Genre Conventions: What is fantasy?

[Wayside]

Anytime I prove that something exists outside of SF/F by a counterexample in another literary form, I de facto prove that it is not unique to SF/F. Simple logic. If SF/F and another form both contain a particular element, its NOT unique to SF/F.

I'm trying to work with you here, and you're making it difficult. :\

If you prove it exists in another literary form then by that fact it is not unique to SF or F. What you've missed, again, is that you cannot prove that an element exists in any form whatsoever. You obviously aren't trying to work with me because this is very simple. You keep trying to show that an element exists in a specific work, which is very different from showing that it exists in a particular form because all works are a mix of forms.

That is pure nonsense, logically speaking. All you're doing here is making "genre" have 1:1 conceptual identity with "unique element."

First, it isn't logical nonsense, it's logic, period. Second, a genre or any class is logically dependent on its definition. For class α with definition β, α is β ( βα ). This is not necessarily 1:1 identity, although ideally it ought to be, otherwise you've failed to fully define the class. We are speaking here of the definition of a genre in its totality, not of a single distinguishing element, as your discussion in your later posts seems to assume quite out of nowhere. If you want to take the recipe approach to uniqueness be my guest, it doesn't threaten anything I've said in the least.

By defining something as a genre, then, you are taking for granted that it is unique.

Yes, I am, otherwise it's undefinable: for every class α1 and definition β, if α1 is β then α2 is not β ( (α1) [βα1 → ~βα2] ), otherwise α1 and α2 are the same thing, i.e. there is no α2.

Since you've already claimed that for a genre to have literary significance, it must have a unique element, then by merely existing as a genre (which IS a unique element), the genre has literary significance.

I never made any such claim. I said that in order for SF and F to be literary, they must be able to do something (and that means something literary) in themselves that other literary types in themselves cannot do. I never said anything unique would be enough, as unique imagery is not enough. If you're going to insist on misrepresenting what I've said then just say so and I'll use the time I've spent here doing something more productive. I don't mind restating or clarifying if I've been unclear, but your entire post here is disingenuous.

Which contradicts your next sentence.

The XYZ formula works for ANY form of literature and for any ingredient. The Z is whatever makes that literature unique, thus giving a genre its literary value, by your standard.

That's your straw man, not my standard. There isn’t any contradiction.

If something exists in more than one space, it is not unique. "Unigue" means sole, only...not rare. The mere fact that another work outside of genre "X" posesses "Z" quality means by force of logic that "Z" quality is not a unique quality of ANY genre.

By force of what logic, the logic of winged cannibal pygmies? What part of "mixed" is unclear? The fact that SF can use elements of Tragedy now means that Tragedy is not Tragedy? I'm afraid not; the fact that SF can use elements of Tragedy means that writing is mixed and can use elements of both SF and Tragedy in a single work. It certainly doesn't mean Tragedy is not Tragedy or SF is not SF. To be absolutely clear, at the beginning of your post, you said "Anytime I prove that something exists outside of SF/F by a counterexample in another literary form, I de facto prove that it is not unique to SF/F." This is true, although you can never prove any such exclusion. But just now you said "The mere fact that another work outside of genre "X" posesses "Z" quality means by force of logic that "Z" quality is not a unique quality of ANY genre." This is not true. You keep treating work and form as synonyms. They aren’t.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you prove it exists in another literary form then by that fact it is not unique to SF or F. What you've missed, again, is that you cannot prove that an element exists in any form whatsoever. You obviously aren't trying to work with me because this is very simple. You keep trying to show that an element exists in a specific work, which is very different from showing that it exists in a particular form because all works are a mix of forms.

No, when I said that those questions of identity (that I believe barsoomcore proposed) were present in Japanese historical fiction, I wasn't pointing out one particular work, but actually a large theme within that genre, at least as popular as within Sci-Fi, which I then enumerated several authors with large bodies of work- essentially pointing out the Asimovs and Heinleins of the genre.

And as I pointed out in my original refutation of barsoomcore's definition, there are works within Sci-Fi that didn't deal with identity- so I'm quite aware of that as well. In other words, it was dual attack upon his working defininition: Certain elements were not exclusive to the genre, other elements were not universal within the genre.

Wayside
A genre doesn't need a unique element to be literature; a genre is a unique element.

Mirriam Webster: definition 2 of Element: a constituent part: as a plural : the simplest principles of a subject of study; synonyms- COMPONENT, CONSTITUENT, INGREDIENT

In other words, that statement could be rewritten as "A group does not require a unique part; that group is a unique part."

We have already shown that there are no parts unique to any form of literature. Thus, the statement is nonsense.

I said that in order for SF and F to be literary, they must be able to do something (and that means something literary) in themselves that other literary types in themselves cannot do. I never said anything unique would be enough, as unique imagery is not enough... but your entire post here is disingenuous.

I'm not being anything less than completely honest with you. In order to satisfy that first sentence, I am trying to find what it is that makes SF/F unique...what element, component, ingredient, etc. sets it apart from other literary types.

Originally Posted by me
If something exists in more than one space, it is not unique. "Unigue" means sole, only...not rare. The mere fact that another work outside of genre "X" posesses "Z" quality means by force of logic that "Z" quality is not a unique quality of ANY genre.

Wayside responded
By force of what logic, the logic of winged cannibal pygmies? What part of "mixed" is unclear? The fact that SF can use elements of Tragedy now means that Tragedy is not Tragedy?

Simple logic, actually. 2 locations ≠ 1 location. What part of "unique" is unclear?

To define is to "to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of" whatever is being defined, to "to fix or mark the limits of" what is being discussed. If a characteristic is shared between 2 genres, it cannot be used to define the difference between the 2 genres- it dosn't "mark the limits of" either genre; it may or may not be essential to one or both, but it distinguishes neither.

Example: while possessing fur may be a point of definition between reptiles and mammals, it generally cannot be used to define the difference between 2 mammals (there are some rare, hairless mammals). Also, having hair is not unique to mammals- there are arthropods and other critters that have evolved hairs. Hair cannot be said to be universal nor unique to mammals, so it can't be used as the quintessential characteristic of mammals. Nor can posessing teeth or a skeleton or a spinal cord.

What sets mammals apart (among other things) is having mammary glands.

So, no- Tragedy remains Tragedy even when an element is shared with SF- it just means that the shared element between SF and Tragedy is not unique to either genre, and thus is not the defining aspect of either genre relative to each other. There is still something that makes Tragedy Tragedy and SF SF- but it isn't that shared element.

As for my sloppiness between "form" and "work" as interchangeable, you have a point. However, since a work is by necessity either a subset of (specifically 1 unit of) or the sole representative of a form, its not a very strong one. If a work within a form has a particular characteristic, then that form can be said to have units within it with that characteristics- that characteristic is within that form. The characteristic doesn't even have to be universal within that form.

Example: Black people (like myself) are humans. "Blackness" can be considered to be within the greater set of humanity, without all humans having to be black.

Similarly, a particular SF/F work with Tragic elements is still within the form of SF/F, and all SF/F need be Tragic, nor all Tragedy SF/F. Simple Venn diagram stuff.

 

[Wayside]

No, when I said that those questions of identity (that I believe barsoomcore proposed) were present in Japanese historical fiction, I wasn't pointing out one particular work, but actually a large theme within that genre, at least as popular as within Sci-Fi, which I then enumerated several authors with large bodies of work- essentially pointing out the Asimovs and Heinleins of the genre.

I agree that the issue of identity isn't unique to SF or anything else. As a question, identity figures in all literature. Yet we still might, for example, discriminate genres based on the quality of their response to this question, rather than assume there are no distinct identity-based genres from the fact that questions of identity are everpresent. In this way the concept of "Japanese historical fiction" itself might turn out to be essentially worthless except as a hermeneutical fore-project, whereas specific works in that tradition might resonate with completely unrelated works from other cultures to form a more meaningful genre. To keep using Linnaean examples misses the mark.

In other words, that statement could be rewritten as "A group does not require a unique part; that group is a unique part."

I think you're confusing yourself with "narrative element." You started using that phrase, I merely replied to you; there's no inconsistency in my posts where I have adopted your phrase. A component is made up of smaller components, and can be combined with other components to form larger ones. We can attempt to isolate and define genres at any or every point of combination, or none: we can defer definition fully to the point of the work and assert that every work is a genre in itself. In order for this to be true, at some point, in some element, from some component, we need to be able to say that here, this work is different from every other work.

We have already shown that there are no parts unique to any form of literature. Thus, the statement is nonsense.

Have we? On the contrary, what I have shown is that the transcendental certainty of any literary form is impossible to demonstrate empirically. Even the ontological certainty of a literary form would be difficult to demonstrate empirically, among other reasons because the example already assumes a form as part of a hermeneutic circle you can't escape from.

Simple logic, actually. 2 locations ≠ 1 location. What part of "unique" is unclear?

This is not the part of your post I was replying to. It has no logical connection with the part I did reply to. You're just repeating what I already covered with alphas 1 and 2. "If a characteristic is shared between 2 genres, it cannot be used to define the difference between the 2 genres- it dosn't "mark the limits of" either genre; it may or may not be essential to one or both, but it distinguishes neither." You cannot determine that a characteristic is shared between 2 genres; you only have access to works. This is my fifth and final time time pointing this out. There are plenty of ways to attack the argument from "narrative element," but this isn't one of them.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You cannot determine that a characteristic is shared between 2 genres; you only have access to works. This is my fifth and final time time pointing this out. There are plenty of ways to attack the argument from "narrative element," but this isn't one of them.

Point it out (or don't) all you want- I disagree. A work is always part of a genre, even if it is the only representative of the genre to exist. That is, a work is always a subset of a genre, even if it is unique. (If it is truly unique, it forms a genre unto itself.) A property held by a member of the subset is also held as a property of the group, even if is the only member of the group to have that property.

Example: 0 (Zero) belongs to the set of all numbers. It is neither positive nor negative, and when divided by itself, does not equal 1. The set of all numbers can be said to have at least one member that is neither positive nor negative. It can also be said to have at least one member that can be divided by itself and not result in the number 1. I can make those statements without fear of contradiction, even without awareness of any other member of the set.

Likewise, once I show a single SF work with a certain characteristic, that characteristic exists within the set of all SF. It may be the only work within SF with that property, but that doesn't matter. This holds true for any other literary form- once any work within the genre is identified to have a particular property, it is a property that exists within that set, though not neccessarily within each or even any other work in that genre.

 

[mythusmage]

Do you get the feeling Wayside and Dannyalcatraz are trying to define a play by staging instead of script?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Funny! but not quite right.

Romeo and Juliet has been staged as everything from medieval tragic romance to western romance to gangland romance to...but its still the classic Bard's tale.

I'm open to finding ANYTHING that makes us able to define various genres, be it staging, a unique plot, an overarching theme, or even a combination of elements.

As things stand right now, since we keep finding particular irreduceable elements present across genres, I'm leaning towards the "unique combination of elements" formulation.

In other words: something like barsoomcore's original working definition for SF as being about 3 questions + setting is OK with me (though its still not quite right), as long as we realize that, while the combination of elements is unique, no particular element within that combination is unique or essential to SF. (The 3 questions he mentioned are covered in other genres, and SF can be set in quite familiar settings).

 

[mythusmage]

Thank You Captain Oblivious

Stuff the damn staging. I hear any more about staging from you I'm sending Emily Bronte-saurus to stay with you for a week. If you get obdurate It'll be two weeks.

What is Romeo and Juliet about? It's about two adolescents who act like typical teens. You can use any staging you want and the core story stays the same.

What is fantasy? That's a tad more involved. First thing to note is that a fantasy occurs in a setting where the supernatural occurs, and if not part of daily life it at least has a concrete impact on people and society. You have foo dogs guarding houses, brownies for house keepers, and music does indeed have charms to sooth the savage beast.

Fantasy has associated trappings, but such are not strictly necessary. If your starships require a magic spell to slip into hyperdrive, then you have a fantasy.

Look past the decorations and study the structure that holds them up.

 

[Wayside]

Point it out (or don't) all you want- I disagree. A work is always part of a genre, even if it is the only representative of the genre to exist. That is, a work is always a subset of a genre, even if it is unique. (If it is truly unique, it forms a genre unto itself.)

Nobody's even disputed this.

A property held by a member of the subset is also held as a property of the group, even if is the only member of the group to have that property.

All you've done here is lay down a line of reasoning that can only end in the conclusion that there are no such things as genres (except on the individual level of the work) at all.

According to you, no work of SF can be anything but SF. Everything that's part of a work of SF is SF. If a SF story has a squirrel, then squirrels are part of the definition of SF. If a SF story contains a play, then plays are part of the definition of SF. Since a SF story can contain nearly anything whatsoever, everything is part of the definition of SF. SF, as such, is therefore meaningless. Pardon me if I think this is insane.

And at the same time, how is this supposed to help you define SF in the first place? You have to know what it is before you can determine a particular work is SF; yet in order to know what SF is, you need recourse to those particular works of SF. This line of reasoning is circular. At some point you have to make a break and establish something.

I think you need a better argument than "well this seems like SF to me, so everything that's in this is SF." What the appeals to taxonomies and math sets are supposed to illuminate, I have no idea. Those things aren't comparable to genre theory, and I think by continually bringing them up you've muddled the issue. I thought the point was to isolate SF in its SFness, not open up an infinitely broad space in which every part of every work that seems like SF to you fits, and then to call that space the "set" of SF.

You can describe every existing work that seems like SF, but I thought the point was to be able to say why X is SF but Y is not, or to find a way to define all the works that have not yet been written, or to set up a method for reading SF that highlights what is essential, so that new or non-SF readers might use it to "get" the issues of SF works, the way readers of the Nouveau Roman need help to "get" what's going on in the works of Robbe-Grillet.

Maybe I should start with a modest assertion: a definition of SF contains only what is essential to all SF (and not everything that has ever been included in every remotely SF story ever but which is in no way obligated to be a component of any SF story at all).

Do you get the feeling Wayside and Dannyalcatraz are trying to define a play by staging instead of script?

That's what I've been arguing against, not for. Imagery, bare plot points, none of this stuff is satisfactory. We need a more dynamic definition of SF so that, as technology progresses and our world begins to look more and more like SF itself, we don't lose our bearings. My question about genre, in the words of Molly Bloom, has been: "Who's he when he's at home?"

 

[Malic]

Hmm. I have to wonder, in an entirely non-snarky way, what is the point of attempting to define any 'genre'? Especially if, as Wayside says (if I understand it), all work is mixed, and there are therefore * no * examples of 'genre'?

Next to that, the question of whether a 'genre' (as distinct from a work) has 'literary worth' seems moot.

All that has been written so far makes me doubt whether any genre can really be 'defined'. Let alone something as variable as SF/F.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

According to you, no work of SF can be anything but SF. Everything that's part of a work of SF is SF. If a SF story has a squirrel, then squirrels are part of the definition of SF.

Absolutely incorrect.

Go back to my first posts on this thread (#23, to be exact), and you'll see I used Venn diagrams to describe my initial overview of SF/F. So you don't have to go looking:

Post #23, Dannyalcatraz
Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Horror, etc., are all subcategories of fiction (within the Venn Circle of Fiction, you'll find circles for Fantasy, Sci-Fi, & Horror)- ignoring all other subcategories of Fiction for purposes of this discussion.

The circles for each genre, Fantasy, Sci-Fi, and Horror, overlap the 2 others, but do not envelop the 2 others. There are portions of each circle that do not touch any other. In other words, you can have pure Fantasy, fantasy with horror elements or fantasy with Sci-Fi elements. Likewise, you can have pure Horror or with Fantasy or Sci Fi elements added, and pure ("Hard") Sci-Fi or add Horror or Fantasy tropes.

Space Opera would be a circle within Sci-Fi that partially overlaps the portion of Fantasy that overlaps the circle of Sci-Fi. In other words...Space Opera is a subset of Sci-Fi which may or may not have fantastic elements.

Something can be within SF but not be an essential quality of it. If it is not essential, then it cannot be used to define the limits of the genre. The fact that I can find (as you say) squirrels in SF just means that there are squirrels within SF- once I find squirrels in other, non-SF fiction, I know that squirrels are not an essential quality of SF.

Instead of squirrels (is there something going on on the boards with all this talk of squirrels?), a better example might be swords. Swords show up in all kinds of fiction: SF, Fantasy, Civil War fiction, Japanese modern and imperial-period historical fiction. Swords can thus be said to be part of any of those genres, but they don't even begin to define any of them. Including the presence of swords as part of the definition of Fantasy (or any other genre) doesn't help because it allows the inclusion of things that are not part of that genre- it is insufficiently exclusive.

THAT is the point of my discussion of taxonomy: to illustrate that its the differences, not similarities, that define species as apart from other species. We don't point at "fur" as a distinguishing characteristic between dogs and wolves, we look at things like reproductive cycles (Wolves reproduce only 1/year, dogs may do so up to 2/year), diet (Wolves can digest bones and other things that would make a dog throw up) and so forth.

Analogously, we can't say that "X" is a defining characteristic of SF if "X" is not unique SF.

We MAY, however, say that "the combination of A, Q, T, X and Z" defines a genre, much as we say that creatures with the same diet and reproductive cycle as wolves, but lacking the fur, the mammary glands, the "warm" blood, or a non-cartilaginous skeletal structure, aren't wolves.