Genre Conventions: What is fantasy?

[Desdichado]

I decided it wouldn't hurt to put my money where my mouth is, and pony up an example of a very popular fantasy work that I do not consider to have any underlying symbolism or exploration of abstract principles made flesh. Although I had previously abandoned this work in frustration several books ago, I now find myself going through them again as audiobooks from my local public library, so it's all pretty fresh in my mind. For those concerned about such things, this post at this point will contain spoilers for the Wheel of Time series.

What? No symbolic good vs. evil? It even has a freakin' Dark Lord and everything! Yeah, well, the Dark One can't be used to explore what evil is, because other than some set-up, and a few diversions from time to time to make sure we don't completely forget him, he's hardly an important aspect of the story. At least so far. The story has been about Rand Al'Thor rising to power and trying to unite folks that are nominally "good" yet are very willful and fractious behind him. Similarly, neither Rand nor any other character can really be said to be a virtue, vice or other such characteristic made flesh; certainly as characters they have virtues and vices, but they are not completely defined by them.

That said, there are several themes that can be extracted from the books; some of them by the author's own admission. But none of these themes makes the Wheel of Time into anything like a morality play except by twisting and stretching the available evidence farther than it really has any right to go. Here's a few of the themes I think are part of the story:

• As alluded to above, people don't like to be united behind a single person, and people are stubborn, wilful and ambitious, even those who are nominally "good." The Wise Ones of the Aiel and the Aes Sedai in particular have their own agendas for Rand, and intend to use him as much as they can. The Whitecloaks have their own idea of what's right and what needs to be done, and nobody much else agrees with them. Same for the Seanchan. Yet all stand against the Dark One, or at least they would if they even believed him to be a serious threat. This theme can perhaps best be encapsulated with the phrase, internal to the book, (and I'm paraphrasing since I don't remember the exact wording) "the paths of the heights are paved with daggers," alluding to the fact that once you become powerful and influential, there are people who can't wait to take you down, and others who can't wait to try and make you dance like a puppet. Still, this theme hardly needs to be presented in a fantasy format. Any history of Alexander the Great, in particular leading up to his ascension to the Macedonian throne through his uniting of all of Greece under his banner would of necessity have the same theme. As would any work describing the rise to power of Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler, Cesare Borge, Genghis Khan, or any other historical figure who rose from (relative) obscurity to stand like a giant in historical textbooks. Indeed, instead of a theme of the books, this could almost simply be interpreted as exploring the logical conclusions of Rand's rise to power. Certainly this theme can't be pressed into any type of morality play.
  
• What would it be like to be tapped on the shoulder some day and told, "hey, you're the guy who has to save the world. And destroy it in the process, by the way." Robert Jordan himself has stated that this is a theme of the books, although ironically, I think it's little explored. Other than oft-repeated phrases about duty, responsibility and the burden they represent, this theme is surprisingly understated. Again, no morality play fodder there.
  
• What would a culture be like if they had a historical remembrance of specifically men causing a major catastrophe? Here, though, there's no "message" or symbolism inherent in this; rather, as Tolkien liked crafting languages, Jordan likes crafting ethnologies. His exploration of the relationships between men and women are merely the logical follow-through of the Breaking of the World and what it meant to the survivors, nothing else.
  
  Granted, he does mention several times that "the greatest works of the Age of Legends were done by men and women working together" and does allude to the fact that the constant sexual, or more precisely, gender-related tension does more harm than good. This is probably the closest thing to the idea of making abstract ideas personified and putting them in the story, but even here, I think that's shaky. Maybe it'll be more firm once the series is complete. Other than the occasional phrase mentioned above, and the cleansing of saidin requiring both Rand and Nynaeve working together, there's been little evidence in the book that men and women in harmony really would be any better than the status quo. If anything, in some ways, the series seems to be forcibly pushing them farther apart.
  
• What is appropriate action during times of war. This is especially touched upon during Perrin's POV time and his absurd wishy-washiness about axe or hammer, and the Way of the Leaf. However, this is strongly contrasted with Rand and the Aiel, and their own history of following the Way of the Leaf and why it was abandoned, and why the Aiel don't just return to it. If there's a message here, it certainly seems that Jordan is trying to argue both sides at once, which is indicative to me that he's not imparting any such message at all. Besides, this hardly needs the fantasy genre to explore; Gary Cooper's Seargeant York did so much better, and any story about the homefront of the Vietnam War, for instance, could explore the same themes just as well, if not better.
  
• If you're young and powerful, you get lots of hawt chick action. Yeah, I dunno if the fact that The Wheel of Time is a soap opera both in terms of plot elements but also in terms of characters all being young, beautiful, powerful and rich means anything or not. I tend to think not.

Anyway, if Celebrim has even read The Wheel of Time then I'm sure he disagrees with my interpretation of it. I'll not be so arrogant as to claim my interpretation is factual; it's just my interpretation. However, his theory that a fantasy must be a morality tale only needs one work of fantasy that is not a morality tale to invalidate and disqualify his theory from being taken seriously, and my humble proposal is that The Wheel of Time is not one. With a little bit of thought, I'm sure I could come up with many others, though.

 

[Celebrim]

I decided it wouldn't hurt to put my money where my mouth is, and pony up an example of a very popular fantasy work that I do not consider to have any underlying symbolism or exploration of abstract principles made flesh. Although I had previously abandoned this work in frustration several books ago, I now find myself going through them again as audiobooks from my local public library, so it's all pretty fresh in my mind. For those concerned about such things, this post at this point will contain spoilers for the Wheel of Time series....

LOL. No, literally, I had to get up and leave the lab when I read that to avoid causing a disturbance. I really intended to just stay out of this thread, but gee, is that the best you can do?

For the record, demonstrating that an author is often incoherent and that he raises themes for which he has no good answer or that he raises all sorts of mythic elements that he has no intention of exploring in an intellectual fashion is nothing like demonstrating that the work doesn't contain fantastic elements which embody abstract ideas such as good, evil, harmony, etc.

Again, all you've demonstrated by claiming that this particular work doesn't fit my definition of a fantasy, is that you aren't very good at reading works critically. The Wheel of Time is deeply steeped in Buddhist and Judeo-Christian mythic imagery and contains all sorts of fantastic elements which are in many cases explicitly stand-ins for abstract ideas. Heck, Rand Al'Thor isn't just symbolically a Christ figure, Rand Al'Thor is EXPLICITLY WITHIN THE TEXT a Christ figure (and within the framework of the story, one must assume that he is literally the Messiah Returned). Even if we where to argue that Robert Jordan had no higher aspirations than pulp fiction, which would be rather insulting IMO, this would be a really good example of why its impossible to write fantasy that doesn't end up getting tied into morality. And in particular, I'd argue that alot of the reasons the WoT series is so compelling despite its flaws as a story is that it is so deeply tied into all this mythic imagery about good and evil, ying and yang, ad infinitum.

 

[Celebrim]

Danny: I didn't get back to you because I was so tired of having to repeat myself, and not having much anyone reply with what I considered a reasonable objection that I decided to just drop it. (Incidently, whether or not I'm arrogant for not considering the objections reasonable, it nonetheless is reasonable that if I'm not finding the debate interesting for me to not continue in it. Just thought I'd say that to partially forstall the versus ad hominem attacks.)

However, the post in which you listed works was a reasonable objection. A list of counter-examples, some of them quite good, is a reasonable objection. Had I been having more fun at the time, I'd been happy to respond.

The other problem is that I've only read about half the examples in the list, and before I could really respond I'd have to read the rest. I will respond to those that I have experience with.

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.

As I said earlier, my sci-fi is much stronger than my fantasy. I've read one book of the Stormbringer saga, but not recently enough to really comment on it. I will note however that several other posters felt that Moorcock's books fit my definition, even though they didn't agree that my definition covered all of fantasy (which I admit is not immediately obvious).

I know what the Kushiel series is about, but I've never read it. It's just not my thing, and my sole further comment on the work is that I don't read it because I object to it on moral grounds and you may make of that what you will.

The only other work I'm familiar with on that list is Larry Niven's 'Magic Goes Away' series, and on that I feel I'm on firmer footing. Firm enough at least to note that 'Magic Goes Away' is a work that is dead center of my definition of a fantasy.

To meet my definition of a fantasy, the book needs to have elements which are the embodiments or existantiations of abstract moral principals. It's not enough for the book to just have something be a symbol for something else, or for that thing to be like something else. That thing has to be that abstract thing made tangible. Likewise, those abstract things can't be just any general idea, but something which would fall within the realm of things we would consider moral ideas or principals - whether humility, ambition, evil, good, hubris, love, prudence, or whatever.

So, what is 'The Magic Goes Away' about? Well its a tale of a civilization in which supernatural metaphysical embodiments of ideas (gods and stuff) are fading away because the magic which empowers them is fading away. Already, we've met the definitions of my fantasy simply because the Gods in 'The Magic Goes Away' are literally incarnated principals in the story in addition to merely being Man writ large. But I don't have to stop there. We can talk about what the story is about. What does the narrator of the story learn in the course of the adventure? Well, for most of the story, the narrator and most eveyone else in the story is rather depressed that there world filled with magical things is coming to an end. The narrator goes on a quest to prevent the magic in the world from going away. In the end he learns that the magic going away is probably a good thing, for though the magic in the world is a wonderful thing, it also keeps man enslaved to the metaphysical things. Ultimately he decides that mankind will be better off letting the magic fading away and embracing a new world in which the gods are only faded memories. Does this sound like a modernist morality tale to you? If it doesn't, then pardon me for thinking you aren't paying very close attention. We live in a world in which the magic is fading away under the pressures of modern science and reason. We could chose to look back at the past regretfully as if the loss of the magic was a bad thing, but the writer of 'The Magic Goes Away' tells us, that would be a mistake - because life in the world filled with magic wasn't actually all that good of a thing. All that magic just left man enslaved. The real hope for man is not in the past with the magic, but forward in the future in a world were man is no longer subject to the magic.

And that is certainly a morality tale. I'd also like to point out that 'The Magic Goes Away' breaks some of the definitions given here for a fantasy, in that ultimately the story is very forward looking and future looking and ultimately the man character rejects the glories of the fading past as being not all that they are cracked up to be.

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've read the above except for Greg Bear and Ben Bova. I've only read the first of CJ Cherryh's 'Foreigner' works, but I've read here other stuff semi-extensively. Heinlein, Verne, Wells and Asimov I'm very familiar with.

This is actually the harder question, because for the most part (with the possible exception of some of the Wells and Verne) I want to firmly classify the above as Science Fiction. First, let me point out that its not enough for the story merely to have some moral messages in it for it to be moved into fantasy. The moral message has to be carried in the form of an abstract idea which has been embodied in some fashion in order to be easier discuss and describe through narrative. So what I would ask is things like, "Are the colonists in the Foreigner series symbolic of anything? If so, what are they symbolic of?" If the answer is something like, "I believe that they are symbolic of Western Imperialism.", then you have a colonists that are symbolic of well colonists, and not colonists that are symbolic of say 'man's rapaciousness'. The colonists are pretty much just colonists. Now, if you have a big smoke belching juggernaut that is symbolic of 'Western Imperialism', then we are probably on to something, but we don't. Likewise, are the natives in CJ Cherryh's embodiments of some abstract principal?
No, at best the natives are metaphors for natives. So, while its arguable that CJ Cherryh's work is filled with political (and perhaps moral) commentary, its not at all clear to me that anything in the story is an abstracted idea made tangible. Perhaps it is. But if your reading of the story is that everything in it is an embodiment of an abstract idea (and I'm going to guess that it isn't) then it would be my belief that you were emotionally and intellectually responding to the story as if it were a fantasy. What CJ Cherryh's story is to me is something more like a speculative retelling of history (at least at one level), and that device of putting Man in an alien setting (especially among things that are Not-Man) and asking 'what if?' is to me the very heart of sci-fi.

You could do the same sort of thing for Starship Troopers, though here I confess that depending on how you read the story I've got a problem. If you believe that the monstrous bugs are metaphors for communism, then we are bordering right on the edge of fantasy IMO. I'm not sure I'd carry it that far, but I definately see the point. Actually, alot of Heinlien's early work still has a bit of the elements of the fantastic in it, as Heinlein still employs quite frequently the Space Opera device of the 'Big Bug Eyed Monsters' quite abit and doesn't do alot of exploring of 'the Other' in any sort of deep way (though there are examples of clearer cases in even his juvenile works like 'Space Cadet'). One thing we can be certain of though is that Heinlein is trying to say that Man is certainly not a horde of mindless bugs, but a thinking and independent being. Even when the Hero has most subordinated himself to the needs of the group, he still remains something that is not part of a hive organism.

So actually, the hardest thing for me to show is not that the above aren't fantasy, but that they are in fact science fiction in every case.

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.

This is what you get for making strawmen out of my definitions. Go back to the start and read what I wrote again. I most certainly didn't say what you say that I said, and if you've been arguing with simulacrum of my definition the whole time well then more the pity.

And even that consistency is only partial. There are crossovers, as I fully admitted in my "venn diagram post"

Me too, I should note.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

To be fair, Celebrim, I think Joshua is confusing symbolism and allegory...a VERY common mistake.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Okay, I admit I stopped reading on page five. Here is my general definition of sci-fi and fantasy, and indeed all genres really. It quite purposefully avoids any academic thought.

If it is written for a sci-fi audience then it is sci-fi. If it is written for a fantasy audience, then it is fantasy. Note this isn't saying that the author sees it as sci-fi so it is sci-fi. It is the intent of the writer with respect to audience and what kind of audience, with their preconceved notions of what they prefer, that is important. Thus, the fact that Star Trek has vulcans that can read your mind is of little importantce. The fact that Star Trek is written to appeal to a sci-fi audience is of primary importance.

Whether psionics is realistic or not is irrelevent in this view. What is important is how it is presented to the audience. That will determine whether it fits in with science fiction or fantasy.

 

[Desdichado]

For the record, demonstrating that an author is often incoherent and that he raises themes for which he has no good answer or that he raises all sorts of mythic elements that he has no intention of exploring in an intellectual fashion is nothing like demonstrating that the work doesn't contain fantastic elements which embody abstract ideas such as good, evil, harmony, etc.

If they are incoherent, or are contradictory, they can't very well embody an abstract idea.

Again, all you've demonstrated by claiming that this particular work doesn't fit my definition of a fantasy, is that you aren't very good at reading works critically.

I've never held literary criticism in high regard, and if you are an example of reading works critically, I have affirmed my prior suspicion that it is a completely useless "discipline" of academia. You take the most tenuous of links and inflate it to ludicrous proportions in an attempt to "prove" the overarching themes and symbolism that doesn't exist.

In many cases, you do this in spite of the author's stated intentions, or you simply ignore what the author was likely doing and look for symbolism anyway, because you're so ingrained to do so by the literary establishment. And then, you take these completely fabricated overlays of what you believe works to be about, and go on to create completely spurious theories of genre, such as, what fantasy is all about.

Fine. I'm not good at reading critically the way most English departments teach it. In fact, I've purposefully eschewed the methodology, because I find it to be useless. In your opinion, I'm completely blind to obvious textual symbolism. In my mind, you're so desperate for hidden meaning and symbolism that you make it up. The divide between how we read will probably never be bridged. I highly doubt you will ever come around to my point of view, and I know for certain that I will never come around to yours.

The Wheel of Time is deeply steeped in Buddhist and Judeo-Christian mythic imagery and contains all sorts of fantastic elements which are in many cases explicitly stand-ins for abstract ideas.

You say those as if they are the same thing. Steeped in mythic imagery is not the argument you were making for defining fantasy, and it has nothing to do with whether or not they stand in for abstract ideas. Just because Artur Hawkwing is transparently King Arthur, for instance, and thus a mythic figure, does not mean that he stands for anything in The Wheel of Time. In fact, I can't see that he does.

Heck, Rand Al'Thor isn't just symbolically a Christ figure, Rand Al'Thor is EXPLICITLY WITHIN THE TEXT a Christ figure (and within the framework of the story, one must assume that he is literally the Messiah Returned).

No, that's absurd. If Rand al'Thor was supposed to stand in for Christ, then he wouldn't have such glaring differences to the iconic Christ figure. He clearly has some aspects of Christ-figure, but clearly diverges wildly in others.

Also, Christ was not an abstract principle either, he's a historical figure. You seem to be freely mixing abstract principles and mythic figures, at least in this post if not in general, which doesn't help the coherence of your position at all, nor the clarity of the "definition" of fantasy.

Even if we where to argue that Robert Jordan had no higher aspirations than pulp fiction, which would be rather insulting IMO, this would be a really good example of why its impossible to write fantasy that doesn't end up getting tied into morality. And in particular, I'd argue that alot of the reasons the WoT series is so compelling despite its flaws as a story is that it is so deeply tied into all this mythic imagery about good and evil, ying and yang, ad infinitum.

Those "deep ties" are little more than superficial surface features of the story, actually. You haven't even made any attempt to show how the Wheel of Time is in any way tied up with morality. I still argue that it most certainly is not. Robert Jordan clearly borrowed lots of mythic imagery and resonance, but he makes no moral statement about any of them.

 

[Celebrim]

To be fair, Celebrim, I think Joshua is confusing symbolism and allegory...a VERY common mistake.

Since when has Joshua been fair in this debate? I dare suggest that Gulliver's Travels is a satire, and I'm blasted as being arrogant for foisting my interpretation on things as if I was offering some arguable point. I point out from the text of ERB that he's wrong, and he says I'm choosing to find things in the text that aren't there. I point out that I can find the same sentiments coming directly from the man, and he persists in statements like "I prefer to only read what the author put there". I'm long since tired of being fair with Joshua. I'm going to stop now only because I'm afraid I'll tell you what I really think. He's certainly had no problem saying what he thinks of me.

 

[Desdichado]

To be fair, Celebrim, I think Joshua is confusing symbolism and allegory...a VERY common mistake.

No, actually I'm not, but I should probably be a bit more specific. Symbolism that is not allegorical is --at best-- a tenuous attribution, though. And symbols that don't actually say anything -- they merely exist to spark "mythic resonance" with the reader and give the work a sense of false gravitas and history -- accomplish absolutely nothing with regard to Celebrim's spurious definition of fantasy.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Oh dear. Celebrim. After reading your post, I have come to the conclusion that neither of you are all that clear on the difference. Your last post seems to indicate that all phantasy must contain allegory...or allegorical characters to be precise. That is a very slippery slope to defend. A good example of a true allegorical character would be: Satan. Good example of a forced (or weak if you will )allegiorical character would be: The Emperor (from SW).

Allegory is an absolute embodiment of an abstract. Symbolism is a device that can embody an abstract and still promote plot and content while never reaching the total 'oneness' of an allegory.

I'll comtinue a bit later when I have more time.

 

[Desdichado]

Since when has Joshua been fair in this debate? I dare suggest that Gulliver's Travels is a satire, and I'm blasted as being arrogant for foisting my interpretation on things as if I was offering some arguable point.

Well, for one thing, I made no comment whatsoever about Gulliver's Travels. You're confusing me with everyone else in the thread who thinks your theory is B.S. See, here's our fundamental difference. You believe that textual interprations are fact when clearly they are not. Because I will not accept that your opinions and interpretations are fact, you go on to say:

I'm long since tired of being fair with Joshua. I'm going to stop now only because I'm afraid I'll tell you what I really think. He's certainly had no problem saying what he thinks of me.

I've said a great deal of what I think of your arguments, yet you ignore my most persistent one, and slide into sniping and name-calling. Why will you not address the fundamental idea that any textual interpretation is opinion, and therefore not absolute and "factual" as you claim? Other than your actual definition of fantasy, that's the only really big sticking point I have. Oh, I've got plenty of other quibbles, mostly about your methodology, which seems almost an extreme parody of academic literary criticism, a discipline for which I have little patience to begin with. But we could actually have an intelligent conversation if you'd stop digressing into details and address the main problems I have with your statements.