That's more a science fiction movie than fantasy, and while it wasn't genre re-defining, it was fun as all hell.

 

Then what makes fantasy different from any other genre in this regard? With such a broad definition, pretty much all fiction has a quest of some sort.

The reason I'm gobsmacked is that you seem to think that Buffy and Anita Blake were the first new thing to hit fantasy since Tolkien.

 

Oh, I see where the miscommunication came from.

I'm not saying no one tried anything new between Tolkien and Whedon; I'm talking strictly about the general direction of the genre in the popular mind-set. There have been brilliant urban fantasy stories for years - you can make an argument for Dracula in that regard - but that the popularity, and thus general definition in the minds of most readers, has only recently shifted to include urban fantasy.

I once read an essay that argued Salem's Lot was the real beginning of that shift, but I'm not sure. I honestly think fantasy - again, in the minds of the majority - has only recently shifted to the urban.

 

The Problem is that the whole Fantasy genre only got really popular in the last 20-30 years. And that makes it difficult to say what had real changes on it because like Little Chicago said many of the now popular genre types (like dark, epic etc.) are really old.

In truth the only book series that really changed Fantasy would probably be Twilight because it changed Paranormal books and made them very popular.

 

Hey, don't call Twilight fantasy, it's badly written romance. Just because it has "vampires", does not make it fantasy. I have read the crap, and I don't see anything that would make it fantasy. No if anything, it belongs to the supernatural genre.

 

Barnes & Noble thankfully gave Twilight its own genre: 'Teen Paranormal Romance.'

Now it, along with its five entire shelves of bad copycat novels, no longer intrude upon the fantasy genre.

 

Supernatural is part of fantasy. If it's got ghosts, vampires, angels, werewolves, whatever, it's fantasy.

And what is this "the whole Fantasy genre only got really popular in the last 20-30 years"? What do you mean by "really popular"? Do you need another list of authors who were bestsellers before 1982?

 

That is what I thought too.. and Twilight did change a lot of things. And I am not saying that Twilight is a good book.. just that it had massive effects on the "Fantasy" genre.

I know that there were good authors before 1982 but I don´t think that much Fantasy was accepted as real literature or had a lot of mainstream popularity. (Like Harry Potter, ASoIaF etc.).

 

To be honest, I would only consider Harry Potter as the one series that changed the face of fantasy. Not because the ideas were any revolutionary, but because it got people reading more books. Not Twilight, Harry Potter.

Before Harry Potter, there was never a craze to read fantasy books, or books in general, especially among young adults. Sure, people have always been reading, but HP was a phenomenon, and it bought the popularity of books to a new height. The rise in the number of people reading fantasy books is in large part, thanks to JKR.

Other than that, I don't see any recent book that can be said as redefining. Stuff like Dresden files are different, sure, but as Butcher has admitted himself, it's only the right combination of other popular ideas. Dresden = "Wizard' + 'Detective'. Both of the ideas were already popular. Same could be said for ASOIF, and many other books I guess.

Haven't read a lot of other stuff so I won't comment on that.

 

I´m not sure if I entirely buy the idea of fantasy fiction being defined solely by the inclusion of supernatural elements. Would you call the ancient Greek myths fantasy fiction? Not really. Why? Because of their historical context. What about Beowulf? Again, I don´t think you´d normally call it fantasy fiction. Both of these examples predate the idea of genre fiction.

Yes, fantasy is now defined as the inclusion of supernatural elements. But I think it´s anachronistic to go back and categorise stories that predate the modern division of fiction into genres. I don´t know where I´d draw the line, exactly. Even something like HG Wells I wouldn´t really categorise as fantasy (or sci-fi). At the time, it belonged to mainstream literature, not a sub-genre.

But yeah, I´d say the idea of fantasy fiction is as much a feature of the modern publishing institution as it is an aspect of the books themselves.

 

Well, the precise boundaries of a genre are of course as much a construct of modern publishing as a literary definition. So yes, people can and do include myths and folklore in the category of "fantasy," and even if you're talking strictly about the modern fiction genre, Greek myths are certainly considered part of its antecedents.

But by any definition, sorry, Twilight is fantasy. It's got vampires and werewolves and supernatural societies. It's got fantasy worldbuilding. The entire story is dependent on fantastic elements. A fantasy novel doesn't become not-fantasy just because the plot centers on a shitty romance or because you hate it.

It's questionable whether fantasy is accepted as real literature now. The traditional disdain for genre fiction hasn't exactly gone away, it's just that people will now acknowledge it as a major money-maker, mostly because of Hollywood. If you're trying to date the point at which fantasy became "mainstream," it still depends on how you are measuring it. Harry Potter and Twilight were unprecedented phenomena, yes. If you're dating the point where fantasy (or spec fic in general) started to became part of general pop culture and not just geek enclaves, that's 1977 and Star Wars. (Which is science fantasy, but even if you insist on separating it from fantasy, science fiction and fantasy have always trended together.) Harry Potter and Twilight kicked off the current YA boom. But Tolkien, Lewis, Moorcock, Zelazny, Piers Anthony (yes, him), etc. etc. have been fantasy bestsellers for decades.

Books didn't suddenly become a "thing" just because you young'uns discovered them.

 

I think I asked the wrong question or rather phrased it wrong. I will use what Little chicago said in one of his earlier posts as an example. He said that for him reading books like Dresden files kind of redefined for him what fantasy was, that it wasn't just orcs and magical swords set in medieval times, there was something more to it. Just like now with the success of a song of ice and fire, the grim/dark sub-genre of fantasy has gained popularity. He wasn't the first author to write in such a genre but he managed to individual people kind of redefine fantasy as something that can be gritty and dark.

So that was my initial question(not that i didn't enjoy the discussion) which author or book, more or less broadened your view of what fantasy is?

Oh and on a side a note I recently came across some information that there are authors out there like Joe abercombie who talk about redefining the genre but at the same time they say that they don't read fantasy. I don't get isn't that a hypocritical? claiming you are going to change something you don't even understand? well good or bad I honestly don't think I am going to be picking up his books any time soon.

 

Depends on how they meant it. It's quite possible to have read so much fantasy that one becomes jaded with it.