Is all fantasy derivative of Tolkien? How to prove it isn't?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by varlog

Marquez and Gaiman in the same sentence ?

Why not?
They may be coming from opposite sides of the "border" but the two are far closer to each other (and Esquivel) than to Tolkien or Martin.
Gaiman may wander further afield but quite a bit of his works could be called magical realism. A couple of his SANDMAN arcs in particular.

[Geralt]

Originally Posted by varlog

High is there because I really like Murakami.

Yes, that's why you use high. That's why every time people talk about astronomical objects of gas and plasma which produce nuclear reactions known as stars, I say no, no, the stars are god's daisy chain. We really understand each other then.

I mean if you are going to talk about fantasy at least look up some definitions of high, low, epic, grimdark, heroic (sword and sorcery), urban, new weird and so on before spreading some subjective opinion without any concrete backup and arguing semantics on top of that.

Otherwise what's the point of you sharing your opinion if you aren't using terms in a manner the rest of the world is using them. Nobody will understand you.

[varlog]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Why not?
They may be coming from opposite sides of the "border" but the two are far closer to each other (and Esquivel) than to Tolkien or Martin.
Gaiman may wander further afield but quite a bit of his works could be called magical realism. A couple of his SANDMAN arcs in particular.

This is above my engagement level. I'm just a erratic reader. Esquivel/Martin/Sandman arcs (for instance) don't ring a bell, alas. It is just that Marques and Gaiman don't belong together in my world. Gaiman is fantasy for us dreamers, Marques is fantasy for us ...? Not dreamers for sure.

[Geralt]

Sandman is probably the most known piece of work Gaiman has ever done.
"Fantasy for dreamers" isn't a genre. It's just how you describe Gaiman to yourself.
Now if you wanna talk fantasy you could say that Gaiman writes in magical realism, modern fairy tales and I dare say horror.

[varlog]

Originally Posted by Geralt

Yes, that's why you use high. That's why every time people talk about astronomical objects of gas and plasma which produce nuclear reactions known as stars, I say no, no, the stars are god's daisy chain. We really understand each other then.

I mean if you are going to talk about fantasy at least look up some definitions of high, low, epic, grimdark, heroic (sword and sorcery), urban, new weird and so on before spreading some subjective opinion without any concrete backup and arguing semantics on top of that.

Otherwise what's the point of you sharing your opinion if you aren't using terms in a manner the rest of the world is using them. Nobody will understand you.

Sorry, sorry. I stand corrected. I like Murakami contemporary fantasy very much .

[Geralt]

Originally Posted by varlog

Sorry, sorry. I stand corrected. I like Murakami contemporary fantasy very much .

I never heard of contemporary being sawn with fantasy either. There's no such thing as a genre. There are genre benders ofc, but IMO Murakami isn't one of those.

[varlog]

Originally Posted by Geralt

Sandman is probably the most known piece of work Gaiman has ever done.
"Fantasy for dreamers" isn't a genre. It's just how you describe Gaiman to yourself.
Now if you wanna talk fantasy you could say that Gaiman writes in magical realism, modern fairy tales and I dare say horror.

Apparently will have to catch up with my duty reading. Gaiman it is!

I never heard of contemporary being sawn with fantasy either. There's no such thing as a genre. There are genre benders ofc, but IMO Murakami isn't one of those.

Perhaps it is time for such a genre to be acknowledged?

"genre benders ofc" ? sorry, no clue...

[Geralt]

Just to let you know, Sandman is a comic. I have a feeling you might have not known that.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by varlog

Apparently will have to catch up with my duty reading. Gaiman it is!
.
.
.

"genre benders ofc" ? sorry, no clue...

If you want to sample Gaiman at his most accessible, STARDUST is a good one.
For his magical realism, THE OCEAN AT THE END OF THE LANE or, from SANDMAN, A GAME OF YOU.

For others classified as Magical Realism, check here:

https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/magical-realism

Bear in mind that for some fantasy aficionados, Magical Realism is "fantasy-lite with pretensions".

As for genre benders, that refers to books that defy classification because of the way they stretch and expand the borders of one or more genres and do it well.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Geralt

I never heard of contemporary being sawn with fantasy either. There's no such thing as a genre. There are genre benders ofc, but IMO Murakami isn't one of those.

I have. I thinks this is a term used and Wikipedia agree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_fantasy

"Contemporary fantasy, also known as modern fantasy or indigenous fantasy, is a sub-genre of fantasy, set in the present day. It is perhaps most popular for its sub-genre, urban fantasy."

[Ghitulescu]

To me Hobbits and LOTR are childish, no better than comics stripes and feuilletons of the same era, or before. Since the modern times cinematography is also directed towards mental un(der)developed people, such books are perfect for filming.

50 years before him, an entire English horror/fantasy literature flourished. Borroughs has been mentioned, probably Wells as well, I presume Poe, too, then it was Shelley and her Frankenstein, there was Dracula of Stoker and so on. While not necessarily the best, they opened the path to others. Victorian era was do dark, that these horror/fantasy works fit perfectly. Jack the Ripper was haunting London and what stories could go along in the bedrooms, than such ones?

Everyone heard about hobbits, because Holywood made such a strong campaign last year, which, typically for such a literary work, was centred to the fact that was filmed in 4k rather than on its literary merits.

Unlike negative (scaring, punishing) attitude of British literary works, French contemporary literature was positive, think of Jules Verne and his inventions, that become reality after years. Whereas hobbits and vampyres and whatever creatures never have been proven to exist, let alone to help the humanity or to give any advice. Verne's works not only had visionary ideas, but also gave positive and useful advices.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

To me Hobbits and LOTR are childish, no better than comics stripes and feuilletons of the same era, or before. Since the modern times cinematography is also directed towards mental un(der)developed people, such books are perfect for filming.

"The Hobbit" is a childrens' book, so of course it's "childish" - it's supposed to be.

But LOTR childish? No way.

[Geralt]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

To me Hobbits and LOTR are childish, no better than comics stripes and feuilletons of the same era, or before. Since the modern times cinematography is also directed towards mental un(der)developed people, such books are perfect for filming.

50 years before him, an entire English horror/fantasy literature flourished. Borroughs has been mentioned, probably Wells as well, I presume Poe, too, then it was Shelley and her Frankenstein, there was Dracula of Stoker and so on. While not necessarily the best, they opened the path to others. Victorian era was do dark, that these horror/fantasy works fit perfectly. Jack the Ripper was haunting London and what stories could go along in the bedrooms, than such ones?

Everyone heard about hobbits, because Holywood made such a strong campaign last year, which, typically for such a literary work, was centred to the fact that was filmed in 4k rather than on its literary merits.

Unlike negative (scaring, punishing) attitude of British literary works, French contemporary literature was positive, think of Jules Verne and his inventions, that become reality after years. Whereas hobbits and vampyres and whatever creatures never have been proven to exist, let alone to help the humanity or to give any advice. Verne's works not only had visionary ideas, but also gave positive and useful advices.

There's enough room in this world for Tolkien and Verne. Tolkien set out to write mythology for England, Verne was writing science fiction at that time.
I love them both but they are completely different. Your attitude toward one seems unable to make room for different kinds of books, so it downgrades one to elevate the other.

People don't write books simply to advance humanity, help humanity or give useful advises. There's a million and one reason why books are written, and you reducing those reasons that to a few of pragmatic ones is very narrow minded view of literature.

Fantasy books often are more about storytelling then practical advice. They often explore our psychological makeup, our past, our fears, our mythologies, our motivations, our morality and so many different things I can't really count them all.

You seem to forget that human side of writing, that is self-exploratory and not only practically minded.

I wonder even if you have read Lord of the Rings and Hobbit, when you make such accusations. Like Harry said, Hobbit is a children's book Tolkien wrote for his children. Kinda like Harry Potter started as bedtime stories for J. K. Rowling's children. Why you don't see that is beyond me. There are children in this world you know, and they need stories like they need food. We all do. But apparently some more then others.

Storytelling is older then civilizations, human progress, technology and it's been here for millenniums and I don't think it will every be replaced by the kind of "practical books" you seem to espouse.

[Geralt]

Originally Posted by tompe

I have. I thinks this is a term used and Wikipedia agree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_fantasy

"Contemporary fantasy, also known as modern fantasy or indigenous fantasy, is a sub-genre of fantasy, set in the present day. It is perhaps most popular for its sub-genre, urban fantasy."

Well would you look at that. Hmm.
So urban fantasy is the most prominent sub genre of contemporary fan.

I found this interesting:
Contemporary fantasy can also be found marketed as mainstream or literary fiction and frequently marketed as magical realism, itself arguably a fantasy genre.

So it's marketed as magical realism when they want to sell for example to Murakami fans ie literary readers. Because I've never come across it on amazon or any other book site (I buy only sf, fantasy, and horror). What I come across all the time is Urban fantasy which is as they say very popular.

But seriously, most hardcore fantasy readers that I know, and I know about maybe 20-30 people aren't interested so much in magical realism. Most popular genres among us are epic, darkgrim, and urban. Magic realism is kinda too light on fantastical elements for people who read these kind of books.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Geralt

There's enough room in this world for Tolkien and Verne. Tolkien set out to write mythology for England, Verne was writing science fiction at that time.

Verne was actually writing travel adventures, and that's precisely what most of his books were. The elements of a few of his stories that we now consider to be "science fiction" were simply present to allow travel to places such as the bottom of the sea, or the Moon, that were not otherwise "accessible". It's inaccurate to characterise Verne as an "SF" author - that wasn't the main thrust of his work at all. The overwhelming majority of his books have no "SF" element at all.