Hmm, well mine depends on the genre, as "Fantasy" covers a very wide range of settings.
* "High" Fantasy (swords and sorcery, dragons, heroes) - Raistlin Majere from Dragonlance and possibly Strahd Von Zarovich from Ravenloft.
* "Low Fantasy" (lot of swords not much sorcery, usually dirty and grungy) - Geralt the Witcher
* "Urban Fantasy" (modern day, sorcery, supernatural) - Crowley from Good Omens
* "Comic Fantasy" (humour) - Archchancellor Ridcully of the UU.
* "Sci-Fantasy" (loosely sci-fi but mostly fantasy - space dragons, space magic, laser swords) - Kreia.
* "Bad Fantasy" (so hilariously bad you can't forget the characters) - Hawk the Slayer
* "High" Fantasy (swords and sorcery, dragons, heroes) - Raistlin Majere from Dragonlance and possibly Strahd Von Zarovich from Ravenloft.
* "Low Fantasy" (lot of swords not much sorcery, usually dirty and grungy) - Geralt the Witcher
* "Urban Fantasy" (modern day, sorcery, supernatural) - Crowley from Good Omens
* "Comic Fantasy" (humour) - Archchancellor Ridcully of the UU.
* "Sci-Fantasy" (loosely sci-fi but mostly fantasy - space dragons, space magic, laser swords) - Kreia.
* "Bad Fantasy" (so hilariously bad you can't forget the characters) - Hawk the Slayer
Off topic, and related to Lyc bringing up subdivisions of fantasy. Let's begin by saying most labels and genres are subjective, unless they actually describe or characterize an entity based on structural, functional, or other features (wow OT inside an OT!).
Anyway, I think we all agree that high fantasy usually involves, among other elements, a clear distinction between roles: good vs. evil, law vs. chaos. It is usually presented in such a manner that often heroes/villains arise and they battle each other. A good example is of course The Lord of the Rings and Dungeons & Dragons.
Low fantasy was, I used to believe, the opposite, with blurred morality lines, gritty themes and a diversity of characters who show complementary traits, if not contradicting. Here we could probably think of both white wolves, Elric of Melnibone and Geralt of Rivia.
However, I recall reading somewhere that low vs. high fantasy has to do more with the structure of the world. In high fantasy settings, the fantasy world is all that exists and it is the ultimate reality. In low fantasy universes, they are either related to our "real" world or they have a way of accessing it, perhaps through portals or doors or pathways across an axis mundi a-la Yggdrasil. A very obvious example is, of course, Alice in Wonderland.
In The Witcher universe, monsters supposedly appeared after the conjunction of the spheres, and according to elves so did humans. The Wild Hunt appears to be a cavalcade of plane traveling specters. Could this mean there are indeed other worlds, perhaps like our own, and that there is perhaps a way to move between dimensions? This would explain the anachronisms, like Triss talking about evolution.
Anyway, I suppose no matter the perspective The Witcher is low fantasy. Just thinking out loud
Anyway, I think we all agree that high fantasy usually involves, among other elements, a clear distinction between roles: good vs. evil, law vs. chaos. It is usually presented in such a manner that often heroes/villains arise and they battle each other. A good example is of course The Lord of the Rings and Dungeons & Dragons.
Low fantasy was, I used to believe, the opposite, with blurred morality lines, gritty themes and a diversity of characters who show complementary traits, if not contradicting. Here we could probably think of both white wolves, Elric of Melnibone and Geralt of Rivia.
However, I recall reading somewhere that low vs. high fantasy has to do more with the structure of the world. In high fantasy settings, the fantasy world is all that exists and it is the ultimate reality. In low fantasy universes, they are either related to our "real" world or they have a way of accessing it, perhaps through portals or doors or pathways across an axis mundi a-la Yggdrasil. A very obvious example is, of course, Alice in Wonderland.
In The Witcher universe, monsters supposedly appeared after the conjunction of the spheres, and according to elves so did humans. The Wild Hunt appears to be a cavalcade of plane traveling specters. Could this mean there are indeed other worlds, perhaps like our own, and that there is perhaps a way to move between dimensions? This would explain the anachronisms, like Triss talking about evolution.
Anyway, I suppose no matter the perspective The Witcher is low fantasy. Just thinking out loud
Volsung said:
The way I though it was is that 'high' and 'low' is the descriptor for the amount of 'fantastic elements' a setting had, or more exactly how much it diverges from the 'real world' (aka reality).
On the "High" end of the scale, reality can (and often does) fly out the window. Good and Evil are literal things as opposed to philosophical ideals, you can fly around on magic carpets, you can have tea with the gods, defeat 100000000 giant purple monsters with a toothpick, death is an annoyance and so forth.
Low on the other hand, while it does have fantastical elements they are a lot more muted, and the rules of the world are much closer to reality. If magic exists it is highly dangerous and difficult to use, most monsters are just deformed humanoids, good and evil are relative concepts, death is usually permanent and people are people as opposed to stylized ideals (The Good King (tm), the Evil Wizard(tm), etc).
It's basically the difference between "Hard" Sci-Fi and "Soft" Sci-Fi. Not that either is bad, but their structure is different, and even the 'high' and 'low' points can vary. Lots of 'grey' in between the two terms.
Yes, the literary use of "high" vs. "low" fantasy is as Lyc described it. High Fantasy is set in a world that is very much another world: different time, different place (whether as far out as Discworld or as close to home as Middle-Earth), different reality (Hogwarts). Its elements are in place in that world. Low Fantasy is set in a world that is very much this one. Magical and surreal events are rare and extraordinary.
By this definition of "low fantasy" (the world is the real world, magical things are extraordinary), the most excellent character I know of is Tita de la Garza of Like Water for Chocolate. Of course, you could argue that it is Magical Realism and not Low Fantasy, but the border between the two is less guarded than the Rio Grande. (You could also argue that Mexican cooking is inherently magical, and I would not deny you.)
What happened was that authors broke the "black and white" morality of traditional high fantasy, creating stories where heroes are flawed, villains have unextinguished traces of humanity, and even the best motives are impure. This approach to high fantasy wanted (and still wants) a name, and writers not familiar with the existing use of "low fantasy" sometimes call it that.
By those terms, the Witcher stories (both Sapkowski and the games) are high fantasy. Monsters, sorcery, alchemy, curses are integral to the world, not extraordinary single events with plot-driving consequences. They just do not have the black and white morality of, say, Tolkien. Instead, they have a morality straight out of some of Sapkowski's own favorite genres: hard-boiled detective fiction and film noir. "Fantasy Noir" has sometimes been used for this style of fiction, and I think the term is a fitting one.
By this definition of "low fantasy" (the world is the real world, magical things are extraordinary), the most excellent character I know of is Tita de la Garza of Like Water for Chocolate. Of course, you could argue that it is Magical Realism and not Low Fantasy, but the border between the two is less guarded than the Rio Grande. (You could also argue that Mexican cooking is inherently magical, and I would not deny you.)
What happened was that authors broke the "black and white" morality of traditional high fantasy, creating stories where heroes are flawed, villains have unextinguished traces of humanity, and even the best motives are impure. This approach to high fantasy wanted (and still wants) a name, and writers not familiar with the existing use of "low fantasy" sometimes call it that.
By those terms, the Witcher stories (both Sapkowski and the games) are high fantasy. Monsters, sorcery, alchemy, curses are integral to the world, not extraordinary single events with plot-driving consequences. They just do not have the black and white morality of, say, Tolkien. Instead, they have a morality straight out of some of Sapkowski's own favorite genres: hard-boiled detective fiction and film noir. "Fantasy Noir" has sometimes been used for this style of fiction, and I think the term is a fitting one.
I have so many of them but think I have to go old school
Strum Brightblade and Raistlin Majere from the Dragon lance chronicles
Strum Brightblade and Raistlin Majere from the Dragon lance chronicles
Only one? That's tough, I'll limit myself to two:
The Eternal Champion. The whole concept fascinates me and Michael Moorcock has done a fine job realizing his vision. My favorite incarnation would have to be Elric of course, with Corum and Jerry Cornelius as close seconds. I've often thought of Geralt as the incarnation for his universe.
Garrett, the hard bitten fantasy P.I. created by Glen Cook. This goes in the "guilty pleasure" category If you're not familar with the series, its kinda like a Raymond Chandler/Tolkien/Howard mix...sounds riduclous I know but they're good escapist fun.
The Eternal Champion. The whole concept fascinates me and Michael Moorcock has done a fine job realizing his vision. My favorite incarnation would have to be Elric of course, with Corum and Jerry Cornelius as close seconds. I've often thought of Geralt as the incarnation for his universe.
Garrett, the hard bitten fantasy P.I. created by Glen Cook. This goes in the "guilty pleasure" category
If you're not familar with the series, its kinda like a Raymond Chandler/Tolkien/Howard mix...sounds riduclous I know but they're good escapist fun.