Romantic Fantasy

[optimusvx]

May be this is the wrong forum to ask this, but what is Romantic Fantasy. Isn't that high fantasy ala Jordan or Tolkien, or is it was one of those mushy romance novels, except with vampires and elves?

 

Just curious.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Romantic Fantasy

 

May be this is the wrong forum to ask this, but what is Romantic Fantasy. Isn't that high fantasy ala Jordan or Tolkien, or is it was one of those mushy romance novels, except with vampires and elves?

 

Just curious.

 

Most Arthurian stuff is fantasy romance - the romance should be the backbone of the story against a good mix of swords and sorcery...

 

IMO

 

Doc

[arcady]

Re: Romantic Fantasy

 

Fantasy has no need for action.

 

I've written a 'post romance' story:

http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/libr/b/r/brianfw2/arcady_moving_on_forelfwood.html.html

 

Which has been decently recieved, and put me in contact with two publishers - though I haven't bothered to pursue either of them yet.

 

But anyway...

 

Fantasy Romance can be anything which mixes themes of romance and fantasy in one degree or another. I personally am not a fan of the action genre - and find such fiction boring. I write in terms of characterization, and romances work a lot better for that. There's a criticism that fantasy cannot handle character depth, and I've been trying to challenge that in my writing - that of it which is 'genre fiction' at least.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Romantic Fantasy

 

The term "romance" used to be applied to any sort of fantastic story. I'm not sure when it came to mean a novel about moony-eyed young women pining over the muscular yet sensitive young man. You could read reams of Arthurian romances and not get more than a few passing references to this sort of thing.

[optimusvx]

Re: Romantic Fantasy

 

Well, I was just wondering. I heard about a game call Blue Rose and didn't know what "romantic fantasy rpg" meant. And the authors don't ring a bell, except Mercedes Lackey.

[CourtFool]

Re: Romantic Fantasy

 

There's a criticism that fantasy cannot handle character depth' date=' and I've been trying to challenge that in my writing - that of it which is 'genre fiction' at least.[/quote']

Aha! That would explain why I love the genre for gaming but do not read many of the novels.

[Greatwyrm]

Re: Romantic Fantasy

 

Well' date=' I was just wondering. I heard about a game call Blue Rose and didn't know what "romantic fantasy rpg" meant. And the authors don't ring a bell, except Mercedes Lackey.[/quote']

 

Hate to come here and send you to another company's site, but try greenronin.com or blueroserpg.com. It's made by the same people who do Mutants & Masterminds. They give you a pretty good rundown of what to expect.

[arcady]

Re: Romantic Fantasy

 

Aha! That would explain why I love the genre for gaming but do not read many of the novels.

Meaning that you agree with the perception that the genre is overstuffed with action and not enough character or that you think the opposite that the fiction is too full of romance and not enough dead orcs?

 

Personally, I find gaming too action focused, and find the claims of literature writers that fantasy and science fiction writers don't know character to be absurd - something of a sign of elitism from people who are not reading the right authors in the 'genre-fiction they attack.

[McCoid]

Re: Romantic Fantasy

 

I would say that not all gaming is action based, it depends on the group.

As I've had sessions where it was pure RP with no "action" at all, which were a lot of fun to do, as a campaign where it's pure action all the way can get stale.

Ok that was perhaps a little off topic, back to that, I would say that both Tolkien etc, & the more heavily romance based novels can fall under that catagory, it's just that the grittier fantasy if it has any romance can be in a more subtle form than the overly overt romance based novels.

 

My tuppence worth.

[arcady]

Re: Romantic Fantasy

 

Would you find an RPG with no combat system viable?

 

You might have sessions without action - everybody does that - but try whole multiple year long campaigns.

 

If you find that comfortable, I would wager you are not even close to typical for a gamer.

 

I wouldn't call Tolkien a romance at all - there simply wasn't one in there. The LotR movie had a thin one - but Peter Jackson's script writers are responsible for that. Tolkien's work was also quite thin in any form of characterization.

 

Mercedes Lackey, Tanya Huff, Barbara Hambley and some similar authors have romantic fantasies.

[DRThrush]

Re: Romantic Fantasy

 

Meaning that you agree with the perception that the genre is overstuffed with action and not enough character or that you think the opposite that the fiction is too full of romance and not enough dead orcs?

 

Personally, I find gaming too action focused, and find the claims of literature writers that fantasy and science fiction writers don't know character to be absurd - something of a sign of elitism from people who are not reading the right authors in the 'genre-fiction they attack.

 

I couldn't agree more. Check out George R R Martins, A Song of Ice and Fire series for some great character writing.

 

Personally I have always defined the Romantic style of Fantasy as Character driven stories, where the larger than life conflicts are more dramatic and personal, with action being an ocassional means, but never really the end.

 

-Dave

 

EDIT: Fixed a typo

[DRThrush]

Re: Romantic Fantasy

 

I don't believe that a campaign (or a book for that matter) has to have 'love interest type romance' in it for it to fall into the romantic style. I know it seems contradictory on the surface, but I am talking about the feel of the story.

 

-Dave

[optimusvx]

Re: Romantic Fantasy

 

I've had a chance to read a few short stories from Mercedes Lackey in the Valdemar line. And a few other authors, like Melanie Rawn, etc.

 

And I read the bluerose rpg. It seems interesting (both mechanically and its setting).

 

From what I gather about Romantic Fantasy so far, there seem to be some common rules, but like all fiction writing it's not etched in stone (may be it's better to call them guidelines):

 

1. Strong Protagonist. Usually female. And they are good-hearted, but not in a square 2-dimensional way. Feisty, but a nice guy or gal basially. And usually they have a background/origin of personal obstacles (family, peers), but some catalyst that changes or shows they are special in some way. (ie., special animal finding them and revealing their special power, etc.)

2. Characters tends to be more realistic in the sense the characters even the bad ones are grayer (though not a really gritty sort of way). There are generally no sauron absolute evil type characters. The villains tend to have motives more realistic and less black-heart villain types.

3. May be it's contradicting when looking at 2., but the world itself tends to be black and white, if that's the right description. That the countries or nations or kingdoms that the main protagonist is usually aligned with are considered more intelligent, reasonable, and sensitive and their enemies are usually the opposite of that in some degree.

4. At least Valdemar, animal companions that are intelligent.

5. Lot more focus on internal emotional struggles with the main protagonist, than external ones. It seems like the external ones aren't paramount as the internal ones.

6. And I don't know the writing style tends to be different. More flowery? I don't know. I can't put my finger on it. I just feel RF writng sets itself apart from say Tolkien or Terry Brooks in the High Fantasy.

7. RF have more focus on social interactions and relationships in whatever person, tribe, society, etc. via more description like the history, mythology, etc. and usually have some relevant part of the main plot/story.

8. Though there is often a romance between characters, there's lot of RF stories that don't have a romance between characters, but still is RF.

 

 

Like I said that's what I got so far. And may be I'm way off, but that's what I'm getting so far.

[Southern Cross]

Re: Romantic Fantasy

 

As a Mercedes Lackey fan,I have to say that you've described her work quite well.

[Vondy]

Re: Romantic Fantasy

 

Would you find an RPG with no combat system viable?

 

You might have sessions without action - everybody does that - but try whole multiple year long campaigns.

 

If you find that comfortable, I would wager you are not even close to typical for a gamer.

 

I wouldn't call Tolkien a romance at all - there simply wasn't one in there. The LotR movie had a thin one - but Peter Jackson's script writers are responsible for that. Tolkien's work was also quite thin in any form of characterization.

 

Mercedes Lackey, Tanya Huff, Barbara Hambley and some similar authors have romantic fantasies.

 

 

My games (superheroic ones no less, though other genres as well) have been known to run multiple sessions without action (read: Combat! ), instead focusing on investigations, intrigue, and personal issues. There are a lot of ways to move a plot and build tension without Combat! . I don't think we've ever gone more than 6-7 sessions without some sort of action (usually combat, but not always) taking place - and when it hits the fan in my games it can often be a "battle royale" or an event of majestic proportions.

 

As for Tokein: if you use the colloquial definition of romance ("boddice ripper fiction") that is very true, but if you use the classic definition of the term a strong case could be made for it - in fact, if you look at definition 1(2) below it becomes clear that fantasy is a sub-genre of romantic fiction in of itself.

 

I think, for our purposes, though, we're talking about fantasy that includes elements of definition 1(1) and definately 1(2), which may or may not include "love" as a theme - and even then - if that love is included its really "chivalric love," which doesn't translate into "boddice ripper hero" 1(3).

 

Perhaps the distinction lies in "Romantic Fantasy" 1(1)(2) versus "Romance Fantasy" 1(3). The Former would be more classical in definition, while the latter would have a shirtless Fabio in plate ail leggings prominently displayed on the cover with a busty noble woman whose dress is half torn off...

 

Main Entry: 1ro·mance

Pronunciation: rO-'man(t)s, r&-; 'rO-"

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English romauns, from Old French romans French, something written in French, from Latin romanice in the Roman manner, from romanicus Roman, from Romanus

1 a (1) : a medieval tale based on legend, chivalric love and adventure, or the supernatural (2) : a prose narrative treating imaginary characters involved in events remote in time or place and usually heroic, adventurous, or mysterious (3) : a love story b : a class of such literature

2 : something (as an extravagant story or account) that lacks basis in fact

3 : an emotional attraction or aura belonging to an especially heroic era, adventure, or activity

4 : LOVE AFFAIR

5 capitalized : the Romance languages

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Romantic Fantasy

 

"Romance" in this context does not mean "love story." Originally a romance was something written in French; in this context it means romance in the sense of a fantastical story of adventure.

[arcady]

Re: Romantic Fantasy

 

"Romance" in this context does not mean "love story." ... in this context it means romance in the sense of a fantastical story of adventure.

Which is, in my opinion, an unfortunate confusion of a term away from its common meaning.

 

If a word can mean anything, it soon means nothing.

 

Likewise for digging into archaic meanings for a word simply to deride or disparage the themes inherrant in the modern common meaning.

 

But aside from that, there's a seperate more important issue I'm seeing here.

 

There seems to be a lot of derision towards the theme of Romance around here - which is regretable, as some of the best literature is found in such stories. Consider Romeo and Juliet for example. Equating love story with Fabio and Bodice Ripper is somewhat unjust much as equating fantasy with the DnD movie would be.

[Vondy]

Re: Romantic Fantasy

 

Which is, in my opinion, an unfortunate confusion of a term away from its common meaning.

 

If a word can mean anything, it soon means nothing.

 

Likewise for digging into archaic meanings for a word simply to deride or disparage the themes inherrant in the modern common meaning.

 

There seems to be a lot of derision towards the theme of Romance around here - which is regretable, as some of the best literature is found in such stories. Consider Romeo and Juliet for example. Equating love story with Fabio and Bodice Ripper is somewhat unjust much as equating fantasy with the DnD movie would be.

 

In my college literature classes that "archaic" term was used in that context as a matter of course - esp. in terms of arthurian lit.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Romantic Fantasy

 

Really, using the term "romance" or "romantic" to refer to a story without heavy grounding in reality isn't even that archaic. Our very own H5E refers to the "Romantic" as the opposite of "Realistic." You also hear it applied when someone views a subject in an unrealistic way. For example, someone who thinks only of the excitement and glory of war, without thinking of the carnage and tragedy of it, might be described by saying, "He has a romanticized idea of what war's all about."