Genre Conventions: What is fantasy?

[Celebrim]

That's fairly easily demonstrated against. I can think of dozens of works of fantasy that never even attempt to do that just off the top of my head.

Please do elaborate. The breadth of my fantasy reading is nowhere near as strong as my Sci-Fi, but I'm not offering these definitions from complete illiteracy.

While were at it, I'd like to say that:

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.

Is such a broad definition that it would either be easily demonstrated against (we could find works we both agree are Sci-Fi but which contain elements which are 'flat-out impossible to explain') or else would encompass virtually the entire genera of Science Fiction.

I can think of any number of science fiction works from major Sci-Fi authors (Clifford Simak, Gene Wolfe, Robert Silverburg, Phillip K. Dick) which are simply impossible to explain, but whose works differ in character from Fantasy very dramatically.

 

[jmucchiello]

Magic as I define it is a set of laws that exist outside of the laws of reality.

This really doesn't make sense. To people who live in a world with magic, magic is one of the laws of reality. Something outside the laws of reality cannot interact with that reality. Once it does, it is part of that reality.

Also, you are implying that world where doing X and Y always results in Z is not magic, yet the most popular fantasy book with magic in it at the moment is the Harry Potter books where magic is taught to children in a school. Sounds reproducible to me.

Ever read Master of the Five Magics by um er Lyndon Hardy? Magic that world was very codified. Does that mean it's not fantasy?

 

[RSKennan]

This really doesn't make sense. To people who live in a world with magic, magic is one of the laws of reality. Something outside the laws of reality cannot interact with that reality. Once it does, it is part of that reality.

Also, you are implying that world where doing X and Y always results in Z is not magic, yet the most popular fantasy book with magic in it at the moment is the Harry Potter books where magic is taught to children in a school. Sounds reproducible to me.

Ever read Master of the Five Magics by um er Lyndon Hardy? Magic that world was very codified. Does that mean it's not fantasy?

If it alter it to say "a set of laws that exist outside of reality that we, as people in the *real world* know it." does it make more sense?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

After seeing the first Star Wars movie when I was a kid, I was discussing the movie with my brother. I knew that my brother loved reading science fiction movies and watching sci-fi movies, but he didnt particularly care for Star Wars.

I asked him, "How come you dont like Star Wars, I thought you liked science fiction?"

To which, he replied, "I do. But Star Wars is not science-fiction, it is science fantasy."

He described science fiction as stories that had some scientific merit to them (i.e stories or technology that are *plausible* based on current knowledge of science), but happen to be "fictional" stories. Whereas Star Wars, had a lot of things that were deemed "fantastical", thereby making it science (-related, because it dealt with things like spaceships, lasers and aliens), but sheer fantasy.

Star Wars is funny that way. It not only draws upon many classic fantasy archetypes (young idealistic but naive hero, aged and mysterious mentor, descent into underworld, finding the hidden power within, etc...) but also quite plainly has magic. It's the classic mythical fantasy story overlaid on a backdrop of starfighters and aliens. Hell, they even fight with swords to rescue a princess.

Also, the whole "knight rescuing princess" thing is more properly romance than fantasy. Some of the earliest popular fiction was French literature in the romance genre, and unless I'm mistaken it's the origin of the French word for novel, "roman." However, the difference between romance and fantasy is, again, the presence of magic. Not in the sense that an evil wizard kidnapped the princess, but in the sense that the world operates on a set of rules that are different than the real world, and this affects the outcome of the story, usually by the main character achieving some mastery over these rules.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

This really doesn't make sense. To people who live in a world with magic, magic is one of the laws of reality. Something outside the laws of reality cannot interact with that reality. Once it does, it is part of that reality.

Also, you are implying that world where doing X and Y always results in Z is not magic, yet the most popular fantasy book with magic in it at the moment is the Harry Potter books where magic is taught to children in a school. Sounds reproducible to me.

Ever read Master of the Five Magics by um er Lyndon Hardy? Magic that world was very codified. Does that mean it's not fantasy?

I'd argue that these aren't magic. They're science. If magic followed rules and was reproducable by anyone, it's not magic anymore. To a certain extent Harry Potter makes a nod in this direction--not everyone is a wizard, after all. But magic has traditionally divorced itself from mundane science by having two major features: It focuses on personal strength of will rather than simply knowing how to wave your hands and what words to say, and it follows rules of common sense, rather than reason. In science, all effects follow logically from their causes, and the connection is drawn by reference to mechanistic laws. In magic, effects follow causes by way of common sense, so you end up with rules such as "like affects like".

I think that it's fairly definitive of magic that it's not supposed to be something that just anyone can do, and that it "breaks the rules". It seems to follow its own logic, but that can be altered by someone who masters it. I think perhaps that's one of the reasons that Harry Potter seems somewhat uninteresting to me, and why I'm not fond of Vancian magic. It's too...all worked out ahead of time.

 

[JohnClark]

I think it's more an issue of feel than of any specific thing that defines a genre. For example, there's no reason you couldn't have elves in a sci-fi setting. The way I seperate them is just the overall tone of things. Take Star Trek vs. Star Wars. In Star wars there's no real effort to explain the technology, and as you said the mystical force that is also unexplained pervades the setting. In Star Trek it's basically wall to wall technobabble and there's no mystical aspect. I'm not sure how concrete of a definition that is, but I don't think there's a clear line where this side is fantasy, that side is sci-fi.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

jmucchiello:
Ever read Master of the Five Magics by um er Lyndon Hardy? Magic that world was very codified. Does that mean it's not fantasy?

Dr. Awkward :
I'd argue that these aren't magic. They're science. If magic followed rules and was reproducable by anyone, it's not magic anymore. To a certain extent Harry Potter makes a nod in this direction--not everyone is a wizard, after all. But magic has traditionally divorced itself from mundane science by having two major features: It focuses on personal strength of will rather than simply knowing how to wave your hands and what words to say, and it follows rules of common sense, rather than reason. In science, all effects follow logically from their causes, and the connection is drawn by reference to mechanistic laws. In magic, effects follow causes by way of common sense, so you end up with rules such as "like affects like".

I have yet to see a magic system that DOESN'T follow rules, and just because they aren't spelled out for us doesn't mean the rules don't exist. "Rules following" can't be the dividing line.

Yes, Arthur Clark said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." That doesn't mean there aren't factors we can point at that allow us to distinguish between Sci-Fi, Fantasy, and Horror genres.

With certain exceptions (that we can find with a little work):

Sci-Fi almost always deals with a tech level/setting ranging from the recent past to the distant future relative to the author at the time of its writing. Most of it is speculative in nature- trying to predict societal structures and inventions, extrapolating from current scientific understanding, once again, from the viewpoint of the author. It deals with what might be.

Fantasy almost always deals with a technological level/setting that we would recognize as "The Past" in some way, usually between 500-1000 years ago. What speculation there is is largely about outcomes of situations, like wars, rather than the invention of new technologies. The questions about the future of the characters is personal, possibly apocalyptic, but the societal structures are usually familiar in some way.

Horror is also written temporally relative to the author, and usually deals with the recent past, present, or near future. It has a fairly mundane backdrop which is used to accentuate and emphasize the otherness of the adversary, which may range from the mundane evil of man to the supernatural evil of completely alien, immeasurably powerful beings.

 

[Afrodyte]

my working definition of fantasy

A definition of fantasy that I find particularly functional is the one this guy uses: "a world in which the exotic, the ancient, the far-away and legendary is still solid and immanent, a fact of life." However, I replace "world" with "piece" or "work" to emphasize the product rather than the setting.

 

[Mean Eyed Cat]

I thought I would post the policy from the US Library of Congress regarding how they define Fantasy and Science Fiction. While many may feel they are not the final authority on this subject, I thought it would be interesting to have the opinion of the world’s largest library on this matter (actually, this policy might make things a little more obscure). Here it is:

A. Fantasy

Fantasy includes the sub-genres of science fiction, horror and adaptations of traditional myths. The distinguished writer, Arthur C. Clarke, has stated that "any sufficiently advanced technology is undistinguishable from magic." (Omni, April 1980, p. 87.). This view is borne out by the fact that the distinctions between science fiction and the various other sub-genres of fantasy are indeed blurred at times and usually artificial. In fact, many authors in the genre frequently cross these artificial barriers in mid-work or in mid-career. Publishers, furthermore, often confuse these sub-genre identifications even further by failing to differentiate among them.

Publishers do, however, frequently identify books in these various sub-genres with tags which usually appear on the spine or cover of the individual books stating that they are specifically fantasy, horror, science fiction, etc. These tags may be very useful in identifying materials whose precise classification is doubtful or subject to various interpretations.

Although difficult to define with precision, fantasy usually requires a willing suspension of disbelief. Works in its various sub-genres often 1) adapt, rework, or provide an alternate telling of a myth or folktale; 2) involve an alternate reality or alternate universe; 3) rely on a displacement of time or space; or 4) make use of elements of the horrific, supernatural, paranormal, or the occult.

B. Science fiction

In addition to sharing any or all of the general characteristics listed above for fantasy, science fiction usually 1) is speculative in nature; 2) assumes change as a given; 3) projects a story-line into the future or into an alternative reality or history; 4) explores a problem in technology, culture, philosophy, etc. beyond its current state; and 5) presents an atmosphere of scientific credibility regardless of the reality. Not all science fiction 1) takes place in the future; 2) involves space travel; 3) describes technology beyond current reality; or 4) deals with alien cultures. However, these elements are common in this sub-genre and uncommon outside it.

More can be read here: Library of Congress

 

[S'mon]

I think Celebrim's definition of fantsy might work for 'high fantasy' - Tolkien, Stephen Donaldson, even CS Lewis, arguably even for Moorcock's high fantasy swords & sorcery (Elric, Corum). It doesn't make much sense for low fantasy though - REH (Conan) or Leiber (Fafhrd/Mouser) though. Or Vance (Dying Earth), or even Gene Wolfe (Book of the New Sun).