What is the difference between low fantasy and sword & sorcery?

Which was of questionable use, and most everyone around him wore jewelry and loincloths.

Eh, I feel like you're being too stereotypical about the clothing, it's a bit like insisting on thighs and capes when discussing capeshit, they're iconic but largely irrelevant when defining the genre.
I mean, unless you want to see characters in skimpy clothing, then S&S is definitely relevant to your fashion tastes.

Well, if you're talking about silver age capeshit, you kinda do have to insist on tights and capes. It's part of the genre.

anyone got a guide to the definitions of all the sub genre's of fantasy?

Wikipedia is really good enough for this.

...

Veeky Forums is only really interested in this stuff if it gets /sffg/'s GRI approval

the two are not related

also, side note (not directed at you OP, just in general): HOW HAS THE ENTIRE WORLD MIXED THESE TWO TERMS UP!? IT'S NOT THAT COMPLICATED!!!

Low Fantasy: a fantasy story (usually with magic although commonly this magic is limited) that takes place in a real setting whether it be modern or historical
>Examples:
>King Arthur legends
>The Bible, Greek Mythology, Shinto Mythology, etc.
>Harry Potter
>Percy Jackson
>The Adjustment Bureau
>Constantine
>most superhero comics
>Death Note
>etc.

High Fantasy: a fantasy story that takes place in an entirely fictional setting, with or without magic but commonly with a high degree of magic
>Examples:
>The Silmarillion
>Conan
>Chronicles of Narnia (sort of mixes both high and low fantasy but most of the story takes place in fictional worlds)
>Magic the Gathering multiverse
>Dungeons and Dragons setting
>Dragon Ball (even though the main planet is called Earth)
>Star Wars (even though GL says in the opening crawl that the SW galaxy is in the same universe as ours, it's still counted as an entirely fictional setting)
>Discworld
>etc.

also, note on Low Fantasy:

If a low fantasy story is set in the future then it counts as fantasy sci-fi (e.g. 40k - although that's sort of a big can of worms when it comes to pinpointing a specific genre)

Fuck off cancer.

Nah, in the stories it's often noted that his armor is the only thing that keeps him from being killed in one particular scrum or another. I remember at least one occasion where that's said directly, and a few other where the action involves Conan being bashed repeatedly in the head with something, but he's wearing a helm so he survives.

no, it isn't

both Wikipedia entries for High and Low fantasy need to be completely changed and are completely wrong

>Percy Jackson
>Literally has literal gods in it
>Low Fantasy

I don't know about low fantasy, but I think it's easy enough to understand Sword and Sorcery; read Conan and maybe Fafrd+Gray Mouser and you'll understand what basically everyone means by the phrase.

yes, because it takes place on earth in real places
>remember, Olympos is a real place

pretty sure conan is high fantasy

Hyperborea is supposed to be a different planet/fictional continent right?

although with judeo christian mythology it's still low fantasy because even though heaven and hell are not part of earth they are only connected to earth and no other realities and all of the events within the torah, koran, bible, etc. all take place on earth

As far as I recall Hyperborea is just one part of the Conan world...I don't know if it's supposed to have a relationship to the real world, but the geography definitely takes strong inspiration from the real world.

I definitely wouldn't say high fantasy though. The focus isn't on battles of good vs evil or huge displays of high magic; there's plenty of magic around but it's almost exclusively the domain of dickbag wizards who do pretty specific things with it. There's a ton of evil wizards (who are mostly not even wizards but just dudes who have access to strange powders and weird animals), and the one magic guy I remember who helped Conan out a lot then killstealed Conan with a giant flying bat/eagle thing and Conan said out loud something along the lines of "fuck sorcerers." I think the only truly benevolent magic dude in Conan world is the dead guy who lives under the mountain in Aquilonia(?) and sends him the phoenix sword to fight off an evil shadow ape. And even for the bad guys I can only think of the serpent ring dude, the ugly bat thing from the jungle and the dude from the Elephant Heart who really had anything approaching what we would call magic.

All that aside, though, Conan is a morally grey hero (even at the time he was written) and it's hard to read his stories as battles of good vs evil rather than just adventures of barbaric James Bond.

lol, currently editing the wikipedia page for low fantasy and some douche named robert keeps deleting the information I've written up - which is all correct

I don't think he knows what he's doing

well looks like he was able to block me but here's the correct entry for Wikipedia's "Low Fantasy" page

--------------------------------
"Low fantasy" involves stories (usually with magic although commonly this magic is limited) that take place in a real setting whether it be modern or historical. Examples include the King Arthur legends, the Bible and all other religious mythologies which take place on Earth, the Harry Potter setting, most superhero comics, the Death Note manga, etc.

"High fantasy" involves stories which take place in an entirely fictional setting, with or without magic but commonly with a high degree of magic. Examples include The Silmarillion, The Chronicles of Narnia, the setting of Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z, the Star Wars universe, and the Discworld series by Terry Pratchett.

Everything below is incorrect but I will leave the decision of whether to edit/delete any of it to someone else.

---------------------------------

It's not a hard science, it just comes down to flavor.

hard science:

>People still spout this shit
I guess Warhammer 40k and Shadowrun are low fantasy because there was the real earth in the past ( 40k ) and for SR it's literally real earth but suddenly magic.

Stupid useless definition that doesn't actually say anything.

see and no, it's not useless - it differentiates between two different types of fantasy; High and Low

Is IS useless you dumb fuck
Does it matter at all whether your fantasy takes place on fictional non-earth or fictional earth? No, there is no narrative difference so fuck off with your bullshit.
>Game of Thrones is high fantasy
>Shadowrun is low fantasy
You can take your retarded definition and shove it straight up your ass.
Magical/Fictional metaphysics influence is a way more useful descriptor to describe whether something is high/low fantasy
>mfw Star Wars is low fantasy according to your retarded definition because technically Earth exists and it just takes place in a galaxy far, far away.

I'm not even done yet.
Lets take this shit to it's logical conclusion

>Take generic D&D setting
>Mention Earth somewhere once among 1000s of pages of crazy gonzo shit.
>Suddenly entire setting is low fantasy because Earth exists
>Remove passage
>It's high fantasy again

There is no kind of bullshit like that when you use high/low fantasy as describing how close it adheres to real life physics though.

You definition is like saying "Literally doesn't have to mean literally all the time" Then what the fuck is the point of the word if it can't be relied on to actually mean something Literal?

It's an alternate definition.

Oh whoops, just thought of something else because you really triggered my autism
Lord of the Rings setting? According to your definition, Middle Earth is low fantasy because it's supposed to take place in real life Earths mystical past.

Another thing
>Write up setting with real earth names
>Ctrl + f anything that uses real location names
>Word replace those words, keep everything else the same
>Suddenly low fantasy became high fantasy with nothing else being changed.

A definition that puts such radically differing settings as Harry Potter and 40k in the same genre is functionally useless. A better definition than existence of Earth in the setting would be how fantastical it is, whether the events happening are mundane and low-key or not.

The way that I've always heard it is that low fantasy is fantasy worlds which are, in some way, connected to our world. They are set in a world separate from ours, but accessible from it. The "real world" is our world, and then there is the fantasy world. Narnia and Harry Potter would be examples of low fantasy under that definition.

In high fantasy, the fantasy world is the real world. Our world doesn't exist in the setting, or at least the two are completely separate and disconnected with no way to travel between them. Disc World and Middle Earth would be examples of high fantasy.

Personally I would put martial vs. magic on a separate axis rather than use it as a criteria for determining high or low fantasy, but as far as I know there is no definitive consensus on this one.

>General academic literary definition that doesn't exist outside of English class.

There's also low / high referring to the quantity of the magic.

And low / high referring to the scope of the story, with low being personal, and high being a grand nation saving quest.

People almost universally mean one of the other two definitions when saying low/high fantasy.

"Is it set on earth" is a functionally useless definition. It tells you nothing useful about the story itself.

I'd also argue it's not applicable to RPGs, which are not literature, but games.

But as for how people have 'mixed them up', because the terms have at least 3 different definitions, and the one you prefer is scarcely used and often deliberately rejected.

Forgotten realms has nations populated by people gated in from ancient earth, and there are canonical gates to earth.

Golarion has an adventure where you go to earth (iirc) during WWI.

Ergo, d&d, pathfinder, low fantasy.

Conan is swords and sorcery.

It's the archetypal example.

It's also supposedly set on earth, either shortly before or after the last ice age.

The hyborean age is a fictional prehistory of earth.

Cimmeria is located in doggerland.

>In sword and sorcery without the major characters wouldn't be in anyway recognisable from any other.

The world of Conan is pretty fucking unique.

Came here to post this.

It's just a term that so many people think they know the definition of because they assume it's literal.

Another example is 'role playing game'. You play the role of Master Chief in Halo, so Halo is a role playing game, right?

Correct. Under his definition, Lord of the rings, Conan, DCU, marvel u(all of them), forgotten realms, Stargate, star wars, Farscape, Andromeda, harry potter, and Golarion are all low fantasy.

Note you don't even have to be fantasy to count as low fantasy.

To address a few things that have already been brought up:

>Middle Earth would be low fantasy because it's supposed to be ancient Earth
Generally the only difference between our real real world and the story real world is that the story real world has the fantasy world existing along side it. Otherwise all history is exactly as we know it to be. At most, certain historical events take on a different significance when you consider the involvement of the fantasy world. But the ability to do that will vary from setting to setting. So under this definition Middle Earth is still high fantasy because it is an alternate Earth to ours, and thus it IS the "real world", rather than existing parallel to our own.

>40K is future Earth, so it's low fantasy
By that logic nearly all science fiction is low fantasy. Now, the sci-fi vs fantasy debate has been raging forever and will probably never end, and there's no sense in getting into that now. That said, 40K is something of a gray area here, as most such sci-fantasy would be. If pressed to slot it into either high or low though, I would call it low because it is extrapolated from modern earth and up until its history begins, the history of Earth is the same as the real world history.

However, I would also say that 40K is closer to being science fiction than fantasy so any fantasy classification i gave it would be tentative and really only for the purposes of conversation anyway. I wouldn't, strictly speaking, consider it fantasy at all.

Why cling so desperately to an incorrect definition?
Especially one as subjective as 'how magical a setting is'.

You're the same faggot who is angry that high fantasy can take place on earth.

Harry potter is most definitely high fantasy.

The terms aren't scientific, most people don't use them that way, and they're actually less useful if you do. It's worth bringing up those definitions, and pointing out that the terms can be used in different ways, but "correcting" people is pointless. Language evolves, and so many of the words you use don't mean quite what they used to.

Expanding on the first section there, about why Middle Earth is still high fantasy:

Suppose two stories: one where WWII was caused by people from the parallel fantasy world, and one where WWII was prevented by people from the fantasy world. In the first, we have low fantasy. History is the same, but the interactions between the two world cast the historical events in a new light. In the second, that becomes an alternate history fantasy story and is high fantasy. Although Earth's history is the same up to a point, it follows a distinctly different route after that, making it abundantly clear that it is a different and non-connected, though possibly parallel, Earth from our own.

This post is bait, deliberate or no.

The definition of low and high fantasy is contested. There are several competing definitions.

As a result, the terms are meaningless without the definition you agree with, and are no longer of any practical value.

You'd be better off asking about low/high magic fantasy, or personal/epic plot scope, or tech level.

But sword and sorcery is a particular flavor of personal scope, stone-iron age, low-mid magic fantasy, wherein magic is rare, powered by evil (with more evil deeds allowing for more power), and has an innate corrupting quality. Additionally the protagonists are action heroes as you would find in movies, managing things technically possible but highly improbable. It's generally not set in a firm historical time period if it's set on earth, and it often has fantastic beasts not found in modern day earth. The common theme is that civilization is evil and the "civilized" have arbitrary rules and no moral character.

And racism = prejudice + power, right?

I think the traditional high/low fantasy definitions are good.

A setting completely separate from our world appeals to me more than one based on/extrapolated from our world.

Star Wars vs. Star Trek, for example.

This reminds me of that guy that hates the term BBEG.

No.

Racism = prejudice against a race. Power be damned.

The other definition is just a way to claim personal level racism isn't racism. And that's retarded.

Both have earth in them.

Whether earth exists in canon is not relevant to me. What matters to me is "is it set on earth within 200 years of today".

It's better if the answer is no.

Earth is not shown or mentioned in Star Wars and it might as well not exist if it even exists at all.

I think practically speaking we should just see these designations as what they really are, which is words for different genres spun off from certain iconic fictions; "sword and sorcery" just means "Conan-like," "high fantasy" just means "Tolkien-like," and...well actually I don't know what the archetypal example of low fantasy is.

Asterix.

>I don't know what the archetypal example of low fantasy is.

Never played it, but I think Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay may qualify, at least on the grittiness level.

sorry you don't acknowledge the definition of words

this person answered it for me , thanks user

middle earth being low fantasy is debatable because Tolkien never really solidified it in his canon - although it is strongly accepted that it is indeed low fantasy because he intended it to be a work of English mythology (but personally I put it with high fantasy because nothing makes sense in the setting if you assume it's Earth pre-history - but here I go against the author in assuming that so take my opinion here as is)

I actually don't personally put 40k in any sort of fantasy setting; I put it as sci-fi (especially because the 'magic' in that setting is rather adhering to the physics, or lack thereof, of a parallel universe, i.e. The Warp)

I appreciate that you're a different user actually giving a personal response. That being said I still have to disagree, Low fantasy is Low fantasy and High fantasy is High fantasy - doesn't matter what you want the definition to be, that's what it is. I have no comment on how to classify RPGs except in the case where the G/DM would wish to explicitly state for some weird reason that the setting is specifically a high or low fantasy setting (maybe it's relevant to the world they've designed? I guess that might be the case if it isn't clear whether or not the setting is supposed to be on Earth or not but again, that's a tangent from my main points)

Conan is low fantasy
see (also thank you for clarifying, I wasn't sure if it was on Earth or not)

dude, that's video games. with those you definite it based on the convention and/or view of play. I won't even get into why Halo is not a role playing game but if you want to classify story modes in FPSs as RPGs, then fine - go right ahead

I love you so much right now

thanks but I think this is just confusing things at this point - 40k is just sci-fi

There are various Easter egg references to earth, but it's not mentioned directly, other than "long ago, in a galaxy far far away".

But where there are multiple definitions in use, and (the role-playing community in particular) tends to reject the English class definition due to it's worthlessness, it's counter productive to use the term that way on a role-playing board, and is argue it's not worth using the term at all, and it's better to use separate terms without disputed meaning.

cont. from lol, good one
HP is low fantasy - don't even try to troll on this

ugggh - take a linguistics class
I don't want to have to explain what definitions are

Academic definitions are not common ones in all cases. Language changes to suit the speakers. People mean "serious, gritty, low-magic" when they say Low Fantasy, so that's what it actually means outside of a literary circle of academics.

3/10

You responded to my statement about Conan using my own post.

Sword and sorcery is a genre definition which has nothing to do with whether the fiction is set on earth.

It can be sword and sorcery either way.

academics don't discuss this - these are our terms that you should know that you are confusing

stop it.

I know the terms nigger. I have a bachelors in the goddamn language. Language changes. Get over your-fucking-self.

wait, are you a different user than the troll?

regardless, we're in agreement on the sword and sorcery thing - I thought I said it in the first post but I questioned it here on the Conan topic Verdict on Conan:
Conan is a sword and sorcery story in a low fantasy setting

The definitions you're espousing are those of an English professor, not a fantasy fan or a roleplayer.

But academic definitions often differ significantly from the practical usage, like 'modern'.

To anyone outside academia, modern =contemporary.

But as you've seen, there's the definition you ascribe to, as well as two others which are commonly ascribed to, in this thread.

Due to the confusion and disagreement the terms generate, they're terms not worth using to discuss fiction.

Not him, but should it?

I hear all the time that language changes, but now that most humans are connected, should we not begin holding ourselves to a concrete standard of languages?

If only for clarity's sake?

I don't know who the troll is in this case. There's two people arguing over which definition is of value.

I'm the one arguing that due to the disagreement and confusion over what someone means when using the term, they're all useless.

>I'm a bachelor who doesn't understand the goddamn language
>Get over your-fucking-self
you're right, I'm sorry
I wasn't trying to be mean, I'm just saying there are actual definitions for what Low fantasy is and what High fantasy is and the definitions of words don't simply change because you misunderstood them at first

Low fantasy is typically either historical in basis or pseudo-historical. Sword and sorcery is not necessarily, but can be.

Conan is low fantasy and sword and sorcery, with the cultures largely based on real world ones. The Elric saga is just sword and sorcery.

Language changes. And that's beautiful to me. Trying to hold onto something old and doing no one good is stupid. Accepting change and the needs of modern conversation is necessary.

I understand what you mean when you say Low-Fantasy. There is an academic definition for that. However, from experience I know that no one ever actually uses that definition in these sorts of debates. They mean Low-Magic. However, I know what they said and what they meant are different, and I can translate in my head without the need to correct them, because I know it changes nothing. I know what they meant, they know what they meant.

The definition of Low Fantasy changes day-by-day to fit the times and needs of English speakers on the internet, or at the very least on Veeky Forums. There's no need to sperg out over it. It's nature. Accept it.

Every time someone uses any of these terms, instead of constructive discussion, all that results is an argument over the definition of the term.

yes, please refer to the actual definitions of words when using them (as we all should do)

well cool, but dude - naw, that's... sad? sure. What I mean is that definitions are not useless in this case and just because (by canon) star wars and harry potter are in the same universe doesn't mean you have to give up on the meaning of words...
just look at this sweet video of luke skywalker killing harry potter!
youtube.com/watch?v=lRLuPHvF6Fo

Wow, those are awful definitions.

Gimme a second, one of my friends is a Literature Professor. Let me text him.

which is why I stated everything so plainly at the start of my posts since the discussion though there's been some clarification and it turns out Conan is Low fantasy and Star Wars could also be low fantasy or just plain sci-fi

so it hasn't all been useless

They either mean low magic, personal plot scope, or both.

>my "friend"
suuuuure

Either way, fair enough.

>there is an academic definition for that
dude, that's not how definitions work

That is an awful post.

also, what you're basically saying is "Accept my lies"
>are you tzeentch?

What if that's how definitions work according to his definition of the word definition?

Huh, first I've heard of this. Ultimately irrelevant outside of an academic context though. Why you would use this definition when better ones exist is beyond me.

>are you tzeentch?
Maybe I am. And maybe I'm not. Or maybe I just wanted you to bring up 40K in an unrelated thread so it'd burn to the ground.

Just as planned.

Surely you can understand the merit of using the official definition of a term.
Just as there is merit in using the popular definition of a term.

And your post, with the literary definition, is where the argument began this time. Because almost never intend the literary definition when they use them, they mean
.

I do understand arguing word definitions, but I don't always agree with the dictionary definition.

Modern = contemporary. Due to overwhelming adoption.
Literal = literal, not figurative + emphasis
Factoid = a true sounding statement with no evidence to back it up.
Beta male = Omega male, due to overwhelming adoption, despite it also making me think the person using it is retarded.

And then the Gellar fields failed

If you're the guy who posted that definition, my question to you is "Why would you use this definition?" It fails at conveying any level of depth and is ultimately irrelevant when the vast majority of readers, writers and publishers (you know, the people who actually MATTER) define high and low fantasy differently from academics.

Basically, why should I use this definition when there are better ones out there?

only one of those sentences is true

Except the official definition serves no purpose and is actually inferior to the popular definition.

>there are better ones out there?
Where?

If you go by official definition every time, at least two of them are true.

Despite what Fox says, factoid and factory are not synonymous.

Do you have something against capitalization and punctuation?

I think you're just trying really hard to wish that into being true, but it just won't happen

No.

IM ,jUsT laZY