What makes a story EPIC?

[Barty]

Epic == I gave up after 300 pages.

[Kasper Hviid]

@DiapDealer: Are you sure this is a matter of personal taste? I just don't think 'laugh-out-funny' is compatible with 'epic'. On the other hand, I would call THE NIGHT THEY RAIDED MINSKY'S epic, so ...

I think that the adjective epic originate not from the epics in litterature, but rather from the movie genre.

I said earlier that epic can be nailed down to a solid story world. But, I also think that a historical event has to be going down. So if the hero has to save the country/world/universe, this count - but ONLY if the reader sees it as a big thing. If it just feels like the usual saving-the-world plot, its unlikely to feel epic.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Kasper Hviid

@DiapDealer: Are you sure this is a matter of personal taste? I just don't think 'laugh-out-funny' is compatible with 'epic'.

Of course it's a matter of personal taste. These things almost invariably are. The fact that we're having this discussion proves it. You "just don't think 'laugh-out-funny' is compatible with 'epic';" whereas I don't "think" epic automatically excludes "laugh out loud funny." See how that works? "Laugh out loud funny" is itself, very much a matter of personal taste.

[issybird]

What about the picaresque? Don Quixote is epic by my lights and it's also very funny.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by issybird

What about the picaresque? Don Quixote is epic by my lights and it's also very funny.

Tricky, that one.
Picaresque is a class unto itself and DON QUIJOTE was spoofing earlier romances that aspired to be epics.
Think: BLAZING SADDLES vs 60's Hollywood Westerns.

Cervantes was criticizing the literary (and though them, political) establishment of the day for their out-dated, disconnected tropes.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No. I don't think I'm missing the point at all. There is no such thing as an objective "feels right." What you're describing is humor that works for you. Just like I said.

I'm not describing humor that works for me; I'm describing humor that works for the kind of setting, at least in my point of view.

Mr. Bean, for example, is humor that works for me. Monty Python (the movies, that is) does so as well. I would rather have seen a character such as Alfried in a Monty Python movie as compared to seeing him in The Hobbit. In a Monty Python movie he would probably have worked (and possibly even worked well indeed), in The Hobbit he was just annoying.

I can describe dozens of characters such as Alfried that appear in fantasy or science fiction movies, and they just feel like unnecessary additions. (In Alfried's case, he actually WAS an addition... just like Tauriel, who didn't work either. IMHO.)

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

I'm not describing humor that works for me; I'm describing humor that works for the kind of setting, at least in my point of view.

Mr. Bean, for example, is humor that works for me. Monty Python (the movies, that is) does so as well. I would rather have seen a character such as Alfried in a Monty Python movie as compared to seeing him in The Hobbit. In a Monty Python movie he would probably have worked (and possibly even worked well indeed), in The Hobbit he was just annoying.

I can describe dozens of characters such as Alfried that appear in fantasy or science fiction movies, and they just feel like unnecessary additions. (In Alfried's case, he actually WAS an addition... just like Tauriel, who didn't work either. IMHO.)

Jar-Jar and baby Vader.
Those never fit anywhere.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Tricky, that one.
Picaresque is a class unto itself and DON QUIJOTE was spoofing earlier romances that aspired to be epics.
Think: BLAZING SADDLES vs 60's Hollywood Westerns.

Cervantes was criticizing the literary (and though them, political) establishment of the day for their out-dated, disconnected tropes.

And yet Don Quixote in its greatness transcends mere spoof, not that you're saying it's limited to that. It could stand on its own merits without reference to tired tropes. I still think it works as epic, hero's journey and all that, but I'd agree that picaresque is a special subset of epic and not wholly contained within it, either.

The MR book club is reading Candide this month, so it's a good time to try to codify my thoughts on the picaresque!

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by issybird

And yet Don Quixote in its greatness transcends mere spoof, not that you're saying it's limited to that. It could stand on its own merits without reference to tired tropes. I still think it works as epic, hero's journey and all that, but I'd agree that picaresque is a special subset of epic and not wholly contained within it, either.

The MR book club is reading Candide this month, so it's a good time to try to codify my thoughts on the picaresque!

The best stories transcend time and their origins.
Some times they transcend authorial intent.
(Just ask Shakespeare.)

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

I'm not describing humor that works for me; I'm describing humor that works for the kind of setting, at least in my point of view

The bolded part (my bolding by the way) = "works for me."

What about this is so hard to grasp? I'm not questioning your right to not find something funny. I'm only pointing out that your point of view (with regard to what you find funny, or appropriately funny) is only your point of view. You can't point to something and definitively say, "that humor does not work." You can only point at it and say, "that humor does not work for me."

Thus, to say, "the only acceptable humor in epic fantasy is humor that works" is rather pointless.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Mr. Bean, for example, is humor that works for me.

See?? You just admitted it. So why do you fight me when I say it?

[murg]

Originally Posted by issybird

And yet Don Quixote in its greatness transcends mere spoof

So, what you're saying is that Don Quixote is the Animal House of the literary world.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by murg

So, what you're saying is that Don Quixote is the Animal House of the literary world.

For its time.
Although given its length and scope perhaps MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD might be a better comparable.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

See?? You just admitted it. So why do you fight me when I say it?

Because you are not going to tell me with a straight face that a character such as Alfried works in The Hobbit and actually mean it. Could that guy be funny? Is he funny? Yes, IMHO he is, but not in an epic fantasy movie.

It's like putting a Mr. Bean-like character in Shogun... Mr. Bean is very funny, but not in that context.

It's very hard to believe that there are actually people who think slap-stick characters work well in more serious movies (or books).

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

It's very hard to believe that there are actually people who think slap-stick characters work well in more serious movies (or books).

It shouldn't be too hard to believe. Because it happens all the time. I sure hope you're not considering The Hobbit as a "more serious" movie or book. The book was written for children and was about as whimsical as it gets. I'm sure children laughed hysterically at Alfried's antics.

And for what it's worth; Legolas's and Gimli's buddy-cop humor in the movie versions of LoTR didn't really work for me at all. Different strokes. Funny doesn't have boxes it fits neatly into (or doesn't fit into) for everyone involved.

[murg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Funny doesn't have boxes it fits neatly into (or doesn't fit into) for everyone involved.

I really hate it when Google lets me down...