Heroic Fantasy vs Epic Fantasy

[Brian G Turner]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The Kane series by Karl Edward Wagner

 

[Brian G Turner]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Game of Thrones , definitely epic in scale.