Genre Conventions: What is fantasy?

[Wild Gazebo]

But, the introduction of plastic to those realms might be considered satirical.

p.s. 'genera' is a plural form

 

[Celebrim]

But, the introduction of plastic to those realms might be considered satirical.

p.s. 'genera' is a plural form

Somehow I don't think using the word 'genus' in place of what I wrote is going to clarify anything, but I'll take it under advisement.

By way of a sweeping apology, my spelling has always been horrible. I beg your pardon for all the words I mangle in advance.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

I wouldn't have said anything if I thought it was a spelling mistake. Sorry, I guess it was pretty rude...I hate when others do that to me...I'll stop.

No more corrections.

 

[Celebrim]

Here's another twist on things as well. John Carter of Mars. Not very scientific. Not even, necessarily, by the standards of its day.

It should be obvious from my definitions that I consider the Barsoom stories to be firmly in the category of fantasy (I think I've already mentioned them in that context at least once in this thread). I would put Princess of Mars into exactly the same category of Fantasy as I do the Star Wars saga.

In fact, I could hardly ask for a better example of a fantasy work than the Barsoom stories, since John Carter is a larger than life superhero (both physically and morally) that travels around a stage of perfect moral clarity, and the meaning of the entire work can be summed up simply by making a list in which every sentence begins with "A Virginia Gentlemen..."

For example...
"A Virginia Gentlemen will fight any foe and travel any distance of the love of a woman."
"A Virginia Gentlemen does not understand women."
"A Virginia Gentlemen is a fast and loyal friend, and a dangerous enemy."
"A Virginia Gentlemen refuses to accept an insult."
"A Virginia Gentleman obeys a code of martial honor, and gives respect to his enemy when it is due."
"A Virginia Gentlemen does not get overly involved in the rituals of organized religion and mocks the foolish guiliblity of those that do."
"A Virginia Gentlemen does not judge people by the color of thier skin, and mocks the foolishness of those that become obsessed with such distinctions."

And so on and so forth.

I'm quite certain that the only reason that ERB drapes his stories in the occasionaly trappings of super-science is that he feels that given the interests of audience, that doing so will give his story a little more heft and grit. One could even argue that the superficial trappings of science are part of his code of a Virginia Gentlemen. As in...

"A Virginia Gentlemen doesn't read girly fairie stories."
"A Virginia Gentlemen has a scientific mind which rebels at rank superstition."

And so forth.

Clearly, extremely hard and fast rules of genre categorization are difficult, but I still think there's plenty of value in the discussion.

I agree.

 

[jmucchiello]

Why is it important to be able to definitively say "This is Fantasy" or "This is not Fantasy"? What is the value in this discussion that I am missing?

 

[Wild Gazebo]

So that you know which books go under which sign when you are stocking shelves at the local bookstore.

 

[Mallus]

Why is it important to be able to definitively say "This is Fantasy" or "This is not Fantasy"? What is the value in this discussion that I am missing?

Because how you classify something --even loosely-- affects what expectations are raised, and therefore, how you read it.

 

[Desdichado]

Why is it important to be able to definitively say "This is Fantasy" or "This is not Fantasy"? What is the value in this discussion that I am missing?

If nothing else, there's value in the enjoyment I get out of having it.

Why is there value in the discussion of any art form? To say that there's no value in the discussion is, by implication, to say that there's no value in trying to define cubism. Or trying to define who and who isn't a Romantic composer and why. Or defining jazz.

The discussion helps fans understand it more. And frankly, although the idea has been tossed out many times that there are some works that defy easy classification, and that good authors aren't constrained by genre definitions, and whatnot, let's keep in mind that most of the material out there is certainly classifiable after all. We're looking at the exceptions to prove our points, in many ways, not the mainstream.

 

[S'mon]

That was Joshua Dyal you quoted C, not me. I'm finished with this argument.

 

[Desdichado]

Ok, fine I'll address this point. No offense, S'mon, but I think the subtleness of what I was suggesting went right over your head.

Just to clarify; it was most likely my head over which they went; that quote was mine, not S'mon's.

Suppose you set out to immitate Tolkein's works, but you lack sufficient understanding to recognize his palete of themes for what they are. Instead, you are entralled by the epic action, swords, sorcery, and conflict and you miss the deeper meanings entirely. (I would argue that to a large extent this is true of the movie treatment of the books.)

And of the entire sub-genre of "high fantasy" that Tolkien inspired. In which case, of course, it's difficult to say that that pallette of themes is intrinsic to the genre, if only the first, or the best, of the genre even make an attempt to utilize them, and the rest of the corpus of the genre ignores them completely.

You can then tell a story filled with swords and sorcery elements without any awareness of what you are telling other than you find knights, wizards, dragons, demons and such to be exciting. Your story can simply be a high adventure story in which the meaning of the elements in your story is never explicitly discussed or examined, or which the theme is only expressed intermittantly and inconsistantly.

You seem to be saying that you can't have simply a high adventure story in which "those themes", whatever they may be that you believe so intrinsic, are not even a part of the work at all. That's where I fundamentally disagree with you. Of course, I also disagree with your apparent assertion that even if those themes are not a part of the work at all, well, really, they actually are, the poor authors are just too ignorant to realize that they are unconsciously using Tolkien's same themes after all, if that is indeed what you are saying (it certainly appears to be.)

You might say I question the veracity of that assertion.