Talk:Heroic fantasy

(untitled)
Sorry about the no-ID on adding the quotations section; I can't seem to stay logged in for more than a few minutes at a time tonight, and didn't notice that I had been logged off. &mdash; B.Bryant 03:37, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Merge?)

 * 2013-01-10. ''Heroic fantasy v. High fantasy v. Sword-and-sorcery and perhaps others.
 * Today I have given this 7-year-old but active section a heading (Merge?) and I have moved two "recent" replies down from the top of the page to the bottom of this section. --P64 (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)''

How does the "heroic fantasy" described here differ from "high fantasy" or "sword-and-sorcery" sufficient to merit a separate entry? The authors listed here are also listed under those genres. Goldfritha 00:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If there are any differences, they should be listed to avoid confusion.--SidiLemine 12:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Bit the bullet and proposed the merge. Goldfritha 00:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In the Encyclopedia of Fantasy, John Clute says something like 'There may be a relevant difference between heroic fantasy and sword and sorcery, but nobody has identified it yet.' He compares it to the difference between 'horror' and 'dark fantasy'. Chris Thornett 10:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * All right, so if we go ahead and merge them, which one is going to be the main article? --SidiLemine 11:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sword and sorcery. The Clute quote is the beginning of a one-paragraph entry on "heroic fantasy", chiefly talking of its uselessness, while the "sword and sorcery" one in that Encyclopedia takes up over a page.  Goldfritha 01:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I was under the impression that Heroic Fantasy was kinf of broader (as including LOTR, The LanceDragons and others, while Sword and Sorcery was more of a pejorative term for books about a "muscular hero(ine)" fighting evil sorcerer-kings. The key difference between the two terms might be the "fantasy", that lets you think there's going to be elves, gnomes, and... Well, unexpected stuff. But then again, if there is such a big difference, we might as well keep. Separate articles. No, I just felt like "sword and sorcery" is a bit pejorative for such a vast genre, just like I wish the article about sword and sandal would be named Peplum.--SidiLemine 09:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That means the term Heroic fantasy was used for High fantasy as well. That would be an argument for making it sword and sorcery, because it is more precise.  As for "pejorative" -- actually Heroic fantasy is the euphemism.  Goldfritha 15:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you merge the two articles then the Heroic Fantasy article needs to be greatly revised as it is integrated into the S&S sorcery entry. I would not classify the Lord of the Rings the works of CS Lewis as Sword and Sorcery at all. They might have influenced the genre but go above and beyond especially in works other than those whose setting was Middle Earth or Narnia. If you merge the two articles, I would not want to see the Lord of the Rings or CS Lewis relegated to a sub-genre. I could accept that the genre of Sword and Sorcery was greatly influenced by either author but there should be a distinction in the article because I would make the argument that both the Lord of the Rings and Narnia (the works that arguably could be labeled as S&S) transcend and greatly differ from the genre they influenced. So if you do merge the articles I feel that certain authors should be removed from the classification if they do not fit the sword and sorcery classification or their role and relevance of the works to the genre even though they arguably do not fit into the genre.Blueskelton 10:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Blueskelton


 * I personally feel that Heroic Fantasy is very much alike to High Fantasy and the articals should be merged or a list of difining features should be introduced to avoid confusion.
 * Applechair (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sword and Sorcery defines a more Conan the Barbarian feeling where magic is typically used as a symbol representing the debauchery and the hedonistic tendencies of the enemy society. Heroic fantasy is the typical knight-in-shining armor setting wherein the characters go out and slay dragons or evil emperors, or perhaps the heroes are wizards. High fantasy is name for the overall genre that encompasses all three of these, as defined from the other two Fantasy Genre's of Science-Fiction and Horror also collectively referred to as Speculative Fiction. --TheWhitefire (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Could we get some more discussion on this? I'd like to see this merging issue get resolved. Lvowell (talk) 1:37, 10 Sept 2010


 * I rearranged this section following the usual layout convention, provided a header (Merge?), and continued it, in effect, in new section #Fantasy genres. --hoping to broaden it. --P64 (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

pov
shouldnt this be tagged first as being fulil of POV and questionable contend? not just pov btw, overstated opinion with attempt at persuation.--Lygophile 14:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done! Goldfritha 00:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

origins
Fantasy was long distinguishable from mythological tales long before LOR. In fact, it was distinguishable from them in the medieval romances, when it was not exactly fantasy. Goldfritha 19:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Fantasy genres
Six years later. Today I read the main section of this discussion ( as I rearranged it. I agree with Chris Thornett and Goldfritha that it is reasonable to use The Encyclopedia of Fantasy by John Clute and John Grant (1999) as a crucial source for our coverage of fantasy. And The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction by Clute and Peter Nicholls (1993; third edition online 2011) on some points.

Regarding speculative fiction genres and subgenres, we have dozens of "main" articles and perhaps several merges that are worth some consideration. This hour I begin modestly by adding some articles to WP Novels fantasy task force. --P64 (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * related articles, maybe


 * en.wikipedia — Fictional universe (where Secondary world redirects) and its lead links
 * Clute/Grant Encyclopedia —(from memory) land, fantasyland, land of fable
 * and Encyc entries under our related article names
 * --P64 (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This article should definitively be merged with the Sword and sorcery article. Both that article and the only sourced part of this article (as well as the de Camp quote) states that they are essentially two names for the same genre. And while I personally prefer the name Heroic Fantasy (as it's more inclusive) I think this article should just be turned into a redirect to that article as everything this articles is trying to expressed is already there, only expressed clearer and much better sourced. I also have problems with the Hard fantasy (non of the sources, nor even the article itself, can agree on what it is and the whole thing seems more like a hypothetical "does fantasy have an equivalent to Hard SF?" debate and not an actual genre classification that is ever used) and Medieval fantasy (the article is vague on the definition. Is it Historical fantasy set in the medieval ages? In that case neither Tolkien nor Martin qualifies. Is it fantasy specifically based on the medieval era? Then Tolkien does not qualify. Or is it fantasy with any inspiration from or parallels to any part of medieval culture? If that is the case then pretty much all fantasy qualifies at this point. And most importantly the entire article is uncensored except for two statements calling Ultima and Neverwinter Nights "medieval fantasy" without defining the genre) articles. --Painocus (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that, as the articles for Sword-and-sorcery and High fantasy rightly states, High fantasy and S&S/Heroic fantasy are not the same genre. The confusion probably arises from Moorcock's initial usage of "epic fantasy" (which is now used synonymic with High Fantasy) as a name for the S&S/Heroic genre and from, what I have noticed to be, Low fantasy enthusiasts' tendency to lump them together to contrast with their own preferred genre (which is strange considering that there is significant overlap between heroic and low fantasy). --Painocus (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Still Discussing the Merge
Another five years have gone by, with no progress on this discussion. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of current Wikipedia practices and codes than I should just Be Bold. At the very least, Heroic fantasy should be merged with Sword and sorcery, as the opening quote on this article equates the two explicitly. Whateley23 (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Seen as though they are directly equated is there even a requirement for this article in the first place? If their the same thing merging them will just inflate the sword and sorcery article with the exact same information. Perhaps deleting this article and simply proposing it as an alternate name on the sword and sorcery article? AnyOwl (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Point of view
The lead section is making major negative generalizations about this genre. DemonDays64 (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Why is there a "sic" in the quote?
Such a story combines [sic] the color and dash of the historical costume romance with the atavistic supernatural thrills of the weird, occult, or ghost story.

This doesn't seem to be an error? Usually "sic" follows an obvious error in grammar that was in the original, thus quoting it while acknowledging the error as an error. But "Such a story combines the aspects of the historical romance with the aspects of the ghost story" seems to me to be a perfectly grammatical construction, and the expansion doesn't seem to introduce any problems, certainly not with the word "combines"; what am I missing? Kilyle (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You're right. I deleted it. Rray (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

misogyny
"Unlike dark fiction, it provides a setting in which 'all men are strong, all women beautiful, all life adventurous, and all problems simple'." This quote is very centric towards men, and it's misogynistic; women are not ornaments and any woman's appearance does not exist to serve men. if you get what i mean. I strongly suggest that it be changed 2600:4040:A034:A300:1119:F3A8:6BC9:D2FC (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)