You’ve probably hit the nail on the head with why I’ve had problems accepting “Urban Fantasy” as a real genre and not just a marketing ploy.
I took the definition and title of “low fantasy” from research on wikipedia, so I’m certainly on shaky grounds in terms of my own knowledge. My understanding is that the “low” refers only to the fact that the proportion of fantasy elements are low: the world is predominantly the world we know, but with a little bit of magic added. I certainly mean no disrespect when I use the term, and would be open to a more flattering term if one could be suggested that sums up the idea nicely.
There certainly seems to be an established academic acceptance of high fantasy with the three classifications I noted, and I have some sympathy with the idea of there being four basic reality constructs:
Completely new world with no relation to ours.
Our world exists, but there are portals to other worlds with fantasy elements.
Wainscot or world within a world - where our world is as we understand it, but with a hidden sub-culture that has fantasy elements.
What I’ve shown as low fantasy, which is some fantasy elements introduced into our world.
From what I can gather from wikipedia and your descriptions I’d say:
Lord of the Rings is category 1 (although I understand that Tolkien himself passionately disagreed with that idea, saying that it was set on Earth, just a long time ago).
Dresden Files and Arthurian Legend sound like category 4.
Harry Potter is category 3.
True Blood is Supernatural rather than any of the 4 identified fantasy elements.
I’m not beyond ignoring known names of genres if they don’t fit the Reality / Emotion / Story construct, nor inventing new ones if there is a clear need, although if there are known marketing tropes, then it’s useful to understand them to be able to point to where they would fall within the map.
The best alternative I’ve found to calling it “low fantasy” is the French term “Le Fantastique”, which certainly seems to apply to the same basic reality, but (as you might expect) it tends to be written in French.
I certainly found plenty of references to ‘low fantasy’ in my research though.
Sorry if I sounded (looked?) defensive; I haven’t studied fantasy academically, but have discussed it plenty in fan communities, so it’s likely that past uses of the term “low fantasy” in a derogatory tone have colored my perception of the label.
I think I’m looking at your map from the wrong perspective; as a map of the genres as they are referenced by readers and, to a lesser extent by book sellers & publishers. Since that doesn’t seem to be the case (I know, I’m slow sometimes), I think I need to sit back and let the discussion continue without providing more unhelpful and uninformed tangents.
But… I do have a quibble about your categorization of True Blood vs Dresden Files. They share a huge swath of fantasy tropes. Magic wielders (witches/wizards), supernatural beings (vampires, werewolves, fairies…), portals to adjacent worlds (the land of fairy), etc., etc… The only major distinctions I can think of to separate them are tone and writing style. Wouldn’t “supernatural” as a category be reserved for stories that hew closer to our reality as perceived by people who believe in seances and hauntings, clairvoyance and precognition, possession by (non-corporeal) demons… ?
Not at all - please continue to discuss. I’d also be interested in reading your YA thoughts at some point!
What I’m trying to do is come up with a new classification that works, albeit with a strong preference to making existing labels work within it if at all possible.
The ‘side-effects’ of this new system will be (I hope):
Have a way of talking about books, films and other stories that makes sense rather than the current misaligned concept of genre (as discussed briefly in my first post)
Highlighting unusual pairings (i.e. ‘gaps’) that might make for an interesting new take on a favoured slant (discover the next ‘paranormal romance’, if you like)
To help remove some of the stigmas attached to certain genres by highlighting that they are simply another colour on the wheel, by showing how closely related they can be. For example, a lover of Raymond Chandler detective stories (R1Contemporary E1Intrigue S1.2Whodunnit) might move just one step to discover Robert B. Parker’s Spenser series(R1Contemporary E3.4Humor/Black S1.2Whodunnit) or just as easily pick up something from the Dresden Files (R2.6.1UrbanFantasy E1Intrigue S1.2Whodunnit).
So, as far as possible I’d like to map the current understanding of genres, but put them within the more rigid construct of the three questions. If I have to exclude something because it’s not clearly defined or is actually a combination of more than 1 question then… (a) I’m okay to do that, but (b) would also like to note it on the map as either a footnote or as a established pairing of two questions.
In other words, if something is missing then tell me. If something is in the wrong place, tell me. If you can think of a way to break down categories further (as I discussed with arousal and romance earlier), even if such a break down doesn’t formally exist, then add that to the mix too.
But, mostly what I’m trying to do is make a cool concept map that I can share here!
I should perhaps say, that I apologise if I defend the diagram a little too hard. It may not look like much, but it actually took quite some time to pull together and organise the ‘starting’ diagram in the first post.
