Genre Conventions: What is fantasy?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Arthur C. Clark's aphorism aside, one thing I noticed about most magic systems (in fantasy stories- not RPGs) versus high-tech is this:

Magic is usually something that not everyone has access to, as opposed to tech, whose availability is limited only by law or money. I dub this Dannyalcatraz's Arcane Observation. It is a counterpoint to Clark's aphorism. While "Sufficiently advanced technogy is indistinguishable from magic" in effects, it is NOT neccessarily indistinguishable in CAUSE.

Somehow, someway, technology can ALWAYS be acquired. Access may be restricted, but money, security clearances and even theft can alter that. But no matter how advanced the tech is, it is still technology- no matter how much the tech warps reality, it still has intervening, actuating mechanisms.

But the use of magic is usally a birthright. By that I mean, most mages and sorcerers are "gifted," apart from all the rest of the beings of the world they inhabit, by birth with the ability to manipulate the universe at their whim in ways others cannot. You are either capable or incapable of using magic (ignoring magic items, of course). It is an inborn trait, like eye color or a predisposition to sickle cell anemia. Yes, training is usually required- except for the exceptionally gifted or exceptionally dangerous- but the world is divided inalterably into those who CAN practice magic and those who CAN NEVER practice magic. And the ability to warp reality with magic has NO intervening mechanisms, unlike technology- just the will and skill of the magics manipulator.

Two of the best examples of this are the movie Forbidden Planet (intervening Reality warping tech= The Krell Machine), and David Brin's The Practice Effect (intervening Reality warping tech= nanites).

There are exceptions, of course, and since there ARE, even D's Arcane Observation cannot be used as a bright-line test.

 

[Wayside]

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.

Just out of curiosity, what was the last "academic literary criticism" you read? I'm curious because most of your posts in this thread have more in common with contemporary literary criticism, for which considerations like theme and symbolism are vastly outdated, than Celebrim's, so I find your resistance to it odd. (This is not, of course, to say that there is such a thing as "academic literary criticism" in the first place, as opposed to a multiplicity of criticisms with their own arguments and goals.) I also find it odd that Celebrim would mention Ed Said, though, and then continue to rely on reified ideas about symbolism, allegory, theme for his argument.

 

[Celebrim]

As best as I can gather, Joshua's definition of science fiction is this, "Science fiction depends on scientific principles, or extrapolation of scientific principles. Aliens? Scientifically they are plausible, so they can exist." Now, I'm sure that he would argue that that isn't a formal definition, and I agree, so let me start off by saying I'm not going to nit pick it to death. I'll accept that implicitly he means things like, "plausible [at the time they are written]", or "plausible [broad speculation, as opposed to the narrow speculation of ordinary fiction which eshews the fantastic]", and he just left out a bunch of details covering special cases with the understanding that an intelligent and fair minded-reader would understand what he meant. Even so, even with various similar additions, the definition will not stand as an absolute definition of science fiction, and in fact I hope to show that ultimately it has no real meaning.

Likewise, as best as I can gather, Joshua's definition of fantasy is, "Fantasy, on the other hand, is defined by including elements that are flat-out impossible to explain. It's not about imagery, it's about including stuff that cannot be."

Now, first, it's worth noting that there is something very important we both argree on. The genera isn't defined by the imagery. You can make a pretty decent argument that it is (at least better than Joshua's argument IMO), but since neither of us are arguing for that, I don't have to refute it at this time. All I have to refute is the notion that the above definition can usefully distinguish science fiction from fantasy, or for that matter science fiction from anything.

The problem with the definition is that it depends on the reader's understanding of what is plausible. Joshua wrongly assumes that everyone (or even anyone) will agree on what is reasonable speculation based on the laws of science, and wrongly assumes that everyone (or even anyone) will agree on what is flat out impossible to explain. Thus, Joshua's definition depends on the interpretation, knowledge, biases, and beliefs of the particular reader.

Put simply, Joshua expects that every reader has the exact same degree of suspension of disbelief as he does, and so thinks that its possible to come to any reasonable agreement on what is plausible or not. The fact of the matter is that what is actually classified or not classified as plausible depends not on what is actually scientifically plausible, but on the general "common sense" acceptance of the conventions of the genera. But 'common sense' understanding is by no means universially shared, and in fact the more scientific knowledge you actually have the more this common sense notion of what is scientifically plausible breaks down. In fact, the science fiction authors themselves are far more aware than the general public that they are writing stories that don't hinge on scientific plausibility at all, and have at all times thrown out scientific plausibility whenever it suited the needs of the story. So in actuality, whether or not something is considered science fiction has almost nothing to do with science and never has.

Not that I'm saying that many SF authors aren't deeply interested in science and its implications, or that many authors (the so called 'hard sci-fi' writers) don't try to be rigorous about the science, but for the most part 'hard sci-fi' is terribly unpopular even among fans of science fiction. Gregory Benford (to name one of the most prominent) is a name which doesn't necessarily ring a bell even among fans of science fiction.

To show you what I mean, take the example of 'Aliens'. Now, I am by profession a programmer that writes bio-informatics software in a genetics laboratory. I know a little bit about the genetic code, and its is to say the least enormously complicated. To me, the odds that life just spontaneously generated itself althroughout the galaxy is about as likely as monkey typing out the code for MS Windows, or a bowl of petunias and a whale suddenly popping into being in orbit around the planet. It's just so bloody unlikely that if it were to be the case, it would be a miracle - even in a universe as vast and complicated as our own. And my objections don't have to end there. The question arises that if our galaxy does have several hundred or thousand galactic civilizations in it, why haven't we heard from them? Why wasn't there radio traffic filling the heavens the first time we aimed an instrument at the sky? Why aren't they here already? Why weren't they colonizing Earth millions of years ago? You could of course answer something like, "Well, you see they communicate using this form of energy that we haven't discovered yet.", but to me whether true or not that is about as scientific of an answer as, "God did it." If you are going to start suggesting that something is possible because it depends on something that we haven't discovered yet, then anything and everything becomes possible. How does magic work? "Well it employs forces that we haven't discovered yet." It's a stock answer that answers everything, and at the same time answers nothing.

FTL travel? "Well it employs forces that we haven't discovered yet."
Wouldn't the ammount of energy required to move a ship between two star systems perclude trading in commodities? "Well, you see they have this means of generating nearly unlimited energy in a way that we just haven't discovered yet."
Wouldn't a power source that produced that much radiant energy melt the ship/lightsaber/blaster instantly if it leaked only .0001% of its energy as heat? How do they defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics? "Well, you see they have discovered this means of directing energy so efficiently that no waste heat is produced"

And so on and so forth. To which I respond...

Casting a fireball with a wave of the hand? "Well you see it employs forces that we haven't discovered yet."

And there is another problem. What someone considers real is pretty subjective to. Joshua seems to believe that everyone agrees on what is magic and what is real, when in fact nothing could be further from the case. If someone writes a story that features UFO abductions, I might consider it fantasy. Someone else might consider it science fiction. A third person might believe its a true to life drama in the vein of a Tom Clancy geo-political thriller. On the other hand, if someone writes a story that features miraculous heaing, someone might consider it a true life account because he has a theological explanation for the event, someone else might believe its a science fiction account because he has a paranormal explanation for the event, and someone else might consider it a fantasy because he has a magical explanation for the event and doesn't believe in magic.

And BTW, there are science fiction stories about people being awakened from cryogenic slumbers by far future faith healers who discovered psychic powers, but need the person to program a computer for them because its become a lost art so its not like I'm talking about mere theoretical classification needs. These are real issues. By Joshua's definition, there is absolutely no way to classfy that except for yourself, and what good is a definition that only works for yourself? Well, possibly a definition that works only for yourself is good for something, but even if it does a definition that works only for yourself doesn't match with the statement, "I'm advocating genre definitions that are based entirely on the text, and not on the reader's interpretation of it."

It gets even worse. Because whether or not a reader is willing to suspend disbelief on a particular issue and say, "Yeah, I'm willing to accept that as plausible." is an emotional responce. At what point does bending the rules of science suddenly get to you and you say, "You know, I was willing to accept using nukes to deflect an asteroid the size of Texas even though I know that really that's improbable and a couple 300kt nukes probably wouldn't dent a rock that size, but once I realized that they intended to do it from near earth orbit rather an a couple of AU's out where the angle of deflection just might be large enough, that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me." What was the difference between the two law breaking plot elements? Only that eventually the odds got too low to keep believing in it. One librarian comes along and shelves it in science fiction. The next comes along and shelves it in fantasy.

Joshua's inclination at this point in the past has been to shrug and say, "Well, the work must be 'space opera' then." First, that's a misuse of the term, but I'm not going to quibble. Secondly, the fact of the matter is that if we were to classify every science fiction book by whether it rigorously followed the science, we'd end up with nothing left in science fiction. We'd have to call Iain M. Banks, 'Look to Windward', a 'space opera', and David Brin's "Uplift Wars' a 'space opera', but if we call a works that seriousness a 'space opera' (especially works by people with as impressive of scientific backgrounds as Brin) then we probably are going to have to call everything in the genera a space opera, or at the least someone will be able to call everything a 'space opera' because there will be someone who can't suspend enough disbelief to believe that the science is in fact plausible.

So much for a definition that depended only on the text and not the reader.

 

[Celebrim]

Arthur C. Clark's aphorism aside, one thing I noticed about most magic systems (in fantasy stories- not RPGs) versus high-tech is this:

Magic is usually something that not everyone has access to, as opposed to tech, whose availability is limited only by law or money. I dub this Dannyalcatraz's Arcane Observation. It is a counterpoint to Clark's aphorism.

Does this mean that a sufficiently ubiquitous magic is indistinguishable from technology? Would D&D in general, and Eberron in particular, be a good example of this?

Your observation reminds me of something I said earlier, that it might be possible if you sufficiently sterlized magic, that you could write science fiction stories that had nothing to do with science at all. I'm not sure exactly how I feel about that statement, but if I decide that I accept it at some point, then I'm pretty sure that I would argue that in some cases its already been done. For example, I believe that Robert Silverburg's 'Downward to the Earth' is a science fiction work, but Silverburg makes no real attempt at all in the story to explain the magic in terms of science. And yet, it is in character vastly different in tone and theme than a fantasy story - or at least certainly what springs into the head the first time you think of a fantasy story - and obviously I would argue that the reason for that it that Robert Silverburg's exploration of indentity is done in a way that is firmly in the 'science fiction' camp in its use of fantastic symbols, as opposed to being in the camp of 'Star Wars' or 'Tolkein' in the way (and reasons) it uses symbols.

Somehow, someway, technology can ALWAYS be acquired. Access may be restricted, but money, security clearances and even theft can alter that. But no matter how advanced the tech is, it is still technology- no matter how much the tech warps reality, it still has intervening, actuating mechanisms.

So, would you say that sufficiently inaccessible technology was indistinguishable from magic? Is this the case in say Gene Wolfe's, "Book of the Long Sun"?

I think you are making interesting observations, but are you sure that they aren't just setting conventions? If I altered the setting to the point that everyone could use the magic readily, would you cease to find it magical and if not, why not?

There are exceptions, of course, and since there ARE, even D's Arcane Observation cannot be used as a bright-line test.

I'm guessing from the above, that you'd still find it magical. But I am still interested in your explanation for why you'd still find it magical.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

"I also find it odd that Celebrim would mention Ed Said, though, and then continue to rely on reified ideas about symbolism, allegory, theme for his argument."


Yeah, that made me wince. I get the feeling he was just doing a little bit of 'name dropping'--everybody does it from time to time. I mean, I do it when I get angry...hopefully to confuse people...you know...to give me an advantage. Not that you would do that, Celebrim. LOL

"Ed Said" lol...I like to call him 'Eddy Said' pronounced 'sed'..lol. Perhaps he was just alluding to 'othering' (albeit poorly considering his Culturist argument) rather than Said's strong structuralist positions.

edit: And Celebrim...I think Joshua's arguments rely a lot more on imagery that you are realizing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't read Wolfe, so... :\

But the distinction isn't in the availability, its the NATURE of the availability. Even if (almost) anyone can use magic, say, like in Piers Anthony's Xanth, there is still the lack of an intervening mechanism between will and effect.

With magic, I want X to occur- say, I want my enemy to be engulfed in a ball of fire- I recite the formula and voila! the enemy is engulfed in a ball of fire. Will becomes reality nearly instantly. All you need is knowledge and skill...or the right set of genes. Magic is the direct manipulation of reality in ways that otherwise violate the known laws of science.

In Forbidden Planet, I could do the same fireball, should I wish, but not untill and unless I had been acclimated to use a Krell Machine. And the Krell Machine does the work, not me. No Krell Machine, no firball, beasts from the Id, or anything else. Ditto Brin's Practice Effect Nanites. Science-Fiction level Technology is capable of warping reality as well as any other, but there is always the intervening technology- the manipulation is indirect. In Alastair Reynold's Absolution Gap books (and many others), there are nanotech enhanced übermen who are capable of great things. In an Iron Age level society, they would be considered gods or demons...but unlike gods and demons, their powers come from technology that has been added to them, not something that has been integral to their nature from birth. Its like the difference between a bionic arm and the one it replaced.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

What about all the phantasy novels that revolve around ritual and sacrifice to determine magic...is the knowledge part of the exclusion?

It seems you are back to the tech-magic argument.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No- knowledge isn't the key. Even when the Magic is based upon rituals or demonic pacts- Magic still manipulates reality directly.

The fireball of magic creates energy out of nowhere. It violates thermodynamics. A wave, a word, the fireball IS. More energy exists than did before.

A fireball from the Krell Machine would require massive amounts of energy, projected at a distance, seemingly without effort. While devastating, the energy delivered on target is less than the energy used to generate it. And there is, of course, the intervening mechanism. A physical machine that does the work.

And even in magic systems where magic "obeys" thermodynamics," it lacks the machinery.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Oh, so you are with Joshua...and crowd. I thought you were developing another theory based on the the exclusionary factor of magic compared to the availability of technology. Sorry, my mistake.

 

[Celebrim]

And Celebrim...I think Joshua's arguments rely a lot more on imagery that you are realizing.

Maybe, but he explicitly denied that. I'm going to have to go to bed here soon, but this touches back again on your objection to my theory earlier. Maybe later. I'm fully aware that one of the problems with the theory is that out in the extreme case, it starts becoming almost impossible to distinguish my symbology argument from claiming that what matters is imagery, and I have to make some pretty complex (or torturous if you prefer) arguments to show how they differ.

I mentioned Edward Said solely to point out that we were getting into a highly politically charged topic, and that because of the political character this was an area that I really didn't want to argue extensively here. It was name dropping, sure, but it was name dropping of the 'Please, I know it may be tempting to someone, but let's avoid getting sidetracked in this direction.' kind. For the record though, when I read Said's introduction to Rudyard Kipling's "Kim", I wince, and I certainly don't mention him as someone whose theories and methods I agree with, hense the reason the way I construct my argument might strike you as so different.