What do you think of fantasy lite novels?

[eclipse]

Bumped for @Sgtwolf01

[Sgtwolf01]

Bumped for @Sgtwolf01

Oh I've been summoned, but I guess it's pretty relevant to what I was doing before.

World's where there is no magic, The only thing fantastical about them is that the world is not earth.Stories like K.J Parker and GGK for example.

Now forgive me for my ignorance regarding these authors. But these universes are stories set in another place that isn't Earth, but doesn't feature anything magical about them?

[Ray McCarthy]

Absolutely you can have fantasy without extra species, Psychic powers, magic, paranormal, supernatural etc. The simplest is "Alternate history". It's more difficult without the support of common fantasy tropes and stereotypes. The less like our own world it is, the more difficult to do well.

Ultimately more "magical" fantasy or "High" fantasy is either using ad hoc "magic" to fill plot holes (JK Rowlings) or it's a background and really a support, almost a maguffin to the plot.

There are many gradations of fantasy. One reason is to write mediaeval flavour stuff without having to get every pesky detail right. Such as when did they have hops so non-lager beer would keep (see non-hopped ale, hopped ale and Beer vs Lager). When did they have gunpowder? Earlier than most think. Maybe you want 17th C style stuff but without black powder.
Maybe you want 14th C. style but with chilli or potatoes or turkey or prickly pear or tomatoes or large strawberries (all new world, old world strawberries were small, a little like alpine).
Or you want a "what if" 5th C. were the Roman Empire didn't fail, or one where the Romans didn't destroy mainland European Culture. Or The Inca conquer Spain.
Or the Chinese don't abandon exploration, or don't fall to Mongols, or Europe DOES fall to the Mongols, or does fall to the Moors (no Charlemange). Or Napoleon beats the Russians and the UK.

Joan Aiken's 'Wolves Chronicles" might have no supernatural in most books.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Aiken#Wolves_Chronicles
They are obviously fantasy.
Wikipedia

Many of Aiken's most popular books, including the Wolves Chronicles (also known as The Wolves of Willoughby Chase series or the James III series), are set in an elaborate alternative history of Britain in which James II was never deposed in the Glorious Revolution, but supporters of the House of Hanover continually agitate against the monarchy. These books also toy with the geography of London, adding a Canal District among other features. Wolves have invaded the country from Europe via the newly built Channel Tunnel. The novels share a varying cast and a variety of interlinked child protagonists – initially Bonnie Green, but subsequently her itinerant friend Simon, Simon's intrepid Cockney friend Dido Twite (the heroine of most of the books), Dido's half-sister Is and Owen Hughes (son of Dido's Royal Navy ally Captain Hughes).

I'd be delighted if I could write 1/2 as well.
She has other more "magical" books.  While "Harry Potter" has far more "magic" ... well I know which author I prefer.
Similarly some of the Mary Stewart books have a fantasy feel with no "magic". Thornyhold, leaves you unsure. She did do an Arthurian series, but I prefer all her other books more.
Georgette Heyer's Regency books are well very researched (she bought letters and had 1000+ books on the subject). I'd call them "fantasy lite" Romance. Some more so than others. But all good fun. Victoria Holt OTOH is more stereotypical less fantastical period romance.

[Yora]

The idea of stories set in fictional but realistic places doesn't do much for me. For historical novels, there's a massive options of places and times to pick from, which are all interesting environments for things to happen.
Magic is the main reason that makes fictional places interesting to me. While I actually very much like when characters have very little access to magic, monsters and spirit with supernatural powers are my favorite thing in fantasy.

[Ray McCarthy]

Magic is the main reason that makes fictional places interesting to me. While I actually very much like when characters have very little access to magic, monsters and spirit with supernatural powers are my favorite thing in fantasy.

This is why I've virtually stopped watching films/TV. It's INCREDIBLY narrow. Absolutely EVERYTHING is in books and with zero budget you can write your own.
My daughter says her BGI is far superior to any Hollywood CGI. She engages it while reading. Brain Graphical Interface

I used to only read a few kinds of books. Now as well as buying new books, I get stuff from Gutenberg.org (55K books and rising) and  free to 10c to €1 books from charity shops and read almost randomly to broaden my taste and find new authors to enjoy. Helps my writing too.

[Sgtwolf01]

The idea of stories set in fictional but realistic places doesn't do much for me. For historical novels, there's a massive options of places and times to pick from, which are all interesting environments for things to happen.
Magic is the main reason that makes fictional places interesting to me. While I actually very much like when characters have very little access to magic, monsters and spirit with supernatural powers are my favorite thing in fantasy.

Heh, I'm the opposite. I like my history very much and anything dealing with such immediately catches my attention. And I'm actually not that big of a fan of magic, I can make exceptions based on situation and circumstances but I generally dislike magic. I mean sometimes supernatural powers are cool, magic or otherwise. But I like my characters somewhat mundane, I guess it's more 'realistic'.

[eclipse]

Here we go

Peat’s Link still works

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/oct/29/guy-gavriel-kay-jrr-tolkien-interview-fionovar-tapesty-the-summer-tree

[Elfy]

One of the best things I’ve read in the past couple of years Lara Elena Donnelly’s Amberlough Dossier is like this. Set on a world that is very like ours, but at the same time not ours and absolutely brilliant stuff.

[Neveesandeh]

I generally don't like fantasy lite. I read fantasy mostly for the fantastical elements, it's an excuse to let your brain run wild. I'm generally more interested in weird creatures and monsters than magic though. I've been drawing up plans for one series that has no magic elements but lots of strange creatures.

I think Joe Abercrombie often strays into fantasy lite, The Shattered Sea trilogy definitely qualifies, and even when his books do have fantasy elements they're quite toned down. I like his books but reading Berserk has made me realise you don't need to tone down fantasy elements to tell a dark and realistic story. People are still flawed, complex and relatable if you drop them into a world with immortal slug monsters.

For an non-book example, I adore the Dark Souls games and I consider Bloodborne to be my favourite game of all time, but when I found out that all but five of the bosses in Sekiro, the newest game from the same developers, are human I didn't bother getting it, even though I've heard loads of glowing reviews. (Three of those bosses are also puzzle bosses, something Fromsoft doesn't really do very well, but that's not relevant to the discussion.)

Weirdly enough, I do really like alternate history, although I haven't read that much of it. I like the idea of taking something familiar and twisting it into something different. It's impossible for me not to look back on history and think about what could have gone differently.

I guess if you're not going to include fantasy elements, there's not really any need to set it in a secondary world. It might free you from the constraints of history, but to be honest a lot of historical fiction takes serious liberties anyway.

[Ray McCarthy]

Isn't all Fiction to some degree "Fantasy Lite"?

[eclipse]

@isos81

Here you go