Genre Conventions: What is fantasy?

[Celebrim]

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?

It goes without saying that not all morality tales are fantasies. I'm trying to show that contrary to expectation, the reverse - that all fantasies are morality tales - is true. I don't expect this to be obvious, and I'm not 100% sure of the definition myself, but I am sure that of the fantasy stories I've read they have this in common far more than they have any particular setting, and so I find this definition - incomplete as it is likely to turn out to be - far more compelling than defining fantasy as 'magic' or any singular particular setting convention.

Defining a fantasy as containing that which is fantastic is a circular definition. It's like saying 'magical stories' are stories about 'magic'. Well, what do you mean by magic then? As this thread shows, the definition of magic is hard to pin down, because simple definitions like 'things that break the laws of the universe' or 'stories that couldn't happen in this universe' at the least gather in things which you meant to exclude. So what I'm saying is that when we are speaking of magical stories, the particular kinds of fantastic things we are speaking of are intrinsically related to incarnating, simplifying, or magnifying abstract concepts like 'good', 'evil', 'virtue', 'power', in order to make them more tangible and hense easier to deal with. And that is at some level the reason that we are willing to exclude conventions like FTL travel as 'not magic' because we recognize that in the story it is in, 'FTL travel' is unlike ordinary magic in that it has no mythic connection to an abstract idea.

You probably could argue that at least some of the time, magic is sterlized in order to serve as the same sort of story vehical that FTL travel and intersteller trade empires serve in science fiction, but I would counter that so long as you still tie that magic to the mythic themes from which it originates that you are still going to be at some level dealing with the supernatural as the incarnation of the abstract, and as long as you have larger than life heroes in such stories, you'll still be dealing with the ancient idea of virtue being defined by a life lived like those in the larger than life mythic heroic narratives. I might even be willing to advance (though I'm unsure how I feel about this idea since it just came to me), that the more you sterlize your magic and remove it from its usual purpose in the story, the more magic starts to seem to be conventional technology rather than the supernatural. But that is, I agree, a rather debatable (yet to me interesting) point.

 

[Voadam]

It goes without saying that not all morality tales are fantasies. I'm trying to show that contrary to expectation, the reverse - that all fantasies are morality tales - is true. I don't expect this to be obvious, and I'm not 100% sure of the definition myself, but I am sure that of the fantasy stories I've read they have this in common far more than they have any particular setting, and so I find this definition - incomplete as it is likely to turn out to be - far more compelling than defining fantasy as 'magic' or any singular particular setting convention.

Defining a fantasy as containing that which is fantastic is a circular definition. It's like saying 'magical stories' are stories about 'magic'. Well, what do you mean by magic then? As this thread shows, the definition of magic is hard to pin down, because simple definitions like 'things that break the laws of the universe' or 'stories that couldn't happen in this universe' at the least gather in things which you meant to exclude. So what I'm saying is that when we are speaking of magical stories, the particular kinds of fantastic things we are speaking of are intrinsically related to incarnating, simplifying, or magnifying abstract concepts like 'good', 'evil', 'virtue', 'power', in order to make them more tangible and hense easier to deal with. And that is at some level the reason that we are willing to exclude conventions like FTL travel as 'not magic' because we recognize that in the story it is in, 'FTL travel' is unlike ordinary magic in that it has no mythic connection to an abstract idea.

You probably could argue that at least some of the time, magic is sterlized in order to serve as the same sort of story vehical that FTL travel and intersteller trade empires serve in science fiction, but I would counter that so long as you still tie that magic to the mythic themes from which it originates that you are still going to be at some level dealing with the supernatural as the incarnation of the abstract, and as long as you have larger than life heroes in such stories, you'll still be dealing with the ancient idea of virtue being defined by a life lived like those in the larger than life mythic heroic narratives. I might even be willing to advance (though I'm unsure how I feel about this idea since it just came to me), that the more you sterlize your magic and remove it from its usual purpose in the story, the more magic starts to seem to be conventional technology rather than the supernatural. But that is, I agree, a rather debatable (yet to me interesting) point.

So if fantasy is morality tales in a magical world there can be magical setting non morality tales that would not be in the Fantasy genre. Can you think of examples of such magical non morality tale stories that would fit the trappings of fantasy but not reasonably be classified as fantasy for you?

I'm not positive I understand what would constitute a non-morality tale for you so that it is a meaningful term as you define fantasy. Excluding fantasy can you give some fiction examples of what you consider morality tales versus not morality tales? I'll then try and think of non-morality tales that I also consider fantasy.

And though circular, I think the definition of fantasy is as simple (and broad) as "fantastic" or "containing magic".

 

[Gentlegamer]

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.

This is all accurate as part of the ingrediants that make up the "Star Wars" soup is Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces, particularly in regard to the "hero journey."

 

[Celebrim]

So if fantasy is morality tales in a magical world there can be magical setting non morality tales that would not be in the Fantasy genre? Can you think of examples of such magical non morality tale stories that would fit the trappings of fantasy but not reasonably be classified as fantasy for you?

Yes, I can, but my answer isn't going to make you happy because you are going to think I'm dodging the question.

Keep in mind that as I defined it traditional magic is to me all about making abstract concepts tangible. For example, werewolves are about the dual capacity of people for both good and evil, sanity and insanity, the bestial and the sublime, and the fact that evil can lurk underneath a skin which does not betray the evil that lies underneath. So so long as we tie into those mythic themes, we aren't going to escape telling stories that are in some fashion about good and evil - even if we want to (as for example White Wolf did) change to some extent exactly what it means to be 'bestial' because we live in an age were people are toying with post-modern ideas like maybe that civilization is worse than the natural. So, in order to create a fantasy which can explore new themes without being dragged into the old themes, we have to sanitize the magic and remove from all its old baggage. Hense, it won't look on the surface like 'magic' anymore.

You probably see where I'm going with this, and I'm going to guess you are not going to like it. An example of a magical non-morality tale story that fits the trappings of fantasy but is not classified as fantasy by me would be (in part) Iain M. Bank's 'Culture' stories. I say in part, because clearly Iain M. Banks is writing about morality at least in part and if you want to argue that the 'Culture' stories are at least in part fantasy, I won't begrudge it. But, at some point it is also clear to me that our area of interest is beginning to shift, and that Iain M. Banks has stepped over a line that seperates him from fantasy. He's begin looking more deeply at the idea of 'The Other' and at what it means to be human in a way that is transcendent of morality questions. In a fantasy, typically you have the notion of a universal system of morality and you have 'The Other' serving only as an embodiment of the not good. In science fiction, as it matured, you increasingly see 'The Other' used as a contrasting value system even among authors that believe in something like a universal and absolute system of morality for mankind. The purpose of the other is not to show what man shouldn't become, because man is stuck being himself and can't be the other, but rather to hold up a mirror and say that our nature as who we are arrises because of this character of ourselves, and if we changed this character in some fashion we wouldn't get 'evil non-humans' but rather a different system of virtues reflecting the needs of that different character of existance.

Step a little further away from fantasy, and you get something like David Brin's 'Uplift' stories - which are equally fantastic and contain a great many things which we have good reason to believe are unrealistic and probably impossible, but which are even less interested in traditional questions about morality and less interested in making any of its fantastic elements allegories for abstract ideas. Step back the other way towards fantasy, and you run into people like Chine Meiville, who is writing fantasy but arguably beginning to invent a genera of science fiction which has little at all to do with science, suggesting that maybe you could be inventive enough with your magic to eventually divest yourself of the old mythic obligations and write stories which don't even attempt to handwave away the magic but which aren't fantasies in any traditional sense. On that, I'm not yet certain, and I don't think we've had enough time to digest his work.

And though circular, I think the definition of fantasy is as simple (and broad) as "fantastic" or "containing magic".

Except that alot of what started this thread was asking the question, "How is science fiction different from fantasy?", and teh above definition doesn't provide any really clear guidance.

By the way, I would say that for me Science Fiction begins with 'Frankenstein'. Frankenstein is the first other in which the author is capable of using science as a tool to pry off the old things like necromancy and say to the audience, "What I really want to talk about here is not just the morality of playing God, but the relationship of man to his not self. And I don't want to use this character of the not-self merely as a metaphor for something that is not good, but for something completely different. And in fact, I'm not even going to have a hero which is a heroic example, but instead I'm going to have a deeply flawed and troubled protagonist."

 

[Voadam]

Except that alot of what started this thread was asking the question, "How is science fiction different from fantasy?", and teh above definition doesn't provide any really clear guidance.

And it seems an easy question for me to answer, fantasy = magic, sci-fi = high tech that does not exist, and the two groups are not mutually exclusive so Star Wars can be Sci Fi even though it has fantasy elements such as the Force and Jedi.

 

[Voadam]

Yes, I can, but my answer isn't going to make you happy because you are going to think I'm dodging the question.

Keep in mind that as I defined it traditional magic is to me all about making abstract concepts tangible. For example, werewolves are about the dual capacity of people for both good and evil, sanity and insanity, the bestial and the sublime, and the fact that evil can lurk underneath a skin which does not betray the evil that lies underneath. So so long as we tie into those mythic themes, we aren't going to escape telling stories that are in some fashion about good and evil - even if we want to (as for example White Wolf did) change to some extent exactly what it means to be 'bestial' because we live in an age were people are toying with post-modern ideas like maybe that civilization is worse than the natural. So, in order to create a fantasy which can explore new themes without being dragged into the old themes, we have to sanitize the magic and remove from all its old baggage. Hense, it won't look on the surface like 'magic' anymore.

You probably see where I'm going with this, and I'm going to guess you are not going to like it. An example of a magical non-morality tale story that fits the trappings of fantasy but is not classified as fantasy by me would be (in part) Iain M. Bank's 'Culture' stories. I say in part, because clearly Iain M. Banks is writing about morality at least in part and if you want to argue that the 'Culture' stories are at least in part fantasy, I won't begrudge it. But, at some point it is also clear to me that our area of interest is beginning to shift, and that Iain M. Banks has stepped over a line that seperates him from fantasy. He's begin looking more deeply at the idea of 'The Other' and at what it means to be human in a way that is transcendent of morality questions. In a fantasy, typically you have the notion of a universal system of morality and you have 'The Other' serving only as an embodiment of the not good. In science fiction, as it matured, you increasingly see 'The Other' used as a contrasting value system even among authors that believe in something like a universal and absolute system of morality for mankind. The purpose of the other is not to show what man shouldn't become, because man is stuck being himself and can't be the other, but rather to hold up a mirror and say that our nature as who we are arrises because of this character of ourselves, and if we changed this character in some fashion we wouldn't get 'evil non-humans' but rather a different system of virtues reflecting the needs of that different character of existance.

Step a little further away from fantasy, and you get something like David Brin's 'Uplift' stories - which are equally fantastic and contain a great many things which we have good reason to believe are unrealistic and probably impossible, but which are even less interested in traditional questions about morality and less interested in making any of its fantastic elements allegories for abstract ideas. Step back the other way towards fantasy, and you run into people like Chine Meiville, who is writing fantasy but arguably beginning to invent a genera of science fiction which has little at all to do with science, suggesting that maybe you could be inventive enough with your magic to eventually divest yourself of the old mythic obligations and write stories which don't even attempt to handwave away the magic but which aren't fantasies in any traditional sense. On that, I'm not yet certain, and I don't think we've had enough time to digest his work.

Unfortunately I have not read any of those stories. Would you say D&D novels are not fantasy because the magic is pretty sterilized in there? Any horror stories with fantastic elements not fantasy? Game of Thrones series because it is just a War of the Roses in a low fantasy and harsh world?

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Anti-racist? ERB? That's all well and good to point out that he says the red and green men of Mars should get along, but you ignore where he paints the red men of Earth with a broad brush as uncouth savages, and "the only good Injun is a dead Injun" mentality. He did the same for black Africans and Arabs in other books, particularly the Tarzan ones.

I think that's another example of you having the message already in mind, and then forcing an interpretation out of the work rather that reading the works first and then finding the messages that actually are there. Not that that's inconsistent with your attempt to define all fantasy as a morality tale, but it's just as quixotic and absurd.

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.

I don't see what your point is, or how it relates to fantasy. Even accepting for the moment your position that ERB was essentially writing a handbook for would-be gentlemen, complete with sample perfect gentleman John Carter, and fantastic setting to keep the audience's attention, we still have the problem that your forcing an interpretation on the books that could just as easily be forced on any book. Is Jack Ryan the ideal American patriot, and A Clear and Present Danger a morality tale? Is Keyser Soze the ideal criminal mastermind and The Usual Suspects a morality tale? If not, I can't see how they differ from your analysis of John Carter. And if so, I can't see how they are not fantasy instead of, respectively, a technothriller and a psychological thriller.

Although you denied it when S'mon paraphrased your argument as such, I don't see how this isn't exactly what you are doing; any protagonist with any desirable quality becomes a role model, and no matter how obliquely, or even against the intentions of the author!, the story becomes a morality play based on the characteristics of the protagonist. Then, you conveniently only look at fantasy stories, apply this twisted forcing of your model to them, and then say, voila! I've defined fantasy! while also conveniently ignoring the fact that your definition could just as easily apply to many --in fact, most-- stories, including those that nobody accepts as fantasy.

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.

I'm rather startled that you can profess that as well -- ERB was a pulp writer, and his stories were very harshly criticized in his own time as being exceptionally racy, and not grounded in the morality of the time.

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.

Yeah, but nothing you have said has done that either; unless you're now willing to admit most works of fiction ever written.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Celebrim
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?

In response:
1) I don't live in DC, and haven't visited the Smithsonian in over 15 years, so no, I didn't see the Making of Myth exhibit.

As to what has been said that is both relevant and counter to the Star Wars = Fantasy logic:

Psion
Having elements (or common elements; I don't even think these are even necessary elements) of a genre is a bit of a different thing from saying that it is properly and compellignly classified as being part of a genre.

ME
But the setting makes all the difference. It is a self evident truth that any tale can be told in any setting. I've seen most of Shakespeare's plays, ranging from straight up to cultural retellings (Ran), to modern (West Side Story, Romeo Must Die, 10 things I hate about you, and Richard the 3rd in a Naziesque setting). Wrath of Khan was a retelling of Moby Dick, as was Of Unknown Origin.

After all, there are only 5 major plots: Man against Man, Man against Self, Man against God, Man against Society, and Man against Nature. All the rest is details and backdrops.

As well as the he entirety of my post #62 and the link to the definition of Space Opera contained within your own link to Answers.com.

Star Wars takes a classic dragonslayer plot...one that can be traced through Kurosawa and Wagner and so forth, but it changes its setting from one of fantasy to one of an interstellar empire. But all it takes is the PLOT- all of the mechanisms have been changed. Simply taking the plot of a fantasy is insufficient to make something a fantasy, unless you beleive in the magic of contagion.

Science/Sci-Fi extrapolation abounds within the storyline: FTL travel. Holography. Beam Weapons. Cybernetics.

As to the "magic" of Star Wars, Lucas himeself said that "The Force" that you defend as a fantastic element was based on an extrapolation of the abilities of Shao Lin martial artists (The Science of Star Wars). If you have ever seen a demonstration of their prowess, you will note that some of them take blows to the larynx, gonads, and other spots without flinching, can do handstands on 2 fingers, or can bend and break spears by pressing the points against their bodies and walking forward. How do they do these things? Undoubtedly by intense training, but they claim that training is insufficient- one must also "armor himself in chi."

Celebrim
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.

Looking over this thread as a whole, seeing all the crossovers created by various authors, and, once again, Clark's brilliant observation about high tech, I'm not sure that there IS a meaningful difference other than setting, trapping, and storytelling vehicles. In one genre, the hero is transported from one land to the other by an act of the gods, while in another, its "Welshie" at the controls of a teleporter. In one, a scrying crystal is used to observe distant events, in the other, "hyperwave transmitter". Intervention of the Gods saves the hero in one, in the other, the Infinite Improbability drive.

Both Fantasy and Sci-Fi contain morality tales. Both genres examine the nature of what it means to be human. Both delve into the metaphysical.

The differences lie not within the beams and walls of their particular houses, but in the carpet and drapes.

 

[Celebrim]

And it seems an easy question for me to answer, fantasy = magic, sci-fi = high tech that does not exist, and the two groups are not mutually exclusive so Star Wars can be Sci Fi even though it has fantasy elements such as the Force and Jedi.

Well, if you think that it is that simple, certainly I agree that such common sense working definitions are probably what most people go by. While common sense has its uses, and at times is vastly superior IMO to academic sense, it isn't particular useful for looking at things below the surface.

Essentially I see the above definition as being equivelent to, "It's fantasy if I have to suspend my sense of disbelief, and its science fiction if I don't." The problem with that definition is that it is entirely relative. What offends your sense of realism - and is thus to you magic - might not offend someone else, and vica versa what doesn't offend your sense of realism might well offend someone else who like me finds interstellar trade empires, hundreds of native sentient species, casual FTL travel, and apparantly infinite energy sources that somehow manage not to produce waste heat to be pure bunkum.

Also, you casually observe that although Star Wars has mixed elements, that it remains Science Fiction to you. Well, where is that dividing line? At what point does the story have enough magic in it that it becomes fantasy? By your definitions, we ought not expect any agreement about what is science fiction and what is fantasy, in which case its kinda silly to worry about whether someone agrees with your definition or not.

 

[John Morrow]

Essentially I see the above definition as being equivelent to, "It's fantasy if I have to suspend my sense of disbelief, and its science fiction if I don't." The problem with that definition is that it is entirely relative.

If the real world sense of which is which were not so subjective, then we wouldn't see endless debates about where the line really is between them. I take the constant disagreement over how to define these terms as evidence that the real world definitions are quite subjective.

Also, you casually observe that although Star Wars has mixed elements, that it remains Science Fiction to you.

I would argue that it remains science fiction to most people, even though it's clearly space fantasy.

Well, where is that dividing line? At what point does the story have enough magic in it that it becomes fantasy?

It's not simply a matter of how much magic but also how much technology and whether the magic has the trappings of science (e.g., psionics) or religion (e.g., summoning demons). The magic in Star Wars is given the trappings of science by it's very name and the explanation of it. It's a natural "force" that one can be trained to manipulate. Change "The Force" into "The Ancient Gods", turn Obi-Wan into a priest who prays to higher powers for his abilities, and make Darth Vader posessed by demons rather than "The Dark Side" and things would feel far more like Space Fantasy.

By your definitions, we ought not expect any agreement about what is science fiction and what is fantasy, in which case its kinda silly to worry about whether someone agrees with your definition or not.

While I agree that one shouldn't expect agreement about what is science fiction and what is fantasy, it can still be interesting to find out what other people think and why.