Genre Conventions: What is fantasy?

[Celebrim]

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.

Yes, ERB comes from a family that abhors racism and its clearly evident in the texts. It's all well and good to hand wave stories in which he mocks the white martian racists with thier notions of racial supremacy and then makes a black martian show them up in terms of honor, martial prowess, decorum, intellect, and the ability to learn. You can pretend that he doesn't have something in mind in the real world when he writes that all you want, but it's still sorta staring you there in the face.

Frankly, if you believe that ERB is a racist, you probably believe that Rudyard Kipling is a racist and there is no point in having this conversation because we'll have to drag into the conversation Edward Said, 'orientalism', and a bunch of other politically charged notions of what it means to be racist. Suffice to say that while I think ERB didn't have a racist bone in his body and did not believe in racial superiority in any fashion, he was very much a believer in the superiority of Western and particularly Anglo-sphere culture. ERB is unabashedly a 'culturist'. Whether you believe that this is the same thing as racism ,worse, or better is a whole other can of worms, but in the case of the 'Injuns', Arabs, and black africans you are quite right to think he sees them as 'uncouth savages', but this is not at all the same as thinking that they are uncouth savages because they are Arabs, black, or 'Injuns'. Like Rudyard Kipling, ERB's relationship to non-Anglo cultures is more complex than that.

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.

And frankly, that's bull crap. I FREAKING READ 'PRINCESS OF MARS' FOR THE FIRST TIME WHEN I WAS EIGHT. I'VE READ IT AND THE REST COUNLESS TIMES SINCE THEN. THE WORKS ARE MOST CERTAINLY NOT BEING FITTED TO THE THEORY. THE THEORY IS BEING FITTED TO THE WORKS. I DID NOT DEVELOPE THIS IDEA AT AGE SEVEN AND THEN TRY TO FORCE ERB'S WORKS TO FIT IT, NOR FOR THAT MATTER DID I FAIL TO NOTICE THE INSTRUCTIVE LECTURING IN THESE WORKS WELL BEFORE I DEVELOPED A THEORY THAT ENCOMPASSED IN GENERAL WHAT THE OBJECTIVES AND METHODS OF A FANTASY STORY WHERE.

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.

Really. I suppose you think that when A is always within the set of B, that it naturally follows that B is always within the set of A.

Is Jack Ryan the ideal American patriot, and A Clear and Present Danger a morality tale?

Do you think anything in 'A Clear and Present Danger' is a symbol for anything other than itself? Do you think Tom Clancy invented things in 'A Clear and Present Danger' in order to serve as symbols for abstract ideas? What things in 'A Clear and Present Danger' are abstract concepts put into cleaner, simplier, more tangible forms? Even if he was writing morality tales, what Tom Clancy is doing has exactly the opposite goals of a fantasy and he goes about in exactly the opposite manner a fantasy writer would. The only romantic element of the story is his reoccuring heroes, and I certainly agree that a romantic hero is in and of itself no proof of a fantasy.

Frankly, I don't think you are getting it, and the utility of trying to explain it to you is increasingly in doubt.

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.

Are you actually listening? Or did you just blink when I wrote, "RB'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."

ERB's anti-religious and anti-racist sentiments, disguised by the fantastic setting though they were, probably caused an equal ammount of consternation amongst the moralists of the day. Just because ERB does not agree with convention morality, doesn't mean he doesn't have one. If an ten year old boy can parse out ERB's agenda in his story telling, why are you having problems? If you don't believe the agenda is there, then do as that ten year old boy did later as an adult and read about the things ERB and his father said about the real world outside of the stories.

 

[Desdichado]

Frankly, if you believe that ERB is a racist, you probably believe that Rudyard Kipling is a racist and there is no point in having this conversation because we'll have to drag into the conversation Edward Said, 'orientalism', and a bunch of other politically charged notions of what it means to be racist. Suffice to say that while I think ERB didn't have a racist bone in his body and did not believe in racial superiority in any fashion, he was very much a believer in the superiority of Western and particularly Anglo-sphere culture. ERB is unabashedly a 'culturist'. Whether you believe that this is the same thing as racism ,worse, or better is a whole other can of worms, but in the case of the 'Injuns', Arabs, and black africans you are quite right to think he sees them as 'uncouth savages', but this is not at all the same as thinking that they are uncouth savages because they are Arabs, black, or 'Injuns'. Like Rudyard Kipling, ERB's relationship to non-Anglo cultures is more complex than that.

I agree that "racism" applied to authors at the turn of the century is a bit absurd, because no such concept even existed at the time. I could pull out examples of Jane's black help from Tarzan, who was culturally American, or his characterization of the French, for example, from the same work. Similarly, there's the concept, largely left by the wayside today, of "classism" which is pretty rampant in ERB's work.

But doing so is most likely futile. As is pointing to an "anti-racism" message in the text. It's applying idealogy that post-dates the work in question by a long time, and therefore, as I said earlier, futile.

And frankly, that's bull crap. I FREAKING READ 'PRINCESS OF MARS' FOR THE FIRST TIME WHEN I WAS EIGHT. I'VE READ IT AND THE REST COUNLESS TIMES SINCE THEN. THE WORKS ARE MOST CERTAINLY NOT BEING FITTED TO THE THEORY. THE THEORY IS BEING FITTED TO THE WORKS. I DID NOT DEVELOPE THIS IDEA AT AGE SEVEN AND THEN TRY TO FORCE ERB'S WORKS TO FIT IT, NOR FOR THAT MATTER DID I FAIL TO NOTICE THE INSTRUCTIVE LECTURING IN THESE WORKS WELL BEFORE I DEVELOPED A THEORY THAT ENCOMPASSED IN GENERAL WHAT THE OBJECTIVES AND METHODS OF A FANTASY STORY WHERE.

Well, I guess you got me there. YOU READ THE BOOK VERY YOUNG AND SWITCHED TO ALL CAPS, SO NATURALLY YOUR ARGUMENT IS FREE OF ANY FLAW.

I don't think anything you've stated is even relevent to how good your theories and interpretations are, frankly. I'd prefer you stick to relevent statements.

Really. I suppose you think that when A is always within the set of B, that it naturally follows that B is always within the set of A.

Huh? If anything, that seems to be the thrust of your argument. Fantasy must be a morality tale is certainly a case of misapplied logic; or maybe circular semantics. You define fantasy as a morality tale (even though nobody else does) and then argue that anything not a morality tale is obviously not fantasy despite whatever other features it has. Similarly, other works that are not generally accepted as fantasy, yet which do meet your defining criteria are excluded "just because."

Do you think anything in 'A Clear and Present Danger' is a symbol for anything other than itself? Do you think Tom Clancy invented things in 'A Clear and Present Danger' in order to serve as symbols for abstract ideas? What things in 'A Clear and Present Danger' are abstract concepts put into cleaner, simplier, more tangible forms? Even if he was writing morality tales, what Tom Clancy is doing has exactly the opposite goals of a fantasy and he goes about in exactly the opposite manner a fantasy writer would. The only romantic element of the story is his reoccuring heroes, and I certainly agree that a romantic hero is in and of itself no proof of a fantasy.

And yet...

Its just you that sees any invented things as symbols of abstract principles whether or not the author intended them as such.

Frankly, I don't think you are getting it, and the utility of trying to explain it to you is increasingly in doubt.

Nobody's getting it. Maybe you should take a hint and realize that it's not just that everyone else but you is incapable of getting it, but that your "theory" is incoherent and flat-out absurd.

Are you actually listening? Or did you just blink when I wrote, "RB'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."

And here we see yet more of your semantic wrangling. Apparently you now define "listening" as "accepting everything you say." Of course I "listened", or more accurately read your post. I think it's full of crap, though, and I agree with very little of it.

You also have conflated the semantics of "my interpretation" with "the Truth^TM and apparently can no longer distinguish between the two of them. Hey, you as a 10-year old came up with this interpretation of ERB and his writings, and by golly, if you figured it out as a 10-year old, it must be the "way things are."

 

[Voadam]

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.

I think you are misinterpreting much of what I have said here.

Fantasy = magic

Sci-Fi = High Tech that does not currently exist.

My definitions for the genres are not mutually exclusive. It is not an either or situation.

If accepted they also are pretty easy to apply consistently.

Sci-Fi can have elements of fantasy in it and still be sci-fi. Star wars is a prime example of sci-fi with fantasy elements. Why do I classify it as Sci-fi with fantasy elements and not Fantasy with Sci-Fi elements? Because I think of Space Ships, Blasters, light sabres, robots, aliens, space, etc. as predominant images and associations compared to the force when thinking of Star Wars.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, I guess you got me there. YOU READ THE BOOK VERY YOUNG AND SWITCHED TO ALL CAPS, SO NATURALLY YOUR ARGUMENT IS FREE OF ANY FLAW.

No, I switched to all caps because you were flat out wrong in suggesting that the theory predated the reading of the Barsoom books. Forget the larger issue of whether you agree with my big thesis here. You can call my big thesis utter bunk, but don't use calling my big thesis utter bunk to stand for an argument against the specific case of whether ERB's barsoom books fit in the genera of 'boys stories' and whether just maybe all that moral instruction is intentional.

I don't think anything you've stated is even relevent to how good your theories and interpretations are, frankly. I'd prefer you stick to relevent statements.

Which is itself not a relevant statement to the particular case being debated. It may well be true that I'm wrong in general, but your claim that I'm wrong in general does not prove that I'm wrong here in the specific case of ERB's Barsoom tales.

Fantasy must be a morality tale is certainly a case of misapplied logic; or maybe circular semantics.

OK, fine. You don't connect the two. That has nothing to do with whether or not in this case 'Princess of Mars' has rather obvious moral instruction elements.

Similarly, other works that are not generally accepted as fantasy, yet which do meet your defining criteria are excluded "just because."

And that is simply not true, and shows that whether or not I'm completely wrong, you aren't even aware of what my argument is.

Its just you that sees any invented things as symbols of abstract principles whether or not the author intended them as such.

Fine its just me that sees this. That has nothing to do with whether or not ERB's intended the white and black skinned martians to be deliberate commentary on the state of race relations in early 20th century America, or whether or not Clint Eastwood's 'High Plains Drifter' has a strong supernatural theme - both of which I've spent more time arguing in the past few posts than anything to do with my definition of fantasy.

Nobody's getting it. Maybe you should take a hint and realize that it's not just that everyone else but you is too stupid to get it, but that your "theory" is incoherent and flat-out absurd.

Incoherent it may be given my limitations as a writer, but it is most certainly not flat-out absurd. And seeing as I've been told that its flat out absurd that 'High Plains Drifter' has a supernatural element to it, and that its is flat out absurd that ERB's moral sentiments were coming out deliberately and strongly in his Barsoom stories, I'm not necessarily going to rely on someone else to tell me what is absurd or not. Thanks for the advice though.

And here we see yet more of your semantic wrangling. Apparently you now define "listening" as "accepting everything you say." Of course I "listened", or more accurately read your post. I think it's full of crap, though, and I agree with very little of it.

HA! Let me get this straight, you are busy redefining my words in ways I clearly didn't mean them, but that makes me a semantic wrangler. I was forced to quote myself solely because you made the absurd charge that just because conventional moralists objected to ERB's text, that he couldn't possibly have elevated intentions, even though I myself had pointed out earlier that ERB's conformity to traditional mores had no bearing one whether his story was trying to convey some sort of moral instruction. I don't expect you to agree with this, but at least acknowledging that I said it would be a start.

you as a 10-year old came up with this interpretation of ERB and his writings, and by golly, if you figured it out as a 10-year old, it must be the "way things are."

I haven't seen you present an alternative interpretation. For example, what do you think ERB is trying to communicate to the reader during the worship services to Tur in 'Mastermind of Mars'? What attitude does the hero have when presented with these religious mysteries? What attitude do you think ERB expects the reader to have to Dar Tarus's religious beliefs? Is this attitude consistant with the other presentations of organized religion on Barsoom? Is this attitude consistant with ERB's upbringing? Is this attitude consistant with ERB's stated views? By all means, if you think you've got a better understanding on the meaning of ERB's works, then come forward with it.

UPDATE: Cool. ERB's works are on the web, so I can give you a quick quote to go buy.

But it was Gor Hajus who told me most about the religion of Tur one day when Dar Tarus was not about. He said that the Phundahlians maintained that Tur still created every living thing with his own hands. They denied vigorously that man possessed the power to reproduce his kind and taught their young that all such belief was vile; and always they hid every evidence of natural procreation, insisting to the death that even those things which they witnessed with their own eyes and experienced with their own bodies in the bringing forth of their young never transpired.

Turgan taught them that Barsoom is flat and they shut their minds to every proof to the contrary. They would not leave Phundahl far for fear of failing off the edge of the world; they would not permit the development of aeronautics because should one of their ships circumnavigate Barsoom it would be a wicked sacrilege in the eyes of Tur who made Barsoom flat.

They would not permit the use of telescopes, for Tur taught them that there was no other world than Barsoom and to look at another would be heresy; nor would they permit the teaching in their schools of any history of Barsoom that antedated the creation of Barsoom by Tur, though Barsoom has a well authenticated written history that reaches back more than one hundred thousand years; nor would they permit any geography of Barsoom except that which appears in Turgan, nor any scientific researches along biological lines. Turgan is their only text book—if it is not in Turgan it is a wicked lie.

Much of all this and a great deal more I gathered from one source or another during my brief stay in Phundahl, whose people are, I believe, the least advanced in civilization of any of the red nations upon Barsoom. Giving, as they do, all their best thought to religious matters, they have become ignorant, bigoted and narrow, going as far to one extreme as the Toonolians do to the other.

Now of course, none of this relates directly to my big theory, but hopefully it squashes the claim that ERB didn't have any intention to make moral commentary merely because he was a writer of 'pulp fiction'.

 

[Celebrim]

I think you are misinterpreting much of what I have said here.

It's certainly possible. People do it to me all the time.

Fantasy = magic

Sci-Fi = High Tech that does not currently exist.

No, that's pretty much what I thought you said. I disagree with you that such standards are easy to apply consistantly. To saw the famous saw, "A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.", and I note that most science fiction (certainly the popular stuff) typically makes use of 'sufficiently advanced technology'. Much of this stuff is nothing but magic, but its accepted with a handwave and a very thin dressing of technobabble simply because it has become part of the conventions of Sci-Fi. Most popular science fiction makes no real attempt to conform to the laws of physics at all. It is to me merely magic by a different name, attractive only in so far as magic is more attractive if you believe in it.

My definitions for the genres are not mutually exclusive. It is not an either or situation.

Good. My definitinos for the generas are not mutually exclusive either, since its possible for one work to have many themes and elements.

Sci-Fi can have elements of fantasy in it and still be sci-fi.

Earlier in the thread, several posters seemed to try to advance the idea that the presence of magic was a sharp bright dividing between science-fiction and fantasy. Clearly, you aren't among them.

Star wars is a prime example of sci-fi with fantasy elements. Why do I classify it as Sci-fi with fantasy elements and not Fantasy with Sci-Fi elements? Because I think of Space Ships, Blasters, light sabres, robots, aliens, space, etc. as predominant images and associations compared to the force when thinking of Star Wars.

Common sense tells you that, and I've learned a long time ago that there wasn't much use arguing against common sense. And heck, I even believe that most of the time when you argue against common sense you're wrong, so maybe your right. I just happen to think that there is alot more to the generas than the superficial imagery of them, that there is more to the novel than novelty, and that there are in fact literary themes within them which are extremely difficult to address from outside them.

 

[Desdichado]

No, I switched to all caps because you were flat out wrong in suggesting that the theory predated the reading of the Barsoom books. Forget the larger issue of whether you agree with my big thesis here. You can call my big thesis utter bunk, but don't use calling my big thesis utter bunk to stand for an argument against the specific case of whether ERB's barsoom books fit in the genera of 'boys stories' and whether just maybe all that moral instruction is intentional.

To be semantically quibblish, that's not what I suggested, what I suggested was that the theory was formulated, and then applied to the work. That doesn't mean you hadn't already read the work.

But I'll take your word for it and accept that you got that interpretation out of the book upon first reading. Me, I got nothing more than a rousing adventure story, much like his more or less contemporary writer Raphael Sabatini, but set in fantastic locations. It still seems to me that the fact that ERB used fantastic locations is the primary driver of your interpretation of his writings as morality tales, and presumably your belief that Captain Blood is not one, even though the primary difference between them is nothing so much as late 1800s set on a fictional Mars vs. set during the heyday of Port Royale pirate Caribbean.

And that is simply not true, and shows that whether or not I'm completely wrong, you aren't even aware of what my argument is.

If it's not, then you haven't given a very coherent definition of what is fantasy and what is not, then. I still mainatin that being a morality tale with symbols representing abstract principles can occur in works other than fantasy, and works of fantasy may still eschew morality and symbolism altogether. I also still fail to see why you so inextricably entwine morality tale and fantasy when the two are not deterministically related. I'll agree that much of fantasy does indeed have symbolic visions of evil, or whatever, but I still do not agree that it must or that it fails to be fantasy. Again, it's a case of using a subset of fantasy, and trying to define all of fantasy by the qualities of the subset.

Fine its just me that sees this. That has nothing to do with whether or not ERB's intended the white and black skinned martians to be deliberate commentary on the state of race relations in early 20th century America, or whether or not Clint Eastwood's 'High Plains Drifter' has a strong supernatural theme - both of which I've spent more time arguing in the past few posts than anything to do with my definition of fantasy.

You haven't spent much time at all arguing about ERB's racial commentary, and I still hold out that you can't, because racism as we understand it was not defined in his time. And I haven't made any comment on High Plains Drifter; heck, I haven't even seen that movie.

Incoherent it may be given my limitations as a writer, but it is most certainly not flat-out absurd. And seeing as I've been told that its flat out absurd that 'High Plains Drifter' has a supernatural element to it, and that its is flat out absurd that ERB's moral sentiments were coming out deliberately and strongly in his Barsoom stories, I'm not necessarily going to rely on someone else to tell me what is absurd or not. Thanks for the advice though.

Your misrepresenting me. I didn't say that your interpretation of High Plains Drifter or ERB was absurd --I have no opinion on the first, and I disagree with the second and think that it's extremely unlikely, but I don't think it's absurd-- I think it's absurd that you define fantasy as being a morality tale, and that you're stretching examples beyond common sense to attempt to demonstrate that "grand theory." I quibble with your details, but I don't really think they're absurd. It's your grander theory that I think is absurd.

HA! Let me get this straight, you are busy redefining my words in ways I clearly didn't mean them, but that makes me a semantic wrangler.

Uh, no, I never did that. You asked if I was even listening to you, implying that if I was, well, of course I would agree! I didn't redefine any words you said.

I was forced to quote myself solely because you made the absurd charge that just because conventional moralists objected to ERB's text, that he couldn't possibly have elevated intentions, even though I myself had pointed out earlier that ERB's conformity to traditional mores had no bearing one whether his story was trying to convey some sort of moral instruction. I don't expect you to agree with this, but at least acknowledging that I said it would be a start.

No, you did say that. I still think it's out of left field, patently unlikely, and I don't agree with it, though.

I haven't seen you present an alternative interpretation. For example, what do you think ERB is trying to communicate to the reader during the worship services to Tur in 'Mastermind of Mars'? What attitude does the hero have when presented with these religious mysteries? What attitude do you think ERB expects the reader to have to Dar Tarus's religious beliefs? Is this attitude consistant with the other presentations of organized religion on Barsoom? Is this attitude consistant with ERB's upbringing? Is this attitude consistant with ERB's stated views? By all means, if you think you've got a better understanding on the meaning of ERB's works, then come forward with it.

I already did. It was escapist adventure fiction, as I said earlier. Personally, I don't think ERB is the kind of author who really does well under an extremely critical analysis of the text, looking for deeper meaning, because I don't think there was much.

Now of course, none of this relates directly to my big theory, but hopefully it squashes the claim that ERB didn't have any intention to make moral commentary merely because he was a writer of 'pulp fiction'.

Why should it? Why does he have to be making moral commentary?

Oh, that's right. Because it's fantasy, and the way you define fantasy, it has to be making moral commentary. So if ERB isn't making moral commentary, then your definition doesn't work.

 

[Celebrim]

I already did. It was escapist adventure fiction, as I said earlier. Personally, I don't think ERB is the kind of author who really does well under an extremely critical analysis of the text, looking for deeper meaning, because I don't think there was much.

These are claims which you have made no attempt to back up. You simply asking me to accept your word that it is merely escapist adventure fiction with no higher aspirations what so ever, and further that you ask me to accept your word over that of the evidence that I've presented to the contrary. Your word against my senses. Now there is a contest. When I present quotations from the text which seem to be about something more than merely escapist adventure fiction (whatever that means), you fail to even address the text. Instead, you dismiss me as reading into the text things which are not there, even though they aren't exactly complex symbolism, and despite the fact that I could back my interpretation of the text with quotations by the man about the subjects in question. If its present in the text, and its present in the man, why is it so astounding to you that it was deliberately put there?

To throw your method of debate back in your face, is it because ERB is about as lowbrow of fantasy as one can get, and if you can't make your claims stick here with a subject you consider yourself familiar with, then its highly unlikely that you would be able to make them stick anywhere? So are you just going to continue digging in your heels, putting your hands over your eyes and going, "I can't see anything. I just don't know what you are talking about."?

Or maybe you reject these claims merely because you don't want ERB's Barsoom books to be about anything, but it offends your view of the world? Fine. In the same way maybe you don't want to see why the the supernatural and the metaphysical are intrisically linked because it offends your view of the world, but if that's your reasoning you'll pardon me for not accepting your commentary as definitive.

Why should it? Why does he have to be making moral commentary?

Oh, that's right. Because it's fantasy, and the way you define fantasy, it has to be making moral commentary. So if ERB isn't making moral commentary, then your definition doesn't work.

You know what the funny thing is? The sort of satirical commentary I quoted in which an one institution stands for another institution, doesn't even prove my assertion about ERB's barsoom books in particular, much less fantasy in general. But you don't understand that because you don't have a clue what actually would satisfy my definitions - even though you reject everything out of hand. I only brought up the obvious moral instruction in ERB's books, because I thought it would be a good way of opening up people's minds to the fact that there might be something deeper going on even in the simpliest of low fantasy. But foolish me, I underestimated people's powers to be obstinate, because I've spent the better part of the time since then arguing with people over the simple obvious facts and not what they actually mean.

It's as close to a factual literary analysis as a literary analysis can be that Gulliver's Travels is a satire. It's as close to a factual literary analysis as a literary analysis can be that the religious cermonies and beliefs of the Tur worshipers is a satire. One is like the other. Nothing about those facts makes or breaks my larger argument, but since you treat that simple assertion as if it was flat-out absurd and provide no basis why whatsoever, I see no reason why I should care that you think my far more complex arguments are flat-out absurd. In fact, since the sort of passages as the Tur worshiper passage occur all throughout the books, the fact that you don't see even that renders your larger rejection rather ubsurd. It's like a blind man telling me I can't see and that I'm prepostrously arrogant for claiming that I can.

Fine. Eat your straw and be happy escaping from reality.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Off the top of my head-

Works of fantasy without an overarching moral message/commentary:

Mary Gentle's Books of Ash series.
Larry Niven's Magic Goes Away series.
Most of Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion arc of stories.
Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel series
Most of Tanith Lee's output.


Works of Sci-Fi with an overarching moral message/commentary:

C. J. Cherryh's Foreigner series.
Asimov's Robot series.
Greg Bear's Forge of God series.
Heinlein's Starship Troopers.
Most of the works of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells.
Ben Bova's Planet Series.

I could go on, but I think I've proven my point: the presence or absence of morality lessons cannot in any way be used as a test for whether something is fantasy or sci-fi.

The only meaningful dichotomy between the styles is entirely one of the settings, trappings, etc. It is the only one with any consistency.

And even that consistency is only partial. There are crossovers, as I fully admitted in my "venn diagram post" One need look at the works of Piers Anthony, Terry Brooks, Frank Herbert and many others to see sci-fi splashed with fantasy (or vice versa). Fritz Lieber's Ningauble and Seelba were definitely radically non-human, but the writer never said whether they were alien or extraplanar entities.

 

[Andor]

Let me explain... No, let me sum up.

Look, guys, the fundamental problem here is simple.

Whether you think Fantasy looks to the past and SF looks to the future...

Whether you think Fantasy discusses morality and SF discusses humanity...

Whether you think Fantasy breaks physical laws and SF adheres to them...

You must recognize that any story can be cast in the trappings of the either. EG: Seven Samurai = Magnificent Seven = Battle Beyond the Stars

Even if you think Fantasy is magic and SF is blasters you can see that a single tale can contain elements of both. EG: Star Wars

It is therefore impossible to come up with definitions that are mutually exclusive.

Of course that wasn't the goal of the discussion in the first place. What is fantasy? I'd say it is something that has one, some or all of the following elements:

The supernatural. The distinction between the supernatural and technology being that the supernatural can never be fully understood or controlled. I would consider the prophesies of the computer in Alpha Ralpha Boulevard to be supernatural, but DnDs Arcane magic seems like technology to me. It is because of that lack of understanding/control that the supernatural must touch on morality. Conversely you can call something magic but if it acts like technology it need touch on morality no more than a butter knife must.

A backward looking aesthetic. If the glories of the past can never be reached, but only dreamed of, if progress is only illusion, then the work is fantasy (And anti-thetical to the central trope of SF.)

Heros. Individuals can shape the course of events by sheer willpower/chutzpah/coolness.

The trappings of Fantasy. These being magic (howeverso mechanical it may be), fantastic creatures(dragons, griffons, talking corgis), anachronistic elements (like 14th century technology, 12th century politics, and 20th century morality), non-human sentients, etc...

Anyone have a definition of fantasy that this doesn't encompass?

 

[Prince of Happiness]

I like J.G. Ballard.