Do you like fantasy novels?

[Terxpahseyton]

Fantasy, ultimately, is about two simple words : What if?

What if elves existed? (Middle Earth)
What if there was a boarding school for wizards? (Potter)
What if the Greek Gods and Goddesses still existed and still had mortal children? (Riordan's universe)
What if there was a detective investigating crimes comitted by the folkloric underside of society? (Dresden files)
What if Napoleonic war had been fought with literal dragons? (Téméraire)

From that one question, you build a world. Elves had their language. Elves had their history. Elves had their world. What was it like?
IF there's a boarding school for wizard, doesn't that imply a government? A society that exist around it? What are they like? If there's a government, are there laws? You build the world around that central premise, and MUCH of the point of fantasy is exploring that world along with your readers.
Etc, etc.

If you don't start like that, you just end up with story that's fantasy...for the sake of being fantasy. Fantasy that's fantasy not because it asks "What if?", but instead just use whatever fantastic element are there as an excuse for the plot and character to happen, or to fill a kitchen list of characters and tropes that need to appear (see pretty much all Tolkien-derivative works). Or sometime shove them to the edge of the map only appearing in this or that occasional subplot so they don't get in the way of the characters and the Serious Business plot.

I found this analysis to be quit interesting, some interesting points you raised there.
But I think it ultimately is too narrow-minded - not just regarding the definition of the word "fantasy".
IMO you described two extreme cases - one ensuring bad fantasy, the other good fantasy. Well not ensuring the whole thing to be good, but at least its starting point.

But the truth is IMO way more complex. For instance you describe the world-building as an extremely hierarchical process, to ensure that it all is held together by a common theme which is to be explored. But you can also be more flexible and fluid in your world building process and still make an effort to make it meaningful, IMO. What you presented is more like a simplified scheme to illustrate the point. (but that was perhaps just your intention?)

And then of course, it is not just about exploring a theme. That is the higher goal of literature, I'd agree with that, but the lesser goal, to simply entertain, is also very valuable, IMO.

To apply this to your examples given - do you actually think Tolkien or Rowling went as stringent about their world building as you suggested?
I don't believe so at all. I am quit sure that elements of "Oh yeah this would be fun" were just as much part of their world building as the effort to combine the parts to a meaningful whole.

IMO good literature grows out of practice / awareness of all the different elements playing into the reader experience. And the actual creation and writing process follows no direction or rules but is in the end an unpredictable and volatile constant struggle with constantly changing aspects of the story.
To try to force this struggle into a firm structure can be a helpful tool to give orientation just as schemes can provide helpful illustration, but if it is the beginning and end of things, it IMO will rarely be good.

Analysis of why a story is good or bad are IMO usually unsatisfactory when they fall back on general abstract concepts. Stories are too complex and varied for that.
Still, such analysis can be very insightful, as I found your analysis very insightful

 

[Evie]

Well, of course you can throw "this would be fun" elements. The point isn't that everything must radiate from a single change, but that there must be a core, central theme at the heart of the fantasy world, which explains a great deal of the worldbuilding.

And I didn't say those books would be bad if you didn't have a core theme for your world. I said they'd be fantasy for the sake of being fantasy. It's possible to have an amazing plot and wonderful characters within that context. In some cases, it's well served by the fantasy tropes. In other cases, there is a tension between the plot and the fantasy aspects (see, again, GoT) that doesn't necessarily serve the story.

 

[warpus]

Fantasy, ultimately, is about two simple words : What if?

IMO that defines the broader genre of "speculative fiction" which includes fantasy, but also science-fiction.

Fantasy is a subset of speculative fiction - IMO you need a bit more than just "what if" to define it.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

IMO that defines the broader genre of "speculative fiction" which includes fantasy, but also science-fiction.

Fantasy is a subset of speculative fiction - IMO you need a bit more than just "what if" to define it.

"What if" covers just about everything, if you really want to push it. For example: What if there was a smart-alec private informer in 1st-century Rome who did confidential odd jobs for the Emperor, and in the course of one of his cases he met and fell in love with the daughter of a Senator?

That's not science fiction or fantasy. That's the basic premise of the first book in Lindsey Davis' historical mystery series about Marcus Didius Falco - a private informer (in modern terms, a private investigator) whose clients included both Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus.

 

[warpus]

Yeah true, "speculative fiction" contains more than just fantasy and sci-fi.

 

[Evie]

True. But the fundamental question of fantasy does remain "What if?" - as it is for all of spec fiction. The distinction between those genres isn't the question itself ; it's the theme of the question being asked.

If the What if deals with a supernatural matter, then it's fantasy/fantastic (the two are somewhat different in that fantasy takes a more positive light on the supernatural and fantastic a more negative one)

If it deals with a technological or scientific matter, then it's sci-fi.

If it deals with a historical matter, then it's althistory.

If it deals with the apocalypse, then it's apocalyptic/post-apocalyptic.

But the question, ultimately, remain the same, and remain the core question of fantasy.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Well, of course you can throw "this would be fun" elements. The point isn't that everything must radiate from a single change, but that there must be a core, central theme at the heart of the fantasy world, which explains a great deal of the worldbuilding.

And I didn't say those books would be bad if you didn't have a core theme for your world. I said they'd be fantasy for the sake of being fantasy. It's possible to have an amazing plot and wonderful characters within that context. In some cases, it's well served by the fantasy tropes. In other cases, there is a tension between the plot and the fantasy aspects (see, again, GoT) that doesn't necessarily serve the story.

Okay thanks for the clarification. Though I find it difficult to draw a line between "no theme / fantasy for the sake of it" and "just a lot of themes"