I always consider the "Epic" part to be a reference to tone and the degree of Magic/Fantasy in the world. Low Fantasy - Stories where Magic and the Supernatural (fantastical) is rare Epic Fantasy - Magic and the Supernatural is everywhere. You could make a detective story set in an Epic Fantasy world and it would still be a detective story :)
Yeah. I do think it feels a bit weird to call an intimate detective story in a high fantasy setting “epic”. That’s why I think there should be an element of broad scope and high stakes in epics 🤷♂️
Epic fantasy usually has a complex plot so individual characters are over shadowed. An attempt at doing a character driven story you might end up being called something else. The author should write their story then figure out how to market it. As for the ending problem that is a lack of planning issue. Many authors let the story goes where it goes but this requires a lot of editing to end up with a coherent plot with a satisfying ending.
Yeah , they probably have an overall idea of where the story will end, but during the writing process they naturally create more threads (the Gardner style of writing) and it becomes more and more difficult to tie them back to the original plan in a satisfying way
Epic fantasy usually has a complex plot so individual characters are over shadowed. An attempt at doing a character driven story you might end up being called something else. The author should write their story then figure out how to market it.
I wonder if you have the Lord of the Rings films confused with the books. The films are superhero oriented. The books are the story of how four hobbits grow into adults, or better people, if you like. In the books, the superhero stuff is just the backdrop. Just like for the ordinary person, WWII feels world changing, but their role in that conflict is insignificant, even if they personally knew primary actors in those events. And I think it is the focus on that personal story that grounds the books, makes us care. The most disturbing part of the books the first time I read them was the scouring of the Shire because it seemed so senseless to attack innocents. That thousands perished on the Pelinor fields or at Helm's Deep were just statistics. The Shire was personal. It was a nice overview of the genre. One further comment. A lack of an epic event does not mean the worldbuilding has to be any less epic. Patrick Rothfuss has created a very rich world that feels very alive, but so far, the story has not taken on world-ending dimensions, although there are hints that it could at some point.
Hey 👋 which part of the video you had this impression about lotr? I know one part in specific (the characters being a bit too tropey) that I had the hobbit movies in mind instead of the book but I can’t think of an example for lotr 😅 If you mean when I mention that epic fantasy is less personal, I mean it in a sense that some other subgenres describe characters and their thoughts in a more visceral, blood and guts sort of way (I’m thinking of the first law series for example), epic fantasy it’s just a little bit less exploratory with the characters because a lot of the page real state is being used to describe the world already
@@LoreGeist Didn't play or even watch the video game. Similar plot in both The Hobbit and LoTR, and similar superhero adaptation, although the Hobbit adaptation is far more cringe. What really changed my mind about the LoTR was rereading the scouring because you can compare the hobbits who left and those who returned. It is easy to lose sight of the hobbits elsewhere as aside from a few short scenes like the death of the Witch King, the hobbits do not play a critical role. Ok, our definitions of epic differ. Epic for me means on a grand scale, like a war is epic compared to a battle and WWII was epic compared to a localised war. Harry Potter tried to become epic in the end, but it remained centered on the trio instead. And the key moment is better described (told, not shown) in the books, i.e., that Harry sacrificed himself in the same way that his mother did and for the same reason, to protect those he loved from the villain and his henchmen. In other words, he grew into his mother's shoes, but it was not much of a character arc. I do agree that LoTR is epic, but it is an example of how to personalise that epic scale. The films focus on Gandalf and Aragorn, which is what authors usually do. But I cannot think of any scene in the books that does not include a hobbit. In other words, it is only what a hobbit saw or heard. Ok, the LoTR battle scenes are a bit more omniscient than from just a hobbit's limited view, unlike the Battle of Five Armies. But we only see a battle where a hobbit is present. Aragorn has a moment of self-doubt after Gandalf's death in the book, but otherwise, he is pillar to lean on, like all the old men in the books. He does not really have a character arc in the books. Aragorn and Gandalf were the heroes at the beginning and remain those heroes throughout the books. I would not say that Thorin grows in the book; he just can't decide what he wants to do. Bilbo changes but those changes are not deeply explored in the book. But Tolkien wanted more of a fairy tale style for The Hobbit and those have no character arc. So, for the genre, he did a good job. But your observations would apply to any epic, like the Sharpe series. However, there is a question of epic worldbuilding. Most fantasy works do minimal worldbuilding and focus on the character arc, which is good thing because few can immerse a reader in a world without making the pace too slow. I tried Martin's epic, but he lost me with the wedding scene; I do not like such behaviour. But the pace was also too slow. Many complain about the pace in LoTR, but Tolkien's ability to describe is up to the task. So, I guess I would suggest no one attempt epic level worldbuilding unless they can write descriptions so well that people are happy to read the descriptions without any event occurring.
@@LoreGeist A few further notes. 1. Tolkien was writing before the age of psychology in fantasy. For him, he was doing a lot of psychology in showing how the hobbits changed. At that time, such things were shown, not told, and the reader was expected to figure things out. Remember that PTSD only started to be recognised after WWII. 2. Tolkien was trying to write a long lost epic, thus he was writing in epic style. Probably the best thing you could have said to Tolkien is, 'I read The LoTR and fell in love with the Eddas.' It is fun reading them and coming across the dwarves. 3. As far as I know, Tolkien created many of those tropes. Of course, the concept that external beauty is a reflection of internal beauty is millennia old. And Tolkien's answer was the dwarves who were not attractive, but who were good. 4. The writing instruction of the day was that a story needs to be told through a relatable character. The problem with The Silmarillion is that it is all superheroes. We care in The Hobbit and the LoTR because of the hobbits. It's great that good triumphs over evil, that Aragorn finally becomes king and marries his true love, etc. but that is their country, the same as events in Brazil for a European or American who has no ties to the country, never even visited. You can see it in the difference between Spiderman and Thor. And I stand by my definition of epic. The recent Napoleon film was epic in scale because it dealt with his whole life. Gladiator was an epic film because of its success, but its scale was not epic because it was just a few events in the life of one man, most of which were near the time of his death. Game of Thrones was epic because it covered so many events and so many lives. Because of the number of events and their distance from one another, one would say that The LoTR is epic in scale, which is why so many characters have little or no character arc, but the story is about the hobbits. Imagine the LoTR as Aragorn's quest to regain the throne. Eliminate everything about the one ring. The story starts as Aragorn sets off from Rivendell with a smaller band of companions with pretty much the same events for him. Someone else rallies the ents. In the final battle at the gates of Mordor, Aragorn triumphs on his own by force of arms. He is now crowned. It's a very different story, and a single film, not a trilogy. Would you watch/read it?
I don't know how I feel about one point you made. It's true that characters in this genre can be very shallow. However, in series like aSoIaF, the characters really are the main focus and are extremely rich and contradictory. Saying epic fantasy might not be right for your story if you want to write strong characters is where I'm not sure I agree. You also said that grimdark usually does a better job with this. I'm curious where you draw the line, since often these two mix. To be fair, this is a dissection of the genre, so I guess you have to make some generalizations and distinctions, even if it's not always this clean in practice.
Yeah, ASOIAF can be a little difficult to put in a box because it is both epic fantasy and grimdark. When I think of LOTR, Wheel of Time and Stormlight archive, I wouldn’t say at least the main characters are completely shallow but there is less character exploration than grim dark for sure. But you raised a good point, when you draw harsh lines to try to define subgenres, the separation not always will be perfect
What subgenre should we discuss next?
Pulp? Do you dare?
Grim dark
@@johntheherbalistg8756 adding S&S to the list 👌
@@fiancherocoming up soon 👌
Urban fantasy
I always consider the "Epic" part to be a reference to tone and the degree of Magic/Fantasy in the world.
Low Fantasy - Stories where Magic and the Supernatural (fantastical) is rare
Epic Fantasy - Magic and the Supernatural is everywhere.
You could make a detective story set in an Epic Fantasy world and it would still be a detective story :)
Yeah. I do think it feels a bit weird to call an intimate detective story in a high fantasy setting “epic”. That’s why I think there should be an element of broad scope and high stakes in epics 🤷♂️
Epic fantasy usually has a complex plot so individual characters are over shadowed. An attempt at doing a character driven story you might end up being called something else. The author should write their story then figure out how to market it.
As for the ending problem that is a lack of planning issue. Many authors let the story goes where it goes but this requires a lot of editing to end up with a coherent plot with a satisfying ending.
Yeah , they probably have an overall idea of where the story will end, but during the writing process they naturally create more threads (the Gardner style of writing) and it becomes more and more difficult to tie them back to the original plan in a satisfying way
Epic fantasy usually has a complex plot so individual characters are over shadowed. An attempt at doing a character driven story you might end up being called something else. The author should write their story then figure out how to market it.
I wonder if you have the Lord of the Rings films confused with the books. The films are superhero oriented. The books are the story of how four hobbits grow into adults, or better people, if you like. In the books, the superhero stuff is just the backdrop. Just like for the ordinary person, WWII feels world changing, but their role in that conflict is insignificant, even if they personally knew primary actors in those events. And I think it is the focus on that personal story that grounds the books, makes us care. The most disturbing part of the books the first time I read them was the scouring of the Shire because it seemed so senseless to attack innocents. That thousands perished on the Pelinor fields or at Helm's Deep were just statistics. The Shire was personal.
It was a nice overview of the genre. One further comment. A lack of an epic event does not mean the worldbuilding has to be any less epic. Patrick Rothfuss has created a very rich world that feels very alive, but so far, the story has not taken on world-ending dimensions, although there are hints that it could at some point.
Hey 👋 which part of the video you had this impression about lotr? I know one part in specific (the characters being a bit too tropey) that I had the hobbit movies in mind instead of the book but I can’t think of an example for lotr 😅
If you mean when I mention that epic fantasy is less personal, I mean it in a sense that some other subgenres describe characters and their thoughts in a more visceral, blood and guts sort of way (I’m thinking of the first law series for example), epic fantasy it’s just a little bit less exploratory with the characters because a lot of the page real state is being used to describe the world already
@@LoreGeist Didn't play or even watch the video game. Similar plot in both The Hobbit and LoTR, and similar superhero adaptation, although the Hobbit adaptation is far more cringe. What really changed my mind about the LoTR was rereading the scouring because you can compare the hobbits who left and those who returned. It is easy to lose sight of the hobbits elsewhere as aside from a few short scenes like the death of the Witch King, the hobbits do not play a critical role.
Ok, our definitions of epic differ. Epic for me means on a grand scale, like a war is epic compared to a battle and WWII was epic compared to a localised war. Harry Potter tried to become epic in the end, but it remained centered on the trio instead. And the key moment is better described (told, not shown) in the books, i.e., that Harry sacrificed himself in the same way that his mother did and for the same reason, to protect those he loved from the villain and his henchmen. In other words, he grew into his mother's shoes, but it was not much of a character arc. I do agree that LoTR is epic, but it is an example of how to personalise that epic scale. The films focus on Gandalf and Aragorn, which is what authors usually do. But I cannot think of any scene in the books that does not include a hobbit. In other words, it is only what a hobbit saw or heard. Ok, the LoTR battle scenes are a bit more omniscient than from just a hobbit's limited view, unlike the Battle of Five Armies. But we only see a battle where a hobbit is present. Aragorn has a moment of self-doubt after Gandalf's death in the book, but otherwise, he is pillar to lean on, like all the old men in the books. He does not really have a character arc in the books. Aragorn and Gandalf were the heroes at the beginning and remain those heroes throughout the books. I would not say that Thorin grows in the book; he just can't decide what he wants to do. Bilbo changes but those changes are not deeply explored in the book. But Tolkien wanted more of a fairy tale style for The Hobbit and those have no character arc. So, for the genre, he did a good job.
But your observations would apply to any epic, like the Sharpe series. However, there is a question of epic worldbuilding. Most fantasy works do minimal worldbuilding and focus on the character arc, which is good thing because few can immerse a reader in a world without making the pace too slow. I tried Martin's epic, but he lost me with the wedding scene; I do not like such behaviour. But the pace was also too slow. Many complain about the pace in LoTR, but Tolkien's ability to describe is up to the task. So, I guess I would suggest no one attempt epic level worldbuilding unless they can write descriptions so well that people are happy to read the descriptions without any event occurring.
@@LoreGeist A few further notes.
1. Tolkien was writing before the age of psychology in fantasy. For him, he was doing a lot of psychology in showing how the hobbits changed. At that time, such things were shown, not told, and the reader was expected to figure things out. Remember that PTSD only started to be recognised after WWII.
2. Tolkien was trying to write a long lost epic, thus he was writing in epic style. Probably the best thing you could have said to Tolkien is, 'I read The LoTR and fell in love with the Eddas.' It is fun reading them and coming across the dwarves.
3. As far as I know, Tolkien created many of those tropes. Of course, the concept that external beauty is a reflection of internal beauty is millennia old. And Tolkien's answer was the dwarves who were not attractive, but who were good.
4. The writing instruction of the day was that a story needs to be told through a relatable character. The problem with The Silmarillion is that it is all superheroes. We care in The Hobbit and the LoTR because of the hobbits. It's great that good triumphs over evil, that Aragorn finally becomes king and marries his true love, etc. but that is their country, the same as events in Brazil for a European or American who has no ties to the country, never even visited. You can see it in the difference between Spiderman and Thor.
And I stand by my definition of epic. The recent Napoleon film was epic in scale because it dealt with his whole life. Gladiator was an epic film because of its success, but its scale was not epic because it was just a few events in the life of one man, most of which were near the time of his death. Game of Thrones was epic because it covered so many events and so many lives. Because of the number of events and their distance from one another, one would say that The LoTR is epic in scale, which is why so many characters have little or no character arc, but the story is about the hobbits. Imagine the LoTR as Aragorn's quest to regain the throne. Eliminate everything about the one ring. The story starts as Aragorn sets off from Rivendell with a smaller band of companions with pretty much the same events for him. Someone else rallies the ents. In the final battle at the gates of Mordor, Aragorn triumphs on his own by force of arms. He is now crowned. It's a very different story, and a single film, not a trilogy. Would you watch/read it?
I don't know how I feel about one point you made. It's true that characters in this genre can be very shallow. However, in series like aSoIaF, the characters really are the main focus and are extremely rich and contradictory.
Saying epic fantasy might not be right for your story if you want to write strong characters is where I'm not sure I agree.
You also said that grimdark usually does a better job with this. I'm curious where you draw the line, since often these two mix.
To be fair, this is a dissection of the genre, so I guess you have to make some generalizations and distinctions, even if it's not always this clean in practice.
Yeah, ASOIAF can be a little difficult to put in a box because it is both epic fantasy and grimdark. When I think of LOTR, Wheel of Time and Stormlight archive, I wouldn’t say at least the main characters are completely shallow but there is less character exploration than grim dark for sure.
But you raised a good point, when you draw harsh lines to try to define subgenres, the separation not always will be perfect