Wild Gazebo
Explorer
No prob, 'night.
Genre Conventions: What is fantasy?
- Thread starter Desdichado
- Start date
Celebrim
Legend
Dannyalcatraz said:
Does it? Are you sure that you know how magic works?
Does it? Although this is irrelevant, it doesn't in my campaign. Fireballs in my campaign world do not violate the law of conservation of energy.
Are you sure you know how it works? Are you aware that there exists a finite possibility that a particle of a given mass (or a cloud of particles of a given) mass, will be spontaneously generated in a vacuum? Perhaps its possible to manipulate the space time fabric in such a way to alter this probablity, using a small ammount of energy to create a larger ammount. This is actually said to be the principal behind the warp power core in Romulan starships. Why can't it be the principal behind a fireball?
Like, say, a wand?
See what I think is that you've been given a sufficiently compelling explanation for the effect, and now you accept as part of your conventions about what is possible reflexively. The problem for me though is that I know enough science that I often can't accept that its possible for a 'machine' to do what it is claimed that it does, especially given the explanation for how the machine works. Ultimately, saying that the machine does it somehow just isn't a any more compelling for me than saying that the spell caster does it somehow. What's really going on is that we live in a world were we daily see machines do so many seemingly impossible things, that if someone tells you a machine does it, you are inclined to believe it unquestioningly.
A machine has gears, circuits, levers, etc.
AFAIK, a wand does not.
A weapon that creates a fireball must deliver the energy in some way...energizing an ion path as a carrier of energy and then supplying fuel along that path... or something.
AFAIK, a wand does not.
First: its not irrelevant- even sci-fi Hypertechnology doesn't violate the rules without at least explaining it in some technobabble way of explaining why it doesn't.
Magic doesn't even bother to try.
Second: Then how do your fireballs avoid this violation? Explain. Do they transfer heat from one space to your target? How?
That is indeed a phenomenon that has been observed at the quantum level. However, no one seriously expects this phenomenon to be possible beyond the quantum level. The particles do not increase the energy level, either- they coalesce out of ambient energy- nearly a 1:1 matter/energy conversion. Not an increase (there is still entropy). Those particles also only last for something like 1x-14power seconds before transforming back into energy
Romulans use microscopic black holes to power their warp engines. Such black holes are theoretical possibilities. Where is the immense gravity well that the mage is manipulating? (This, by the way, would definitionally be science, not magic).
A single reactor for the Krell Machine has harnessed "The power of a million exploding suns" and there were many reactors buried within the planet. Heat and light sufficient to vaporize anything except Krell metal (some form of neutronium) was generated by such a reactor.
With enough of a difference in charge between 2 physical points, you don't even need a physical connector- energy will leap the distance...like lightning...which is accompanied by other effects.
I don't recall any such description of a wand or its effects.
And the existence of the wand, even if you accept it as a machine like the Krell Machine, does NOTHING to address any spell cast without one...i.e. any spell cast without a device.
Which, might I add, is something almost every mythology/magic system I know of allows.
AFAIK, a wand does not.
A weapon that creates a fireball must deliver the energy in some way...energizing an ion path as a carrier of energy and then supplying fuel along that path... or something.
AFAIK, a wand does not.
First: its not irrelevant- even sci-fi Hypertechnology doesn't violate the rules without at least explaining it in some technobabble way of explaining why it doesn't.
Magic doesn't even bother to try.
Second: Then how do your fireballs avoid this violation? Explain. Do they transfer heat from one space to your target? How?
That is indeed a phenomenon that has been observed at the quantum level. However, no one seriously expects this phenomenon to be possible beyond the quantum level. The particles do not increase the energy level, either- they coalesce out of ambient energy- nearly a 1:1 matter/energy conversion. Not an increase (there is still entropy). Those particles also only last for something like 1x-14power seconds before transforming back into energy
Romulans use microscopic black holes to power their warp engines. Such black holes are theoretical possibilities. Where is the immense gravity well that the mage is manipulating? (This, by the way, would definitionally be science, not magic).
A single reactor for the Krell Machine has harnessed "The power of a million exploding suns" and there were many reactors buried within the planet. Heat and light sufficient to vaporize anything except Krell metal (some form of neutronium) was generated by such a reactor.
With enough of a difference in charge between 2 physical points, you don't even need a physical connector- energy will leap the distance...like lightning...which is accompanied by other effects.
I don't recall any such description of a wand or its effects.
And the existence of the wand, even if you accept it as a machine like the Krell Machine, does NOTHING to address any spell cast without one...i.e. any spell cast without a device.
Which, might I add, is something almost every mythology/magic system I know of allows.
Last edited:
Oh, I didn't really mean it like that. I often wish I could just shorthand ideas by referring to their articulations in the work of X around here, because it would save loads of time and I'd know whoever I was talking to was on the same page as me, as it would give us a common point of reference. The fact that I can't do that even dissuades me from participating in a conversation like this one because there are 2000 years of genre theory I can't really refer to without restating and oversimplifying it, and because really the issue here, the strife between sameness and difference, has been at the root of all philosophy since the beginning. So I want to have this conversation at a completely different level that isn't really productive for someone who only wants to think about what the fantasyness of fantasy or the scienceness of science is (or the fictionness of fiction, for that matter, since the difference between fiction and non-fiction is not the difference between real and made-up), since rather than simply the genreness of a genre I want to talk about the thisness of things in general. Consequently, I'll just shut upWild Gazebo said: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.
. I am curious about Joshua's experiences with what he is calling literary criticism though. (In terms of the argument about racism I was actually surprised not to hear about Conrad/Achebe, since I think that would really have driven home Celebrim's point. But again, Joshua seems to be negatively disposed toward theory in the first place, so in the context of this thread it's probably better to stay away from names of critics/theorists. I laughed earlier though because one of Joshua's comments could almost have come straight from the mouth of Gadamer or some other hemeneut.)In one seminar I had there was an Indian girl, and she had had a professor as an undergraduate who pronounced Said's name that way, which was a source of endless amusement to our professor, who was I guess a friend of Said's.Wild Gazebo said:
A Few Observations
*Every story has the author's morality at its core. No matter what the story is about, no matter how the story is about it, the author's moral sense informs it.
*Christ figures have far more to do with the Jesus of legend than the Jesus of history.
*Arthur C. Clarke: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Alan Kellogg: Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
*The word, "psionics" was coined by the late John Wood Campbell Jr. At the time he was working with J.B. Rhine of the then brand new Rhine Institute, and he came up with "psionics" for electronic devices designed to amplify psychic abilities. Since "psionics" sounds more scientific that "psychic abilities" it became used in place of the older term in science fiction fandom. E. Gary Gygax (our own Col. Pladoh) uses "psychogenic" in Dangerous Journeys and Lejendary Adventures in place of "psionics" on the grounds that "psionics" really refers to electronic devices that amplify psychic (or psychogenic) abilities.
*Which last lead us to ...
But before we get to it I must first inform the reader that what I say deals not with the appearance but the heart. That is, my thesis deals not with the architecture but the engineering.
That said, the basis of fantasy is magical thinking. The idea that understanding is an individual thing, a matter of revelation. An understanding that cannot be taught to others. How one understands reality is unique to that person.
Fantasy is also romantic. Romantic in that it relies strongly on authority and authoritarianism. In that there is a right and wrong way to do things, and that what is right and what is wrong cannot change. Star Wars relies on magical thinking, Star Wars is at its core romantic. Once you learn to see the foundations instead of the decorations you see that Star Wars is a fantasy.
The basis of science fiction is scientific thinking. The idea that understanding is not unique to each person, but can be taught to others. That understanding, however imperfect and incomplete can be universal in application.
In that last comes another essential difference between magical and scientific thinking. In magical thought understanding can be perfect and complete. In scientific thought understanding cannot be perfect and complete because we as human beings are not capable of seeing things perfectly and completely. We are limited and so our understanding is limited. You get right down to it, a scientific theory is nothing more than the best description of a phenomenon we can come up with based on what we know about the phenomenon in question. When we learn more about a phenomenon we must perforce devise a better description.
The "the past was better and the future can only get worse" trope is not exclusive to fantasy. Nor is the "the future can only be better than today" trope exclusive to science fiction. You could write a fantasy in which the future means better things, and you could write a science fiction tale in which things are worse than they wore before, and will continue to get worse.
(Historical fact: The Tasmanian Aborigines lost their previous level of technology because they simply didn't have the people necessary to maintain it. They lost the fishing net because those who knew how to make and use fishing nets died without teaching others their knowledge.)
In short, it is possible for a fantasy story to have starships and lasers, while it is possible for a science fiction story to have magic spells and elves. What matters is whether it is magical or scientific thinking that informs it.
*Every story has the author's morality at its core. No matter what the story is about, no matter how the story is about it, the author's moral sense informs it.
*Christ figures have far more to do with the Jesus of legend than the Jesus of history.
*Arthur C. Clarke: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Alan Kellogg: Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
*The word, "psionics" was coined by the late John Wood Campbell Jr. At the time he was working with J.B. Rhine of the then brand new Rhine Institute, and he came up with "psionics" for electronic devices designed to amplify psychic abilities. Since "psionics" sounds more scientific that "psychic abilities" it became used in place of the older term in science fiction fandom. E. Gary Gygax (our own Col. Pladoh) uses "psychogenic" in Dangerous Journeys and Lejendary Adventures in place of "psionics" on the grounds that "psionics" really refers to electronic devices that amplify psychic (or psychogenic) abilities.
*Which last lead us to ...
But before we get to it I must first inform the reader that what I say deals not with the appearance but the heart. That is, my thesis deals not with the architecture but the engineering.
That said, the basis of fantasy is magical thinking. The idea that understanding is an individual thing, a matter of revelation. An understanding that cannot be taught to others. How one understands reality is unique to that person.
Fantasy is also romantic. Romantic in that it relies strongly on authority and authoritarianism. In that there is a right and wrong way to do things, and that what is right and what is wrong cannot change. Star Wars relies on magical thinking, Star Wars is at its core romantic. Once you learn to see the foundations instead of the decorations you see that Star Wars is a fantasy.
The basis of science fiction is scientific thinking. The idea that understanding is not unique to each person, but can be taught to others. That understanding, however imperfect and incomplete can be universal in application.
In that last comes another essential difference between magical and scientific thinking. In magical thought understanding can be perfect and complete. In scientific thought understanding cannot be perfect and complete because we as human beings are not capable of seeing things perfectly and completely. We are limited and so our understanding is limited. You get right down to it, a scientific theory is nothing more than the best description of a phenomenon we can come up with based on what we know about the phenomenon in question. When we learn more about a phenomenon we must perforce devise a better description.
The "the past was better and the future can only get worse" trope is not exclusive to fantasy. Nor is the "the future can only be better than today" trope exclusive to science fiction. You could write a fantasy in which the future means better things, and you could write a science fiction tale in which things are worse than they wore before, and will continue to get worse.
(Historical fact: The Tasmanian Aborigines lost their previous level of technology because they simply didn't have the people necessary to maintain it. They lost the fishing net because those who knew how to make and use fishing nets died without teaching others their knowledge.)
In short, it is possible for a fantasy story to have starships and lasers, while it is possible for a science fiction story to have magic spells and elves. What matters is whether it is magical or scientific thinking that informs it.
Dr. Strangemonkey
First Post
Wild Gazebo said:Well, just call me a Sophist then...I'll take money for knowledge any day of the week!
p.s. Could we please leave Plato's (philisophical) offspring out of this...if we get into those old arguments I think my head will explode. Besides they were ALL such arch-conservatives that thinking about their take on this discusion makes my skin crawl.
Man you say things like that and you deserve an explodin head.
You can't go around libelling the founders of lit crit and then claim their take on the Sophists...
you got an attitude like that and you better believe that somethings gonna get ALL sorts of arch around here.
Wild Gazebo
Explorer
edit: Wayside:
Hey, no problem. I think we all wish we had a type of intellectual shorthand that projected our understanding (as opposed to our thoughts) more quickly and accurately than written or verbal communication.
And yes, that is the major malfunction of genre theory--and why I feel new genre theory will eventually eclipse compostion and rhetoric and move more directly into literature.
If you are truely interested in the "thisness of things in general" and are bored with Plato and his sycophants, and the contextual placement of structualism, post-structualism, and to an extent post-modernism (cringe...in the sense of reduction of ideology) take a tip-toe through Heidegger's work...and really any other existentialist based philosophers who deal with 'reality'...but Heidegger especially. I feel the development of the thingliness of things in regard to self (and the thingliness of self) to be a breath of fresh air compared to the concerns of academics hell bent on classification and pidgeonholing. Though, more than likely you have already taken a gander. Probably, MORE than, more than likely now that I think about it.
As for Joshua, I'm not sure what line you are refering to...Gadamer?! I must be off kilter. Sure he back-peddled a bit but I think everybody does a bit of that in a competitive discusion. I think he would have significant problems dealing with hermeneutics in general--let alone the breadth that Derrida took it (I'm a bit of a structuralist nut--I've been studying new genre for the last couple of years) but I think I can turn him around with some gentle persuasion...heehehehhehehe.
Nice talkin' ta ya.
Hey, no problem. I think we all wish we had a type of intellectual shorthand that projected our understanding (as opposed to our thoughts) more quickly and accurately than written or verbal communication.
And yes, that is the major malfunction of genre theory--and why I feel new genre theory will eventually eclipse compostion and rhetoric and move more directly into literature.
If you are truely interested in the "thisness of things in general" and are bored with Plato and his sycophants, and the contextual placement of structualism, post-structualism, and to an extent post-modernism (cringe...in the sense of reduction of ideology) take a tip-toe through Heidegger's work...and really any other existentialist based philosophers who deal with 'reality'...but Heidegger especially. I feel the development of the thingliness of things in regard to self (and the thingliness of self
) to be a breath of fresh air compared to the concerns of academics hell bent on classification and pidgeonholing. Though, more than likely you have already taken a gander. Probably, MORE than, more than likely now that I think about it.As for Joshua, I'm not sure what line you are refering to...Gadamer?! I must be off kilter. Sure he back-peddled a bit but I think everybody does a bit of that in a competitive discusion. I think he would have significant problems dealing with hermeneutics in general--let alone the breadth that Derrida took it (I'm a bit of a structuralist nut--I've been studying new genre for the last couple of years) but I think I can turn him around with some gentle persuasion...heehehehhehehe.
Nice talkin' ta ya.
Wild Gazebo
Explorer
Dr. Strangemonkey said:
LOL
I assure you...it was in jest.
Sophists in the sense that they were simply teachers...if very biased and elite.
And arch-conservative in the sense that the simplest form of modern entertainment would set their moral radar on fire. I mean, Plato felt that leaning to read was going to far...let alone writing fantastical fiction that served no obvious moral or educational means.
Come on...their heads would explode.
LOL
Some good points in there mythusmage, especially about magical thinking... That IS one characteristic of fantasy that is fairly common.
However, just as many notable magical systems CAN be taught. Harry Potter. Dragonslayer. The works of Terry Pratchett, Terry Brooks, Barbara Hambly, Ursula K. LeGuin, Harry Turtledove, C.J.Cherryh and so many others feature magic that is both systematically organized and taught...IF you have the right heritage. Read their works and discover: Only the sons of Leah can use the Sword of Shannarah; Only wizardborn can prepare the spells to fight the Dark; The Laws of Contagion, Similarity etc are just the beginning of the rote; Archmages (while they must be taught) are born, not made; You're a mage or you're a muggle.
I also beg to differ on romanticism being the domain of fantasy moreso than sci-fi.
Follow Celebrim's Link from Post#82 ). Click on the link there about Space Opera . It too is full of romanticism, thus, an element of romanticism cannot be part of the test. It is insufficiently distinctive.
And, to support your later assertion:
I believe it was the late C.M. Kornbluth who wrote "The Marching Morons"- in which high-intellect people were SO in the minority as compared to a "moronic" majority, they were essentially little better than babysitters. It seems that low-intellect persons had out-reproduced the smart ones, and had thus, "inherited the Earth."
And of course, no less a series than C.S. Lewis' Narnia books demonstrate at least a modicum of the world of today or the future being better than yesterday...
However, just as many notable magical systems CAN be taught. Harry Potter. Dragonslayer. The works of Terry Pratchett, Terry Brooks, Barbara Hambly, Ursula K. LeGuin, Harry Turtledove, C.J.Cherryh and so many others feature magic that is both systematically organized and taught...IF you have the right heritage. Read their works and discover: Only the sons of Leah can use the Sword of Shannarah; Only wizardborn can prepare the spells to fight the Dark; The Laws of Contagion, Similarity etc are just the beginning of the rote; Archmages (while they must be taught) are born, not made; You're a mage or you're a muggle.
I also beg to differ on romanticism being the domain of fantasy moreso than sci-fi.
Follow Celebrim's Link from Post#82 ). Click on the link there about Space Opera . It too is full of romanticism, thus, an element of romanticism cannot be part of the test. It is insufficiently distinctive.
And, to support your later assertion:
I believe it was the late C.M. Kornbluth who wrote "The Marching Morons"- in which high-intellect people were SO in the minority as compared to a "moronic" majority, they were essentially little better than babysitters. It seems that low-intellect persons had out-reproduced the smart ones, and had thus, "inherited the Earth."
And of course, no less a series than C.S. Lewis' Narnia books demonstrate at least a modicum of the world of today or the future being better than yesterday...
Nyeshet
First Post
Sigh.
I don't have the patience to read all five pages of this thread, so I'll just summerize my own views on the subject. I tend to divide the spectrum thus: Science Fiction, Science Fantasy, Fantasy.
Psionics, magi-tech [eg: Escaflowne], and psuedo-science concepts, creatures, objects, and places I tend to place in the grey area that is Science Fantasy. As science advances more and more concepts that were once (hard) science fiction seep into this category. Any story that openly mixes magic with post-ren technology I also tend to place in this category.
Hard SF - plausible science fiction usually based on real science, often involving space travel, time travel, futuristic technology, aliens, and a variety of concepts that have come to be common in sf whether still plausible or not (such as FTL, worm hole portals, etc) I tend to consider Science Fiction.
Fantasy I reserve for magic, magical creatures (including most traditonally mythic / magic creatures and beings, such as elves, dragons, chimeras, etc), magical places (such as the Land of Faerie, avalon, etc), and most mythic concepts that are readily and commonly known to be impossible or highly implausible. Also included are most religious concepts - as most myths are merely the stories of religions no longer practiced. So stories involving a plutonian style underworld, an oriental celestial court, etc would also be considered fantasy. Also included in fantasy are any fiction stories based on religions - past or present. Dante's Divine Comedy would be an excellent example.
When you get right down to it, Fantasy involves stories based on ideas supported only by belief, and science fiction involves stories based on ideas supported only by fact or supposed potential future corollaries of currently known facts. Science Fantasy is the middle ground, the gray area between what must be accepted on faith and what can be accepted on current knowledge and theory.
It's a vague system, I readily admit, but then I stated initially that it is only my own way of creating a psuedo-division between the two increasingly mixed genres. The two areas are melting into each other, but I doubt they will ever fully alloy. There will always be some stories that are most definately fantasy - not science fiction, and there will be some that are definately science fiction. The difficulty is that as science progresses what seems possible is increasingly narrowed - putting more stories that were once hard sf into the science fantasy area.
I'm reminded of the phrase: 'Any sufficiently advanced form of technology is indistinguishable from magic.' In the current era we are beginning to better realize this, and the authors of our era are merely reflecting this realization in their stories.
I don't have the patience to read all five pages of this thread, so I'll just summerize my own views on the subject. I tend to divide the spectrum thus: Science Fiction, Science Fantasy, Fantasy.
Psionics, magi-tech [eg: Escaflowne], and psuedo-science concepts, creatures, objects, and places I tend to place in the grey area that is Science Fantasy. As science advances more and more concepts that were once (hard) science fiction seep into this category. Any story that openly mixes magic with post-ren technology I also tend to place in this category.
Hard SF - plausible science fiction usually based on real science, often involving space travel, time travel, futuristic technology, aliens, and a variety of concepts that have come to be common in sf whether still plausible or not (such as FTL, worm hole portals, etc) I tend to consider Science Fiction.
Fantasy I reserve for magic, magical creatures (including most traditonally mythic / magic creatures and beings, such as elves, dragons, chimeras, etc), magical places (such as the Land of Faerie, avalon, etc), and most mythic concepts that are readily and commonly known to be impossible or highly implausible. Also included are most religious concepts - as most myths are merely the stories of religions no longer practiced. So stories involving a plutonian style underworld, an oriental celestial court, etc would also be considered fantasy. Also included in fantasy are any fiction stories based on religions - past or present. Dante's Divine Comedy would be an excellent example.
When you get right down to it, Fantasy involves stories based on ideas supported only by belief, and science fiction involves stories based on ideas supported only by fact or supposed potential future corollaries of currently known facts. Science Fantasy is the middle ground, the gray area between what must be accepted on faith and what can be accepted on current knowledge and theory.
It's a vague system, I readily admit, but then I stated initially that it is only my own way of creating a psuedo-division between the two increasingly mixed genres. The two areas are melting into each other, but I doubt they will ever fully alloy. There will always be some stories that are most definately fantasy - not science fiction, and there will be some that are definately science fiction. The difficulty is that as science progresses what seems possible is increasingly narrowed - putting more stories that were once hard sf into the science fantasy area.
I'm reminded of the phrase: 'Any sufficiently advanced form of technology is indistinguishable from magic.' In the current era we are beginning to better realize this, and the authors of our era are merely reflecting this realization in their stories.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
