What is Cardiel?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

Well, see, I figured since we're talking GURPS, then we should use GURPS's definitions for things (or be very explicit about the definitions you are using instead) ... and GURPS has a published definition for Low Fantasy (that a number of people appear to disagree with, but, eh, it is what it is).

Low fantasy may have a definition offered in a GURPS book, but it's really not GURPS terminology.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

Well, see, I figured since we're talking GURPS, then we should use GURPS's definitions for things (or be very explicit about the definitions you are using instead) ... and GURPS has a published definition for Low Fantasy (that a number of people appear to disagree with, but, eh, it is what it is).

I like Bill's genre definitions! It's just that they don't seem broadly applicable to other media or even other games. For example Kromm has taken people somewhat to task for using "dungeon fantasy" as a broad generic label rather than the specific title of GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, but Bill coined the label in GURPS Fantasy, AFIACT. Furthermore, using Bill's labels outside of this forum without defining them is counter-productive as it's unlikely that the average fantasy reader has read GURPS Fantasy.

I'd like to see Bill's labels become the critical standards, but I don't think that's very likely. As it is I just avoid "high" and "low" fantasy, since they are used frequently in at least three different contradictory ways. Using these terms seems to only create confusion.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Parts of the wikipedia entry make the definition hinge entirely on whether the story is set in the "primary" world or a "secondary" world, where "primary" either means exclusively the real world, or possibly "a rational and familiar fictional world", in a remarkable save against actually drawing any useful distinction.

I've never understood the secondary world thing. Some people (authors and GMs) do worldbuilding. Others do not. It makes no sense to me to talk about a primary or secondary world.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

It really seems a remarkably poor article.

Too much Citation Needed, sometimes, in Wikipedia. And refusal to use web sources. Often that's good, but sometimes it's instead extremely harmful.

I remember that the article on one of my favourite novels, "Isle of Glass" by Tarr, stated that it contained "elements of historical fiction".

No it doesn't! It's historical fantasy! An apt and almost completely undisputed subgenre name exists. But they didn't use it. And probably still don't. Often TvTropes is more useful. I like having both, but sometimes Wikipedia articles are written by people who don't fully understand the subject. (And science articles about subjects I know very little about are completley incomprehensible - which I believe is a different issue.)

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Low fantasy may have a definition offered in a GURPS book, but it's really not GURPS terminology.

I tend to agree with him. In a discussion of GURPS-based worlds, it makes some sense to use GURPS' definitions, unless one actively rejects them as useless or even harmful. You won't see me talk about "realistic characters" or a "realistic campaign", because the traditional way in which GURPS uses those terms does a lot more harm than good. I have my own definitions (not nailed down in a blog entry yet), which are or will be useful tools, rather than weapons of oppression.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by whswhs

"Historical fantasy" tends to be used for fantasy that is set in the historical past of earth, or in things that are close to it, such as the alternate timeline of The Dragon Waiting. Fantasy set in the historical present of earth is called "urban fantasy" or "modern fantasy." There is even a small genre of fantasy set in the more or less sfnal future—see for example Melissa Scott's Silence Leigh trilogy, which is, by my definition, pretty high fantasy, but is also sf.

Shadowrun's world is also an example of fantasy set in the future. As for "urban fantasy" I'm aware of the term, but I don't use it, because I don't believe it is well defined.

"Modern fantasy" makes some sense, as a time period and world desginator, but it can also be interpreted differently. For instance one could take off from the statement that LOTR was written by a man born in the 19th century but who lived mentally in the 18th (if not 17th!) century, and then claim that "modern fantasy" is fantasy that differs from Tolkien in that it is written by someone of a modern mindset, e.g. China Mieville.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

"Modern fantasy" makes some sense, as a time period and world desginator, but it can also be interpreted differently. For instance one could take off from the statement that LOTR was written by a man born in the 19th century but who lived mentally in the 18th (if not 17th!) century, and then claim that "modern fantasy" is fantasy that differs from Tolkien in that it is written by someone of a modern mindset, e.g. China Mieville.

If you are using Art History terms wouldn't Meiville be Postmodern?

At any rate, what's wrong with New Weird?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I've never understood the secondary world thing. Some people (authors and GMs) do worldbuilding. Others do not. It makes no sense to me to talk about a primary or secondary world.

My feeling is that in that they're aiming for fantasy that is entirely mundane except some limited intrusion of magic.

Except that's not remotely consistent with other parts of the article, of course.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Too much Citation Needed, sometimes, in Wikipedia. And refusal to use web sources. Often that's good, but sometimes it's instead extremely harmful.

The quality issue here is more that the article is either not actually defining anything, or self-contradictory. Or possibly both.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Some worldbuilders opt, often (I suspect) due to being of distinctly limited ability, for very light novums, and very few ones, perhaps only a single one. For instance a kind of magic that works only under very rare circumstances, or which very few can use. Perhaps only one in a million boys, and one in seven million boys, are born with the gift for magic at all, spell use and other magic then being flat out impossible to learn for anyone else.

I would only rarely try to guess at the author's ability being limited there, though. It's such a difficult thing to ferret out a lot of the time. Like I said: sometimes you just want to write some pretty prose. And there's only so much that can be done with a given text. Perhaps they are under word count limits, or other such strictures. Maybe they've promised to deliver a PG-13 rating. Or maybe it's that this is the story that's gnawing at the inside of their skill and won't stop until it's found its way out. The writer's mind a mysterious thing.

Not that I disagree with you. I just don't want people to get lumped in there unfairly. You could both be judging them too harshly or not harshly enough. What if their goal was to be cliche? How do you judge that?

Which is fine, as long as it is done prior to publication of the first story, or prior to the beginning of the first campaign.

Teleological tectonics.

So, with me, it's definitely back-and-forth until I get it right. I imagine many fantasy worldbuilders are similar, in that they have something they want. Science fiction authors, I imagine, may be a different breed who are more interested in just doing the extrapolation, although even those who do that will probably have a waste paper basket full of discarded worlds, because their premises (assuming they've refused to go back and change them) were such that they did not lead to worlds (conclusions) that were good for writing science fiction stories in.

Well, this was the big criticism of science fiction back in the day, wasn't it? These dry places where no one lives. The author ends up having to shove a character in there, but for no reason at all other than that you have to have a character to have a story.

Just look at some of the ridiculous examples from old Star Trek episodes. They did 'em both ways. Gangster world! Why? Who cares.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

If you are using Art History terms wouldn't Meiville be Postmodern?

At any rate, what's wrong with New Weird?

What gives you impression that I have anything against New Weird?

For the record, I haven't read anything in that subgenre except the first 1/3 or so of "Perdido Street Station", some years ago, but I liked what I read, and I fully intended to read it in full some day (soon) and then check out more of Mieville's stuff in the same setting.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

What gives you impression that I have anything against New Weird?

I meant as a label.