/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18169558]

Why is virtually all fantasy written in a medieval setting when antiquity was the main inspiration for art for 1800 years?

I can think of almost no fantasy books set around 600BC-400AD

[Anonymous No.18169572]

>>18169558
because tolkien hamstrug the genre with certain conventions and tropes

[Anonymous No.18169597]

>>18169558
I think most people are too historically illiterate to relate to the peoples of classical antiquity, even though a cursory education reveals their thought is much like ours.

[Anonymous No.18169602]

Because fantasy as a genre is just continuous rehashing of Lord of the Rings

[Anonymous No.18169611]

all fantasy/sci-fi books that have a gigantic empire slowly decaying is a mirror of the roman empire

[Anonymous No.18169621]

>>18169558
Well LOTR is basically takes place in an ancient setting, it just doesn't seem that way because everyone associates wypipo with medieval Europe.

[Anonymous No.18169633]

My guess? It’s because you have a romanticized and very clearly depicted vision of things like castles, knights in armor, magic, churches, big battles and it’s all very distinct and very romantic and dramatic. Meanwhile, we actually don’t have all that clear a picture of antiquity and what we do, is concentrated into pretty specific settings that are hard to do a lot with. You can do a lot with Medieval Britain but Roman Britain, I think, would be a lot harder.

[Anonymous No.18169656]

For western fantasy, it feels like the dominance of the Roman empire makes it harder to suspend your disbelief, even if the story is another universe.

Think about it, if a story begins with "There once was king who commanded 100 knights", you might think: Fine, there were lots those in Europe. But if it begins with "There once was a king who commanded 100 legionaries", you think: Wait, are we in Rome? Was this in pre-republican times? Otherwise he would be called emperor, right? But then he would certainly command more than 100 legionaries? What's going on?

[Anonymous No.18169669]

>>18169621
Isnt Gondor supposed to be the city of Rome or Constantinople in the early middle ages though? Also I heard he nicked the concept of the two towers from mideval Bologna or some shit

[Anonymous No.18169681]

>>18169558
What about Conanian age undreamed of?

[Anonymous No.18169893]

>>18169558
Bc your not looking harder enough:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/768070.The_Meeting_of_the_Waters#

You zoom right past it lad.

[Anonymous No.18169951]

>>18169611
Yes, but that's Byzantium, which is very much Medieval.

And Rome after reaching its height is late antiquity, not the classical era, which dies with Ceasar really.

Pic related, for example, has a Rome stand in, but it's clearly modled on the First Crusade with some anachronistic antiquity stuff thrown in.

I'm talking 500-80BC.

Or far antiquity, Sumeria/Egypt is also untapped.

[Anonymous No.18169972]

>>18169656
This sounds really autistic even by /it/ standards, sorry.

[Anonymous No.18169989]

>>18169951
>Yes, but that's Byzantium, which is very much Medieval.
no, the Roman Empire itself was decaying for ages, including when it was a whole entity.

[Anonymous No.18170036]

>>18169681
Howard took the Borges approach when it came to making his setting:
>"I believe that a writer should never attempt a contemporary theme or a very precise topography. Otherwise people are immediately going to find mistakes. Or if they don’t find them, they’re going to look for them, and if they look for them, they’ll find them. That’s why I prefer to have my stories take place in somewhat indeterminate places and many years ago."
More authors need to do this; instead of placing their stories in settings that can be tied directly to historical periods (medieval, Victorian, etc)

[Anonymous No.18170187]

>>18169602
/thread.

[Anonymous No.18170463]

>>18169633
>Meanwhile, we actually don’t have all that clear a picture of antiquity and what we do, is concentrated into pretty specific settings that are hard to do a lot with.
Are you serious?

[Anonymous No.18170630]

>>18169633
Medieval history is a confused mess of shit not getting written down. We literally have a blow by blow of every somewhat important Athenian, down to the shit they talked at dinner parties still recorded thanks to way, way more literacy and a higher culture overall.

[Anonymous No.18171190]

>>18169558
Well that's a hard one, but I'll give it my best try... Let's see.. huh... oh yeah! Tolkien. The genre as it is today entirely derivates from his work, or from the works of people who were inspired by him.
That being said, there is of course fantasy in every setting: western, victorian england, renaissance italy, modern urban bs, and yes, of course, roman empire or ancient greece type of stuff.

[Anonymous No.18171736]

Well, what about fantasy that predates Lord of the Rings? Gormenghast, Lord Dunsany, it's not like it doesnt exist.

[Anonymous No.18171886]

>>18169602
Now with tons of bad smut.

Also I think the period when the genre formed its most important features and tropes is important. Had it been in 1750 and fantasy would be very Greco-Roman, but it was 1920's and 1930's with relative second revival of interest in medievalism(first one happening in Victorian era).

[Anonymous No.18171933]

>>18169558
I'd argue it isnt so much a medieval setting as much as it is typically a later-than-antiquity setting. Harry Potter doesnt take place in the middle ages.

The reason that fantasy usually takes place after antiquity is that antiquity feels too fare removed and foreign and at the same time too specific.