>>2604436

Because there are very, very few good ones.

>>2604436
Because fantasy doesn't impact us the way true art does. The way great fiction becomes to us real, it serves as substitute for experience, its strength is we can allow ourselves to believe these people these events follow. Fantasy allows escape to different world, literature is the projection of meaning into the actual world.

usually very little technical or artistic merit. usually just for escapism. its honestly the same reason people/scholars look down on twilight.

>>2604438
>>2604437
>>2604439

Interesting. Would you consider A song of Ice and fire (please no spoilers on book 5 as I've yet to read it) to fall into these usual tropes of fantasy books?

As to the escapism bit, isn't that the whole point of the books? To show us life in another world and in a different time?

I realize I may sound naive/stupid and that's because I wasn't a big reader while growing up. I started reading a lot of books back in 2009 so I am not exactly as articulate as most of /lit/ when it comes to books.

Also, Fantasy branches off into different, smaller genres that have much greater literary value than what is seen as traditional Fantasy. Nothing wrong with a good genre book, though.

>>2604445

Jon gets killed

>>2604445
>As to the escapism bit, isn't that the whole point of the books? To show us life in another world and in a different time?

not really, since you asked about scholars, they would be more interested in techniques and literature as art rather than as escapism. never read ASOIAF but from what I've seen on here, it seems really stereotypical. reading for escapism is okay i guess. for an example of non-escapist reading, something like borges' stuff would be read for allusion, technique and concepts.

>>2604445
>tropes

I think you need to look this word up in the dictionary.

>>2604445
Good literature is not necessarily escapism (though it may be that too), it also informs a more full life by giving you a new perspective either on a new subject or an old one, or by giving form to a thought that was buried in you but you did not know could be expressed.

>>2604445

My whole life I have pretty much read only fantasy and science fiction books. I find fantasy to just me more interesting, you can probably learn more about the human condition from proper literature (I still believe you can learn alot from fantasy to but often it ends up falling into stereotypes so the characters don't always have the same depth) but the reason I read is for escapism.

The reason critics dislike fantasy/scifi is because the story sticks to more of a formula and the characters usually have a basic stereotype that they fill but fantasy writers also have to come up with new worlds and things in them rather than work with what we already have which in some ways is harder.

>>2604482
yeah i used to like fantasy, but at this point i cannot read any more hero's journey shit. nonconventional fantasy still strikes me as fun though sometimes

>>2604468
Thanks this helped me better understand how people judge books.

>>2604482
>>2604490
Thanks for yoru input

Scholars focus on the themes and execution of the story. Readers, on the other hand, will regularly focus on the story. Fantasy authors panders to the story-focused crowds. Put simply, fantasy, despite being "unintellectual", almost always has a better, more interesting plot than a world-renowned piece of literature. It isn't caught up in the prose and themes as literature, so it usually has a well thought out story that captivates readers. The only problem I have with most literature (I'm a huge fan) is that it doesn't make the reader think.

>>2604436
Because they are posers with a big hipster, read-more-classics than you atittude. You cant label a book solely by its gender and expect people to consider you a big intellectual just because you studied a big list of academics must-read. Unluckily thats what I see a lot in forums like /lit/, too much focus on the form, too little on the individual substance. Its basic the same principle why they look down on graphic novels.

Because too many bad ones get published.

>>2604510
By the gods, this.
Fantasy publishers rarely have standards. They're mentality is that if they publish twenty authors, one might be good.

>>2604504
Are you high? Why does fantasy have better plots? Because there are dragons?

The building/breaking of personal relationships between characters can be far more interesting than a magical ring.

>>2604569
>Magical rings
>Dragons
Nice job. I had no clue whiny cunts on 4chan were so good at making strawmen. I understand why you did that, since you're incapable of having a real argument
>Implying there isn't fantasy beyond dragons and rings

>>2604569
>The building/breaking of personal relationships between characters is always undoubtedly far less interesting than a magical ring.
fixd

>>2604579
It's about as good as wildly claiming that fantasy novels always have better plots than traditional literature.

Who is the being elitist here, exactly?

>>2604585
>shameless escapism
Nice one.

>>2604606
>shameless

yes, exactly. I'm not ashamed that I prefer escapism over realism. That having been stated, I do not necessarily believe that any one venue is superior to another.

That's just like, my opinion, man.

>>2604614
>escapism and realism, two ends of a spectrum
wat

>>2604436
Because they're still living in the 70s when post-modernism, critical theory and genre specifications weren't looked at as a bad joke by people at large.
Nowadays they have enough issues trying to get anyone to take them seriously and subsequently much less time to shit on authors who have little in common with them.

>scholars
>using the term scholars when discussing literature academics
>laughingrenaiisancemen.tiff

>>2604614
can i just tell you that the basis of your opinion is based on presuppositions that don't really make any sense? but that should be okay with you because you seem like the type of guy who doesn't want to think too hard about this sort of thing. so why post?

>>2604641
>opinion
>don't really make any sense

he enjoys escapism. Shut the fuck up.

>>2604617
well that's a mighty fine misinterpretation you got yourself there

>>2604641
you sound like a poorly educated individual. I bet you have a difficult time deciphering the meaning of most writings

>>2604448
I'm not going to believe you on this you motherfucker.

I'm sorry but, even the very best cases of fantasy are side-stepped by scholars. My old professor dismissed Lord of the Rings as an adventure romp without referencing any of its political or social implications it drew from, nor the technique of its crafting, nor its basis in classical mythology and the fact it can be used as a case-study for that subject.
One prof. I asked about this (specifically about LoTR, but fantasy general), said that what fantasy is worthy of consideration, is often so large and so complex that it would take an entire semester to cover it. The students don't get exposure, such that they aren't interested in tackling the genre themselves when they start teaching. He kind of went further, and pointed out how few of my courses had us reading a long novel of any genre. They're not teachable in an undergraduate course.
Which is a pity, seeing as we were covering Irish lit and I really wanted to see the hoopla behind Ulysses, but ended up with Dubliners extracts instead.

>>2604436

Because: Too lazy to write historical fiction.

Stop bumping this, son.

Good fantasy
>Gawain and the Green Knight
Homeric cycle
Gilgamesh
Beowulf
Arabian Nights (pick a translation/collection)
The Death of Arthur

etc
etc
etc

None of that is fantasy, it precedes the existence of that dreck industry.

fantasy is shit.
like video games.
dont you see how pathetic your escapism is
why are you running from reality
just face your fears

INDULGE IN THE PAIN OF REALITY YOU PIECE OF SHIT FUCK

>>2606500
>Implying you can't indulge in the pain of human beings in fantasy.

Who is Keats and what is Lamia you beings of cold philosophy

>>2606506

> you beings of cold philosophy

pfft

>>2606506
escapism is ignorance. blindness.
you are weak.
you need this drug bc you are a coward.
think about it, one step down and you have twilight, another step down and you have fanfic.

They're un-imaginative fucks and everything has to be LOL SO REAL XD

>>2606517
>John Keats' Lamia
>Escapism

It's about the platonic idea of how you kill the beauty of an idea by being an asshole.

>>2606523
well, thats not really fantasy now is it

>>2604569
Have you ever even fucking read a fantasy novel?

>>2606532

Yes, and you suck for reading them into the years of adulthood.

reading fantasy is DIRECTLY EQUIVALENT in essence to playing video games. it doesnt create meaning. it is reinforcing, self masturbatory mary sue garbage (imho lol)

>>2606571

I couldn't have put it better.

your experience, your pain, your suffering
is the most beautiful thing in the world
and literature reminds you of this. fantasy protects you from the ugliness inside you
art confronts you with your fear and makes it beautiful.

>>2604436
They don't.

oh hey guys i just came here.

when you talk about escapism you sure mean the same old " young hero, wise magician, evil force, magic sword, good vs. evil, only you can save us all" -routine.
i would have to agree here; no use in chewing the same concept in slight variations over and over again.
even worse: most of those consist of half a dozen doorstoppers minimum so you spend month or even years on one of those series.

BUT :
does fantasy/ science fiction not in its core mean inventing something detached from reality.
this does not sound so bad to me per se.
surely there must be some literature that deals with profound matters and at the same time features fantastic elements.

>implying all literature isnt fantasy except fact history books

>>2606869
How do you explain Mieville?

Please someone explain Mieville.

Take my wife, no really, take my wife.

dunno Book of the New Sun felt kinda fresh to me.
but no heavy matters discussed their either, huh?

Pseudo-Academic jackoffs don't actually like to read anything that isn't interpretable.
How is this news?

Let's see, the last fantasy book I read was On Stranger Tides.

It just felt empty. Like there was nothing to it. Escapism doesn't do it for me. Imagination is good, but it has to feel relevant or I'll just think I'm wasting my time when there are a million other books to read.

Lord of the Rings is fantasy that I like. Tolkien will say he's only interested in "telling a good story" but actually his work has all kinds of tie ins with philosophy and greek mythology, it speaks to me.

I guess I just appreciate "tradition."

>>2606869
>ohyou.jpg

What makes these history books you speak of 'true'?

They're intended for different types of reader, plain and simple. Fantasy tends to target younger, less experianced readers as it captures there imagination and keeps them interested in the story. If most children were given a rather dull, realistic and bleak piece of fiction that portrayed a myriad of social issues, they would most likely give up quickly and be turned away from reading. Stop acting as if one type of fiction is more important than the other because they both serve entirely different purposes when it comes to the type of reader they are targeted toward. Reading literature more seriously and analysing difficult texts tend to be more for experianced readers who enjoy the challenge and sense of accomplishment of getting through a tough work. Both types of fiction are based upon reality in one way or another if you get into the semantics of the texts. Just because some people prefer fantasy novels doesn't mean they are a bad person or lack the intellectual capacity to understand more serious and realistic pieces of litereture.

Many of my friends have barely read any fiction but instead read large amounts of non-fiction and invest a lot time studying and researching in their chosen field. Does this make them any less intelligent? Don't think so. Reading isn't the end all and be all of everything and I get the impression that for some people on this board it is.

Escapism? Just for escapism? You mean adventure, right? If people/scholars look down on fantasy books it's because they forgot how to have fun.

>>2607027

Maybe they just have more fun reading something that isn't some faux-medieval Tolkien pastiche.

Honestly, there's no specific reason the fantasy genre can't be upheld on artistic merit.
It's just that authors aren't trying, they're all writing videogame plots.

But scholars do like fantasy. At the very least C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien are respected. I'd wager John Crowley is as well.

>>2607017
You're desperately trying to put limitations on the Fantasy Genre. Your argument, and attempted compromise, is a strawman at best.

Right off the bat you make the assumption that Fantasy does not deal with or present different social issues. You make the assumption that every piece of non-fantasy fiction is realistic. Your idiotic argument is no more strike against fantasy than it is against any other genre out there. Your are criticizing a particular brand of writing (one not necessarily aimed at children), and not fantasy. Yours is also the kind of thinking that was prevalent in the days of naturalism and realism. Both great forms of art, literary movements no more right or wrong than any other.

The only reason why you would hail this above anything else, and you're probably not even realizing that you're doing it, is because Hemingway's writing, among many others, is ripe with it. And seeing as Naturalism/Realism did not reach the american sub-humans until 50 years or so after the Scandinavian overlords had finished with it, you would naturally want to triumph it as some kind of intellectually superior genre, etc, etc.

If you hold the Fantasy genre in such regard then why the fuck is there a section dedicated to it in the recommended reading link. Don't be hypocrites.

Also what about celebrated literary works that do contain elements of fantasy? Just to be clear we're drawing a line here between works containing fantastical elements, like you know Shakespeare, Greek Epics, a lot of Romantic Poetry, Mythological Sagas etc.

For a long time the tradition of storytelling quite heavily involved fantasy as imagery, metaphor, allegory, at its best fantasy reflects humanity in all its profundity and wonder. Whilst I agree that the fantasy genre is saturated with penny dreadfuls, it does not mean that the paradigm of "Fantasy" should not be discredited altogether.