Seven Levels of Fantasy

[Paul__Michaels]

I came across this video yesterday and thought it was an interesting topic.

 

[LeilaniOtter]

Actually, there aren't really levels so much as terms of fantasy types:

1. High Fantasy: This refers to fantasy stories set in entirely fictional worlds with their own rules, magic systems, and often epic narratives. Examples include J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings and Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn series.
2. Low Fantasy: This subgenre takes place in the real world or a version of it, where magical elements are less prominent or are introduced in a more subtle way. An example is George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series, which, while containing fantastical elements, is rooted in a world resembling medieval Europe.
3. Urban Fantasy: This subgenre features magical elements integrated into a contemporary urban setting. It often includes supernatural beings living alongside humans. Examples include Jim Butcher's The Dresden Files and Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere.
4. Dark Fantasy: This blends elements of fantasy with horror, often exploring themes of death, the macabre, and moral ambiguity. Works like Clive Barker's Hellbound Heart or the Dark Tower series by Stephen King are examples.
5. Sword and Sorcery: This subgenre emphasizes action and adventure, typically featuring a hero who engages in battles and quests, often with magic involved. Notable examples include Robert E. Howard's Conan the Barbarian and Michael Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone.
6. Magical Realism: While not strictly a fantasy genre, magical realism incorporates fantastical elements into otherwise realistic settings, often exploring deeper philosophical or cultural themes. Gabriel García Márquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude is a classic example.
7. Fairy Tale Fantasy: This subgenre draws on traditional fairy tales and folklore, often reimagining or retelling these stories. Examples include The Lunar Chronicles by Marissa Meyer and Uprooted by Naomi Novik.
8. Epic Fantasy: Similar to high fantasy, epic fantasy usually involves grand quests, large-scale conflicts, and a wide cast of characters. It often spans multiple volumes. An example is Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time series.

"Levels" of fantasy are unfortunately mostly left to personal interpretation and opinion.

 

[Echimera]

Actually, there aren't really levels so much as terms of fantasy types:

1. High Fantasy: This refers to fantasy stories set in entirely fictional worlds with their own rules, magic systems, and often epic narratives. Examples include J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings and Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn series.

This one is especially funny for me. I'm a big Warhammer fan, and when Games Workshop decided to retire the classic Warhammer Fantasy setting and released Age of Sigmar, so many people complained that it's too High Fantasy. Don't get me wrong, the newer setting is balls to the wall bonkers and definitely more on the epic side, with gods and god level creatures being very active all over the place, but Warhammer Fantasy, at least in the later editions, had magic and other fantasy elements way more present than Lord of the Rings.


That being said, while I haven't had the chance to do more than skim through the video, it doesn't look like it's talking about the Fantasy subgenres but more about the writing quality and intention behind the writing.
This in turn isn't exclusive to Fantasy, but can be applied to any other fiction writing with very few adjustments.

 

[Deleted member 84247]

I came across this video yesterday and thought it was an interesting topic.

Cool video

 

[Hans.Trondheim]

Isn't that...

1) Happiness
2) Bliss
3) Delusion
4) Boredom
5) Denial
6) Realization
7) Regret?

Yeah the joke's lame.

 

[LeilaniOtter]

This one is especially funny for me. I'm a big Warhammer fan, and when Games Workshop decided to retire the classic Warhammer Fantasy setting and released Age of Sigmar, so many people complained that it's too High Fantasy. Don't get me wrong, the newer setting is balls to the wall bonkers and definitely more on the epic side, with gods and god level creatures being very active all over the place, but Warhammer Fantasy, at least in the later editions, had magic and other fantasy elements way more present than Lord of the Rings.


That being said, while I haven't had the chance to do more than skim through the video, it doesn't look like it's talking about the Fantasy subgenres but more about the writing quality and intention behind the writing.
This in turn isn't exclusive to Fantasy, but can be applied to any other fiction writing with very few adjustments.

Fantasy has gotten so ...complex, let's say, in the last few decades. It's to a point where we need to honestly come up with another word altogether. I was blown away by Howard''s "Conan" stories for years, and it still resonates with me. To me, this is when "fantasy" reached its perch and from then on, it was all just a lot of people trying to follow in Howard's glory and failing miserably.

 

[Paul__Michaels]

Actually, there aren't really levels so much as terms of fantasy types:

1. High Fantasy: This refers to fantasy stories set in entirely fictional worlds with their own rules, magic systems, and often epic narratives. Examples include J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings and Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn series.
2. Low Fantasy: This subgenre takes place in the real world or a version of it, where magical elements are less prominent or are introduced in a more subtle way. An example is George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series, which, while containing fantastical elements, is rooted in a world resembling medieval Europe.
3. Urban Fantasy: This subgenre features magical elements integrated into a contemporary urban setting. It often includes supernatural beings living alongside humans. Examples include Jim Butcher's The Dresden Files and Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere.
4. Dark Fantasy: This blends elements of fantasy with horror, often exploring themes of death, the macabre, and moral ambiguity. Works like Clive Barker's Hellbound Heart or the Dark Tower series by Stephen King are examples.
5. Sword and Sorcery: This subgenre emphasizes action and adventure, typically featuring a hero who engages in battles and quests, often with magic involved. Notable examples include Robert E. Howard's Conan the Barbarian and Michael Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone.
6. Magical Realism: While not strictly a fantasy genre, magical realism incorporates fantastical elements into otherwise realistic settings, often exploring deeper philosophical or cultural themes. Gabriel García Márquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude is a classic example.
7. Fairy Tale Fantasy: This subgenre draws on traditional fairy tales and folklore, often reimagining or retelling these stories. Examples include The Lunar Chronicles by Marissa Meyer and Uprooted by Naomi Novik.
8. Epic Fantasy: Similar to high fantasy, epic fantasy usually involves grand quests, large-scale conflicts, and a wide cast of characters. It often spans multiple volumes. An example is Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time series.

"Levels" of fantasy are unfortunately mostly left to personal interpretation and opinion.

Someone didn't watch the video
They were going over the different levels of fantasy books. Like levels of heaven or hell.

The levels in the video.

Level 1: Con artist / AI Slop
Level 2: Forgotten failures
Level 3: People Who Tell You Stories
Level 4: Story Tellers
Level 5: Writers
Level 6: Legends
Level 7: Goats

 

[LeilaniOtter]

Someone didn't watch the video
They were going over the different levels of fantasy books. Like levels of heaven or hell.

The levels in the video.

Level 1: Con artist / AI Slop
Level 2: Forgotten failures
Level 3: People Who Tell You Stories
Level 4: Story Tellers
Level 5: Writers
Level 6: Legends
Level 7: Goats

I skimmed through it. I don't think I was that off the mark. I just think it's a rather odd way to "rate" fantasy. ?
Besides, he was talking with that pointer so much, I was getting dizzy.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

I disagree with some of his examples (Burroughs deserves better, as, believe it or not, does Hubbard - unless you're considering Scientology and Dianetics to be fantasy instead of an experiment in building a religion that got out of hand...), but his ideas are sound. I suspect I'm a level 2/3 author on his scale.

 

[Mystic_Grasshopper]

I disagree with some of his examples (Burroughs deserves better, as, believe it or not, does Hubbard - unless you're considering Scientology and Dianetics to be fantasy instead of an experiment in building a religion that got out of hand...), but his ideas are sound. I suspect I'm a level 2/3 author on his scale.

You shouldn't take his opinion as fact or unbiased, he's insider media, literally defended WoT adaptation till it was canceled, and even then resorted to "You can't even tell me what 'really' went wrong with the production." when everyone and their mother told him it wasn't good because it wasn't even trying to be faithful to the books.

 

[OokamiKasumi]

Someone didn't watch the video
They were going over the different levels of fantasy books. Like levels of heaven or hell.

The levels in the video.

Level 1: Con artist / AI Slop
Level 2: Forgotten failures
Level 3: People Who Tell You Stories
Level 4: Story Tellers
Level 5: Writers
Level 6: Legends
Level 7: Goats

To go into just a tad more detail, he was rating the levels of writing -- the author's level of Craftsmanship in writing fantasy.

It was an excellent video.

I find it very telling on who skimmed it vs. who actually watched it.

 

[Paul__Michaels]

I disagree with some of his examples (Burroughs deserves better, as, believe it or not, does Hubbard - unless you're considering Scientology and Dianetics to be fantasy instead of an experiment in building a religion that got out of hand...), but his ideas are sound. I suspect I'm a level 2/3 author on his scale.

Yeah, I feel like he should have call his video Seven Levels of Authors. But it probably gets more clicks with fantasy.

For me on the scale? I would like to think that I'm in the 3 to 4 areas but I don't really know. I feel like it is something that readers have to decide, while I keep chugging along.

Anyways, it was a fun thought.

You shouldn't take his opinion as fact or unbiased, he's insider media, literally defended WoT adaptation till it was canceled, and even then resorted to "You can't even tell me what 'really' went wrong with the production." when everyone and their mother told him it wasn't good because it wasn't even trying to be faithful to the books.

Honest question. How do you know this guy is "insider media"?
I haven't deep dive into this guy's channel so I have haven't seen his videos on WoT, to know if they are bad or not.

 

[Mystic_Grasshopper]

Honest question. How do you know this guy is "insider media"?
I haven't deep dive into this guy's channel so I have haven't seen his videos on WoT, to know if they are bad or not.

He has at times past been invited to cover a red carpet premiere of WoT itself. Other times he's had exclusive interviews with up and coming or well known authors ranging from First Law author Joe Abercrombie to Malazan author Steven Erikson.

I will say that all of that was before his sexual assault allegation, which for the most part seemed to be false though he did cheat on his girlfriend.

My reasoning for calling it insider media is the fact that he's never too critical or opinionated about any of the topics he discusses(unless it's political) which is fine, but it makes it easy to see that sometimes he'll shill for corporations or popular authors to such a degree that he'll straight up copy and paste the sort of message stated by peers and the authors he's backing whether he understands the topic or not. This was more so the case back in the early 2019-2021 era of his career on youtube.

Though I'd say nowadays his stuff is more so focused on the things he's got skin in, hence he cares so much about the audible and amazon indie publishing sphere because he is an author at this point. You can take away credibility from my statement based on how much you care about any of those topics but it's my own opinion that he's often involved for views and monetary gains.

His newest video "Audible Is Broken" is sensationalist at best and at worst a narrative altering job that'll have more people suffer because of misunderstandings. I've been watching that video to understand and in the middle of it Daniel straight up says "I don't really care either way, [it's about transparency]"(time in video 16:15) regarding whether money is siphoned from the subscription to pay Audible back based on their free catalog despite spending a credit on another author, and then later "To put this simply you are messing with people's lives. Thousands upon thousands of authors..."(time in video 18:45). Not to mention all of this is basically based on a single industry veteran's testimony and research, Robin Sullivan, who around 10+ years ago had her own small publishing go up in smoke because of her own lack of transparency and not just that but the delay of payments to authors one whom Ann Crispin had cancer at the time.

Personally from what I've listened the whole time I just hear that audible is turning more into an kindle unlimited scenario. In that model having a shorter book, smaller author makes less revenue than a big name author with a longer book. Because all subscribers' funds are put in a pool to be distributed based on the the amount read. Ironically this is seen as reasonable or even fair considering the amount of authors stating they make a living from it but that is different because everyone involved is accepted based on their signing of a kdp select whereas the audible model only has selected specific plus catalog without guarantee you'll get in. But Robin Sullivan thinks it's not fair because a big name author will be siphoning from the pool of other independent authors who have their work on audible and available to listen to for a single credit. I think she's just not considering the fact that most people go to audible for content availability, and to most people they may have not even known about an author or series until it got to audible.

Regardless all this to say, I think Daniel's a shill who's there to enrich himself and enough ego to always try to spin himself as a good guy. The fact that he's listening to Robin Sullivan who in the past threw fellow authors under the bus because she wasn't all in on transparency or contingencies in her small press but somehow feels morally obligated to throw stones at a big corporation that everyone knows only commits to what'll make them more money is beyond ironic.

Also here's the explanation and petition from her :https://www.change.org/p/convince-audible-to-revise-it-s-new-royalty-model

If you read it, ultimately she assumes all people subscribed to audible care enough about individual authors which is not always the case and again it feels disingenuous because ultimately it would benefit a more popular author in the long run while the smaller up and comers are left with scraps by separating the pools. Equity is just wealth re-distribution, this model would hurt people not in the plus catalog if they're a big author, but a smaller author wouldn't care anyway as long as they make money while on audible assuming they "don't bother to read the fine print" as stated in the video.

 

[Paul__Michaels]

He has at times past been invited to cover a red carpet premiere of WoT itself. Other times he's had exclusive interviews with up and coming or well known authors ranging from First Law author Joe Abercrombie to Malazan author Steven Erikson.

I will say that all of that was before his sexual assault allegation, which for the most part seemed to be false though he did cheat on his girlfriend.

My reasoning for calling it insider media is the fact that he's never too critical or opinionated about any of the topics he discusses(unless it's political) which is fine, but it makes it easy to see that sometimes he'll shill for corporations or popular authors to such a degree that he'll straight up copy and paste the sort of message stated by peers and the authors he's backing whether he understands the topic or not. This was more so the case back in the early 2019-2021 era of his career on youtube.

Though I'd say nowadays his stuff is more so focused on the things he's got skin in, hence he cares so much about the audible and amazon indie publishing sphere because he is an author at this point. You can take away credibility from my statement based on how much you care about any of those topics but it's my own opinion that he's often involved for views and monetary gains.

His newest video "Audible Is Broken" is sensationalist at best and at worst a narrative altering job that'll have more people suffer because of misunderstandings. I've been watching that video to understand and in the middle of it Daniel straight up says "I don't really care either way, [it's about transparency]"(time in video 16:15) regarding whether money is siphoned from the subscription to pay Audible back based on their free catalog despite spending a credit on another author, and then later "To put this simply you are messing with people's lives. Thousands upon thousands of authors..."(time in video 18:45). Not to mention all of this is basically based on a single industry veteran's testimony and research, Robin Sullivan, who around 10+ years ago had her own small publishing go up in smoke because of her own lack of transparency and not just that but the delay of payments to authors one whom Ann Crispin had cancer at the time.

Personally from what I've listened the whole time I just hear that audible is turning more into an kindle unlimited scenario. In that model having a shorter book, smaller author makes less revenue than a big name author with a longer book. Because all subscribers' funds are put in a pool to be distributed based on the the amount read. Ironically this is seen as reasonable or even fair considering the amount of authors stating they make a living from it but that is different because everyone involved is accepted based on their signing of a kdp select whereas the audible model only has selected specific plus catalog without guarantee you'll get in. But Robin Sullivan thinks it's not fair because a big name author will be siphoning from the pool of other independent authors who have their work on audible and available to listen to for a single credit. I think she's just not considering the fact that most people go to audible for content availability, and to most people they may have not even known about an author or series until it got to audible.

Regardless all this to say, I think Daniel's a shill who's there to enrich himself and enough ego to always try to spin himself as a good guy. The fact that he's listening to Robin Sullivan who in the past threw fellow authors under the bus because she wasn't all in on transparency or contingencies in her small press but somehow feels morally obligated to throw stones at a big corporation that everyone knows only commits to what'll make them more money is beyond ironic.

Also here's the explanation and petition from her :https://www.change.org/p/convince-audible-to-revise-it-s-new-royalty-model

If you read it, ultimately she assumes all people subscribed to audible care enough about individual authors which is not always the case and again it feels disingenuous because ultimately it would benefit a more popular author in the long run while the smaller up and comers are left with scraps by separating the pools. Equity is just wealth re-distribution, this model would hurt people not in the plus catalog if they're a big author, but a smaller author wouldn't care anyway as long as they make money while on audible assuming they "don't bother to read the fine print" as stated in the video.

Thanks for the rundown.