Quote:
Originally Posted by hildea
This is interesting, it seems my definition of epic fantasy has little or no overlap with either of yours  To me, epic fantasy has huge stakes -- the fate of nations, or even worlds, hang in the balance. So by that definition, The Hobbit isn't epic, but Lord of the Rings is.
(Unless I remember wrong - warning - spoiler for The Hobbit following:
) |
Well, if you look at Lloyd Alexander's (coined) definition, along with other kibitzers, basically, the only requirement is that it's set in an entirely different world (as in, not an alternative fictional world, like Harry Dresden or the like), and it's the Hero's Journey, nothing more nor less. There does not seem to be a requirement for "save the world" or high stakes, per se. The concepts of good and evil, etc., play a part, which allegedly sets it apart from "mere" sword and sorcery. Apparently, RPG's may classify as HF.
If the OP wants battles/action, then S&S may be what he wants. If he wants the hero's journey, that's not tied to epic fantasy, or any specific genre of book. You can get that as readily in Dune as you can in TLOTR.
However, as I said, there doesn't seem to be any requirement for "save the planet" type stuff. Just your basic good-versus-evil plotline and the ubiquitous (usually male, ahem) character that's "the One."
Hitch