Writing Forum

Fantasy is the perfect medium in which to discuss real life political and philosophical problems.

Take the A Song of Ice and Fire. I imagine most people reading that (myself included) viewed the Wall separating the Wildlings and White Walkers from the civilised folk a necessity. Only later on in the series do we learn more about these 'others' living North of the wall. At that point our opinions may change (as mine did).

Now let's imagine if this wasn't a fantasy novel and that the 'civilised' folk were those who lived in America and the North in aSoIaF is actually South of America and the Wall is there to keep those from the south out of safe place that is the North.

From the word go the readership would be split. Trump supporters would be sympathetic straight away of those who like the Wall and regardless of later information would not change position because it perfectly matches their real life opinions. Those against Trump would be immediately against the Wall and wouldn't change their minds either.

From an author's perspective this is awful! Part of the power of fiction is to show readers many sides of an argument, even those they don't agree with. But unless it is done in a fantasy setting, it is very difficult to explore (and get the readers to sympathise with) multiple sides to a complex argument.

The moment you change White Walkers to terrorists and Wildlings to Muslims, people will take a side. It doesn't matter that you are showing that in every society there are bad people and good people (White Walkers = bad, Wildlings = people percieved as bad, but most are actually good people tarred by the reputation of the others). The wall stops White Walkers, but it also stops innocent Wildlings (or to be more PC - Free Folk) from passing through. And yet the Wall isn't impenetrable. Once the White Walkers decide they are done with the North (or the South in the IRL example) the Wall really isn't going to pose a threat.

Try making non-Trump supports think a Wall is a good idea without using a Fantasy setting. Impossible. Try making Trump supporters realise the Wall is not necessarily a good idea without using a Fantasy setting. Equally impossible.

What George R R Martin has done is produce a fantasy setting with grey in all aspects of the world and very little black-and-white separation of good and evil. The Lannisters have good people doing bad things and bad people doing good things and downright awful people doing downright awful things.

But in the novels every character is motivated. Even the ones who are evil (e.g., Joffrey) have a reason. To them they are not evil. As great as the Harry Potter novels are, Voldemort knows he's evil. He calls himself the Dark Lord, splits his soul into seven (or eight or seven and a bit) pieces and names his followers Death Eaters. Joffrey doesn't. Joffrey thinks it is his right as king to do what pleases him. He is a product of his upbringing and, although difficult, it is possible to sympathise with him if you try really really hard.


As to what Epic Fantasy is, I don't think it has to do with setting. I think it is more thematic. Does it cover an epic theme (good v evil, a quest for great power...)? The setting, in my opinion, is a product of this thematic requirement for the reasons we've discussed. To properly get the reader engaged with such epic themes you need to remove them from our real world.

Fantasy set in the modern (or at least closer to modern than most Epics are) world tend to deal with more personal, small-scale themes. That's not to say modern/contemporary fantasy is a lesser genre than Epic Fantasy, rather that they are different. There are High Fantasy novels out there which are family dramas or romances, but to really be an epic fantasy there has to be a theme that's bigger than the players in the novel.


Thanks,
Matt


** Images For Use By Upgraded+ Only **