Uhoh, Monday again! That snuck up on me. Once more it’s time for a Fantasy With Friends discussion post! The prompts are hosted at Pages Unbound, and this week’s is about contemporary fantasies that might be set to become classics:

What contemporary fantasy works do you think could become future classics?

Aaaand I’m pretty stumped. I feel like I have a better handle on it for SF, where e.g. Ann Leckie’s Imperial Radch books and Martha Wells’ Murderbot seem likely to stick in people’s minds. But though I read more fantasy than SF, I’m not sure — maybe it’s because I read more fantasy, and not just the standouts? And also maybe because I’m often running a little behind: due to mood reading, I’m not always reading the latest, though I’ve improved on that in the last year and a half.

But really, looking at my shelves at fantasy from the last decade or so, some of the books I thought were really great have already dipped well out of sight into backlists. I suspect as well as quality, there’ll be a degree of visibility required: books that have been pushed hard and made it onto a lot of shelves might have the sticking power in people’s brains because of the saturation of them. Maybe that means the early cosy fantasies like Travis Baldree’s Legends & Lattes will be considered the classics of the current time? Some of the romantasies?

My tongue’s a little bit in my cheek here, but given these books spurred a change in the genre/the solidification of a subgenre, that’s a reason they might genuinely survive, if the subgenre stays strong (even if it fades back into the background as other trends come along).

If I could pick what will become a classic, I think Marie Brennan’s A Natural History of Dragons and sequels would be good choices, Katherine Addison’s The Goblin Emperor, Nghi Vo’s Singing Hills novellas, some of T. Kingfisher’s (maybe Clockwork Boys?)… but sadly, I don’t get to pick. Which is probably good, because I know I must be forgetting many absolutely wonderful books that I’d absolutely endorse.

Still, I kinda like that question. If you could pick a contemporary fantasy to become a classic, just based on your own fondness for it, what would you pick?

ETA: Made slight updates to the wording to make it clear where I’m not entirely serious.

Happy Monday! Which means it’s time for the Fantasy With Friends discussion post for this week (prompts hosted at Pages Unbound). This week the prompt’s about favourite genres:

Do you have any favorite subgenres of fantasy such as urban fantasy, historical fantasy, etc.?

Sort of! There are subgenres/combinations of genres that will always draw my attention, but I don’t have exclusive favourites, and it’d probably take some working out from the books on my shelves, because I like to try a bit of everything. I think there are some people who find a subgenre they love and just revel in it for months/years/forever, reading little else, and that’s not me — I’m too restless for that and too prone to trying anything and everything I can.

(Which, to be clear, is not intended as a diss for folks who find a genre or a corner of a genre and get themselves entrenched! It’s just not for me.)

As for what draws my attention, I had to actually have a think about it, because it’s definitely been evolving. I think these are the top ones though:

• Fantasy mysteries: I do get a little picky about this genre, because a fantasy mystery has to be careful if it wants to be a fair-play mystery (one where the reader has all the clues). People need to get enough background to the story to be able to theorise for themselves. Even when it’s not intended as a fair-play mystery, the reader shouldn’t be totally blindsided by stuff like special murder magic or something at the end of the story. Still, there are some very fun fantasy mysteries out there: Robert Jackson Bennett’s The Tainted Cup and A Drop of Corruption manage to give you enough detail to the world and magic that you can theorise for yourself, though they aren’t 100% fair-play. Katherine Addison’s The Witness for the Dead is pretty good at that as well. I recently snagged Oliver K. Langmead’s upcoming The Killing of a Chestnut Tree as an ARC exactly because it’s a pastiche of Sherlock Holmes in a fantasy world (and indeed loved it!).
• Cosy fantasy: If anything, I’m even pickier here because sometimes “cosy fantasy” ends up all vibes and no substance, and even interpersonal interactions can get flattened down to keep things low conflict to the point that characters and relationships can end feeling cardboard. Sometimes the happy endings feel too easy to be real, as well. There are cosy/lower-stakes fantasy I’ve loved, though — Legends & Lattes, for example, and The Teller of Small Fortunes.
• Retellings/reinterpretations: There are some ridiculously clever ones that are completely transformative, like T. Kingfisher’s Hemlock & Silver, which is very much a Snow White retelling, but is also full of inventiveness. The mirror monsters are an astounding idea. Shout out too to Jacqueline Carey’s spin on The Lord of the Rings, Banewreaker and Godslayer; it’s been so long since I read those I don’t think I have reviews to link, but which I loved — you wouldn’t think anyone could make Sauron the good guy, and that’s not exactly what Carey does, but you can see the influence. There’s also Jo Walton’s The King’s Peace and sequel, and The Prize in the Game… I’ve been meaning to reread these for quite a while, because they are reflections on Arthurian legends (and The Tain) while being wholly their own thing too. It’s really exciting when people do retellings of less-known stories, too: I’m currently reading Finn Longman’s The Wolf and His King, which retells Marie de France’s ‘Bisclavret’, and I love that.
• Political fantasy: I read Kushiel’s Dart at an impressionable age, and I’ve often looked for similarly rich political intrigue ever since. The Goblin Emperor and The Hands of the Emperor are recent books that scratched the same itch, and I’ve just remembered E.J. Beaton’s The Councillor as well (and sadly learned that the sequel may never be published). In a slightly different way, The Traitor Baru Cormorant digs into this too, though I didn’t get into the follow-up books.
• Historical fantasy: Books like Guy Gavriel Kay’s A Song for Arbonne and Sailing to Sarantium really left their fingerprints on me (and arguably Kushiel’s Dart falls under this heading as well, while many of Kay’s books have political scheming too, like Tigana). I do think this genre can tend to be a bit bland and conjure up a very single-note “history” (i.e. medieval European), so it’s also especially nice when someone goes beyond that (I’d gladly take recommendations on this front!).
• Xianxia and wuxia. I’m combining these because it’s a fairly recent interest of mine (though I’ve read a couple of wuxia-inspired novels here and there before), and mostly in the context of danmei and baihe (which I didn’t want to call a subgenre of fantasy because they don’t have to be fantasy). I have fallen totally in love with stories like The Scum Villain’s Self-Saving System, The Disabled Tyrant’s Beloved Pet Fish (though this isn’t quite xianxia, it’s adjacent) and The Beauty’s Blade, and I’m looking forward to reading more wuxia- and xianxia-inspired novels (like S.L. Huang’s The Water Outlaws).

Okay, I’m going to stop there, but it was fun to think about what exactly draws me in!

It’s Fantasy With Friends‘ weekly discussion time (prompts hosted at Pages Unbound), and this week’s prompt is about high vs low fantasy:

Do you prefer low or high fantasy? Or both?

For those who aren’t super into the genre (since I know I have a few of you around here), the archetypical “high fantasy” would be J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. It’s usually set entirely in an alternate world (though I would argue that Guy Gavriel Kay’s The Summer Tree remains pretty high fantasy despite also being a portal fantasy), and involves the typical fantasy trappings — swords and sorcery, elves, dwarves, etc. Low fantasy would cover stuff set in our own world and which feels less immediately epic in scope, like urban fantasy (though series like Ilona Andrews’ Kate Daniels books are ultimately pretty epic in scope despite the apparent “real-world” setting, it takes a while to realise just how big the scope is).

I’m honestly not sure how useful the high/low distinction is for my purposes; I guess if you draw a firm line that you only want to read secondary world fantasy (like The Lord of the Rings) then it might be alright, but even then I think it’s a poor guide to many important aspects of a book. High fantasy just covers so much. In part, I think it’s a high-level label that we’ve pretty much outgrown as a genre, with more and more subgenres to explore and narrow down what you’re interested in: consider cosy fantasy, for instance. It’s often set in wholly different worlds, like Travis Baldree’s Legends & Lattes — but the concerns are everyday, not epic, and I don’t think someone who only wants books like The Lord of the Rings would be very happy if they picked it up because it’s “high fantasy”.

And then there’s stuff like Freya Marske’s Swordcrossed, which I mentioned last week too: it’s set in a fantasy world, but there’s no magic, and the stakes are small and personal. Again, it doesn’t seem like what people are going to be looking for when they want “high fantasy”, but it also doesn’t really meet the definitions of low fantasy. There have always been exceptions… but there are labels now that explain them well, and give you a better idea of a book’s contents.

I am generally the sort of person who likes things to be more of a continuum than a set of tightly defined boxes, so it’s probably no surprise that I love both high and low fantasy, and many books that fall somewhere between. It’s not the kind of criteria I use when deciding what to read overall, though sometimes I might be more in the mood for one than the other (e.g. hankering for something with good world-building).

Aaand somehow it’s Monday again already, meaning Fantasy With Friends discussion time (prompts hosted at Pages Unbound). This week’s theme is about the definition of the genre:

How do you define “fantasy” as a genre?

The simplest answer I can think of is “a story that somehow pushes outside of our reality, in a way not intended to be explained by science” (which would put it more in the realm of science fiction). I think the conventional definition is usually that fantasy includes magic or supernatural elements, but I think that excludes some stories set in an alternative world that may not have magic, but definitely aren’t our world and read to me as fantasy (like Freya Marske’s Swordcrossed).

I was actually for a long time a member of an online book group called The Alternative Worlds: our interests were mostly sci-fi and fantasy, but alternate history (like Jo Walton’s Farthing) also fell into that, and I think that widened my definitions and shaped what I wanted from genre fiction a lot: alternative worlds, alternative ways of being, alternative ways things might have happened. For quite a while, I found the term “speculative fiction” more descriptive of what I’m interested in.

There are a lot of different subgenres of fantasy where different elements are more or less important, but for me being set in a world that doesn’t work quite like our own is what does it (though I wouldn’t argue that Farthing is fantasy in the traditional sense). That might mean adding magic to our world in hidden corners (like Caitlin Rozakis’ The Grimoire Grammar School Parent Teacher Association), by adding it into our world where it didn’t exist before (like Chugong’s Solo Leveling or singNsong’s Omniscient Reader’s Viewpoint), or by creating whole new worlds with different histories and belief systems (like Katherine Addison’s The Goblin Emperor or Victoria Goddard’s The Hands of the Emperor).

Inevitably the definition isn’t perfect and can get a bit porous: is horror fantasy? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. Buuut I think that’s a feature, not a bug: we needn’t get too rigid in our definitions, less we miss out on stuff that’s new and fun, or stuff that we’d love that’s just outside our clearly defined box. Humans like to define things very narrowly and it’s pretty much always more complicated than that, and things might be better if we could be better (as individuals and as a society) at noticing that putting things into clearly defined and separated boxes is only useful up to a point.