# Heroic Fantasy vs Epic Fantasy



## Brian G Turner (Jan 21, 2014)

I've seen the terms Heroic Fantasy and Epic Fantasy bandied about and presumed they are distinctive subgenres of fantasy.

However, I'm beginning to think perhaps these are more closely related than I presumed - not simply overlapping at the edges, but in fact interchangeable.

Reading David Gemmell's Rigante series, I'm struck by how this might normally be classed as Epic Fantasy - yet the book cover clearly proclaims it as Heroic Fantasy.

Reading the Wikipedia entry for both, authors such as George R R Martin, Robert Jordan, and Joe Abercrombie are featured as examples of each.

Is there really a distinction between Heroic and Epic Fantasy? Is it simply a matter of scope? If so, why might authors such as GRRM and Jordan be classed as examples of both?


----------



## Ice fyre (Jan 21, 2014)

I would have thought that Heroic Fantasy is lead by a more personal story view. Whereas perhaps the Epic is more orientated towards the story of a wider view point.

G R R Martin is telling the story of whole group of people, involving a whole world, hence to me it would be Epic rather than Heroic.

Conan on the other hand is about ...well ...Conan, it follows his exploits and misadventures, to me thats Heroic.

Epic's style is also perhaps a bit closer to historical record of a particular world and set of events therein.  

To be fair I do think there are a lot of labels set up by publishers to pigeon hole writers and I think Heroic can interchange with Epic easily. 

One could argue that the Wheel of time series is Heroic and Epic, it being largley Rand Al Thor's story (but not exculsivley) but also follows the events of the planet and its inhabitants. 

Just a thought


----------



## james lecky (Jan 21, 2014)

It's all semantics and perspective, I suppose (or that eternal thing of marketing and classification). I've seen Gemmell's work described as sword and sorcery from time to time - mostly by fans of s&s eager to bring him into the fold as an example of the genre's survival - and Glen Cook, Joe Abercrombie and Steven Erickson have been claimed by the s&s market as well.

But then, all those writers could be equally described as writing heroic fantasy (oddly enough one of the terms that Michael Moorcock once suggested to label sword and sorcery).

I suppose Epic vs Heroic could be defined by as simple a matter as scale and focus. Lord of the Rings is undoubtedly an Epic whereas something like Joe Abercrombie's The Heroes is much more focused in its narrative scope (yet the wider implications of the story and its impact upon its fictional world could be said to be epic).

To my mind, stories that focus on 'the warrior hero' as their primary narrative thread become, by dint of this, Heroic Fantasy. Epic, on the other hand, has a much looser feel and the viewpoint characters don't necessarily have to be of the weapon wielding variety.

That having been said, of course, this is only my own very poorly thought through version of things and there are countless examples to the contrary - something like Peter Brett's Demon Cycle has an Heroic feel yet the 'warrior' characters are only part of a wider narrative.

Ultimately, of course, other than as a marketing tool, such labels are fairly unimportant. To misquote both Descartes and Popeye: "I likes what I likes."


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 8, 2014)

Ice fyre said:


> Heroic Fantasy is lead by a more personal story view. Whereas perhaps the Epic is more orientated towards the story of a wider view point.



I can accept that.

Sometimes I think David Gemmell would have dominated fantasy, if he'd only written a series that followed a group of different characters in close chronology.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Jun 8, 2014)

I said:


> I've seen the terms Heroic Fantasy and Epic Fantasy bandied about and presumed they are distinctive subgenres of fantasy.
> 
> However, I'm beginning to think perhaps these are more closely related than I presumed - not simply overlapping at the edges, but in fact interchangeable.
> 
> ...



Lots of overlap, but some subtle distinctions. Heroic fantasy is, in my understanding, defined by the positioning of the protagonist relative to what's at stake. Speaking of Gemmell, *Legend* is an archetype of heroic fantasy. *The Black Company*, which shares a lot of ground with *Legend*, is nevertheless not heroic fantasy--it's antiheroic. 

Epic fantasy, by contrast, has a narrow definition* (fantasy that is epic in scale) and a broader usage (fantasy that doesn't take place in our world or at this time). Either way, epic fantasy can be heroic (e.g. *LOTR*) or not (*First Law Trilogy*, which is antiheroic). Same with sword & sorcery. 

Of course, there's a lot of fluidity in usage, so not everyone means the same thing when they use these or other categories. 


*The narrow definition of epic fantasy is supposed to contrast with sword & sorcery.


----------



## Connavar (Jun 27, 2014)

I said:


> I can accept that.
> 
> Sometimes I think David Gemmell would have dominated fantasy, if he'd only written a series that followed a group of different characters in close chronology.



But for his fans he is the king of heroic fantasy because he wrote many awesome fantasy books with the single hero, personal view stories.  The loss of Connavar,Jon Shannow, Waylander, Druss etc is unthinkable to Heroic fantasy fans like me.

I dont like Epic often simply because most of Epic writers are not good enough storyteller to make it easy to follow a group of different characters, many different POVs.


Gemmell being a contemorary Robert E. Howard was needed more when there are tons of generic epic fantasy series writers like GRRM,Jordan, Erikson etc


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 8, 2014)

I wonder that Robert E .  Howard would thought of  the  whole  Epic fantasy genre/sub genre  and works of writers like , Tolkien, Martin Erikson, Jordon and Moorcock.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Sep 8, 2014)

There is so much overlap, I'd say there are more books that could be as easily classified as either one than those that fit into only one of the two "sub-genres."  Even when a story concentrates more on a specific hero's journey, the journey itself is often an epic one.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 4, 2014)

Ice fyre said:


> I would have thought that Heroic Fantasy is lead by a more personal story view. Whereas perhaps the Epic is more orientated towards the story of a wider view point.
> 
> G R R Martin is telling the story of whole group of people, involving a whole world, hence to me it would be Epic rather than Heroic.



I was thinking about this recently, and come to - currently - think that for a story to be considered "epic" it must have multiple POV protagonists. 

That means more than one main character whose journey we follow - through more than one volume - rather than a single main character with a couple of supporting POV characters who get a scene or two.

That's why David Gemmell wrote "heroic" rather than "epic" fantasy, even though he does use multiple POV characters at times - in each instance it's simply to add context to the main character and plot, rather than because the personal development of these additional characters is essential to the plot.

I would also suggest a minimum of 4 or 5 protagonists required for a series to be "epic" to filter out books that would otherwise technically qualify simply by having protag, protag's love interest, and protag's best friend/rival POV stories - which all ensure the story remains focused on the main character. 

Such a definition immediately shrinks the field of potential "epic fantasy" works, and looking at my bookshelves this would include:

Wheel of Time - Robert Jordan
A Song of Fire and Ice - George R R Martin
First Law trilogy - Joe Abercrombie
Deverry series - Katherine Kerr
Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien
Malazan series - Steven Erikson

A requirement for the story to cover multiple books may or may not be applicable - _War and Peace_ is undoubtedly epic, but all events occur within a single HUGE book. Additionally, Ken Follet's _World Without End_ is a single volume - again, a large one - but arguably epic through different POV use over a long period of time.

In which case, a definition based on multiple books may be irrelevant when word count can vary wildly between different standalone "novels".

Just thinking aloud here.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Dec 4, 2014)

I often struggle with sub-genres. 

Whilst I'm not too taken with splitting sub-genre hairs, it's probably worth thinking about to try and categorise books so readers have the best chance of finding what they're likeliest to enjoy.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 6, 2014)

I forgot to add:

Dragonlance Chronicles by Weiss and Hickman to the list.

I believe The Belgariad of David Eddings would also be eligible under the multiple POV character requirement.

Would any of Fiest's books also qualify?


----------



## Michael Colton (Dec 6, 2014)

Take my comment with a significant grain of salt since I am far less well-read with fantasy, but it seems to me that this is one of those subgenre distinctions that should rightly overlap. I was always under the impression that heroic fantasy designated a specific thematic element and epic described a particular style and structure. One can easily imagine how those two can occur at the same time.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 7, 2014)

The Kane series by Karl Edward Wagner


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 6, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> I was thinking about this recently, and come to - currently - think that for a story to be considered "epic" it must have multiple POV protagonists.
> 
> That means more than one main character whose journey we follow - through more than one volume - rather than a single main character with a couple of supporting POV characters who get a scene or two.



I'm still sticking to this definition, because unless there are multiple protagonists then the story is simply about the journey of one person, and those who aid them. 

And it is the multiple protagonists that give us the accepted features of epic fantasy - different landscapes and places, multiple story threads, and multiple books to resolve them.

Does anyone have an argument against this definition? I'm genuinely curious, not least because genres can be difficult to pin down.


----------



## Jo Zebedee (Apr 6, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> I'm still sticking to this definition, because unless there are multiple protagonists then the story is simply about the journey of one person, and those who aid them.
> 
> And it is the multiple protagonists that give us the accepted features of epic fantasy - different landscapes and places, multiple story threads, and multiple books to resolve them.
> 
> Does anyone have an argument against this definition? I'm genuinely curious, not least because genres can be difficult to pin down.




But that could be any epic. Space opera fits this definition. Great sweeping stories like North and South do, too. It's not a definition of epic fantasy and doesn't pin it down...


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 6, 2015)

Indeed, it's a definition of "epic". In which case, the vagaries come with trying to define fantasy. 

But can fantasy be epic without multiple protagonists?


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Apr 6, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> But can fantasy be epic without multiple protagonists?


Maybe. Some _Waylander _books?  Donaldson's "_Chronicles_ series"?
But is it important to tie down these definitions when sometimes people don't even agree with the Author as  to Genre, never mind each other? (SF, F or whatever)


----------



## Jo Zebedee (Apr 6, 2015)

Also, isn't Name of the Wind epic fantasy? I'd certainly put it as so. And there's only room for one protagonist in the Kvothe show.  

I think it's more to do with the depth of the world rather than the number of characters.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 6, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> Indeed, it's a definition of "epic". In which case, the vagaries come with trying to define fantasy.
> 
> But can fantasy be epic without multiple protagonists?




When I think epic fantasy , I think cast of thousands.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 18, 2015)

Game of Thrones , definitely epic in scale.


----------



## MWagner (May 5, 2015)

Jo Zebedee said:


> Also, isn't Name of the Wind epic fantasy? I'd certainly put it as so. And there's only room for one protagonist in the Kvothe show.



If Name of the Wind - the story of one guy going to magician college - is epic, then I'm having a tough time thinking of fantasy that _doesn't_ qualify as epic.


----------



## Jo Zebedee (May 5, 2015)

MWagner said:


> If Name of the Wind - the story of one guy going to magician college - is epic, then I'm having a tough time thinking of fantasy that _doesn't_ qualify as epic.



How is it not epic? Sure, he goes to magician college. He also travels a wider world in a trope, goes to a far-flung kingdom, visits a distant warrior people, visits a related, close faerie land.... Throughout there are indications of a wide world. At least five cities are visited to date (in detail), four cultures viewed (with more intimated), a wider ranging political arena alluded to. Just because it's one point of view, mostly, with a central viewpoint, does this preclude epic?


----------



## MWagner (May 5, 2015)

Sure, but you can say the same for most fantasy.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 5, 2015)

Jo Zebedee said:


> Just because it's one point of view, mostly, with a central viewpoint, does this preclude epic?



I would suggest so - the story of someone who travels a lot is usually a travelogue. Only through multiple protagonists can we really see that world for what it is. And the length of a journey is perhaps less important than the struggle to complete it, so any definition of "epic" would end up fuzzy.

I'm just thinking aloud on a way to define the subgenre - most stories considered epic qualify, but there are more modern ones that are described as "epic" by their publishers, but in structure may be much closer to YA fiction.


----------



## MWagner (May 5, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> I'm just thinking aloud on a way to define the subgenre - most stories considered epic qualify, but there are more modern ones that are described as "epic" by their publishers, but in structure may be much closer to YA fiction.



In marketing terms, it seems 'epic' is attached to any book that has a lot of pages or is part of a series.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 5, 2015)

MWagner said:


> In marketing terms, it seems 'epic' is attached to any book that has a lot of pages or is part of a series.



And the name "George R R Martin" is sneaked in everywhere...


----------



## MWagner (May 5, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> And the name "George R R Martin" is sneaked in everywhere...



_The pottery stalls at the Greenhamm Market have suffered under the neglect and mismanagement of Snarkfell for over a decade. Now, Gladfan, prophesied to be the greatest potter since the his father shaped the great Urn of the Shaper, must restore his family honour in the market. It will take all Gladfan's glazing skills, and sharp-eyed tracking of his ledgers, to seize and hold the coveted corner stall at Greenhamm. 

- An epic fantasy in the vein of A Song of Ice and Fire - LOCUST MAGAZINE

- George RR Martin's legions of fans should run, not walk, to get their hands on this mind-shattering epic. - FANTIME_


----------



## Overread (May 5, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> I'm just thinking aloud on a way to define the subgenre - most stories considered epic qualify, but there are more modern ones that are described as "epic" by their publishers, but in structure may be much closer to YA fiction.



I think the key is that writing is not singular. You get a few, and they are typically a few, books/series which fit a sub-genre perfectly. Sometimes they are even the ones that start a specific sub-genre off or promote it into more active use. 

The thing is most books are not singular; they straddle multiple sub-genres at the same time. Heck some even straddle genres themselves (Pern would, in my view, straddle both Sci-fi and Fantasy - since its got a sci-fi base but many of the stories take place in what most would consider a very fantasy setting). 

Epic to heroic as I would define them is:
Heroic - focuses upon a singular hero or very small group of heroes. Typically told from a single viewpoint or narration primarily following the single hero/group. It would be a good book length, but nothing too extreme and a really classic  example might have each adventure fitting into a single book (rather than a long series - though there might be overarching story lines). 
DnD type adventures stories would oft class as heroic - but then again many would also class them as very DnD like. 

Epic- typically multiple points of view and might not even have a single "leading" character. It would also expect to be long in terms of pages and expected, but not required, to use more extensive description and scene setting


I think its easy to get too bogged down in the specifics and a lot of the time many personal opinions can sometimes (overtly or subconsciously) be a case of having a sub-genre a person likes and thus trying to promote as many books into that sub-genre as they can (whilst sometimes at the same time excluding those they dislike). 
Publishers have their own ideas, but its my view they will use the terms in a very loose manner - typically whatever is "Hot" selling will be promoted through their choices, but also get the label slapped on it too. As we see today with GRRM promoting EPIC fantasy we will see more epic tales and some that we could argue are not quite "epic" getting the title from the publishers. 


I'd also argue that most people only pay a light interest in sub-genres. Mostly they use it just to find similar works; its a filter - a simple way to casually filter the vast number of published books into something more manageable and similar. I say rough because one epic tale to another can be vastly different.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 17, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> And the name "George R R Martin" is sneaked in everywhere...



Because he's everywhere , books and and a popular ongoing tv series . Epic fantasy sop opera


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 19, 2015)

So...so far I only have the following authors as writing truly epic fantasy with multiple protagonist POVs:

George R R Martin
Robert Jordan
Katherine Kerr
Raymond E Feist
David Eddings
Steven Erikson
Joe Abercrombie
Weiss & Hickman
Robin Hobb
Brandon Sanderson possibly as well - Mistborn wasn't, but Way of Kings may be.


----------



## HareBrain (May 19, 2015)

I haven't read her, but doesn't Janny Wurts qualify?


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 19, 2015)

I'm afraid I'm yet not familiar with her writing.


----------



## HareBrain (May 19, 2015)

Ah, I thought that was a list you'd gathered from various sources; I didn't realise it was just your personal reading. (I thought it was a bit short!)

Others here have recommended Wurts, and her main series sounded the kind of thing I might enjoy, but I couldn't get into the first book.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 19, 2015)

James Stoddard   * The High House* and its Sequel *The False House    *Excellent stuff.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 19, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> James Stoddard   * The High House* and its Sequel *The False House    *Excellent stuff.



They don't have multiple protagonists in them, though, do they?


----------



## millymollymo (May 19, 2015)

Melanie Rawn's Sun Runner/Dragon Prince series - multiple character POV involving magic, dragons, and quests. They will also would serve as excellent door stops. (Not that mine do.)  
Kate Elliott's Cross Roads ( and quite likely all her others) are 'map at the beginning' quest driven, spider squishing heavy, Multi-pov. 

It's been a while since I looked at L. E Modesitt - but size wise his work fits the bill.


----------



## MWagner (May 19, 2015)

I'd suggest that to qualify as an epic, a book needs at least two of the following qualities:

Large cast of POV characters.
Takes place over a long period of time - many years, or even generations.
Lots and lots of pages.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 23, 2015)

Looks like I'll have to add John Gwynne's _The Faithful and the Fallen_ trilogy to the epic list.


----------



## Mad Alice (Jun 25, 2015)

My favorite quest books are the David Eddings Belgarath the sorceror series.
Definately Sword and Sorcery. Its right on the box.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 20, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> So...so far I only have the following authors as writing truly epic fantasy with multiple protagonist POVs:
> 
> George R R Martin
> Robert Jordan
> ...



Most fantasy stories with multiple POV characters are focused on a single protagonist. Additional POVs are provided by their love interest, best friend, antagonist, and mentor. In other words, the other POV characters exist only by their relationship to that protagonist. 

Most of the fantasy novels with multiple POVs that I've read over the past few years fall into that pattern. And I cannot count one man's story as "epic". 

I'm removing Feist, Kerr, Hobb, and Sanderson from the list because their characters fall into that pattern - certainly in the books I've read. Jordan wrote _Eye of the World_ in the same manner, though I'd have to read more in the series to see if he qualifies (I've been presuming so far that the story isn't always focused on Rand and everyone defined by their relationship to him). Eddings is still a hole in my reading list, but I struggle to find the enthusiasm to add it.

I'm struggling to get through Gwynne's _Malice_, but like Jordan, that seems focused in the main on a single heroic character in the form of Corban.

That means the only authors I've read who have written multiple independent protagonists from the first book in a series are:

George R R Martin
Steven Erikson
Joe Abercrombie
Weiss & Hickman

I'm struggling to find more.


----------



## MWagner (Jan 20, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> I'm struggling to get through Gwynne's _Malice_, but like Jordan, that seems focused in the main on a single heroic character in the form of Corban.



I had it in my hands at the book store this weekend. How is it?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 20, 2016)

MWagner said:


> I had it in my hands at the book store this weekend. How is it?



There are a couple of threads on it here:
John Gwynne - The Faithful and the Fallen series
John Gwynne, Malice, may contain spoilers


----------



## aThenian (Jan 20, 2016)

My feeling is:

Epic - ambitious in scope, we're talking armies rather than warriors
Heroic - mainly one or two person clumping others with sword (or similar)

LOTR - maybe would be heroic if it was more focussed on Aragorn, or if Sam and Frodo were better fighters?

I can see it meets your criteria but for some reason the Belgariad doesn't feel like an epic to me.  Maybe because it often has a kind of homely style?  

I'd agree that an epic would be written in multiple POV.


----------



## Wraith01 (May 23, 2016)

To me the distinction has always been clear:

Heroic Fantasy - deals with the main protagonist on an quest/adventure of some sort (world altering or not) like: "The Hobbit"
Epic Fantasy - deals with the struggles of many protagonist, in different places, on a potentially world changing/ending scenario: "Lord of the Rings"

So it would be a combination of point of view, what is at stake and scope. 
But even though epic fantasy tends to run through multiple books it isn't a requirement ("Lord of the Rings" was intended as one book) and heroic fantasy isn't limited to one and done, it can be serialized or continued (again like "Lord of the Rings" is a sequel to "The Hobbit").

(It should be considered a given that these events must take place in a High Fantasy setting.)


----------



## BAYLOR (May 23, 2016)

Wraith01 said:


> To me the distinction has always been clear:
> 
> Heroic Fantasy - deals with the main protagonist on an quest/adventure of some sort (world altering or not) like: "The Hobbit"
> Epic Fantasy - deals with the struggles of many protagonist, in different places, on a potentially world changing/ending scenario: "Lord of the Rings"
> ...




How would you categorize  a books like 

* Islandia *by Austin Tappen Wright 

*The Book of the Three Dragons * by  Kenneth Morris  

*Vathek* by William Beckford


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 23, 2016)

Wraith01 said:


> To me the distinction has always been clear:



I quite agree - and welcome to the chrons forums.


----------



## Wraith01 (May 24, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> How would you categorize  a books like
> 
> * Islandia *by Austin Tappen Wright
> 
> ...



I had never heard of them, much less read them. 
After a quick google search they seam interesting, yet don't seam to fall in either Epic Fantasy nor Heroic Fantasy.
I'll add them to my bucket list.


----------



## Wraith01 (May 24, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> I quite agree - and welcome to the chrons forums.



Thanks.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 14, 2019)

Brian G Turner said:


> Is there really a distinction between Heroic and Epic Fantasy? Is it simply a matter of scope?



Just coming back to this, and the OED apparently defines "epic"  as "grand in scale or lengthy and arduous".

Presumably they mean for the characters, not reader.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 14, 2019)

And to add something else: perhaps epic simply means dealing with big topics of human existence: war and mortality, and survival and adventure.

That's what my OU book on Homer's _Iliad _and _Odyssey _says anyway - but also points out that our modern definition of "epic" probably comes from them.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 14, 2019)

And another thing it mentions - "heroic" can mean denoting admirably courage, outstanding achievements, and worthy of emulation. Does that really apply to Gemmell's main characters, especially when they all tend to be flawed and morally grey?

Is it possible that being inherently good or bad is irrelevant as to whether someone is a "hero" or not, and that it actually implies someone able to act in ways that are somehow supernatural?


----------



## Elckerlyc (Sep 14, 2019)

Brian G Turner said:


> Is it possible that being inherently good or bad is irrelevant as to whether someone is a "hero" or not, and that it actually implies someone able to act in ways that are somehow supernatural?


If there is something as being inherently good or bad, neither of these 2 states (natural or nurtured) means someone is more likely or able to act heroically. I think a heroic act stems more from the occasion, the need for a heroic (more likely, desperate) action and the mentally condition at that particular time of the hero to be. But I believe people are grey, in the sense that no one is either good or bad. A heroic soldier beats his children at home. A coward runs into a burning house because is love is inside. The criminal takes care of his demented mother.
What makes a hero? Circumstances.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 14, 2019)

Elckerlyc said:


> If there is something as being inherently good or bad, neither of these 2 states (natural or nurtured) means someone is more likely or able to act heroically. I think a heroic act stems more from the occasion, the need for a heroic (more likely, desperate) action and the mentally condition at that particular time of the hero to be. But I believe people are grey, in the sense that no one is either good or bad. A heroic soldier beats his children at home. A coward runs into a burning house because is love is inside. The criminal takes care of his demented mother.
> What makes a hero? Circumstances.



The accidental hero.


----------



## Vince W (Sep 14, 2019)

Brian G Turner said:


> Just coming back to this, and the OED apparently defines "epic"  as "grand in scale or lengthy and arduous".
> 
> Presumably they mean for the characters, not reader.


Don't be so sure.


----------



## Overread (Sep 15, 2019)

One thing that might muddy the waters is that a Heroic fantasy story might evolve into an Epic saga. The individual heroic adventures of a character like Conan might be considered an epic saga of adventures when viewed as a complete body of work. Other stories might evolve as the writers skill and direction changes. What might begin life as a few characters could evolve into a huge roster. 

Though I think at their core these are simple terms that often don't tie themselves to very specific situations. Generalist concepts that work well within the highly varied creative world that is writing. Much like how we can all talk about elves and dwarves even though each individual story might have very different interpretations of them.


----------



## Toby Frost (Sep 16, 2019)

I would argue that "heroic" relates to the tone of the story, while "epic" relates to its scope, so they could overlap completely, not at all or anywhere in between. Which probably doesn't make them very precise categories in which to market a novel.


----------



## The Big Peat (Sep 16, 2019)

To me, Epic Fantasy is an easily recognisable sub-genre, and Heroic Fantasy is basically David Gemmell and nobody else.



Brian G Turner said:


> And another thing it mentions - "heroic" can mean denoting admirably courage, outstanding achievements, and worthy of emulation. Does that really apply to Gemmell's main characters, especially when they all tend to be flawed and morally grey?
> 
> Is it possible that being inherently good or bad is irrelevant as to whether someone is a "hero" or not, and that it actually implies someone able to act in ways that are somehow supernatural?



It more than applies to Gemmell's characters. To echo another post - we're all flawed, even the best of us, and heroism is about being able to transcend those flaws for a moment to do something great and courageous. To make those achievements you talk about. There's no heroism inside one's comfort zone.


----------



## Triceratops (Sep 16, 2019)

Okay, I get the distinction. Something similar: I believe portal fantasy is a genre by itself. That is where our present contemporary world enters or slips into an alternate world/universe--The Bridge to Terabithia, Stardust, Alice Through the Looking Glass, Narnia etc,. All of these have gates, doorways an egress, a portal into a foreign, unknown fantasy world. Not to be confused with Urban, which I think is the opposite--a strange world or different beings or entities invade our present day modern world. Portal is also called "low" fantasy. But I digress, the terms are also bandied about and I think "urban" pretty much hogs the spotlight or is the catchall.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 16, 2019)

For me Heroic fantasy  conjurs up  Conan the Barbarian, Kull of Valusia , Bran Mak Morn  Red Sonia , Jirel of Joiry, Morgan Frost Hair  ,Kane the Mystic Swordsman ,  Fafherd and the Grey Mouser, Elak of Atlantis , The Eternal Champion, Felix and Gotrek. ect.


----------



## Toby Frost (Sep 16, 2019)

Me too, pretty much. Definitely Conan and Fafhrd.


----------



## Vince W (Sep 16, 2019)

I'm not sure heroic fantasy is the exact right term. Conan, Fafhrd, Bran, et. al. they did things that could be considered heroic in the broadest sense, but these characters motives were pretty much selfish. Heroic makes me think of selfless acts. Burglary, theft, piracy, and brigandage are hardly selfless acts.


----------



## The Big Peat (Sep 16, 2019)

What Vince said. Plus, BAYLOR's list is pretty much straight up classic Sword n' Sorcery. Is Heroic Fantasy just an extension of Sword n'Sorcery? I guess maybe for some. For me, again working on the distinction that Heroic Fantasy is Gemmell and pretty much nobody else, there's a lot of similarities but I think a big crucial difference if the Heroic Fantasy is always standing in defence of something. He doesn't go out there looking for trouble.

Also, Heroic Fantasy has a decent amount of Epic Fantasy in its DNA.


----------



## Triceratops (Sep 16, 2019)

I agree too. Especially Conan. Could that be likened to "The Chosen One" type of single hero story-line?  a single benefactor? Epic conjures up a full class population of opposing warriors and with distant lands and multiple kingdoms. I've never written either. They seem so difficult to craft with accuracy and detail of the time period.


----------



## EdLincoln (Sep 23, 2019)

Epic Fantasy is about larger then life events.  Heroic Fantasy is about larger then life people.  

I agree with Ms. Edgerton there are more books that fall in both categories then fall in just one.  In theory a book about Big Events that focused onnly on small people would be Epic without being heroic.  A story about a great hero fighting bandits could be heroic without being Epic.


----------



## Triceratops (Sep 24, 2019)

This almost reminds me of the fine-line distinction between Portal (low) fantasy and urban fantasy. There is a difference, but everything in that genre type seems to be lumped in urban and recognized as such.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 24, 2019)

EdLincoln said:


> Epic Fantasy is about larger then life events. Heroic Fantasy is about larger then life people.



I like that - succinct and to the point.


----------



## Triceratops (Sep 24, 2019)

I like that definition too--easy to grasp. I've also heard "Road Fantasy." How does that apply and to which genre do you think?


----------



## EdLincoln (Sep 24, 2019)

Triceratops said:


> This almost reminds me of the fine-line distinction between Portal (low) fantasy and urban fantasy. There is a difference, but everything in that genre type seems to be lumped in urban and recognized as such.



I haven't seen them being lumped together at all. Portal Fantasy is set in a secondary world and thus typically more like High Fantasy. 

Also never heard the term "Road Fantasy".


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 7, 2019)

Brian G Turner said:


> I can accept that.
> 
> Sometimes I think David Gemmell would have dominated fantasy, if he'd only written a series that followed a group of different characters in close chronology.



David Gemmel  Dominating fantasy ? Yes , he would have , he was an excellent writer.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 7, 2019)

Triceratops said:


> I like that definition too--easy to grasp. I've also heard "Road Fantasy." How does that apply and to which genre do you think?



You might want to check out The Kane the Mystic Swordsman saga by Karl Edward Wagner.  It's grim , gothic and wonderful stuff.


----------



## ryubysss (Nov 14, 2019)

Triceratops said:


> This almost reminds me of the fine-line distinction between Portal (low) fantasy and urban fantasy. There is a difference, but everything in that genre type seems to be lumped in urban and recognized as such.


portal fantasy means characters from our world travel to a secondary world (or secondary worlds).

low fantasy _originally_ meant fantasy that takes place in our world and has a certain irreverent tone. semantic drift has set in, though, and it now gets taken to mean something else. but I much prefer the original definition. but people just don't understand subtlety.









						SF Encyclopedia Editorial Home
					

Welcome to the third edition of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction.




					sf-encyclopedia.uk
				




urban fantasy.. I won't get into that. too depressing.


----------



## Narkalui (Nov 23, 2019)

ryubysss said:


> portal fantasy means characters from our world travel to a secondary world (or secondary worlds).



For a reason I have now forgotten, I thought this was called "Fish Out Of Water Fantasy"


----------



## ryubysss (Nov 26, 2019)

I've heard "fish out of water fantasy" before. "portal fantasy" as a descriptor, which Farah Mendlesohn coined, originated in the last ten years or so.


----------



## Guttersnipe (Jan 8, 2020)

Heroic: Harry Potter series.
Epic: The Worm Ouroboros.


----------



## Triceratops (Jan 8, 2020)

Yes, "Fish out of water" fantasy is an apt term. We are not in our reality. Could very well be time-travel too, I would think.


----------

