is a big crime
In my undergraduate degree I took a course on the philosophy of The Lord of the Rings. What Tolkien has to say through his story on just wars, technocracy, aesthetics, etc. Not to mention everything it has to say about destiny vs. free will. It is so deeply complex and full of nuance. The idea that there is no literary value to his work is ludicrous on its face.
In highschool I was constantly put in English classes where whenever we had to write a short story we were told "no fantasy". I learned very quickly that with even a modicum of subtlety and some particular wording that I could still have fantasy in my stories and they would be none the wiser.
Which just goes to show how easy it is pull the wool over the eyes of literature snobes.
I love this so much. I'm currently writing a fantastical science fiction based on my own struggle with mental illness and it allows me to take a character with a mental illness like me and make that feeling that the world is ending real. In her story the problems she's facing actually might be ending the world, it allows me to depict these experiences with the intensity they're felt without being trapped within the dryness of real life.
Although that sounds kinda pretentious for a first time writer so if anyone else asks, it's a fun story and I wanted drama and anguish for the sake of it hehe
@@lauram3440Sounds like the making of a great story, I wouldn't worry about sounding pretentious. What you said is something that fantasy has been used for forever(similar to what Daniel said) exploring/expressing things about one's self or world without the limitations of the real, world.
@@lauram3440 Dont worry in worst case it helps you get that feelings out and work through it, which still sounds like a win, dont worry. I mean you can revise it in worst case and for its own sake, or you learn in worst case. And i can work out too Just do it. :P
I'm a fan of animation, I know your struggle as a fantasy fan when it comes to being taken seriously. I was talking to a literature teacher and she said to my fucking face that she's never read comics and she never wants to because she doesn't think you need school to write one. She was right, school is shit and you kinda don't need it for anything. Actually, school is probably the reason her critical thinking is on this level.
Meanwhile, the English class I took for common core in college was specifically focused on Graphic Novels and how they use their art to enhance their narrative.
@@thatnerdygaywerewolf9559 Yep. Another example:
I'm learning French and this manual my teacher uses (can't remember the name of it) mentions several times the 9 arts:
1. painting, 2. photography, 3. film, 4. architecture, 5. sculpture, 6. literature, 7. music, 8. performing (dancing, acting etc.) and 9. Graphic Novels/Comics.
This still doesn't include all arts, I think (if Comics are separate to literature, then animation should be put as its own art as well imo, and there's also culinary arts I think), but at least it acknowledges that Graphic Novels have possibilities that books don't really have and it also acknowledges that photography is a thing. I'll honestly take this approach (where new arts can form over time, going from 7 to 9 and so on), over a fixed 7 arts that DON'T INCLUDE PHOTOGRAPHY WHICH MAKES ME VERY SALTY.
@@justjulia1720 i would add videogames to that list, granted most videogames are only about the entertainment but so are most movies. i think we are at a point where more and more videogames are being developed with the tools and vision to be considered art. like Journey or Gris.
i think we are at an inflection point with animation. maybe is the generational change but im starting to see animation taken more seriously recently. i was really happy with the reception Avatar:the last airbender got on netflix last year and things like bojack and over the garden wall or into the spiderverse and others as well are not only getting fans but respect.
Too be fair comics and their writers never had that much respect to begin with, hell people like Stan Lee had to change their names when writing out of shame since he wanted to be a novelist and not associated with comics
So these people are trying to say that His Dark Materials teaches no deep themes about philosophy, religion, and physics? It includes no lessons concerning maturity and trust? Lord of the Rings does not install a sense of hope and it teaches nothing about the cultural evolutions of humans and their connections to nature and industry? The Wheel of Time doesn't reflect on modern cultures, adapting them genuinely and with a creative flourish while building on lotr's magnificent themes? Sanderson hasn't reflected germane knowledge of depression, further building on religious aspects and drawing themes from the outside world while keeping millions of people entertained?
Perhaps the ones writing those articles who haven't even read fantasy are the ones with the misconceptions about these themes...
69 likes, the balance has been maintained.
Honestly, I can't belive that there are people who can still claim that fantasy and SF is not "real literature". Such a statement comes straight out of the mindset "I don't enjoy it, therefore it's bad". And since there is really nothing more behind those opinions, they are the ones that have zero value, not fantasy and SF.
Based
the thing is i am willing to bet that some if not most of them never touched a fantasy or SF novel and their opinions are based in their parents or teachers ideas.
i've seen a post somewhere on the internet that said something along the lines of, "science fiction looks to the future to solve problems, and fantasy looks to the past to reflect on problems."
SFF also lets us examine humanity from a distance, it lets us reflect on society by presenting something that’s not our own. Literature is raises questions in the reader, and certain things can be widely presented to us in a fantasy lens.
I would drag people who argue this to just define to me literature. 70% of the arguments I had finished right then and there.
When I was in college (way back in the day) a well respected Humanities/Classics professor told me that she felt in the future SciFi/Fantasy literature would be studied as the great works of literature written in this century.
I'm here both because of a podcast you guested on with Overly Sarcastic Productions, and because I wanted to see a fantasy author's take on the topic.
Watching this brings back amusing memories of a visit to a bookstore a year or so before time got paused by a virus. Walked in, looked around the bookstore a bit, then went to the counter and asked about half a dozen authors I'd been specifically thinking of.
Clerk: "I've never heard of any of those, what kind of books do they write?"
Me: "They're usually put in the fantasy/science fiction section, but you don't seem to have one."
Clerk: "Of course not, this is a quality book store, not--"
Me: "Obviously not." And I left before they could figure out how to speak again.
Awesome video Daniel, all of us who read Fantasy and/or Sci-fi recognize those snobs and have met at least one in our lives
“I believe that fantasy in the meaning of imagination is very important. We shouldn’t stick too close to everyday reality but give room to the reality of the heart, of the mind, and of the imagination” - Hayao Miyazaki
5:10 I'm just picturing somebody on the other side of that bathroom door thinking, when is this guy going to let me take a dump in peace?
This reminds me of the time I took a "Creative Writing" course in school when I was 13. Wrote a story about a couple of kids finding out that a dragon was living in the nearby forest (I'd just been through reading LotR ;) ).
Presented it to the teacher. Her response: "This is nonsense and not creative writing."
I still don't understand the meaning of her words.
Loved your video and the points you made spoke directly to my Lit student heart :)
I'm a big fantasy and horror fan, and the fact that my favourite two genres always get looked down upon drives me MAD.
I haven't even read Discworld yet but I got kind of choked up when you were describing how Terry depicts death.
When you get the chance try them. They are excellent pieces of work and very diverse so you are bound to find one that speaks to something you genuinely care about. Clever, funny, surprising and nicely written.
Mort is a good start. If you want DEATH
To me, fantasy and sci-fi has always been about exploring philosophical ideas while being detached from "real world" so that we are more open to ideas that may be different from our own. If you look at wizards or robots and just ignore the human conundrums hidden inside, then you're probably not good at understanding literary fiction either.
same
Very well articulated. The way I phrase it in my head is it disarms us and makes us more susceptible to these ideas. If someone speaks to you about that same topic in a routine conversation, it's more likely to go in one ear and out the other because the concepts always make sense but it doesn't dawn on you while in a mundane state of mind. I think in fiction (specifically sci fi or fantasy), it's so effective because we're focused on the magic and dragons and then we get hit with a ton of bricks and we can have a small version of those experiences in an omniscient way which can lead to not only realization but catharsis.
I feel like giving a standing ovation 👏👏👏
Imagine a world where Pratchett is mediochre.
As in, the average novel you grab off a random shelf is equal to his works.
That would be amazing!
Who the hell even defined what "Real Literature" is?
Its the same people what "real language" (formal isn same as "real" ) or "real" music. Not good critics of anything.
Same people who define what is Real Cinema, Music or Art in general
@@TupocalypseShakur well I'd say a lot of people misunderstood what Scorsese was saying, he was saying that it's not his version of cinema that he enjoys. And also he didn't say that all superheroes movies are formulaic, he was just talking about the mcu being very bland. Which I agree, the MCU is very formulaic and I love superheroes and the stories that you can tell with them and the potential that it has is pretty much limitless and there's still just have some of the most lame and recycled plots from movie to movie.
Thank you. Just, thank you! Where do you find "Dracula" "Frankenstein" and "Moby Dick"? In the literary fiction section... but they're totally fantasy/sci-fi... not that anyone seems to acknowledge that...
Edit: this is like Martin Scorsese admitting he never watches marvel movies and says they're not cinema...
"the category of 'literary fiction' has sprung up recently to torment people like me who just set out to write books, and if anybody wanted to read them, terrific, the more the merrier ... I'm a genre writer of a sort. I write literary fiction, which is like spy fiction or chick lit."
Jon Updike.
Drakula is , well its a staple of fiction now, and frankrngtain is the grandmom or mom of modern scifi.
6 out of 10 classic lit writers (at least) have fantasy elements in their books, it's ridiculous how people respect me as a reader more when I tell them I read classic lit and not "just fantasy" when so much of classic lit is fantasy. I can't.
Couple of things:
1: Sci-fi and fantasy have long been used to examine issues in our society, but by placing it in a fantastical setting allowed the reader a little distance from the issues and enables them to view those issues more critically (i.e. Animal Farm, 1984, LotR, etc.)
2: something Brando Sando once said. You have all these genres; horror, romance, mystery, thriller; and if you deviate too much your target audience will be upset. But SFF can have all those elements along with magic and dragons and spaceships.
Science fiction and Fantasy are clearly the superior genres.
Yeah, almost all the media I consume is either under the fantasy&sci-fi supergenre or informative/educational non-fiction with little-to-no narrative.
Tell me a story or tell me the facts. I'm not particularly interested in attempts to do both at the same time.
Yes, that's a good point. You can have almost any type of plot in sff, which gives the writer a great deal of freedom.
It's so unfair! I was studying English Philology and the English Literature teacher wouldn't let me do a paper about The Lord of the Rings because it's not literature. My god, Tolkien was an English philologist, his whole work was born around the language he created. The Lord of the Rings is a classic and I don't care what the elitists at the university say.
As a languages student, I am very very angry. You do not disrespect philologists, O university elitists!
The problem with these discussions is that many people tends to forget that fantasy or sci-fi is not exactly a genre, I think it's more like a setting. If I write a novel about a detective who solves crimes by investigation and deductions, and the story takes place in a fantasy world with dragons and magic I'm still writing a detective novel, but with a fantasy setting, instead of a real one. That's why I'm always sceptical with those that say "I don't like fantasy", because most of the time they are referring to tolkien-like novels. But the fantasy definition is much larger than that!
The good news is we are having this conversation less than we did in the 80's and they had it less often than they did in the 50's. We are on the right trejectory.
This is mostly an American sentiment anyway. Outside the US people don't even bat their eye at something with fantasy elements. Most European movies I find on streaming are fantasy and sci fi.
I have an MFA in literature and poetry with a focus on genre studies and working towards a PhD in psych, and I can totally gel with what you're saying. Fantasy has an elevated purpose, and it deals realistically with character and psychologically sound phenomema. Plus it's a good tool in CBT.
I do have to say that many of my professors did not share the view that genre was as important as "literature."
I study to be a literature highschool teacher. This is a loooong debate among literary scholars, and a part of me always crys internaly when my teachers attack fantasy. But on the other hand i have great teachers that embrace different canons. Last week we talked about Tolkien for a subject and i might have been a little over excited, i had a pile of fantasy books next to me to talk about. Love this kind of videos to learn more opinions! (Sorry for My English 😊)
I wasn’t even aware people looked down on fantasy as a genre.
Lucky.
My thoughts exactly, you just say it much more eloquently. Fortunately my love of fantasy is shared by my husband and many other friends and family. We love books and fantasy in our home!!!!
Daniel woke up today and chose violence. Jokes aside, really agree with all the points. Internet can be such a sh*tty place sometimes.
Anyone who tries to gatekeep what is and isn't literature has a long distance relationship with grass.
Me: *reads way of kings for my first book into literature*
Critics: NOOOOO you shouldn’t read fantasy you are not an intellectual, fantasy is for children
Me: ahaha highstorms go brrrrr
Fantasy/swords and sandals being the oldest most well established literature in the world: I'm I a joke to you?
That's a god-tier crempost.
That Guardian article is a real "Who let THIS get published?" moment.
News websites are powered by clicks and views, journalists who have nothing better to do write articles intentionally causing outrage to generate views and increasing traffic to the site.
@@calebmauer1751 I find that so sad and yet absolutely believable that is the approach someone would take. Outrage is just so useful for publicity.
It also hurts their credibility to the point that they'll only be able to live off of outrage clickbait, because no one will go there for a serious opinion. It's very shortsighted.
Plus, "r/savedyouaclick" and the mindset behind it ("Just give me the gist of it, I don't want to give them ad revenue") is a thing, so even that's not really a safe bet, either.
I honestly think fantasy has a way harder time than sci-fi. A lot of times even sci-fi fans say fantasy has no real value. Blood and ashes!
Well fantasy has at least lord of the rings to prove everyone wrong
I personally cant think of any scifi story that has the same impact
Well i did forget about 1984, soma, and the likes of dystopian novels
They seem to be considered real literature
But it is such an artificial thing
I am convinced “real literature” is just an academic circlejerk
@@dj_koen1265 I would argue that Dune can almost be considered the Lotr of sci fi in the sense of impact, but hardly any piece of entertainment has made an impact to the level that Lotr did.
And yes, "real literature" definitely is an academic circlejerk for elites to feed their colossal egos.
That is probably for the simple fact that science is real (even if the one on the books isn't) while magic is not. Which is still a stupid reason to say such a thing, as a scientist myself reading about space travel is just as fantastical in nature as reading about dragons for me.
@@laiaal.3324 Although in reality science is real and magic is not, in fiction the boundary between the two seems to be often a matter of vocabulary. In fantasy you have explicit magic, in sf you often have some kind of "energy" or "beam of particles" with nothing beyond that to in fact distinguish it from magic.
@@becky3983 even if that "energy" is in fact electricity, if you are powering a time travel machine with it is still fantasy but called futuristic technology. So yeah, I agree. But for some people the single fact of calling it science instead will make it look "more realistic". Good for them, I will just call dragons "lizards that went through a different evolutional pathway" and call it sci fi (which is kind of what Jurrasic Park is, considering dinosaurs are probably the base of all dragons)
My grandma, who has never read a fantasy book in her life, will, anytime I come to visit and have a fantasy book with me, tell me without fail to read something sensible for a change. I'm too old for those childish stories. I wish I could send her this video, but I don't think her English is good enough to really grasp what you're saying.
Maybe I'll just ask her if she liked Dorian Grey and then tell her "Ah, yes. The man has a magical painting. Yeah, that's not fantasy."
I absolutely understand your anger and frustration. I feel it too.
Terry Practchett: writes novels that are translated into over 30 languages and sells in excess of 80 million copies.
whoever was hired to write clickbait for the Grauniad: *was hired to write clickbait for the Grauniad*
They hate him because they ain't him.
@@becky3983 They heinous, because they anus.
9:06 ohhh my gooood.
This is _exactly_ what it feels like taking to people who hate all forms of Mecha. Didn't know Fantasy had similar problems, but goodness does it feel cathartic to hear someone from a different genre espouse these feelings.
Though, it _is_ unfortunate that this happens in any genre, it's just... I don't know how to explain.
Thank you so much for making this. My stepfather is a huge literary snob who only reads "the greats", and always criticises me when I tell him that I'm reading fantasy. I brought the Way of Kings along on a road trip with me and we got into a huge argument, with him calling it "trash" and the brain-rotting equivalent of a video game (and he's even wrong about video games as well!!). I tried to defend myself and the book but he's honestly so loud and overpowering I couldn't get a single word in. Later, he asked me to "prove myself" by quoting one sentence or passage from the book that proves its "literary merit", because obviously, all real books have purple prose. I chose the part where (spoilers!!) Syl saves Kaladin from committing suicide, one of the most emotional points in the book. But just because it didn't use long words and fancy adjectives he again dismissed it as trash. I tried to tell him that he didn't understand the context of why that scene was important but again he didn't listen to me.
I hope he likes this video.
Your stepfather sounds like someone had their imagination beaten out of them by meaningless work.
Truth and Courage Daniel! Thank you for this and let me end this with a quote from one of the pillars of Fantasy, “Fantasy is hardly an escape from reality. It's a way of understanding it.” ~ Lloyd Alexander