Poll: Who's excited for the new Christopher Paolini book then? [Discussion may contain spoilers]

artanis_neravar

New member
Apr 18, 2011
2,560
0
0
Hafrael said:
artanis_neravar said:
Pappeska said:
artanis_neravar said:
Pappeska said:
I liked the first book, but I've grown as a reader. The last book was more annoying than interesting. But I guess I want to know how it ends, if I buy the book or just skim through it somewhere.

Oh, and the fact he had to write a fourth book to wrap it up. It annoys me because in my books it says 'Trilogy' now if I buy the fourth, I may have to buy new copies of the others just to get it right.
That's not what happened at all, the third book, was going to be too long to fit all of the things he wanted to put in it, so he cut it in half and made 2 books, kind of like what they did with the last Harry Potter movie
That's bad writing/planning on the authors part.
And you know exactly how long each of your books are going to be before you write them? It can happen to anyone Orson Scott Card originally intended for Xenocide and Children of the Mind to be one book, and he quickly realized that it was going to be to long and he couldn't fit everything he wanted in just one book. It has nothing to do with planing its how the plot and characters grow while you are writing it
You mentioned OSC. You are now my friend :) (Note, I only like his books, not his politics)

Ooh, have you read the ASoIaF books too?
I just pretend that the day I found out about his politics never happened. And no I haven't but I really want to, once I have some more money (read: a steady income) I will be reading them
 

Sandernista

New member
Feb 26, 2009
1,302
0
0
artanis_neravar said:
Hafrael said:
artanis_neravar said:
Pappeska said:
artanis_neravar said:
Pappeska said:
I liked the first book, but I've grown as a reader. The last book was more annoying than interesting. But I guess I want to know how it ends, if I buy the book or just skim through it somewhere.

Oh, and the fact he had to write a fourth book to wrap it up. It annoys me because in my books it says 'Trilogy' now if I buy the fourth, I may have to buy new copies of the others just to get it right.
That's not what happened at all, the third book, was going to be too long to fit all of the things he wanted to put in it, so he cut it in half and made 2 books, kind of like what they did with the last Harry Potter movie
That's bad writing/planning on the authors part.
And you know exactly how long each of your books are going to be before you write them? It can happen to anyone Orson Scott Card originally intended for Xenocide and Children of the Mind to be one book, and he quickly realized that it was going to be to long and he couldn't fit everything he wanted in just one book. It has nothing to do with planing its how the plot and characters grow while you are writing it
You mentioned OSC. You are now my friend :) (Note, I only like his books, not his politics)

Ooh, have you read the ASoIaF books too?
I just pretend that the day I found out about his politics never happened. And no I haven't but I really want to, once I have some more money (read: a steady income) I will be reading them
Just do what I do! Spend a weekend at the bookstore!

(Then feel guilty and buy them later!)
 

artanis_neravar

New member
Apr 18, 2011
2,560
0
0
Hafrael said:
artanis_neravar said:
Hafrael said:
artanis_neravar said:
Pappeska said:
artanis_neravar said:
Pappeska said:
I liked the first book, but I've grown as a reader. The last book was more annoying than interesting. But I guess I want to know how it ends, if I buy the book or just skim through it somewhere.

Oh, and the fact he had to write a fourth book to wrap it up. It annoys me because in my books it says 'Trilogy' now if I buy the fourth, I may have to buy new copies of the others just to get it right.
That's not what happened at all, the third book, was going to be too long to fit all of the things he wanted to put in it, so he cut it in half and made 2 books, kind of like what they did with the last Harry Potter movie
That's bad writing/planning on the authors part.
And you know exactly how long each of your books are going to be before you write them? It can happen to anyone Orson Scott Card originally intended for Xenocide and Children of the Mind to be one book, and he quickly realized that it was going to be to long and he couldn't fit everything he wanted in just one book. It has nothing to do with planing its how the plot and characters grow while you are writing it
You mentioned OSC. You are now my friend :) (Note, I only like his books, not his politics)

Ooh, have you read the ASoIaF books too?
I just pretend that the day I found out about his politics never happened. And no I haven't but I really want to, once I have some more money (read: a steady income) I will be reading them
Just do what I do! Spend a weekend at the bookstore!

(Then feel guilty and buy them later!)
That never even occurred to me!
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Bobbity said:
spartan231490 said:
SilverKyo said:
- Fantastic post, but snipped for space. -
I will admit your points are well argued, but I defy you to find a high fantasy character who doesn't fit those definitions by the end.
Everyone in A Song of Ice and Fire, save Daenerys? That's not the point, however. It doesn't matter what other authors do; if a series' main character has no more depth than a Mary Sue, then you have a serious problem. The fact is that Eragon is a two-dimensional character, and not because he was intentionally written that way. You get the sense that Christopher Paolini wanted to make him a living, breathing person, but lacked the ability to do so.

spartan231490 said:
I don't think that argument really holds water. He [Rand] can't access that reliably or consciously until much later in the series. I'm talking in the first couple of books, he does that all on his own without the help of what you mentioned. The reason he learns so fast prolly has something to do with his Father's blood and the fact that Lan is teaching him.
Rand begins training with the blade in Emond's Field, continued through Shienar, and all the Great Hunt, before he encountered his first blademaster. He was being taught by the best swordsman of the age - for the most part - and it was established that the Flame and the Void were key to his success. I'm not totally sure that it's defensible, but at least it's something.



Eragon, on the other hand, becomes a master swordsman in, what, five pages? He then seemingly stops training - save with Vanir - and his incredible skills are taken for granted for the rest of the series. If the speed with which Rand came to his skill is somewhat unbelievable, then Eragon is decidedly ludicrous.

Zachary Amaranth said:
spartan231490 said:
Let's boil it down further: Weak youth gains power and accomplishes great things. Hey look, it's every high fantasy ever written, they must all be rip-offs.
Of course, that's a silly argument and nobody would seriously offer it. You may taker issue with the more specific points which are pretty heavily derived from one specific source, but that does not facilitate a silly, over-the-top argument. Well, it readily facilitates it, but it's rather uncalled for.

We're not talking a few generic plot points, we're talking a good chunk of the series, point by point. You say yourself you've seen those lists.
I've also seen the same arguments about another dozen books, none of which are rip-offs in my opinion. His premise is similar, it happens in a world with this much entertainment, that is going to result in similar plot structure. I see the differences as being more significant than the similarities.
What differences? The blue flaming sword and the silver mark on Eragon's hand are out of the Belgariad, the system of magic is that of A Wizard of Earthsea's smashed together with the Belgariad's, an entire scene in the first book is copied almost word for word from the Elenium, the world - and, indeed, many of the places, spelled identically, is ripped from the Lord of the Rings, while the plot is straight out of Star Wars. The idea of Dragonriders is taken, no, stolen, from the Dragonriders of Pern, and even the changes worked on Eragon in Eldest are simply those worked upon Tomas in Magician - even to the point that they were both changed by dragon magic.

Nothing, I repeat nothing in Eragon is original. It's all taken from better authors, and badly merged into a single work. Prove me wrong.

One of the main characters from Eldest onwards - Roran - was ripped directly from Wheel of Time. Roran is a carbon copy of Perrin - the beard, the hammer and the axe, the unwilling leadership, the defence of the protagonist's hometown, his leading the hometown to join the protagonist in war, and the moral uncertainty.
spartan231490 said:
Ok.
Favorite character is probably Arya, favorite moment is definitely when Roran kills almost 200 soldiers.
Doesn't that strike you as at all ridiculous? He killed two hundred soldiers in a single battle?[/quote]

I don't consider a Song of Ice and Fire to be High Fantasy.

Eragon does continue his training, and he was also training under a master swordsman, and his father was also a master sworsdman. If it's excusable for Rand, then it's excusable for Eragon, because Rand only really gets true training in Sheinar. anything done before that is sporadic, short and intended mainly to just make sure they don't hurt themselves with their weapons.

What differences? Well, you claim that the plot is a direct rip-off from Star Wars. Well, I agree that the premise is virtually identical, but that doesn't mean as much as you might think. Most of the comparison of their plots is based on the comparison of a dragon egg to droids, which I don't really agree with. Honestly the plots really aren't that similar. Eragon get's his fortune told and it has a pretty big impact on the plot of the series. where's the fortune teller in star wars. Eragon meeting Murtagh is one of the biggest things that happens in the plot of the first book. I don't recall any similar companion for Luke. Maybe Han, maybe, but they are completely different characters, and Han doesn't end up imprisoned by the resistance, nor does Murtagh sit-out the first half of the battle due to fear. Honestly, if you want to stretch the star wars reference, Durza would be the equivelant of Vadar, not the Raazac, and he doesn't kill Brom. He's also killed in the first book. Where's the Durza of Star Wars during the prison break? Where does Luke get imprisoned by the empire? Also, who is the betrayer of the resistance in Star Wars, cuz I don't recall any, but it was a massive part of the plot in Eragon. I could go on, and this is just the first book.

As for characters, I don't really see the Roran-Perrin Argument either. Perrin loses his family in what? book 6 or 7. Roran loses his father in book 1, and it's a much larger part of his character. Perrin is a slow thinker, another defining characteristic of his character, but if anything, Roran is a bit of a hot-head. Perrin wields a hammer because he's afraid of becoming a monster that loves slaughter, Roran wields a hammer because of his favorite story and because later, he thinks it's more effective. Roran drives his own actions from the very beginning, for 3/4 of Wheel of Time, Perrin gets dragged along by his Taveran Nature, usually kicking and screaming. Also, unwilling leadership? Have you read the books? Roran wants to lead, he demands it. He often questions whether or not he deserves it, but he wants it anyway. He's not the least bit unwilling. He convinces the villagers to come with him. He asks Nasuada to put him in charge at least 3 or 4 times. He wants to lead. Once again, I could go on, but I think a paragraph is enough.

The similarities, are far more superficial than the differences.

Edit: I forgot to answer your last question, about it being rediculous to kill 200 in a single battle. No, i don't. It's fantasy. Legolas and Gimli both get well over a hundred in the battle for Minas Turrith(I think I misspelled it, it's been years since i read the book) and that was an actual battle. What Roran really did, is win almost 200 duals back to back, with an ever-growing height advantage, and an ever-growing advantage over the enemy because they were too angry to think straight, which is leagues more believable then killing over 100 enemies in a battle, yet nobody complains about the kill-counting in LoTR.
It's fantasy, it's supposed to be fantastic.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
artanis_neravar said:
Pappeska said:
artanis_neravar said:
Pappeska said:
I liked the first book, but I've grown as a reader. The last book was more annoying than interesting. But I guess I want to know how it ends, if I buy the book or just skim through it somewhere.

Oh, and the fact he had to write a fourth book to wrap it up. It annoys me because in my books it says 'Trilogy' now if I buy the fourth, I may have to buy new copies of the others just to get it right.
That's not what happened at all, the third book, was going to be too long to fit all of the things he wanted to put in it, so he cut it in half and made 2 books, kind of like what they did with the last Harry Potter movie
That's bad writing/planning on the authors part.
And you know exactly how long each of your books are going to be before you write them? It can happen to anyone Orson Scott Card originally intended for Xenocide and Children of the Mind to be one book, and he quickly realized that it was going to be to long and he couldn't fit everything he wanted in just one book. It has nothing to do with planing its how the plot and characters grow while you are writing it
Robert Jordan was supposed to write 1 book, now there's 3 coming out. There are a surprising number of authors that end up doing that.
 
May 29, 2011
1,179
0
0
I'm getting it, but if it doesn't have a few surprises in the plot I will be disappointed.

And i seriously hope he'll have a proper ending for ALL the characters.
MorsePacific said:
artanis_neravar said:
Kind of like how I want Gears to end with them winning, but nothing left for them to rebuild, and not enough people to rebuild even if there was anything left. So even though Humanity won out in the end they still die out
Exactly. It would be nice to see Paolini do something different. A lot of writers are afraid to take a series in that direction because I'm sure plenty of fans would be pissed, but that's why it's interesting to me. I remember writing a short story when I was younger and my girlfriend at the time being absolutely outraged that I killed the main character. It just seems like ground that hasn't been covered yet.

You don't always need happy ending with dragons farting rainbows and vegan elves having intense parties with all kinds of crazy natural hallucinogens and the main character getting married while he solemnly recalls those who died for him during his quest. Sometimes the best hero is a martyr.
all the business about Eragon having to leave the land and never return would indicate something like that will happen.
 

Axolotl

New member
Feb 17, 2008
2,401
0
0
spartan231490 said:
I don't consider a Song of Ice and Fire to be High Fantasy.
Really? If you don't count that as high fantasy then what the hell does count?

I mean how the hell is ASoIaF not High Fantasy?
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Axolotl said:
spartan231490 said:
I don't consider a Song of Ice and Fire to be High Fantasy.
Really? If you don't count that as high fantasy then what the hell does count?

I mean how the hell is ASoIaF not High Fantasy?
It's unlike any high-fantasy I've ever read. It's all about politics and nobles and armies. High fantasy is always about some tiny little group of people without any political power, who then gain power. It also has less magic than any high fantasy I've ever read. I would basically put it in it's own subset of fantasy, definitely not high fantasy.
 

PSYCHOxDRAGON

New member
Jul 4, 2008
30
0
0
I'll be getting it to finish up the series, but find myself didillusioned with Paolini's writing now. I used to love it but have since read books which, in terms of pure literary skill, make him look like a 12 year old writing their D&D quest list. I think it's partly because he's taken so long to finish the series and I was quite honestly appalled at the lack of imagination in the title for the climax of his first series.
 

Sandernista

New member
Feb 26, 2009
1,302
0
0
Fagotto said:
Hafrael said:
I'll read it at barnes and nobles.

Not paying for another on of his books though
The best way to read books that have some slight interest but aren't worth buying =D

Personally I just want to know how it ends. I might just look on Wikipedia to see how.
Exactly!

(Except when it turns out the book is really good, then I feel guilty and buy it a week later)
 

Axolotl

New member
Feb 17, 2008
2,401
0
0
spartan231490 said:
Axolotl said:
spartan231490 said:
I don't consider a Song of Ice and Fire to be High Fantasy.
Really? If you don't count that as high fantasy then what the hell does count?

I mean how the hell is ASoIaF not High Fantasy?
It's unlike any high-fantasy I've ever read. It's all about politics and nobles and armies. High fantasy is always about some tiny little group of people without any political power, who then gain power. It also has less magic than any high fantasy I've ever read. I would basically put it in it's own subset of fantasy, definitely not high fantasy.
What the fuck kind of definition of High Fantasy is that? " always about some tiny little group of people without any political power, who then gain power" where the hell do you get that from? High Fantasy is about the tone and setting of the work not the plot.

As for magic, it has more magic than LotR does. Seriously what fantasy books have you read?
 

Bek359

New member
Feb 23, 2010
512
0
0
artanis_neravar said:
Bobbity said:
Usually I have thus massive rant about how Christopher Paolini plagiarized his entire series from a large number of significantly better authors, but im in a hurry to get out the door, so I'll just propose a drinking game: every time youre reading Eragon and you find something that was taken from another book, you take a shot. If you're not roaring drunk by the end, then you're doing it wrong.
Because you can pick out some basic stuff it's plagiarizing? Get over it already people they only thing it has similar to Star Wars is that he's a farm boy who goes off on an adventure with him mysterious mentor. The only thing it has in common with Lord of the rings is elves and dwarves.
A humble farm boy discovers that he possesses a hidden power and finds himself hunted by an evil overlord who once betrayed a noble order of knights charged with the protection of freedom and justice. Along the way he meets a wise old mentor who gives him a powerful sword, encourages the young man to develop his magical talents, helps him save a princess in the warlord's dark fortress, and sacrifices himself to save the boy. The movie ends with an air battle after the bad guys track down the hidden stronghold of the rebellion.

(quoted from The Spoony One)

Now, does this describe Eragon or the first Star Wars movie?
 

LordRoyal

New member
May 13, 2011
403
0
0
That guy's still around? I thought the critics tearing him a new hole would send him into hiding.
artanis_neravar said:
Bobbity said:
Usually I have thus massive rant about how Christopher Paolini plagiarized his entire series from a large number of significantly better authors, but im in a hurry to get out the door, so I'll just propose a drinking game: every time youre reading Eragon and you find something that was taken from another book, you take a shot. If you're not roaring drunk by the end, then you're doing it wrong.
Because you can pick out some basic stuff it's plagiarizing? Get over it already people they only thing it has similar to Star Wars is that he's a farm boy who goes off on an adventure with him mysterious mentor. The only thing it has in common with Lord of the rings is elves and dwarves.
It's not so much the fact it's plagiarizing as the fact it's so unoriginal is the problem. The only problem I have with Eragon as a series is that it's overrated and unoriginal. I've read much better fantasy from 15 year olds on Fanfiction.net.

Also Tolkien was the first writer to have Elves as actual humanlike characters instead of little green men. Kinda hard for us to get over unoriginality in fiction when the author does very little to make his work original or stand out in any way.
 

artanis_neravar

New member
Apr 18, 2011
2,560
0
0
Bek359 said:
artanis_neravar said:
Bobbity said:
Usually I have thus massive rant about how Christopher Paolini plagiarized his entire series from a large number of significantly better authors, but im in a hurry to get out the door, so I'll just propose a drinking game: every time youre reading Eragon and you find something that was taken from another book, you take a shot. If you're not roaring drunk by the end, then you're doing it wrong.
Because you can pick out some basic stuff it's plagiarizing? Get over it already people they only thing it has similar to Star Wars is that he's a farm boy who goes off on an adventure with him mysterious mentor. The only thing it has in common with Lord of the rings is elves and dwarves.
A humble farm boy discovers that he possesses a hidden power and finds himself hunted by an evil overlord who once betrayed a noble order of knights charged with the protection of freedom and justice. Along the way he meets a wise old mentor who gives him a powerful sword, encourages the young man to develop his magical talents, helps him save a princess in the warlord's dark fortress, and sacrifices himself to save the boy. The movie ends with an air battle after the bad guys track down the hidden stronghold of the rebellion.

(quoted from The Spoony One)

Now, does this describe Eragon or the first Star Wars movie?
The dark lord is the king, not the apprentice of the king, the apprentice of the king is the father of the roguish friend and not the farm boy and is dead before the book starts. The wise old mentor is the father of the farm boy the princess is saved from a castle, not the fortress of the evil king. The princess is not the love interest of the roguish friend nor is she the sister of the farm boy. The roguish friend turns evil. Do I have to go on?
 

artanis_neravar

New member
Apr 18, 2011
2,560
0
0
LordRoyal said:
That guy's still around? I thought the critics tearing him a new hole would send him into hiding.
artanis_neravar said:
Bobbity said:
Usually I have thus massive rant about how Christopher Paolini plagiarized his entire series from a large number of significantly better authors, but im in a hurry to get out the door, so I'll just propose a drinking game: every time youre reading Eragon and you find something that was taken from another book, you take a shot. If you're not roaring drunk by the end, then you're doing it wrong.
Because you can pick out some basic stuff it's plagiarizing? Get over it already people they only thing it has similar to Star Wars is that he's a farm boy who goes off on an adventure with him mysterious mentor. The only thing it has in common with Lord of the rings is elves and dwarves.
It's not so much the fact it's plagiarizing as the fact it's so unoriginal is the problem. The only problem I have with Eragon as a series is that it's overrated and unoriginal. I've read much better fantasy from 15 year olds on Fanfiction.net.

Also Tolkien was the first writer to have Elves as actual humanlike characters instead of little green men. Kinda hard for us to get over unoriginality in fiction when the author does very little to make his work original or stand out in any way.
OK I will take that as useful criticism. And I understand what you are saying. But I would like to point out that since Tolkien, everyone tends to use his version of the elf (most notably D&D) probably because they are easier to relate with as humanoids.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Axolotl said:
spartan231490 said:
Axolotl said:
spartan231490 said:
I don't consider a Song of Ice and Fire to be High Fantasy.
Really? If you don't count that as high fantasy then what the hell does count?

I mean how the hell is ASoIaF not High Fantasy?
It's unlike any high-fantasy I've ever read. It's all about politics and nobles and armies. High fantasy is always about some tiny little group of people without any political power, who then gain power. It also has less magic than any high fantasy I've ever read. I would basically put it in it's own subset of fantasy, definitely not high fantasy.
What the fuck kind of definition of High Fantasy is that? " always about some tiny little group of people without any political power, who then gain power" where the hell do you get that from? High Fantasy is about the tone and setting of the work not the plot.

As for magic, it has more magic than LotR does. Seriously what fantasy books have you read?
I don't consider LoTR high fantasy either. Emphasis on high. I don't consider it high fantasy unless it's about somebody starting out with almost no power and growing stronger and usually saving the world, and lots of magic. Like Wheel of Time, or Sword of Truth, or Night Angel, or Inheritance. Yes the feel is important, but I would say the feel is important for it to be fantasy period, I would say high fantasy is set apart by the plot. Even still, A Song of Ice and Fire has a much more political feel than any high fantasy I've ever read, which I also mentioned.
 

LordRoyal

New member
May 13, 2011
403
0
0
spartan231490 said:
Axolotl said:
spartan231490 said:
Axolotl said:
spartan231490 said:
I don't consider a Song of Ice and Fire to be High Fantasy.
Really? If you don't count that as high fantasy then what the hell does count?

I mean how the hell is ASoIaF not High Fantasy?
It's unlike any high-fantasy I've ever read. It's all about politics and nobles and armies. High fantasy is always about some tiny little group of people without any political power, who then gain power. It also has less magic than any high fantasy I've ever read. I would basically put it in it's own subset of fantasy, definitely not high fantasy.
What the fuck kind of definition of High Fantasy is that? " always about some tiny little group of people without any political power, who then gain power" where the hell do you get that from? High Fantasy is about the tone and setting of the work not the plot.

As for magic, it has more magic than LotR does. Seriously what fantasy books have you read?
I don't consider LoTR high fantasy either. Emphasis on high. I don't consider it high fantasy unless it's about somebody starting out with almost no power and growing stronger and usually saving the world, and lots of magic. Like Wheel of Time, or Sword of Truth, or Night Angel, or Inheritance. Yes the feel is important, but I would say the feel is important for it to be fantasy period, I would say high fantasy is set apart by the plot. Even still, A Song of Ice and Fire has a much more political feel than any high fantasy I've ever read, which I also mentioned.
You do know High Fantasy has nothing to do with plot right? It has to do with how many fantastic elements that are contained within.

LotR pretty much popularized this concept, it has an entire fantasy world with magic.

artanis_neravar said:
OK I will take that as useful criticism. And I understand what you are saying. But I would like to point out that since Tolkien, everyone tends to use his version of the elf (most notably D&D) probably because they are easier to relate with as humanoids.
Valve also took ques from Alien with Half Life and the Headcrabs. But they made headcrabs significantly different then Facehuggers, while also making Xen and all it's creatures etc.

Most people don't mind that they take certain concepts as long as they have interesting characters/storylines relating to them. Eragon's plotline unfortunately resembles everything from A Hero with 1000 faces. Namely it's been done before hundreds of times. A hero who comes from humble origins gains a wise old mentor and does battle against an evil antagonistic character.

The main thing that pissed me off was how much of a Mary Sue Eragon was. He impresses practically everyone in the story, he is a cliche "Hero" archetype, he is so skilled with a sword that he manages to defeat other characters despite what? Less then a year of experience. At least with Star Wars Luke wasn't that good at using the force or his lightsaber until the second film and even then he still gets defeated by Vader.

I really could go on but that was the problem. It was all traits of lazy writing.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
LordRoyal said:
spartan231490 said:
Axolotl said:
spartan231490 said:
Axolotl said:
spartan231490 said:
I don't consider a Song of Ice and Fire to be High Fantasy.
Really? If you don't count that as high fantasy then what the hell does count?

I mean how the hell is ASoIaF not High Fantasy?
It's unlike any high-fantasy I've ever read. It's all about politics and nobles and armies. High fantasy is always about some tiny little group of people without any political power, who then gain power. It also has less magic than any high fantasy I've ever read. I would basically put it in it's own subset of fantasy, definitely not high fantasy.
What the fuck kind of definition of High Fantasy is that? " always about some tiny little group of people without any political power, who then gain power" where the hell do you get that from? High Fantasy is about the tone and setting of the work not the plot.

As for magic, it has more magic than LotR does. Seriously what fantasy books have you read?
I don't consider LoTR high fantasy either. Emphasis on high. I don't consider it high fantasy unless it's about somebody starting out with almost no power and growing stronger and usually saving the world, and lots of magic. Like Wheel of Time, or Sword of Truth, or Night Angel, or Inheritance. Yes the feel is important, but I would say the feel is important for it to be fantasy period, I would say high fantasy is set apart by the plot. Even still, A Song of Ice and Fire has a much more political feel than any high fantasy I've ever read, which I also mentioned.
You do know High Fantasy has nothing to do with plot right? It has to do with how many fantastic elements that are contained within.

LotR pretty much popularized this concept, it has an entire fantasy world with magic.

snip
Sure it doesn't. I'm gonna write a high fantasy about a gun-slinging detective uncovering a corruption within the city aristocracy.

And A Song of Ice and Fire doesn't read like a high fantasy. There's virtually no magic, there's really no hero, there's really very little about it that is "fantastic" in any way. It reads like a mystery/intrigue story, not fantasy. It's all about this lord and that many troops and this guy is a brilliant strategist and this guy has the best claim to the throne. I mean really, how is that high fantasy?

As for LoTR, I'll give you fantasy in general. I never disputed that. But if that's the definition of high fantasy, then why is high fantasy even a different genre than fantasy? Really?
 

LordRoyal

New member
May 13, 2011
403
0
0
spartan231490 said:
As for LoTR, I'll give you fantasy in general. I never disputed that. But if that's the definition of high fantasy, then why is high fantasy even a different genre than fantasy? Really?
High Fantasy is hardly a different genre as much as a subgenre. Like how "Whodunit" is a subgenre of mystery.