Talk:Hard fantasy

message: I've got a slight problem with this article, since it seems to be a poorly defined term, without any particular definition being in use.  I think some citations would be appropriate at least.  FrozenPurpleCube 02:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you are saying is that a film like Reign of fire could be considered hard fantasy (Would also call it Dying Earth fantasy) because even though it features dragons, they are presented in a scientific manner instead of relying on some kind of supernatural magical background? I would have to agree with you if that is the case. It then clearly illustrates the difference between hard and high in that the concepts are based more "real world" and scientific than "fantastical" and mystic. Enigmatical 03:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even that, though I would certainly say that that movie is a good example of such an approach to fantasy.  However, what I'm saying is that there's no source on what the term means, and my quick web searches have found a plethora of usages, which include authors like Tolkien. See:  http://www.locusmag.com/2004/Issues/06Swanwick.html Then there's this discussion I found:  http://megmccarron.livejournal.com/57970.html which has a bit more discussion, including some bits that mention the problem more outright. As such, it may be worth taking a look at the other Fantasy Genre articles and seeing how they handle their problems with ambiguous meanings. FrozenPurpleCube 14:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Reign of Fire is presenting dragons in a scientific manner, why is it fantasy?  Goldfritha 21:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Dragons are "fantasy" ?  I dunno, I'm not adding it to this page because I've yet to see anybody else call it hard fantasy and it doesn't quite fit the current definition.  FrozenPurpleCube 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dragons need not be fantasy.  Pern is hard SF; heck, it got published in Analog.  Goldfritha 22:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Pern is Hard SF?  I know a lot of people that would die of shock just on hearing that statement.  Some of them would probably be more comfortable with it being fantasy.  FrozenPurpleCube 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not in the business of spreading what people would be comfortable with.  Goldfritha 03:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, consensus is very much about people's comfort.  But you're the one who brought up Pern claiming it was Hard Science Fiction.  If you added it to Hard science fiction that, I suspect most people would object to that.  I don't think it's got anything to do with this page though,  so talk about it there.  Good luck!   FrozenPurpleCube 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If people are claiming that dragons prove that a work is fantasy, it has plenty to do with this page as a counter-example.  It is ridiculous to even propose that that be discussed on another page.  Goldfritha 00:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, no, the issue of whether or not Pern represents Hard Science fiction is for another page, the one on Hard Science Fiction.   Whether Dragons=Fantasy and not something else would probably be for another page too.  None of it means much of anything regarding this page at the current time.  Unless you are proposing adding Pern to this page?  In which case, I only ask that you provide a source describing it as such. FrozenPurpleCube 05:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FrozenPurpleCube, YOU made the claim that dragons=fantasy.  If it is unsuitable for this page, you have no one to blame but yourself.  Goldfritha 01:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I didn't.  I made an off-hand non-serious remark, and it seems you're taking it way too seriously and getting upset over it.  Now I understand that sometimes people can miss tone in online conversations, but that's why I used the quote marks, and followed it up with an I dunno statement.  If you didn't realize that, perhaps you should blame yourself?  FrozenPurpleCube 17:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you did.  It's right there for everyone to see.  And if you were so non-serious about it, why are you dragging out this long?  Goldfritha 01:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but did you completely not see the part about the quote marks?  Are you unaware of the concept that I'm talking about?  It seems that you misunderstood me, I've explained where you didn't understand what I was saying, but you are reacting in what seems to me to be quite a confrontational way.  Am I misreading you?  Or is there some reason for your hostility?  It's making me quite uncomfortable. FrozenPurpleCube 02:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining Hard Fantasy

message: :I cant believe the consensus was to keep this article when the definition of the content is: fantasy that doesn't include magic, elves or dragons- unless it does. COME ON!
::Meh, blame the fact that the term is used in some contradictory ways, or that the article is just poorly written at the moment.  The first, well, it is not a problem for Wikipedia.  The second, well, it is a problem, but sadly, this article gets little attention.  Pity that.  However, if you look at the original discussion, you'll see that the term was sourced, and as such, merits inclusion.   FrozenPurpleCube 08:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article stands there is only one use of the term cited- and that only in the earlier deletion debate. There should be some more uses of the term and variations for the definition added (A quick Google search lists: Jane Lindskold who claims to write Hard Fantasy and Michael Swanwick who argued for hard fantasy being fantasy that bases itself on primary sources).Nitpyck (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-open Debate on deleting article 

message: Works shown as examples of Hard Fantasy should be cited to show which reliable source says this. Nitpyck (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  examples need cites 

message: This section seems a little over specific to one guy’s work and of questionable relevance to the article, so I think on balance it should probably go. Artw (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that in the articles current size, it was disproportionate, but it is the closest thing we have on actual guidelines to what hard fantasy means. I had hoped when I added that the article would grow with other material so it wouldnt be out of size.Carewolf (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it questionable if the topic Hard Fantasy' is well defined. In fact, are there enough sources to support an article at all?Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could say that about most genres. But is a genre people keep refering to, or ideal that fantasy books are compared to, and there more than enough sources using the term to warrent an article, it is just much harder to find details on what it means. The best I could find was the rules by Sanderson that I found multiple sources refering to (before I added it to the article). Carewolf (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard Magic 

message: I am a bit surprised to not find Robert Jordan's "The Wheel of Time" among the list of examples. The difficulty in the definition of hard fantasy does not escape me, but I find this example to be particularly good: Jordan's "magic system" is at times even painfully mechanistic. I am not aware of anyone authoritative labeling the works as such, so I refrain from editing the article directly. — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 06:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another example of note: Robert Jordan's "The Wheel of Time"