Genre Conventions: What is fantasy?

[mmadsen]

"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."

My ironimeter is on the fritz. Were those last two supposed to be sincere or sarcastic?

 

[Celebrim]

My ironimeter is on the fritz. Were those last two supposed to be sincere or sarcastic?

You've read the books right?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Celebrim- no insult was intended. I honestly did not see the truth of the assertions you made about those particular movies, nor had I seen any such implication of supernatural elements in any critique of the movies- thus, "veracity."

I still don't.

A man with no name is not indicative of fantasy. A larger than life character is not indicative of fantasy-its indicative of someone being cast as a heroic figure.

As for Eastwood's character appearing after a Biblical reading...its the storytelling device called foreshadowing, and while it does derive from ancient concepts like karma and recieving punishment in kind, it in no way automatically shunts something into the realm of fantasy. It occurs in many works of fiction. In The Terminator (based on the sci-fi story "Second Variety" by Phillip K. Dick), Arnold's character pulls up to the house of his first victim, halting just after it crushes a toy semi. At the end of the movei, a semi with the same design, color and markings is used to run him over. Would you call this movie fantasy? If so, why?

Other than the claim:

Westerns have drawn on other arts forms as old as the Norse Saga, as other art forms have drawn on the Western.

To add to the international influences on westerns, many westerns after 1960 were heavily influenced by the Japanese samurai films of Akira Kurosawa. For instance The Magnificent Seven was a remake of Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, and both A Fistful of Dollars & Last Man Standing were remakes of Kurosawa's Yojimbo, which itself was inspired by Red Harvest, an American detective novel by Dashiell Hammett.

(and the existence of the series Kung Fu) there is little in that link you posted that actually supports your assertion fantasy as a source for Westerns. The problem is that the Samurai movies ALSO have no real link to the supernatural, other than certain beliefs held by some of the characters. A character's belief that there are elves in the woods is not sufficient to make something a fantasy- you need the elves.

Instead, the link provides ample evidence of the influence Westerns have had on other genres. They note that Outland is essentially the classic Western High Noon set in space. By the rationale of contagion by which you called Star Wars a fantasy (if it has swords, etc. its a fantasy), Outland must then be a Western.

In contrast, I would counter that Outland is a sci-fi film with a plot borrowed from a Western, and is not a Western itself.

The logic train you followed with defining Star Wars as fantasy would also make every film in the Alien or Predator franchises a slasher flick.

Your link also has a link to a definition about Space Opera ...and it notes many prominent examples of the form, including those mentioned in this thread: Star Wars, Battlefield Earth, Star Trek, Battlstar Galactica, Barsoom, Dune...

 

[glass]

And yet I expect to find star wars novels in the sci-fi sections of the library and bookstore, not the fantasy sections.

Most bookshops that have also had the Dragonlance Chronicles in the 'sci-fi' section. Doesn't make them sci-fi, it means the bookshop thought 'Sci-fi/Fantasy' was too long-winded for there shelves.

FWIW, I'm in the camp of Star Wars being fantasy. It does have magic, it doesn't have any science. To my mind that makes it fantasy.

OTOH, there was a radio 1 DJ on the radio last year saying he wasn't interested in seeing LotR because he didn't like sci-fi, so both terms are probably beyond salvation.

glass.

 

[Desdichado]

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..."

A flawed example, though. If the meaning of the John Carter stories is a list summed up by a number of sentences that begin with "A Virginia gentleman..." shouldn't John Carter be a little less generic? Every single character Burroughs ever wrote, heck, even Tarzan and the Mucker, for the most part, were just the same as John Carter without being Virginia gentlemen. A much better explanation is that ERB only really wrote one plot (by his own admission) with standard characters, not that he was trying to make a point about the characteristics of the characters. Because of who the audience was, John Carter had to be handsome, brave, super-capable, charming, charismatic, daring -- he was providing vicarious wish-fulfillment for his audience, not standing out as an example of a "perfect hero."

No, I think you're trying to project an already flawed definition of fantasy and apply it to works to which it doesn't apply.

 

[francisca]

Just stopped in to check on this thread.

I still stand by what I said in post #5.

 

[Celebrim]

A flawed example, though. If the meaning of the John Carter stories is a list summed up by a number of sentences that begin with "A Virginia gentleman..." shouldn't John Carter be a little less generic?

No, not really. Quite the contrary, if John Carter is just an idealized Anglo gentleman, wouldn't you expect him to be generic? 'A virginia gentlemen' is pretty darn generic as far as I'm concerned. That he happens to be from Virginia is as close as we can come to distinguishing him from any other sort of gentlemen.

ERB was himself a Northerner, the son of a Union captain. His father was an Anglophile, an abolutionist, and a staunch opponent of organized religion. ERB very much carries his Father's sentiments forward in his stories. I find it interesting that he choose for his hero a down and out Southern soldier of a Virginia family. I have two theories on that. First, that John Carter is very much a typical 'Western' hero of the day, and in the dime store novels the wandering gunslinger heroes were always ex-confederate soldiers. Second, that the stories anti-racist messages would resonate more strongly if the hero was a man of the South himself.

Every single character Burroughs ever wrote, heck, even Tarzan and the Mucker, for the most part, were just the same as John Carter without being Virginia gentlemen.

Absolutely. But I don't really see how that argues against my point. We'd come up with the same list regardless of whether we are talking 'An English Gentlemen' or whatever.

A much better explanation is that ERB only really wrote one plot (by his own admission) with standard characters, not that he was trying to make a point about the characteristics of the characters.

No, but he was trying to make a point about what the characteristics of a gentlemen - whether Virgianian, Yankee, or English - should be. ERB's own beliefs are expressed far too clearly in what he wrote - even when they defy the conventional thinking of the day - for this merely to be a message massaged to fit the expectations of his audience.

Because of who the audience was, John Carter had to be handsome, brave, super-capable, charming, charismatic, daring -- he was providing vicarious wish-fulfillment for his audience, not standing out as an example of a "perfect hero."

But the two points aren't mutually exclusive. ERB can be providing vicarious wish-fulfillment to his audience, AND providing an example of an exemplary hero. Vicarious wish-fulfillment is probably intrinsicly tied to emulation - especially in young boys. Do you recall in Huckleberry Finn (itself arguably an elevated boys story) where the character of Tom Sawyer demands that they break Jim out according to the rules set down in Dumas 'Count of Monte Christo' because, as he says, 'That is the way these things are done'? Don't you think that at some level, showing the audience the way 'these things are done' is part of the point? Vicarious wish-fulfillment, and creating an idolizable hero, are ends in themselves (they sell books), but they are also means to an end - or else John Carter wouldn't spend so much time lecturing the reader.

No, I think you're trying to project an already flawed definition of fantasy and apply it to works to which it doesn't apply.

I'm rather startled that you read the Barsoom stories and not see the influences from Victorian morality tales for boys. I mean, to me (especially reading them as an adult) it hits me like a brick in the face that this is a instructional faerie tale for boys dressed up in clothing (or lack of clothing as is more likely on Barsoom) which the author feels is more suitably masculine than the often limb wristed fairie tales. Nothing you've said has shown in any fashion that the Barsoom tales are not morality tales, that they are not tales of the fantastic, and that in fact these two things are not in some fashion connected. Quite the contrary, the thing that you see to be providing as evidence against my point - that John Carter is a generic super hero roaming a fantastic stage of two dimensional cleanly heroic characters - seems to me to be arguing my point.

 

[Voadam]

Most bookshops that have also had the Dragonlance Chronicles in the 'sci-fi' section. Doesn't make them sci-fi, it means the bookshop thought 'Sci-fi/Fantasy' was too long-winded for there shelves.

FWIW, I'm in the camp of Star Wars being fantasy. It does have magic, it doesn't have any science. To my mind that makes it fantasy.

OTOH, there was a radio 1 DJ on the radio last year saying he wasn't interested in seeing LotR because he didn't like sci-fi, so both terms are probably beyond salvation.

glass.

Then allow me to clarify. In bookstores with both a fantasy and science fiction section, I expect star wars to be in sci-fi. And IME that is where I find it. Even the jedi focused books. I believe it is because of the space ships, blasters, death star, etc. aspects of the star wars universe.

 

[Voadam]

Classifying fantasy as having something to do with swords and sorcery is equally arbitrary.

Captain America vs. Red Skull is WWII done as a fantasy. Saving Private Ryan is not. Seven Samurii comes alot closer, because the samurii do indeed have a mythic character as do the rifles which 'magically' cut them down. Seven Samurii isn't a historical drama so much as a romance and the dividing line between romance and fantasy is not at all clear and bright to me. At some level, movies like 'The Magnificent Seven', 'Fight Full of Dollars' and the 'True Grit' start shading off into fantasy as well. This is particularly true of alot of Eastwood's later work in westerns like 'High Plains Drifter' and 'Pale Rider'. But, no swords and sorcery are actually involved.

So the super soldier serum, his indestructible SHIELD, and the red skull's red face are fantasy yet Saving Private Ryan is not.

I agree, but I don't see how this demonstrates one as morality tale with good guys and inspiring behaviour while the other one is not. The difference seems to be in the SUPER aspects versus the heroic normal soldier aspect.

Defining fantasy as magic is not as arbitrary as defining fantasy as morality tale. The normal use of "fantastic" in this context is "unnatural" not "morality exemplar". Defining it technically to contradict the common usage does not seem to suit any useful purpose.

Morality tales don't have to have anything associated with the common understanding of the term fantasy. You could have a mundane person acting as an exemplar in a mundane world with no problems. Why should that be considered the fantasy genre?

 

[Celebrim]

Dannyalcatraz: I don't know what to tell you. You're understanding of what I've said is becoming increasingly muddled, and while that's probably my fault I don't know how I'd go about getting things straight again.

If you can't see the supernatural themes in High Noon and High Plains Drifter, I'm at a loss as to what to do. Particularly in High Plains Drifter, in the final scene in Hell in which the Dwarf asks the man with no name, "Sheriff, I don't know your name.", and the sheriff, standing before what is apparantly his own grave says, "Yes you do." most people understood this to be leaving open or even strongly suggesting the possibility that the Sheriff was the ghost of the previously murdered man. If you say you can't see any supernatural themes in the movie, well I'm at a loss of how to show it to you seeing as you've already seen it with your own eyes and you still don't believe it. All I can say in my defense is that I'm far from being the only person who sees these things. Try googling "High Plains Drifter" and any one of the following words, "ghost", "fantasy", "surreal", "horror". You should get thousands of links. Things like the number of bullets fired by the gun and the fact that the man had no name are rather irrelevant. That the character is massively larger than life is closer to the point, but certainly not the whole of it.

But this has all become a red herring because I never said that the Western was a genus of fantasy. I only said that the Western had a lot of highly romanticized content, and that the line between a romance and a fantasy was not clean as far as I'm concerned - to the extent that I felt I did not have a good definition for where one ended and the next began. In fact, as long as we are on the subject, the line between a SF and a fantasy is not perfectly clean and bright to me either - which is not to say that I don't think it can be, merely that it isn't always. There are examples of stories which we might call 'Science Fantasy' in which the author is interested in themes of both 'The Other' and 'Good and Evil' to a greater or lesser extent and so cross the genera. But I still don't define either Science Fiction or Fantasy by what I consider its most superficial and easily discarded elements - the particular visuals evoked by the setting.

I know what foreshadowing is. Let's please stop pretending that its so remarkable to claim that High Plains Drifter and Pale Rider have elements of the supernatural, because frankly given how common this claim is, it's rather tiresome to have to defend it at such length. By analogy, just because you didn't see the Arthurian imagery at the heart of Tortilla Flats doesn't mean it isn't in there, and you claim of ignorance about it would not increase confidence in your ability to discuss the book at depth. Therefore, since the character of the Western is not at all central to anything I'm talking about it, why don't we move on.

The logic train you followed with defining Star Wars as fantasy...

You mean the fact that I pointed out that its basically a swords and sorcery story only the magic swords are called 'light sabers' and the sorcerers are called 'Jedi'? The farm boy still goes off on a quest to save the Princess, and still discovers that he's actually not really a farm boy but was born a Prince, and even if the dragon is called a Death Star he still slays it with a single blow using his sorcerous skills that he learned from the old wizard. You mean that train of thought? Why should I be defending my train of thought? You haven't said a damn thing to show me that that isn't a fantasy. Changing his loyal steed into a Starfighter and his squire into a robot in order to make the story more powerful and evocative to the audience is no different at all to me than painting King Arthor and Gwain in recently invented state of the art plate mail, even though the stories are set centuries into the past.

For crying out loud, how hard is it to see these things? Did you ever see the 'Making of Myth' exhibition when it was at the Smithsonian? I am more than happy to argue with you over the meaning of the facts, but I'm getting a little tired of arguing with you over the existance of the facts.