Favorite Fantasy Classics?

[mercymyqueen]

I love this genre, and I am especially eager to find more fantasy stories worth reading because of an endeavor of mine--a novel.

So, let's compile a list of our favorite books with fantastical elements.

I'll nominate

Macbeth (a play, I know.)
Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass
The Ice Maiden
A Christmas Carol
The Little Prince

[Kent Edwins]

I wasn't going to suggest this, but since you're counting MacBeth I mine as well.

Paradise Lost.

My favorite book (I think.)

[islandclimber]

Is "Macbeth" fantasy??? I would never think that it would listed under the Fantasy genre.. Same with "Paradise Lost" haha.. sure they have fantastical elements to them.. but I wouldn't go lumping them into the fantasy genre.. Actually to be honest, I wouldn't put Dicken's "A Christmas Carol" in there either.. I mean "Macbeth" is a tragic play with a protagonist who hallucinates... "Paradise Lost" is an epic poem.. "A Christmas Carol" is just part of literature that really defies genre..

If I were thinking of the fantasy/sci fi genre.. well there aren't many works I like.. :p

but if we are talking about any works of literature from epic poetry to plays to novels, with any fantastical elements in them.. I mean you could put just about anything here...

Hamlet
The Divine Comedy
Paradise Lost
The Iliad
The Odyssey
The Aeneid
even Herodotus's Histories could fall under the fantastical type.. :D

[Geheris]

I would very much like to say 'The Iliad' as someone else did. But is the Iliad truly 'fantasy?' Is it not based on the historic saking of Troy, with a merely 'liberal' take on the facts? For instance, would dare call any of the works of Tom Clancy fantasy? Or would we instead call them 'fiction' or in some cases 'historic fiction?'

That said, I must say the Lord of the Rings series.

[islandclimber]

I would very much like to say 'The Iliad' as someone else did. But is the Iliad truly 'fantasy?' Is it not based on the historic saking of Troy, with a merely 'liberal' take on the facts? For instance, would dare call any of the works of Tom Clancy fantasy? Or would we instead call them 'fiction' or in some cases 'historic fiction?'

That said, I must say the Lord of the Rings series.

haha.. that's the point I was making above.. ;)

I don't think the Iliad is fantasy at all.. none of the books I list are of the fantasy genre in my opinion.. I think the OP of this thread, is more thinking books with fantastical elements in them, which the Iliad definitely has.. :D

[Joreads]

The His Dark Materials trilogy. Loved this books

[Etienne]

Gargantua and Pantagruel by Rabelais without a doubt.

[Tallon]

i haven't read fantasy in many years, except LOTRs which is in a class of its own, but i remember liking Raymond E. Feist's Magician trilogy.

[islandclimber]

Gargantua and Pantagruel by Rabelais without a doubt.

I agree.. it is an amazing work. I didn't even think of it when thinking of fantasy.. I would just call it Literature generally.. but I guess it would fall under the fantasy genre..

[Etienne]

I agree.. it is an amazing work. I didn't even think of it when thinking of fantasy.. I would just call it Literature generally.. but I guess it would fall under the fantasy genre..

Yeah I know, but considering that choice of the original poster, the limits were pretty broad.

[islandclimber]

Yeah I know, but considering that choice of the original poster, the limits were pretty broad.

just a little broad, eh.. :lol:

[JCamilo]

I would very much like to say 'The Iliad' as someone else did. But is the Iliad truly 'fantasy?' Is it not based on the historic saking of Troy, with a merely 'liberal' take on the facts?[quote]

Which exactly historical saking of which historical Troy? And liberal :p
Let me see, LoTR is fantasy. It talk about Gods (Sauron is Demigod or something) fighting wiht humans. Fantastic animals and humans with superpower. Artificats. Tolkien intention was to portrait a mythological universe. So, Iliad still not fantasy? Basead on something real... Like a few stories of 1001 Nights ? Of course, all literature is fantasy for real or are people are just trying to answer with the books placed in the selves for comodity sake. I suppose that after Borges, Kafka and Garcia Marquez people should know better...



[quote]For instance, would dare call any of the works of Tom Clancy fantasy?

I do. Or do you call them reality? Wait, the writing style is realistic? But truth to be told, so is Robert Louis Stevenson. I will call Madame Bovary and the Human Comedy fantasy.


Or would we instead call them 'fiction' or in some cases 'historic fiction?'

Why creating labels that means nothing...

[Niamh]

The His Dark Materials trilogy. Loved this books
I really like those books too

but i remember liking Raymond E. Feist's Magician trilogy.
That is an amazing series.

Bitterbynde Saga by Cecilia Dart Thornton is one of my favourite series.

Oh and the Merlin Trilogy by Mary Stewart

[JBI]

Earthsea - the first one is a classic anyway, the rest... that will have to wait.

[Pecksie]

U.K. Le Guin, and maybe some of Bradbury's short stories.

[Etienne]

I do. Or do you call them reality? Wait, the writing style is realistic? But truth to be told, so is Robert Louis Stevenson. I will call Madame Bovary and the Human Comedy fantasy.

I think you are confusing "fantasy" and "fiction".

[JCamilo]

There is basically no difference at all. Marco Polo letters is a great example. As Umberto Eco showed, people considered fantasy the real narrative and real what was fictional. Today we know the difference. I think the Bible is a fantasy, some people consider it real.
Lots of the stories of 1001 Nights, which nobody would say it is not fantasy, do not present anything magical or sobrenatural. They are just parables settle in a exotic setting for europeans but for those writing they are as close as Bovary to the burgoise people.
Not to repeat guys like Stevenson, Chesterton, Borges, Kafka, Marquez, Henry James, who could pull out "fantasy" using exactly the same stuff they would use for fiction.
If someone thinks fantasy is only creating magical universes or using exotic creatures, they are missing something as simple as a guy who can not forget anything from one of the possible greatest fantasy writers of XX century.

[islandclimber]

There is basically no difference at all. Marco Polo letters is a great example. As Umberto Eco showed, people considered fantasy the real narrative and real what was fictional. Today we know the difference. I think the Bible is a fantasy, some people consider it real.
Lots of the stories of 1001 Nights, which nobody would say it is not fantasy, do not present anything magical or sobrenatural. They are just parables settle in a exotic setting for europeans but for those writing they are as close as Bovary to the burgoise people.
Not to repeat guys like Stevenson, Chesterton, Borges, Kafka, Marquez, Henry James, who could pull out "fantasy" using exactly the same stuff they would use for fiction.
If someone thinks fantasy is only creating magical universes or using exotic creatures, they are missing something as simple as a guy who can not forget anything from one of the possible greatest fantasy writers of XX century.

Ummm again you miss the point made above that you confuse fantasy and fiction.. we are talking about the fantasy genre of writing here.. which does not include Stevenson, Flaubert, Borges, Marquez, James.. not in the slightest... if you want to redefine what fantasy means to you, I have no problem with that.. but if we want to classify books as part of certain genres.. none of those you mention belong the genre fantasy.. not how it is seen anyways.. Marquez and Borges belong to a genre called magical realism, which is nothing like fantasy genre, besides maybe have a few fantastical/magical elements in them beside an otherwise very deeply realistic setting.. according to you every fiction writer in history is a fantasy writer and that is somewhat of an absurd statement to make.. We could call Dostoevsky a fantasy writer then, and Thomas Hardy, and Victor Hugo.. for they all wrote fiction, which obviously is not reality... so do we call it fiction or fantasy.. that is just saying that the story is not true.. genres are a completely different way to classify authors/books... the fantasy genre requires a certain stylistic approach as well as requiring (in general) that the work not be that realistic.. not be based in any kind of reality.. that is the genre.. sorry, but saying all books fall into this genre is just silly..

[mercymyqueen]

These classifications are for people who put books on shelves, not for people who read them =P

My intention was just to lump a bunch of awesome books with fantastical elements in a thread.

[JBI]

Why can't we consider some of Marquez's stories to be fantasy? Some of them are downright fantasy in style. But perhaps the fact that they are so serious makes this problematic.

I think I'm with Mercymyqueen in thinking genre classifications for the most part, outside of the actual selling of books, are as pointless as classifications of books based on the colour of the dust-jacket.

[islandclimber]

Then why have a thread called favourite fantasy classics??? that obviously implies fantasy, the genre.. not any book with something fantastic in it.. One might as well just ask for favourite books here if we want to look at it the way some people are suggesting, where basically fantasy and fiction are the same thing...

the whole reason Marquez does not belong in the fantasy genre, is due to the seriousness and the reality of his writing, even with the magical elements commonly apparent in them (and yes sometimes they are stylistically somewhat close to fantasy, although I would say generally the realistic touch and the serious tone and nature of his works set them apart) but this is the whole point of them being classified as Magical Realism..

and I completely agree with you that genre classification is rather pointless.. but then I must ask what is the point of using the term fantasy to describe any book? you are just changing what the genre is, not actually getting rid of the whole system of classification...

anyways I've said enough, so if you are wanting lists of great books with fantastical elements in them, that's cool with me.. I was just wanting clarification on that at first.. :p

I would suggest,

the complete short works of both Borges and Marquez..
Blow up and other stories -- Cortazar
Don Quixote
Gargantua and Pantagruel-- Rabelais
The Satanic Verses -- Rushdie
Invitation to a Beheading -- Nabokov
Master and Margarita-- Bulgakov (as well as his work Heart of a Dog,, i think that's the name anyways)

[curlyqlink]

H.P. Lovecraft.

I'm currently reading Tale of the Cthulhu and Other Weird Tales, it is amazing. Imaginative and macabre. The writing style is curiously old-fashioned and the prose is gloriously, unashamedly purple.

[JCamilo]

Ummm again you miss the point made above that you confuse fantasy and fiction.. we are talking about the fantasy genre of writing here..

Not by any chance. You missed the point that you can not even define Fantasy properly. Please try.


which does not include Stevenson, Flaubert, Borges, Marquez, James.. not in the slightest...

Wait, Stevenson is not fantasy? Are you joking. His New Arabian Nights adventures just replaced bagdah for london. Are you telling me 1001 Nights is not fantasy. The guy is a master of short stories of horror and sobrenatural, he is not fantasy?

Borges? You are joking, no? He is not called one of the fathers of magical realism for nothing. He wrote about mythical beings, time traveling, magical artifacts.

Marquez ? You mean, the dude that have a character that flies in one of his books? Or James, one that have several ghost stories? I think your definition of fantasy is narrow, it is only xtreme magical place, sword and sorcery and magical lands ? Flaubert is harder, but his xtreme realism is absolutely fantastic.


if you want to redefine what fantasy means to you, I have no problem with that.. but if we want to classify books as part of certain genres.. none of those you mention belong the genre fantasy..

By me? Italo Calvino placed Stevenon, Henry James and if I am not mistaken Flaubert in a selection of short stories that are fantasy. I think your definition of fantasy is the one lacking work.


not how it is seen anyways.. Marquez and Borges belong to a genre called magical realism, which is nothing like fantasy genre, besides maybe have a few fantastical/magical elements in them beside an otherwise very deeply realistic setting..

Borges does not exactly belong to magic realism at all, but I see your definition of fantasy is only what is not settle in the real world. I am glad I only need Oscar Wilde and Dorian Gray to argument against it. And they are not the only realistic setting style or anything.


according to you every fiction writer in history is a fantasy writer and that is somewhat of an absurd statement to make.. We could call Dostoevsky a fantasy writer then, and Thomas Hardy, and Victor Hugo.. for they all wrote fiction, which obviously is not reality...

Obviously you are falling to argue that you use fantasy as oposite to realism and forgetting that realism is just a fashion that changes with time. 1001 Nights was highly realistical when created and today it is fantasy.


so do we call it fiction or fantasy.. that is just saying that the story is not true.. genres are a completely different way to classify authors/books... the fantasy genre requires a certain stylistic approach

Meh, what does Tolkien have to do with Rabelais or Neil Gaiman. Fantasy is not a style.


as well as requiring (in general) that the work not be that realistic..

As I said 1001 Nights is full of realistic prose...


not be based in any kind of reality..

And references to reality and real events.


that is the genre..

In your definition 1001 is excluded. If 1001 is not fantasy, then the genre does not exist.


sorry, but saying all books fall into this genre is just silly..

Silly is beliving in such definition, a truth that cann't hold water.

[JCamilo]

Then why have a thread called favourite fantasy classics??? that obviously implies fantasy, the genre.. not any book with something fantastic in it.. One might as well just ask for favourite books here if we want to look at it the way some people are suggesting, where basically fantasy and fiction are the same thing...

The definitin of Fantasy, the genre is even more pointless than the genre. You can not put any book there, you can not find a reasonable group of critics with a definition that is satisfactory. Like it is said, fantastical elements is all needed.


the whole reason Marquez does not belong in the fantasy genre, is due to the seriousness and the reality of his writing, even with the magical elements commonly apparent in them (and yes sometimes they are stylistically somewhat close to fantasy, although I would say generally the realistic touch and the serious tone and nature of his works set them apart) but this is the whole point of them being classified as Magical Realism..

No, the point of Magical Realism is a downright irony to the definition of realism that should only show reality. The point is telling that reality does not exist, so there is no realism.
But I am appaled. Fantasy is not serious??? It is only humor (the notion there is no basis on reality is just a flawed argument against the use of Allegory) or children? This make me laugh. Please, explain to me 1001 Nights or Perrault's stories, or Voltaire's philosophical tales, C.S.Lewis downright christianism, are them not serious and needing a reality check?
Fact is Ortega Y Gasset argue the very contrary of that in his Quixote's Meditations, that realism needed humor to allow the suspension of disbelief and that was the great key of Dom Quixote and Cervantes. Fantasy could always use anything to deal with serious problems of reality without problem because the language could solve everything.


and I completely agree with you that genre classification is rather pointless.. but then I must ask what is the point of using the term fantasy to describe any book? you are just changing what the genre is, not actually getting rid of the whole system of classification...

The genre is pointless because it means nothing. It is not used by everyone, it is flawed. So, there is NO point of using it and there is no system of classification either.

[JBI]

What about Angela Carter? How do we group her? Seriously, Calvino himself was Fantasy by almost all genre classifications, yet is never grouped with them.

Realism isn't a genre, therefore I find classifying magical realism as too realistic to be problematic. Realism isn't even dead - and still exists - it is just a view that takes to portray life as clearly as possible. There are still realist styled writers working today.

Is A Midsummer Night's dream a fantasy? What about The Tempest? Where is the line?

[JCamilo]

The very line is probally a fantasy we are going to create. How do we jump from Fantasy to Science Fiction for example (another problematic genre).
Another diffulty is mixing different definitions... Realism is a style and not a theme like Horror, Science Fiction or Fantasy (who are all created based on certain principles that we today do not share at all).
Where Eureka from Poe enters? It uses a scientific language, the theme is metaphysical, and he claims it is a poem. (And I doubt he would like to hear it called a fiction).
When Neil Gaiman is doing Bewoulf, that same stories turns in fantasy, but if it is the poem, it is not fantasy (since there was a claim that Aeneid was not...) and when he and Terry Prachett write about the Anti-christ, battle between heaven and hell, it is fantasy, but Milton or Goethe it is not?
That is why people claim Tolkien invented fantasy (and you dislike to hear it), because a specific concept of fantasy (magical world, races, etc - which btw, is not only what Tolkien wrote) is what is Fantasy. It does not make any sense, so fantasy is a concept as vague as reality.

[Captain Trips]

The Dark Tower series by Stephen King is really good, probably my favorite fantasy series. Also The Magician trilogy by Raymond Feist. Then of course there is Lord of the Rings.

[Etienne]

The very line is probally a fantasy we are going to create. How do we jump from Fantasy to Science Fiction for example (another problematic genre).
Another diffulty is mixing different definitions... Realism is a style and not a theme like Horror, Science Fiction or Fantasy (who are all created based on certain principles that we today do not share at all).
Where Eureka from Poe enters? It uses a scientific language, the theme is metaphysical, and he claims it is a poem. (And I doubt he would like to hear it called a fiction).
When Neil Gaiman is doing Bewoulf, that same stories turns in fantasy, but if it is the poem, it is not fantasy (since there was a claim that Aeneid was not...) and when he and Terry Prachett write about the Anti-christ, battle between heaven and hell, it is fantasy, but Milton or Goethe it is not?
That is why people claim Tolkien invented fantasy (and you dislike to hear it), because a specific concept of fantasy (magical world, races, etc - which btw, is not only what Tolkien wrote) is what is Fantasy. It does not make any sense, so fantasy is a concept as vague as reality.

Don't you realize that you're just arguing over pointless rhetorics? We could argue that real life if fantasy too if we wanted, but where is the point?

[JBI]

The point is there is no point for people yelling at him for calling certain texts fantasy. If he wants to consider them fantasy, he argues, that is fine, since one cannot define fantasy the same way one can define a period, since it is not a period of work, but an attribute of certain texts. Thereby, one can say that The Rime of the Ancient Mariner is fantasy, while being a Romantic piece of literature.

[Etienne]

The point is there is no point for people yelling at him for calling certain texts fantasy. If he wants to consider them fantasy, he argues, that is fine, since one cannot define fantasy the same way one can define a period, since it is not a period of work, but an attribute of certain texts. Thereby, one can say that The Rime of the Ancient Mariner is fantasy, while being a Romantic piece of literature.

He said:
I will call Madame Bovary and the Human Comedy fantasy.

I said he confuses fantasy and fiction, he continued to argue, so that in the end anything is fantasy. Nonsense, I say.

To say Marquez or Borges have written fantasy, that's something, but calling Madame Bovary fantasy?

[Glen Bateman]

The Dark Tower series by Stephen King is really good, probably my favorite fantasy series. Also The Magician trilogy by Raymond Feist. Then of course there is Lord of the Rings.

I couldn't agree more with that...
The Magician trilogy is great, The Dark Tower by far my favourite and Lord of the Rings is class...

I would add to those Harry Potter, which, ok, in my opinion lacks in many things compared to them, but made me lose my sleep several times reading one of the books...And if someone likes Blizzard's warcraft, the stories about that world are deffinitely worthwhile...

[JBI]

He said:

I said he confuses fantasy and fiction, he continued to argue, so that in the end anything is fantasy. Nonsense, I say.

To say Marquez or Borges have written fantasy, that's something, but calling Madame Bovary fantasy?

But those are just extremes, chosen for that reason. The fantastical is an effect on the reader, not an actual "codified" device. Thereby, all older novels, to some extent, have a sense of fantasy, because of the detachment from our reality in their settings. Also, Balzac wrote some works which could be considered fantasy, if not an early precursor to magical realism, for instance, I can't remember the exact name, but he wrote a very famous story about a soldier who is lost in a desert and befriends a Leopard who then engages in a relationship with him. That pushes the boarder to some extent, even in the contexts of realism.

Works like, for instance, Eugene Onegin by Pushkin contain certain elements of fantasy as well. Lensky's German literature provides the background for his fantasy - the idealist romantic, buried in his pseudo-philosophy about love - and his fantasy of the perfect relationship he tries to carry out with Olga. The fantasy is so central to his life that when Onegin challenges it, and ultimately exposes it as false, he forces himself to challenge him, and then die in defense of his misconceptions.

Tatiana too is rooted in her fantasy, from the same sort of sources, though for her it is French romance novels. When Onegin comes, she imagines him as some romantic hero, coming to be her interest, and acts out her fantasy in her head, leading to her personal tragedy, and her subsequent unhappy marriage. The fantasy concept is still rooted in it though.


We can essentially cut up Emma Bovary in a similar fashion. She is dissatisfied with her own life, so imagines herself in a fantasy, builds it around her, and when it is shattered, as the debt builds around her, she realizes its falseness, and it crumbles, leading to her suicide.


The fantasy, as we see it, is I would think, more of an existential thing than anything else. As a genre, we tend to associate fantasy with Tolkienian Dwarfs and crappy prose, but it functions to the same concepts. It acts to create an illusion of life, a sort of make-believe escape for the reader, where the "truths" (I use this in a post-structuralist sense to imply the truths as seen by the read) of society are bent, undergoing what Keats called a "suspended disbelief" (though he was talking specifically about metaphor) in order create an alternative vision. This of course doesn't effect the themes of the novel, but merely the presentation of them - it is a delivery device, that often ironizes itself, as in the case of Madame Bovary.

Fiction in general often functions at this level, but realism and naturalism - which is essentially a more condensed, perfected realism -I guess would act as opposites to this vision, bringing home the grimness of truth.

Still, when you dig, and compare, the only real difference is the suspended disbelief, but I think romance readers engage in the same sort of thing. I think they allow their minds to believe in this implausible reality for a short time the same way a Tolkien reader may. That is why such categories for the most part are silly. Books in a classified "genre" often compare better with books outside the genre than within, to the point where we just don't associate them with that genre anymore. The classification is, in my opinion, merely a sales ploy to get fantasy-specific periodicals, awards, and books more exposure. Any serious reader, I would think, is open minded about what he reads, rather than chained to one genre over another.

[Etienne]

The term fantasy referring to literature refers to a certain type of literature. You don't need a precise definition of it, it's just made to give a general outline and people understand each others. Now using Emma's "fantasy" as a proof that Madame Bovary is a work of fantasy is just trying to split hair.

Hell, maybe we should argue that a table is a chair because I can sit on the table? Or maybe book is a chair, since I can also sit on a book. Words don't refer to platonic ideas, they have the meaning that we give them, and usually what is the general usage of it, which is not something stable and often pluri-semantic.

So you can argue whatever you like about not accepting a word meaning in a certain context a certain arbitrary idea which is the general usage in the said context, you don't achieve a higher level of truth, you merely confuse the already intelligible. Of course, you could discuss the presence of fantasy in Bovary in a paper, but that has nothing to do with fantasy as a "literary genre" as it is commonly accepted. Merely another seme of the same word.

Now we have a word for fiction, and fantasy means something else, arbitrary, vague, not precise at all. That does not matter. Why can't you just get along with the meaning given to a word. Besides, if you want to start getting into these semantic "clarifications", you better go all the way and that would mean redefining a huge majority of the words in the dictionaries based on their etymology and their original meanings.

In French "tête" (head) comes from the latin "teste" meaning earthen ware, which was a popular metaphor for head. Does that mean that we shouldn't understand that "tête" means "head"?

[JCamilo]

To say Marquez or Borges have written fantasy, that's something, but calling Madame Bovary fantasy?

Define Fantasy, define Fiction, please. The fine line is too thin.

You claim Fantasy refers to a very type of literature. What specific type of literature? The one that does not show the real work as it is ? Also, please show me that everyone in literature use such definition that you claim to exist. I know some people include Utopia and Gulliver's travel as example of fantasies (People as Umberto Eco, not me)...


Books have only the meaning we give to them? It is not platonic, but the general usage? Could you be more contraditory?

I can easily argue the use of the definition of fantasy, specially when those claiming otherwise could not even bring their own definition of fantasy. You seem even to ignore that was a reply from Claims that Iliad could not be fantasy and the only thing you point is that Madame Bovary is not fantasy. (Which function is to point out that a work of fantasy can be at one point or another considered reality or have elements of realism on it. The belief that one work shows what we consider reality means little because this belief will not exist for writers 400 years in the future. As JBI pointed, one extreme example. Magic realism would surface. Kafka, Borges and Marquez would surface. ).

And I am sorry, I am countering for those proposing a defined, clear meaning for the word fantasy (or fiction, as easier as anything, as the Marco Polo example which is ignored should count), not prosing the use of it. You are missing the mark: the definition of fantasy is not clear, so the Iliad and The Alleph are fantasy. To show that it is not, you must present a definition of fantasy that excludes both and since you argued we should not got to the dictionary I feel like you are joining my side.

[JCamilo]

But those are just extremes, chosen for that reason. The fantastical is an effect on the reader, not an actual "codified" device. Thereby, all older novels, to some extent, have a sense of fantasy, because of the detachment from our reality in their settings. Also, Balzac wrote some works which could be considered fantasy, if not an early precursor to magical realism, for instance, I can't remember the exact name, but he wrote a very famous story about a soldier who is lost in a desert and befriends a Leopard who then engages in a relationship with him. That pushes the boarder to some extent, even in the contexts of realism.

I also remember a story about a saint's heart that didnt stop beating inside a urn. The truth is magical realism was born from the best "realistic" writers, those who crossed the bordeline.
Also a funny thing, at some point, Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff is called a changeling (and he also claims to see a ghost). All this, part of the mood of the book, but it is one step to be a supernatural horror story (hence fantasy)... It was psychological, sure. But so was many Poe's story.

[JBI]

Wuthering Heights is a Gothic novel, that is a somewhat more defined genre, with definitions available, but Gothic in general contains elements that sometimes can be considered fantastical. The Ghosts and haunting in the book surely suggest a supernatural element.

But we get the same all over the place. Keats's later long poems, hell, even Milton's Lycidas has fantastical elements.

That is why, I think, I stress more the effect of the "fantastical" elements of the text, more than the actual elements themselves for definition. Who cares whether or not there are swords and wizards, and goblins and whatnot - it is the effect of the work that really defines it, not what actually is in the work.

John Crowley's Little, Big, for instance, which could even fit the genre-specific definition rather well, is far drearier, and "realistic" than the majority of fiction written today. The book is overall quite depressing, and serious in tone, and asks rather difficult questions of the reader. In truth, I would compare it to other books outside the perceived (by the publishers) genre, and find more comparisons, than within the genre. There are numerous works like that - to what extent can we say something is fantasy, and something is not.

I think it really all comes down to the effect on the reader, and in that view, I think a romance novel has similar effects on the stereotypical romance reader as fantasy books have on the stereotypical fantasy reader. In fact, fantasy and romance have often collided as of late to bring new romance novels with weirdo creepy things.

But that really isn't the point - fantasy cannot be defined, and if it can, it is most certainly generic fantasy books, the ones that have 10 volumes, and colorful covers, that will be in the definition. What that definition essentially does though, is creates an artificial market, giving more exposure to certain books, while disregarding others. If we have fantasy, then why not fantasy poetry? Oh wait, this from Wikipedia (who can't really be trusted but whatever):



lso variously called science fiction poetry or SF poetry or fantastic poetry, speculative poetry is to poetry roughly what speculative fiction is to fiction. Speculative poetry is often published by the same markets that publish science fiction, fantasy and horror.

Speculative poetry is not defined by form, unlike most sub-categories of poetry. Speculative poets work in the full variety of forms available to all poets; what makes speculative poetry speculative is generally the subject matter, though some poets have approached their speculation on a language level, experimenting with possible future or alien dialects and the like. Suzette Haden Elgin, founder of the Science Fiction Poetry Association, defines speculative poetry as being "about a reality that is in some way different from the existing reality."

Writers of speculative poetry include Duane Ackerson, Brian Aldiss, Mike Allen, Michael Bishop, Bruce Boston, Ray Bradbury, Adam Cornford, Keith Allen Daniels, Thomas M. Disch, Robert Frazier, Daphne Gottlieb, Neile Graham, Joe Haldeman, Andrew Joron, David C. Kopaska-Merkel, Ursula K. Le Guin, Tim Pratt, Marge Simon, W. Gregory Stewart, and Jane Yolen. The major award for the field is the Rhysling Award.

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

If you have heard of any of those people's poetry, and read it, my respect to you - I certainly haven't heard of the majority of the list, and haven't read a verse from any of them. The reason? Well, fantasy has been blended with poetry before - we don't need a periodical and some 3rd rate award to tell us that. Just look at Page's Arras - far more fantastical than any of these poems - it is almost incomprehensible the first few times you read it - it being rooted so deeply in magical realism and the fantastic, yet what isn't that there? Why don't we consider Page a fantasy poet? Why don't we consider Milton, or Keats, or Blake fantasy poets?

Because - they aren't. They don't subscribe to genrification the same way these tenth-rate poets do.

But these guys get exposure - now that they have a "new" genre", they can have a new periodical, and market a crappy version of what has been done before in a new box, and sell it. The result? Fantasy classics, fantasy canons, fantasy poetry canons, and nothing really substantial. One is better to go book by book and just say "Good book", and "bad book". I don't see where the "genre" needs to fit in. I don't see why we need to call it a fantasy book, instead of a bad or good book. Especially since we only call fantasy fantastical books with common plots, structures, and settings. Not even what traditionally could be considered fantasy.

[Etienne]

Define Fantasy, define Fiction, please. The fine line is too thin.

Obviously you have not understood my post. I said there is no need to give a definition of it, we can use it simply as a general, vague idea to work with and it's enough. We could come up with a definition, but to what use? Just to stop you splitting hair? Everyone can understand what is generally meant by fantasy literature, and while that can include magical realism, it would not include Madame Bovary, for example.


You claim Fantasy refers to a very type of literature. What specific type of literature?The one that does not show the real work as it is ? Also, please show me that everyone in literature use such definition that you claim to exist. I know some people include Utopia and Gulliver's travel as example of fantasies (People as Umberto Eco, not me)...

I see nothing wrong with calling the Utopia or Gulliver's travel fantasies. However, as I said the term "fantasy" has different meanings, and literature with fantasist elements and fantasy literature, as a bookstore classification, are two semes of the word literature, and then it depends which we are talking about. The original poster obviously meant "literature with fantasist element", alright, that we understood and can work with. But what I'm finding nonsensical and pointless is you trying to make all the other semes of the word fantasy to try to give it a single, unique one which would be equal to fiction. That's the point I'm making, and you're constantly dodging it.



Books have only the meaning we give to them? It is not platonic, but the general usage? Could you be more contraditory?

I never said "books have only the meaning we give to them", I said "words have only the meaning we give to them", and how saying that this is the contrary to the platonic idea a contradiction? It is in fact the archetypal contrary of the platonic idea.


I can easily argue the use of the definition of fantasy, specially when those claiming otherwise could not even bring their own definition of fantasy. You seem even to ignore that was a reply from Claims that Iliad could not be fantasy and the only thing you point is that Madame Bovary is not fantasy.(Which function is to point out that a work of fantasy can be at one point or another considered reality or have elements of realism on it. The belief that one work shows what we consider reality means little because this belief will not exist for writers 400 years in the future. As JBI pointed, one extreme example. Magic realism would surface. Kafka, Borges and Marquez would surface. ).

I have no problem with calling the Illiad fantasy. Well your insertion of Madame Bovary still does not make sense, and then you finally try to justify it with the examples of Kafka, Borges and Marquez, which are something completely different. But in the end it doesn't really matter, I'm tired of arguing pointlessly over semantics like this, the term fantasy was used for a simple communicational purpose, and people did understand it, and you're trying to make your semiological scientist, which is out of place in this context.


And I am sorry, I am countering for those proposing a defined, clear meaning for the word fantasy (or fiction, as easier as anything, as the Marco Polo example which is ignored should count), not prosing the use of it. You are missing the mark: the definition of fantasy is not clear, so the Iliad and The Alleph are fantasy. To show that it is not, you must present a definition of fantasy that excludes both and since you argued we should not got to the dictionary I feel like you are joining my side.

And you are missing the point that the word fantasy is pluri-semantic. Besides, for basic communicational purposes there does not need to be clear definitions but simply a more or less common mental image between the different communicators. If you write a paper, you might have to define what you mean by fantasy in this paper, what is the seme given to it. But for a discussion on a forum saying "name you favorite fantastic works", this is just irrelevant.

There is nothing wrong with discussing semantics, but hijacking a conversation like this, saying that the meaning given to it is wrong (when it is very much alright) and try to come up with a doctrinal single meaning to a word (which is an aberration in the case of a word such as fantasy) is nonsense.

[JCamilo]

Wuthering Heights is a Gothic novel, that is a somewhat more defined genre, with definitions available, but Gothic in general contains elements that sometimes can be considered fantastical. The Ghosts and haunting in the book surely suggest a supernatural element.


Yes, of course. Gothic is a form that we see as fantasy, Wuthering Heights also. They just suggest, which we can say about Henry James Turn of the Shrew, which was excluded from fantasy just because James is supposed to write real life novels somewhere. Not arguing with you (against you), it is rather pointless the genre definition when we find a notable work like Wuthering Heights.

[quote]But we get the same all over the place. Keats's later long poems, hell, even Milton's Lycidas has fantastical elements.

Yes of course, Most literature is fantastic. Becase the more you "abuse" of language, more you depart from realism. Also, more distant we are from the reality of such works, more they loook fantastic. I doubt anyone would exclude King Artur texts from fantasy today, yet, they are not exactly fantastic when they were produced. Even Cervantes, fantasy is to him something no different from fictional novels while people may argue, that Flaubert labeled all romantic novels as fantasy sincethose are the fantasies of Emma.




That is why, I think, I stress more the effect of the "fantastical" elements of the text, more than the actual elements themselves for definition. Who cares whether or not there are swords and wizards, and goblins and whatnot - it is the effect of the work that really defines it, not what actually is in the work.

Cant agree more .Fantasy is not about medieval settings with unreal creatures. I do not use this term as such and several others do not use. Kafka is the XX century greatest fantasy writer.



John Crowley's Little, Big, for instance, which could even fit the genre-specific definition rather well, is far drearier, and "realistic" than the majority of fiction written today. The book is overall quite depressing, and serious in tone, and asks rather difficult questions of the reader. In truth, I would compare it to other books outside the perceived (by the publishers) genre, and find more comparisons, than within the genre. There are numerous works like that - to what extent can we say something is fantasy, and something is not.

A mistake is considering fantasy a simple genre or not realistic. Would you, JBI, conside the writing style of Tolkien as realistic (talking about Lord of the Rings) ?


I think it really all comes down to the effect on the reader, and in that view, I think a romance novel has similar effects on the stereotypical romance reader as fantasy books have on the stereotypical fantasy reader. In fact, fantasy and romance have often collided as of late to bring new romance novels with weirdo creepy things.


Agreed, to define something as fantasy is often an arbitrary decision.


t really isn't the point - fantasy cannot be defined, and if it can, it is most certainly generic fantasy books, the ones that have 10 volumes, and colorful covers, that will be in the definition. What that definition essentially does though, is creates an artificial market, giving more exposure to certain books, while disregarding others. If we have fantasy, then why not fantasy poetry? Oh wait, this from Wikipedia (who can't really be trusted but whatever):

The fake Wikipedia (the one with jokes) is certainly a fantasy,the fact the style is encyclopedian does not change it.
Of course, I am not even trying to prove what is fantasy, but how the definition here presented are truths just for the sake of the poster's argumentation capacity.



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

If you have heard of any of those people's poetry, and read it, my respect to you - I certainly haven't heard of the majority of the list, and haven't read a verse from any of them. The reason? Well, fantasy has been blended with poetry before - we don't need a periodical and some 3rd rate award to tell us that. Just look at Page's Arras - far more fantastical than any of these poems - it is almost incomprehensible the first few times you read it - it being rooted so deeply in magical realism and the fantastic, yet what isn't that there? Why don't we consider Page a fantasy poet? Why don't we consider Milton, or Keats, or Blake fantasy poets?

Because - they aren't. They don't subscribe to genrification the same way these tenth-rate poets do.

But these guys get exposure - now that they have a "new" genre", they can have a new periodical, and market a crappy version of what has been done before in a new box, and sell it. The result? Fantasy classics, fantasy canons, fantasy poetry canons, and nothing really substantial. One is better to go book by book and just say "Good book", and "bad book". I don't see where the "genre" needs to fit in. I don't see why we need to call it a fantasy book, instead of a bad or good book. Especially since we only call fantasy fantastical books with common plots, structures, and settings. Not even what traditionally could be considered fantasy.


I would argue that there is no need of classification for Blake but if Tolkien is fantasy , Blake is also (or certain works of Blake of course). The thing is , ignore prizes Does the label fantasy help us to understand or enjoy their work more or less. I remeber you were upset with tolkien fanboys since they gave him credits for creating a genre that he didnt... a mistake of course, but it would make tolkine fanboys less anoying...

[JCamilo]

Obviously you have not understood my post. I said there is no need to give a definition of it, we can use it simply as a general, vague idea to work with and it's enough. [quote]

Sorry Etienne, but I am arguing Fantasy can not be defined. Your first line was:
The term fantasy referring to literature refers to a certain type of literature.

I have no idea, but if you are saying something is somethinf specific, you are claiming there is a definition. Not that is is vague (the very contrary of specific). If you are going to argue there is definition, please give me those.


[quote]We could come up with a definition, but to what use? Just to stop you splitting hair? Everyone can understand what is generally meant by fantasy literature, and while that can include magical realism, it would not include Madame Bovary, for example.

Should I take is as "I have not how to define it" or will you give me exactly reasons why Mademe B. is not a fantasy? It is funny to call me rethorical, but if you just say "It is not" to every argument I create, You are not far from it.




I see nothing wrong with calling the Utopia or Gulliver's travel fantasies. However, as I said the term "fantasy" has different meanings, and literature with fantasist elements and fantasy literature, as a bookstore classification, are two semes of the word literature, and then it depends which we are talking about. The original poster obviously meant "literature with fantasist element", alright, that we understood and can work with. But what I'm finding nonsensical and pointless is you trying to make all the other semes of the word fantasy to try to give it a single, unique one which would be equal to fiction. That's the point I'm making, and you're constantly dodging it.


Etienne, you replied to me, not otherwise, If Anyone is doging is you. Also, I Never argued there is a meaning for fantasy, quite otherwise. And if the original poster meant fantasist element, why there was people arguing against Iliand and Magical Realism. Not as obviously as you claim.





I never said "books have only the meaning we give to them", I said "words have only the meaning we give to them", and how saying that this is the contrary to the platonic idea a contradiction? It is in fact the archetypal contrary of the platonic idea.

Nope, you just replaced the archyetypal concept for a democratic archetypic. The contrary is assuming one symbol have several realities, not one.
Also, words have only the meaning we give to them is funny as hell. Semiotics slaps on your face. I hope the moderators and you do not consider this an insult, because the meaning I gave to them is Humpty Dumptyian.




no problem with calling the Illiad fantasy. Well your insertion of Madame Bovary still does not make sense, and then you finally try to justify it with the examples of Kafka, Borges and Marquez, which are something completely different. But in the end it doesn't really matter, I'm tired of arguing pointlessly over semantics like this, the term fantasy was used for a simple communicational purpose, and people did understand it, and you're trying to make your semiological scientist, which is out of place in this context.

Sorry If I am thinking with semiotics, but you are grossly wrong. I didnt claimed a single work not to be fantasy, I did otherwise. I claimed that people saying Iliad (and later, Borges, Kafka, Stevenson, etc) are not fantasy. You are so misplaced.
But I will love to see you trying to prove me why M.Bovary is not a fantasy. It would be an interesting exercise, it can, because so far little was argued against it.




And you are missing the point that the word fantasy is pluri-semantic. Besides, for basic communicational purposes there does not need to be clear definitions but simply a more or less common mental image between the different communicators. If you write a paper, you might have to define what you mean by fantasy in this paper, what is the seme given to it. But for a discussion on a forum saying "name you favorite fantastic works", this is just irrelevant.

Meh, just like you claimed I was missing the different between fiction and fantasy when I did not, you are wrong. I am fully aware the definition of fantasy is vague. That is my argument.


s nothing wrong with discussing semantics, but hijacking a conversation like this, saying that the meaning given to it is wrong (when it is very much alright) and try to come up with a doctrinal single meaning to a word (which is an aberration in the case of a word such as fantasy) is nonsense.

Thus, I am agree you agree with me. Lets all readers here register that you agree with me: those saying certain works are not fantasy are hijacking the thread. I am glad.

[Etienne]

Sorry Etienne, but I am arguing Fantasy can not be defined.

If there is no definition then the word has no meaning. A definition is not necessarily a dictionary entry covering thoroughly all the different meanings of a word. It can be simply the mental image, even very vague, evoked by a word.


Should I take is as "I have not how to define it" or will you give me exactly reasons why Mademe B. is not a fantasy? It is funny to call me rethorical, but if you just say "It is not" to every argument I create, You are not far from it.

I never said it is not a fantasy, I said it does not rank in fantasy under the seme of the word fantasy used. You can say it's fantasy under that seme as you wish, but that's just confusing communication. Arguing that there is no objective classification of "fantasy" is all very well, but I think you can understand what is referred to by fantasy and have a decent conversation anyways, no?


I have no idea, but if you are saying something is somethinf specific, you are claiming there is a definition. Not that is is vague (the very contrary of specific). If you are going to argue there is definition, please give me those.

Something specific can be vague, I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.


Also, I Never argued there is a meaning for fantasy, quite otherwise

Then we should cross this word from our language and the dictionary? How come many people have used this word and understood what was meant? What is the definition of "love"? I guess we shouldn't talk about love either as you will come up and say: "but everything is love so why are you and your girl talking about loving each other, that makes no sense."


Nope, you just replaced the archyetypal concept for a democratic archetypic.

Not a democratic "archetypic"(??) but a social reality. Unless you indulge in soliloquy language is a social reality and it's rules are defined by social conventions.


The contrary is assuming one symbol have several realities, not one.

First a word is not a symbol, and does not have "realities" but semes, meanings. Unless, of course, you are arguing for philosophical realism in language.


Also, words have only the meaning we give to them is funny as hell. Semiotics slaps on your face.

Then what meaning do the words have? A meaning hanging on the crystalline spheres of the cosmos? They have the meaning we give them, by convention or by general usage aong the speakers of the language. Words are not something fixed. How would you explain then that the French word for "desk", "bureau" originally meant a small piece of cloth put on a table, and then the table took the name, then the room where the desk is took the name of "bureau", then then the place where there is a lot of these rooms took this name as well, and the it also became an information service, a establishment open to public, etc. etc. etc. All this to show you that language is something ever changing and fluid, so trying to pinpoint a single unique and precise meaning to a word is most of the time pointless.


But I will love to see you trying to prove me why M.Bovary is not a fantasy.

I will not try to prove it to you, I do not want or need, that is not even my point to prove you anything. What I am saying is that it is not understood as a work of fantasy. To prove anything about this matter I would have to define clearly the exact seme of the word "fantasy" which is referred to, and then point out why it doesn't correspond to it. But the definition would need to be so precise that it would become too subjective, and you could simply say that you do not accept this definition.

And yet, people understand each other, even if it's a rather vague way, when talking about fantasy literature. Of course, they can chose to refuse to understand each other and argue over semantics, and say all is meaningless, and where will we get? Nowhere.

If you were writing a serious thesis on fantasy you would need to clearly define it, and what is meant when you refer to fantasy. But this is just a trivial discussion, where the meaning only has to be vaguely and generally accepted. Arguing over semantics in the way you are doing does nothing more then kill any perspective of communication in this way.

Ok I'm done with this.

[JBI]

Honestly, I think most people when they think of the genre of fantasy think of those geeky 10-tomb epic reading adolescent males who go to conventions. If there's a dragon on the cover, we call it fantasy - if the author was influenced by Tolkien, we call it fantasy, if it is mediocre, we don't care because it will sell to readers of fantasy. That's what I think most people think of - thick, mediocre volumes of cliché ridden drivel with a specific audience of social misfits going under some sort of teenage angst and looking for a specific unoriginal fantasy to escape to, where women need rescuing, and no one cares who is butchered in the process. It's essentially, in terms of effects, I would argue, the same as a romance novel.

In fact, the two come, I think, from the same source - the Charlemagne Mythos which carried over to the King Arthur Mythos. Aristo and onward - only now it's come to the point where the Edenic vision is replaced with cliché ridden sexually repressed fantasy.

That being said, sorry if I offend, but for the most part, I think I am somewhat right in my definition.

[JCamilo]

JBI,
Do not be so grump :D
While I agree the position of the market is to define fantasy thru Tolkien, look the replies in this thread. The one starting suggested Macbeth as a fantasy classic. He (or she, sorry) excuses the option because it is a play. But Macbeth have every bit of Magical Realism (except of course, Shakespeare didn’t use the language, but let s play a little further) , in fact, Hamlet is a story about a boy visited by a ghost. I know, you know, everyone that the ghost is meant to be less a ghost, more a symbol for Hamlet’s feelings, but so were the ghosts of Dickens. It is not even an easy example like Midsummer Nights. He nailed a story for its theme and moody.

Etienne,
You argue everyone have a definition of fantasy they can use… That easy, so I will take the opportunity and continued my reply to JBI, ok?
There is a book that caught my attention and most people would never complain: Alice. But fact is, there is no fantasy there. Alice sleeps and that is all. She had a dream and her dream is all “non-sense”. No supernatural event occurs. No Magic, nothing. Sleeping and dreaming are not supernatural (as much as I know that the author used the sleeping to introduce the story). If we continue, we can call all Quixote’s illusions as dreams and call it a fantasy (making the argument for his wife, Bovary more plausible) or Finnegans Wake a fantasy. I know I call The Man that was Thursday fantasy as well. More, we can say The City and the Mountains by Eça de Queiroz a fantasy because the portrait of a dream in one of the chapters. I could not stop there, but there is no logical reason why accepting one book that portraits something unusual because it is the narrative of a dream and others not. Just because Alice is childish ?
Next user suggests Paradise Lost and islandclimber contest it. He does not give much reason for it but he goes with the following sentences:
“but if we are talking about any works of literature from epic poetry to plays to novels, with any fantastical elements in them.. I mean you could put just about anything here...

Hamlet
The Divine Comedy
Paradise Lost
The Iliad
The Odyssey
The Aeneid
even Herodotus's Histories could fall under the fantastical type..”

To him it is obvious, fantasy is something different than what the two first posters suggest, also it is something that is not defined by something fantastical happening. He is excluding works from the list. Something contrary of what the thread starter says.
Then the next user suggests that he would like to include the Iliad but it would not be possible because it is based on a real event (a real sacking of Troy) and suggests that it would be historical fiction. Then we have a series of suggestion that includes your Gargantua and Patagruel. Then we start the debate. It seems like JBI have a different definition of fantasy than I have which is different from islandclimber and yours. Yet you claim there is a definition of fantasy that we can all reckon?

If there is no definition then the word has no meaning. A definition is not necessarily a dictionary entry covering thoroughly all the different meanings of a word. It can be simply the mental image, even very vague, evoked by a word.
There is a considerable difference between a category, a definition of a genre, a classification and the use of words. We are talking about such definition here. Also, the fact a word have several meanings and none can be specifically applied just sustain my point: No book can be excluded from the list without a proper definition. It is considerable different from saying “I cannt classify Dom Quixote as an essay because the definition of essay is clear enough and excludes Dom Quixote.

I never said it is not a fantasy, I said it does not rank in fantasy under the seme of the word fantasy used. You can say it's fantasy under that seme as you wish, but that's just confusing communication. Arguing that there is no objective classification of "fantasy" is all very well, but I think you can understand what is referred to by fantasy and have a decent conversation anyways, no?
I do not think your conversation is somehow not decent, but I must point out: we do not agree about what exactly is fantasy. Neither all of the posters here. We also can think further, there is no reason why we need just to accept a definition used either, we can elaborate it.
But mostly, I will defend the right of Iliad and Paradise Lost be in the fantasy genre as much as anything. And I will defend that if someone is claiming something is something (fiction, fantasy), they must at least provide a definition to sustain their judgments. Just the Judgments nope.
Anyways, JBI already pointed and I wont deny that M.Bovary was an extreme example, used to counter any argument that would exclude any work that used realistic language or had an real event as theme. That obviously worked with islandclimber who gave a definition that excluded both from what is fantasy, so I could counter. In your case, you focused on trying to claim I do not know the difference between fiction and fantasy (a thin line and very irrelevant to the nature of this argument, also, any Borges reader would mock the importance of the term fiction and I am a borges reader) without bringing any definition of both, to counter me or allow me to counter you. If JBI wasn’t around, it would end being a very boring monologue.

Something specific can be vague, I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.
Not a definition, which is exactly is exactly to determine something. This is not even open to argumentation.

Then we should cross this word from our language and the dictionary? How come many people have used this word and understood what was meant? What is the definition of "love"? I guess we shouldn't talk about love either as you will come up and say: "but everything is love so why are you and your girl talking about loving each other, that makes no sense."
Obviously not, but as I showed, not everyone in the thread agrees specifically with the meaning of the word. In literature the definition is much harder, I have seen several of them. We can understand each other because we are not dumb, and we can use a general point to have dialogue. But that obviously was not clear when there was the exclusion of suggested titles under grounds that are arguable. If you are saying I am not allowed to argue the criteria used to exclude Iliad or Paradise Lost, then I am sorry. But I will.

Not a democratic "archetypic"(??) but a social reality. Unless you indulge in soliloquy language is a social reality and it's rules are defined by social conventions.
You replaced the platonic archetype for a concept that is the use we give to them. So, instead of a universal ideal significance we have just an ideal popular interpretation. You could have replaced with one word may cause several interpretations for several , all valid, meanings and this would be a true non-platonic idea. Which is what happens in literature. No popular interpretation can be imposed (hence critics and specialists) and several interpretation can be valid (which does not means more correct or not). Hence social conventions is just a help, but not the only guideline for meaning in communication.


First a word is not a symbol, and does not have "realities" but semes, meanings. Unless, of course, you are arguing for philosophical realism in language.
No, it is just a symbol. A graphic or oral representation of an object. That simple. Several realities as it is subject of several meanings (old, new, meanings we ignore and even potential future meanings) that are all real.

Then what meaning do the words have? A meaning hanging on the crystalline spheres of the cosmos? They have the meaning we give them, by convention or by general usage aong the speakers of the language. Words are not something fixed. How would you explain then that the French word for "desk", "bureau" originally meant a small piece of cloth put on a table, and then the table took the name, then the room where the desk is took the name of "bureau", then then the place where there is a lot of these rooms took this name as well, and the it also became an information service, a establishment open to public, etc. etc. etc. All this to show you that language is something ever changing and fluid, so trying to pinpoint a single unique and precise meaning to a word is most of the time pointless.
Sorry, but it seems to me that when you say words only have the meaning we give to them, you are defining the words just by what we are aware of them. And individual act, and not something vague that we do not control at all. (We control the use and application under a given context, but not the meanings that a word may have).
Anyways, I am the one, which you seem to forgot, that argues the definition of fantasy is flawed, so here can be no exclusion of certain books, not otherwise. You are the one worried if my definition of fantasy is mislead or if I know the difference between fiction and fantasy. You are the one that is asking for definitions, not me.

I will not try to prove it to you, I do not want or need, that is not even my point to prove you anything. What I am saying is that it is not understood as a work of fantasy. To prove anything about this matter I would have to define clearly the exact seme of the word "fantasy" which is referred to, and then point out why it doesn't correspond to it. But the definition would need to be so precise that it would become too subjective, and you could simply say that you do not accept this definition.

Sorry, you are in an argument where you just point and say “You are wrong” and give no reason for it? Sorry, but sounds meaningless, futile and even silly.
You made judgments without being able to justify it? Seriously ? Also, every time someone defined fantasy and I didn’t agreed, I give examples and justifications (Realistic language, serious intention or theme, basis on something real) to counter it, and I would do the same with you. You could counter as you wish or not, but I would not just disagree with you for the sake of disagreement.

If you were writing a serious thesis on fantasy you would need to clearly define it, and what is meant when you refer to fantasy. But this is just a trivial discussion, where the meaning only has to be vaguely and generally accepted. Arguing over semantics in the way you are doing does nothing more then kill any perspective of communication in this way.
Meh, your first post to me was to talk about the semantics (or how I didn’t understand meaning of words). My post was a reply to someone reducing the possible suggestions based on concepts which are very arguable. I didn’t bring the discussion of what can or not be called fantasy, I defended my point of view. Accusing me of bringing this discussion here and killing the communication is very funny. (Plus, I think among the lines we wrote, several authors and works were listed to satisfy the thread starter).

[Etienne]

You argue everyone have a definition of fantasy they can use…

You have misunderstood me on more than one occasion. I did not say that "everyone have a definition of fantasy they can use" I said that the word fantasy was pluri-semantic, this is something entirely different.


You replaced the platonic archetype for a concept that is the use we give to them. So, instead of a universal ideal significance we have just an ideal popular interpretation.

I have "replaced the platonic archetype"? I have not "replaced" anything. And besides the fact that language is a matter of social convention is not even a matter of contention. How do you think language came about? That it was given to us on two stone tablets? This is just basic linguistics and philology.


You replaced the platonic archetype for a concept that is the use we give to them. So, instead of a universal ideal significance we have just an ideal popular interpretation.

No, in fact my whole posts were about the uselessness of arguing over semantics in an offhand conversation when there is no need to. You do not need a definition of each and every word in such a discussion, merely a more or less common signified to the signifiant for all the participants.

[JCamilo]

Then why your first reply (and a few others) concerned your opinion that I know no difference between fiction and fantasy. If you didnt care about semantics, you would not bother about replying to me and latter contesting Madame Bovary nomination on such grounds. Your reply had one line and was concerning the misunderstanding in your opinion of the meaning of two words and yet you considered semantics irrelevant... yeah...

by the way, from the thread starter, I think a good guide would be Italo Calvino selection of XIX stories. I can not remember all names but I think Sheridan Lefanu, Poe, H.G.Wells, Stevenson, Kipling, Nerval, Andersen, Ambroice Bierce, Hoffman, Walter Scott, Balzac, Hawthorne, Gogol, Merimée, Gautier, James are all listed there.
Other line would be guys like Brother Grimm or Perrault. I would add from South America, Horacio Quiroga and the later Juan Rulfo's Pedro Paramo.

[Etienne]

Then why your first reply (and a few others) concerned your opinion that I know no difference between fiction and fantasy.

Because of common sense?

[JCamilo]

Common Sense is prone to mistakes. But the entire difference between fiction and fantasy (which is semantics, something you said you didnt care) is irrelevant to any argument I made. Fact is, I could care less while you insist on it.
Also, either you define what you consider a mistake, or just pointing "It is wrong" is pretty much useless.
Now, you could let that go, right? The meaning of two words is only semantics and you are not worried with that.

[Etienne]

Well common sense is what should be used in an offhand conversation, not semantics.

[JBI]

Honestly, Etienne, are we in agreement that my definition of fantasy is somewhat accurate?
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=642064&postcount=41

[JCamilo]

then, commom sense would not complain about the inclusion of Iliad, Paradise Lost or Magical Realism in a fantasy list. You should have been helping me, since to exclude those it would be necessary to bring up a definition and that is semantics. Hence any list of fantasy works should include, besides those already mentioned,
Ovid Metamorphosis, Lucan's Dialogues, Cyrano's Moon Travels, The Bible, Chaucer's Canterbury, Thomas Mallory's Artur stories, Machiavelli Belfegour, Guimaraes Rosa Grandes Sertoes, Mario de Andrade Macunaima, Aesop Fables...

Edit:
JBI, I think it is accurate your analyse of what most people think of it. Also that a line of fantasy novels are born from the medieval knighthood novels. But also there is a line coming from oriental parables that gave us the 1001 Nights, one coming from greek mithology, the folk lore line and speculative philosophical works.

[Etienne]

Honestly, Etienne, are we in agreement that my definition of fantasy is somewhat accurate?
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=642064&postcount=41

Well, in part, at least. Anyways my experience with fantasy readers is pretty much limited to my brother who is wasting the best years of his life playing World of Warcraft almost full-time. I don't think he reads much anymore anyways...

[Drkshadow03]

Stranger Things Happen by Kelly Link (short story collection).

Perdido Street Station by China Mieville (novel).

The Fantasy Writer's Assistant and Other Stories by Jeffrey Ford (short story collection).

Little gods by Tim Pratt (short story collection).

Angry Candy by Harlan Ellison (short story collection)

Smoke and Mirrors by Neil Gaiman (short story collection).