A Wizard of Earthsea discussion

I can't decide. The world of the Sea Isles is small but the events of the book effect (or threaten to effect) all of them. It seems to have a lot in common with Harry Potter (but I enjoyed Earthsea more.) The events of the story seem to only involve the protagonist unless you read into the background events of the narrative? What's your opinion, is this epic fantasy?

Depends on your definition, I guess. I just reread it, and it seemed to me that nothing too "epic" ever happened. I also read The Tombs of Atuan, which I put down the first time I tried it. I'm not sure why I bothered to read it through this time. I don't think I'll be reading the third book.

The Earthsea books are classic. I can't imagine not having them in my bookcases. I read them many, many years ago and still reread them. Here is one definition I found of epic fantasy in http://fantasy-faction.com/2013/what-.... I've shortened it a bit, but the gist is still there. The Earthsea books fit comfortably in this.
--
It does not take place in a recognisable version of the world. It has warfare. It has magic. It has heroes. The heroes carry swords. Most importantly—-at least to the knee-jerk definition of epic fantasy—-the story is long. Long as in “use-the-piled-series-as-a-bedside-table” long.

Thet deeds of the main actors, the struggles and journeys that the epics recount, have an effect on the very nature of the world.

Thanks Gwen. So it sound like you are leaning towards yes. I think this is a pretty long series. I don't think the first book was meant to start a series but other books must have some bigger plot. Have you read them? Are they each self contained or do the plots rely on you reading the next book to resolve things?

Ursula K. LeGuin doesn't really write epic fantasy. She prefers things on a smaller scale, even in her other works.

Elly wrote: "My idea of Epic Fantasy is that the cast of characters is large and can span a great time span and involve many differing cultures and nations.


I like that definition Elly. Even Harry Potter has a bigger cast than Earthsea and I don't really think of it as epic fantasy either.

1. "fantasy fiction set in an alternative, fictional ("secondary") world"? Check
2. "These stories are often serious in tone and epic in scope, dealing with themes of grand struggle against supernatural, evil forces"? Check
3. "storylines are told from the viewpoint of one main hero. Often, much of the plot revolves around his or her heritage or mysterious nature. In many novels the hero is an orphan" Check
4. "The hero often begins as a childlike figure, but matures rapidly, experiencing a huge gain in fighting/problem-solving abilities along the way" Check
5. "authors in this genre tend to create their own worlds where they set multi-tiered narratives" Check

I think it fits pretty nicely into the definition of epic/high fantasy. I use both terms interchangeably

Elly wrote: "Piotrek wrote: "1. "fantasy fiction set in an alternative, fictional ("secondary") world"? Check
2. "These stories are often serious in tone and epic in scope, dealing with themes of grand struggle..."

Actually, it's from Wikipedia's article on high fantasy :P However, there are some quite interesting entries in the "Sources" part of the page :)

Epic to me implies time, a story which runs through the lives of it's characters. It also implies using a whole world for the action, by both counts the earthsea stories are epic fantasy

No. It does not feel epic and it does not have enough characters. Not everything has to be epic fantasy.

Unique fantasy definitely :) there's nothing quite similar and Earthsea is beautiful world, wouldn't skip it even ifit wasn't "epic"

I think the greatest charm of the Earthsea books is that they have the qualities of fable rather than epic fantasy.

LeGuin is so spare in her drawing of the world and mythos that they come to life through a near absence of exposition. In the spirit of Earthsea's word magic, she says little, to great effect.

Earthsea is distinct from Lord or the Rings and Game of Thrones for exactly this reason. The prose in those works drown you in words, many of which burden the narrative.

The fable is a purer form than the epic. Few modern tales can achieve it. Earthsea does.

I think your putting it up on a pedestal just a bit Dylan. It comes from a different era. It's not that "few modern tales can achieve it" rather that it is contrary to the modern stylistic zeitgeist.

Bodhi wrote: "I think your putting it up on a pedestal just a bit Dylan. It comes from a different era. It's not that "few modern tales can achieve it" rather that it is contrary to the modern stylistic zeitgeist."

Bodhi, clearly I'm putting Earthsea on a pedestal. That was the gist of my comment. I like the books very much.

But I'm not sure how classifying the Earthsea books as being more fable than epic, or noting that few other books achieve a similar fable-like effect, has anything to do with their relationship to the current zeitgeist (in literary terms "modern" means something very specific — more Hemingway than George R. R. Martin)

All three of the books I mentioned come from eras different from each other, and from the one we are currently mired in. Rings precedes Earthsea by generations, Earthsea precedes Game of Thrones by generations as well. But none were originally published after 2000. In that sense, they are all "contrary to the modern zeitgeist" by 20 or more years.

Games was published in 1996. Facebook wouldn't exist for another seven years, much less GoodReads. And the fact of its reinterpretation to the screen does not invest the Games books or their literary style into the zeitgeist. Only the story and perhaps some of the dialogue gets that benefit.

Nor does relative proximity to the so-called zeitgeist lend a work any stylistic idiosyncrasies that would make it more or less of a fable.

So, you'll have to expand on why you think the era of a particular book effects its fable-ness (or lack thereof).

Are you trying to say that, because Hollywood hasn't made a successful interpretation of Earthsea, it seems more quaint and remote than the other examples — and therefore more fable-like?

A fable is not a remote literary genre (either historically or stylistically). It's merely hard to pull off well. I think Earthsea does. I think few others do, though Pullman's Northern Lights might qualify (published only a year before Game of Thrones).

And the quality of remoteness you seem to apply to the fable genre seems more like an artifact of your personal bias than one inherent to the fable form. Certainly no definition of the fable insists that it exist outside the current or "modern stylistic zeitgeist."

I maintain the particular fable-like qualities of Earthsea, which are not present in Rings or Games, are unique and have nothing in common with the expansive (often convoluted) intricacies of the epic.

In the simplest definition of epic, Earthsea could qualify. It is told in several books, over many years, and alludes to a rich backstory and fantastical world.

But in the spirit that epic is now often used (an emsemble cast of characters, following simultaneous, intricate, independent and interweaving storylines — none of which apply to Earthsea), I think it is misleading to apply that genre to Earthsea when a better and more appropriate one is available.

Hence fable.

How's that for a pedestal? I stacked the words even higher this time.

Everything Dylan wrote

This post made me chuckle, and I felt compelled to let you know. As I've only just read Wizard of Earthsea (but have read ASoIaF and LotR), I can't really give a full opinion on the matter, but from what I've read, I completely agree with this assessment.

Nathan wrote: "Everything Dylan wrote

This post made me chuckle, and I felt compelled to let you know. As I've only just read Wizard of Earthsea (but have read ASoIaF and LotR), I can't really give a full opinio..."

Danke schön, Nathan!

Piotrek wrote: "1. "fantasy fiction set in an alternative, fictional ("secondary") world"? Check
2. "These stories are often serious in tone and epic in scope, dealing with themes of grand struggle against superna..."

I would add in a requirement that the protagonist's culture, race, species, world, or even universe must be facing an existential threat where the actions of relatively few, especially those of the protagonist, will determine the outcome.

I wouldn't try to hit a moving target by saying what is epic in one era is not in another, and would certainly never try to say that "following simultaneous, intricate, independent and interweaving story lines" is an essential part of being epic. Heck, that would disqualify Beowulf, possibly the great granddaddy of all epic tales.

Yes, LoTR is epic, as are the Narnia books (minus that terrible 7th one, at least), and Lloyd Alexander's Prydain books (disclaimer: given that these are what inspired me to write my own books I may be biased).

A Wizard of Earthsea is probably borderline epic, The Tombs of Atuan is not epic (never cared much for that one), while the third book, The Farthest Shore, most definitely is, thereby placing the whole trilogy into the epic fantasy category.

I regard this whole craze of "following simultaneous, intricate, independent and interweaving story lines" as a negative thing because there are, in my opinion, so few writers that can do this well. As writers, most would be better served by avoiding this, or putting it off until much later in their careers and, since many of them can probably write perfectly serviceable stories without doing this, the readers would be better served as well.

Just to stir the pot a little bit: I don't think I would call Earthsea fantasy even. It reminds me personally more of the Greek and Roman epics than any "modern" fantasy. And I wouldn't call The Odyssey fantasy since it predates the term and has a pretty firm place in the literary canon. Well, I guess you could argue that Homer's work is fantasy since it has unnatural elements to it but I still think that I would hesitate before calling Earthsea fantasy, I'd rather call it epic actually.

Dragons painted as they ought. Drops mic.

Beautiful fantasy, not epic in lotr sense, but has stood the test of time. Well worth the reading

I think it's important to note that epic fantasy=high fantasy. So since the cycle takes place in a totally different world than ours, it is epic by definition. When it comes to the scale of the story, I do agree that there are books in much larger scale, but as a classic fantasy book I felt a warm sense of familiarity with the tropes while still enjoying the story. This is one of the earlier examples of classic fantasy so keeping that in mind, I really had fun reading it.