# A Burning Question



## childoferu (Dec 30, 2009)

What would epic fantasy be without war? Honestly?

See, at first, I was only thinking about the question regarding Lord of the Rings, but now I realize all the great epic fantasies of our time are all set in a war-time setting. Even with the new brilliant Avatar movie, at the end, I kind of thought, I would have loved to see the depiction of the Na'vi culture and the rest of Pandora for 3 hours. Why is there is always war? Well, no, actually, why is the story always set in war-time? I would love to read a story about just everyday life in Numenor or Gondor during its days of splendor and peace, oh well. Hmm, what does that say about us as humans?

Well, anyway...


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 30, 2009)

Tolkien addresses this very subject in _The Hobbit_, chapter 3 “A Short Rest”, explaining why “Bilbo” wrote so little describing his stay at the House of Elrond in Rivendell.


> Now it is a strange thing, but things that are good to have and days that are good to spend are soon told about, and not much to listen to; while things that are uncomfortable, palpitating, and even gruesome, may make a good tale, and take a deal of telling anyway.


(It certainly explains how “news” is sold.)


----------



## Astrance (Dec 31, 2009)

That's true.

I'd have loved a 3-hour long documentary on Na'vi culture too — but then what Jack leans would have been less remarkable, without pressure and all that. I might actually go to Paris to see it in IMAX (only saw it in mere 3D so far) in january... You lucky people in the States where so many cinemas are IMAX ! There's but a handful in France, and only one that will show us Avatar, near Eurodisney. Shame, shame...


----------



## Ares B (Dec 31, 2009)

I remember reading the Famous Five type youth novels, oh so long ago, and thinking it'd be more fun if for once the obligatory bad guys failed to appear. 

For non-war fantasy I can think of the Discworld books and most of Star Trek, but whether you call the stories _epic_ is another matter.


----------



## WonderBroad (Dec 31, 2009)

There's an old saying in screenwriting:

"Action is character. Drama is conflict."

What a character _does_ is who he is, not what he says. And without _conflict_, there is no drama.

Conflict is essential for a story. War is about as big as it gets, in terms of conflict!


----------



## Firawyn (Dec 31, 2009)

WonderBroad said:


> There's an old saying in screenwriting:
> 
> "Action is character. Drama is conflict."
> 
> ...




Totally there with you WB. Familiar with the "Hero's Journey?" 


My opinion is simply that what makes a fantasy story _epic_ is when it does three things. 1) Has too many "main" characters to count on one hand. 2) Is long enough to very well develop ALL of said above characters. And 3) involves a conflict. 

As far as the third point, conflict, I cannot say it HAS to be war. In literary analysis, you have "man vs. man", "man vs. nature", "man vs. God", or "man vs. himself."

All four points make a conflict, a struggle that could drive a plot. Only "man vs. man" really gives way to war. The book _20,000 Leagues Under the Sea_
is an epic tale in my opinion, and I'd throw that under "man vs. nature". 

You see what I mean? There are plenty of ways to make a tale "Epic", without use of war. War just happens to be the most popular. Lord of the Rings is a perfect example of a war epic.


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 31, 2009)

There is nothing “wrong” with a “war epic.” But stories like “Leiningen Versus The Ants” or _Lost Moon_/_Apollo 13_ are also exciting and uplifting.


----------



## WonderBroad (Jan 1, 2010)

Certainly a good film can have the conflict be something other than war! _Apollo 13_, as mentioned above, is a really good example, as the conflict and tension comes from the situation the astronauts find themselves in, not from a human enemy (or monster, or alien, or whatever). The dire predicament they're caught in is the enemy.


----------



## Firawyn (Jan 1, 2010)

WonderBroad said:


> Certainly a good film can have the conflict be something other than war! _Apollo 13_, as mentioned above, is a really good example, as the conflict and tension comes from the situation the astronauts find themselves in, not from a human enemy (or monster, or alien, or whatever). The dire predicament they're caught in is the enemy.




Would you call this an example of "man vs. nature"?


----------



## WonderBroad (Jan 2, 2010)

Possibly, although I think "Man vs. Technology" (malfunctioning technology, that is) fits _Apollo 13_ better.


----------



## Firawyn (Jan 2, 2010)

WonderBroad said:


> Possibly, although I think "Man vs. Technology" (malfunctioning technology, that is) fits _Apollo 13_ better.



Wikipedia will buy that...

But I would have put it under nature, or maybe God/fate.


----------



## WonderBroad (Jan 2, 2010)

I guess you could call the _Apollo 13_ instance "Man vs. Really Bad Luck"!


----------



## Firawyn (Jan 2, 2010)

That works too! 

Okay, trying to get back on topic...I think?

....what was the topic?


----------



## Bucky (Jan 24, 2010)

People don't go to the movies or read a book that's just like their 'normal' boring lives.......

Simple as that.


----------



## Astrance (Jan 24, 2010)

Yes, they do . It's called « french cinéma d'auteur » and, for some reasons I cannot conceive, some are so mad with it they cry each time a real film gets an award in Cannes, instead of their boring favourites.

Check Agnès Jaoui, she's the boss for that. Got plenty of awards, too.


----------



## Bucky (Jan 25, 2010)

I was talking about _people,_ not ar-teests.


----------



## Firawyn (Jan 25, 2010)

Hey be nice Bucky. Ar-teests are cool  And they are people too!!


----------



## WonderBroad (Jan 25, 2010)

>>Yes, they do . It's called « french cinéma d'auteur »

ROFLMAO!


----------

