Category talk:Epic

Definition?

How does one define an "Epic" series, anyway? Is it in the way the show was filmed or the story or what? It seems like a totally arbitrary category to me, at this point. --IndieRockLance 14:10, 11 August 2006 (EDT)

It sounds somewhat arbitrary, but i think its fixable. I think a proper definition would be a series in which the story has "epic" stakes (end of the world, end of the republic, or the end or start of something really really important). Epic is a qualitative word and therefore can not be washed completely of it's arbitrariness, but if we make the category "big tent" enough, i don't see a problem with keeping it. --MateoP 14:51, 11 August 2006 (EDT)

I think a proper definition would be a series in which the story has "epic" stakes (end of the world, end of the republic, or the end or start of something really really important). Except for the fact that that's not what the word "epic" means.

Epic is a qualitative word. Nope, it really isn't. It's a very specific word with a very specific meaning.

And before you start your, "Well, I have a different opinion, blah blah blah," I'm going to jump straight to your favorite things, the "cited sources." A Glossary of Literary Terms, Sixth Edition, edited by M.H. Abrams, published by Harcourt Brace College Publishers; Fort Worth, TX; 1993. It has a two-page definition of "epic," which reads in part:

epic

In its standard sense, the term epic or hero poem is applied to a work that meets at least the following criteria [emphasis added]: It is a long narrative poem on a serious subject, told in a formal and elevated style, and centered on a heroic or quasi-divine figure on whose actions depends the fate of a tribe, a nation, or ... the human race. ... Literary epics are highly conventional poems which usually share the following features. ... 1.) The hero is a figure of great national or even cosmic importance. ... 2.) The setting of the poem is ample in scale, and may be worldwide, or even larger. ... 3.) The action involves superhuman deeds in battle, ... or a long, arduous, and dangerous journey intrepidly accomplished. ... 4.) In these great actions the gods and other supernatural beings take an interest or an active part. ... 5.) An epic poem is a ceremonial performance, and is narrated in a ceremonial style which is deliberately distanced from ordinary speech and proportioned to the grandeur and formality of the heroic subject and epic architecture.

Or shall we go with something less exacting and in-depth than Abrams' Glossary of Literary Terms? Fine, then. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Look, it's even online:

epic

(noun) 1. An extended narrative poem in elevated or dignified language, celebrating the feats of a legendary or traditional hero. 2. A literary or dramatic composition that resembles an extended narrative poem celebrating heroic feats. 3. A series of events considered appropriate to an epic: the epic of the Old West.

Aaaand just so we can cover all our bases, Wikipedia even has a completely uncited article on "epic film" which nonetheless has a hell of a lot more to it than that definition:

epic film

A film genre featuring movies with large production values and dramatic themes. The name is derived by comparison with the grand themes, stories and characters of epic poetry, and is often used more narrowly as a shorthand for sword and sandal films, though just as often it can also refer to Westerns as well. Generally speaking, the term "epic" refers to movies that have a large scope, often taking place during time of war or other conflict, that take place over a considerable period of time and/or place. A historical setting is commonplace, though fantasy/science fiction settings are also common. Usually they consist of a set goal or journey ("quest") that the characters are trying to achieve over the course of the film. A large cast of characters - though not always an ensemble cast - is also prevalent.

Calling everything that's long and involved an "epic" is as completely inaccurate as calling every sad thing a "tragedy." Looking at the list of 11 series currently categorized as "epics," I could justify two (Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warrior Princess) for sure, probably three more (Angel, Babylon 5 and Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Even using the most "common usage" terms, I could then also possibly argue for Crusade (I'm guessing from the title; I actually don't know the show), Into the West and Rome. That notwithstanding, Lost may or may not be an epic, but it certainly won't be known until all the pieces have fallen in place and we know the outcome. (Although, oddly, Alias fits more of the five rules than Lost does.) Carnivàle and The Dead Zone certainly don't seem to me to fit the criteria. JCaesar 01:49, 12 August 2006 (EDT)

Those definitions are full of qualitative words. extended, great, serious, grand, large are all qualitative adjectives, as are many others; there are no logical boundaries that make something great or not great, it's a subjective matter. The Abrams definition seems to be the best available and pretty much goes with what I said. To make that definition more concise, an epic is a story in which the stakes are of a society, rather than personal or family, importance.

By the way, Carnivále and The Dead Zone do fit under the definition, even if the net was really small, which it shouldn't be given the rather arbitrary nature of the word. They both involve supernatural forces, a heroic figure, and the fate of the world being at stake. --MateoP 02:10, 12 August 2006 (EDT)

No, actually, to make that definition more concise, an epic is "In its standard sense applied to a work that meets at least the following criteria: It is a long narrative poem on a serious subject, told in a formal and elevated style, and centered on a heroic or quasi-divine figure on whose actions depends the fate of a tribe, a nation, or ... the human race."

And actually, as I think about it, it occurs to me that where it looks as though the (again, utterly uncited) Wikipedia definition is going with its immediate emphasis on production values relates to the "ceremonial style which is deliberately distanced from ordinary speech and proportioned to the grandeur and formality of the heroic subject and epic architecture," or the AHD's "elevated or dignified language." The Wikipedia article cites filmmakers such as David Lean, Cecil B. DeMille, etc., who were noted for their grand, sweeping vistas and enormous, expensive sets. Given that imagery is (and has always been identified with) the "language of film," it would make sense that "epic film" (or television, another visual storytelling medium) would thus require that its "language" be appropriately elevated, dignified and formal. That actually makes sense.

Given that criteria (mentioned in all three definitions), that would mean that the low budgets of even Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Babylon 5, The Dead Zone and Hercules: The Legendary Journeys exclude them from the category, and it would thus refer to pretty much Into the West, Rome and maybe (again, guessing from the title) Crusade and, when all is said and done, Lost, and that's it.

There's nothing arbitrary about it. Abrams claims that only six literary epics have survived centuries. (Of those, he only identifies The Iliad, The Odyssey and Paradise Lost.) Still six over the course of thousands of years? That's a pretty narrow and specific category, and a term which should not be applied as loosely as the guys in marketing toss it around. JCaesar 02:33, 12 August 2006 (EDT)

"In its standard sense applied to a work that meets at least the following criteria: It is a long narrative poem on a serious subject, told in a formal and elevated style, and centered on a heroic or quasi-divine figure on whose actions depends the fate of a tribe, a nation, or ... the human race." is a bad definition for our purposes because it is full of qualitative measurements. Which are bad for wikis. Because they are not objective. Piece by piece:

long narrative poem on a serious subject: Long is a qualitative word. There is no logical boundaries for which something is long. I suppose in this sense it would mean the length of the story (in its own time, not episode number). That is still not a quantitative measurement. It is subjective. The same is true for serious; it's purely opinion on whether something is serious or not.

told in a formal and elevated style: Formal and elevated: qualitative words. Subjective.

centered on a heroic or quasi-divine figure on whose actions depends the fate of a tribe, a nation, or ... the human race. Whether or not a figure is heroic is purely subjective. Almost every show has their lead be heroic in some sense.

The above definition (again, for the sake of the category page, not as an official definition on the main namespace) is bad because it is full of subjective qualifiers. My, more concise, definition of a "story whose stakes are placed on the societal rather than personal or family level" removes most of the qualitative problems. Of course, this is still somewhat subjective in nature, which is unavoidable because the word Epic is subjective in nature. However using a "big tent" approach whereby anything that comes close to being a story whose implications can affect society at large, that should be enough to keep the category around. --MateoP 12:17, 12 August 2006 (EDT)

So, basically, you're disregarding the three definitions given from respected and official sources (Wikipedia aside) in favor of your own subjective definition because the others are too subjective? How does someone equate what has a story that "can affect society at large?" Does this mean The West Wing is an epic because it deals with international politics? Blackadder placed characters in world changing historical situations, does that make it an epic? How big of an impact on society are we talking? Whose society? A city? County? Universal?

Your definition is just as flawed as any of the others. I'm beginning to think that the Epic category isn't salvagable and should be removed, especially in light of Abrams' comment that so few literary epics have survived time. --IndieRockLance 14:06, 12 August 2006 (EDT)

No, I'm not disregarding them. I'm saying that a definition with 1 subjective test is better than one with 5 subjective tests. That 1 subjective test I used in my definition is part of the other definitions too. I used it because it seems to be the most essential part of an epic.

Many of our categories are already subjective. Whether something is dramatic or not can be fairly subjective on grey-area shows. As is Horror, Paranormal, even category:Science Fiction, many more. With those we have simply allowed anything that is close slip in. I think that strategy has worked fine, and I think this category is similar to those in that regard. Let things that are close get categorized here. --MateoP 14:27, 12 August 2006 (EDT)

Just like epic literature, Science Fiction has a set of rules assigned to it which defines what is sci-fi and what isn't. Horror is the same way, you can look at something and say with absolute certainty, "Yes, this is a science fiction series" or "No, this isn't a horror series." The only time that subjectiveness comes into play is in the details of whether or not it's realistic or it's scary. Paranormal is also concretely defined, althought it is another category I have questions about, but that's not really the point. We can't just rewrite the rules of "epic" because nothing on the Wiki fits the qualifiers. What's the point of having an Epic category at all if we're going to change the very definition of "Epic?" That's why I say we do away with the category entirely instead of trying to make it something that it's not. --IndieRockLance 16:58, 12 August 2006 (EDT)

We can't just rewrite the rules of "epic" because nothing on the Wiki fits the qualifiers. What's the point of having an Epic category at all if we're going to change the very definition of "Epic?"

Exactly. Again, the same way the word "tragedy" means something very specific, and not merely "anything which is sad," the word "epic" means something very specific, and not merely "anything which is big." And, yes, it is very specific. Again, according to Abrams, six "literary epics" have survived the ages. That's not a narrow, "arbitrary" category. That's a very limited, specific category. Further, it is based on a mythic tradition (the "traditional epic," in Abrams' terms) which is highly sacred and specific, hence Abrams' use of the words "ceremonial" and "deliberately distanced." In fact, in folkloristics, the traditional epic is amongst the most sacred of the already sacred myth—the highest of the high, which is why the Jews, just as a well-known example, separate out their epic, the Book of Exodus, and place it with their creation myth (the Book of Genesis) and their most basic laws handed down by God (Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) into the absolutely most sacrosanct part of the Torah, the Pentateuch.

Is the word "epic" overused in common usage? Yes. (How I Met Your Mother even skewered its over-usage in an episode this past season.) As is the word "tragedy," as are the words "decimate," "literal," "ironic," etc. But words don't mean what they mean because you nor anyone else thinks they ought to mean that. "Dramedy," "series," "studio," "epic," these are all words with clearly defined meanings and origins. Your opinion doesn't matter, and it doesn't affect their meanings. If you're not going to use it correctly, or if you're going to apply it willy-nilly to almost anything, you probably shouldn't be using it at all. -- JCaesar 19:30, 12 August 2006 (EDT)