Genre Conventions: What is fantasy?

[Andor]

Lots of stuff

It is an accepted convention of the Sci-Fi genre (and has been for as long as SF has existed as it's own genre) that the author gets one 'gimme' that he can handwave in order to tell the story he wishes to write. Often this is FTL, sometimes it is Psionics, sometimes aliens amoung us, time travel, etc.
________________________________________________________________

There is a distinction between hard sf and soft sf. In Hard SF the story revolves around the technology and the laws of nature (even if altered by the gimme) must be observed. Often exploring the ramifications of the gimme is the point of the story.

Examples include Asimovs Robot stories, Heinliens 'Beyond this Horizon', Poul Andersons Asteroid stories.

Soft SF uses the trappings of SF, but ignores the details of the technology to focus on the characters. Examples include Lois McMaster Bujolds 'Nexus' series although she often does spend a lot of time exploring the ramifications of new technology. I would also put Anne McCaffreys dragon books into this category although doubtless some would argue with me.
__________________________________________________________________

Psionics were explored as an area of scientific possibility during the silver age of science fiction and factored heavily into some archtypal stories like E.E. 'Doc' Smiths Lensmen series.
They are still accepted as part of the genre in part because the jury is still out on the scientific validity of them. (I.E. Most studies show a staticially significant variance from pure chance.)

Nonetheless it is silly to claim they are not allowed in fantasy, because many of the powers associated with Psionics are also staples of fantasy.

Tolkien in particular has many telepaths, and some other 'psionic' powers in his characters, he just doesn't use psionic terminology to describe them.
____________________________________________________________________

My personal take on Star wars is that it is fantasy just barely dressed in the trappings of SF. Nothing in the movies ever hinges on technology. I think Lucas cast his story as SF instead of Fantasy because he (correctly) percieved that his audiance would respond more strongly to the SF trappings than they would to Fantasy trappings.

The original Star Trek series is soft SF. The more recent series try to be, but they continually break my suspension of disbelief because the tech never works the same way twice. This is a crime by the standards of SF.

Babylon 5 is hard SF. The one 'gimme' is Psionics and the emergance of them amoung humans is explained within the context of the series. The technology works consistantly within the series, and some episodes hinge on correct applications of technology.
___________________________________________________________________

I'm with the past/future distinction between SF and Fantasy. David Brin as an excellent essay on the difference in his book 'Otherness'.

Fantasy looks to an ancient past when we reached heights unobtainable to us in these degenerate days. This has been a central feature of the genre since the tales of atlantis.

SF looks to building a future that is better than today. Even 'The Postman' falls within this context. The war may have delt civillization a setback, but all it take is a single seed crystal (the postman) for the rebuilding to begin. If you err, you learn and the move forward.

If a story doesn't look outside of itself then I look to the trappings.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Unlike some posters I think Moorcock's swords & sorcery can be fitted to Celebrim's definition of fantasy, whereas Conan or Fafhrd/Mouser or Beowulf or the Iliad cannot.

I would say that a definition of fantasy that can exclude Conan, Fafhrd/Grey Mouser, Beowulf or Illiad is severely flawed. In those stories, we have magic, supernatural entities, and even the occasional intervention by the GODS.

At some level, movies like 'The Magnificent Seven', 'Fight Full of Dollars' and the 'True Grit' start shading off into fantasy as well. This is particularly true of alot of Eastwood's later work in westerns like 'High Plains Drifter' and 'Pale Rider'. But, no swords and sorcery are actually involved.

How? Honestly, the veracity this assertion escapes me. Where in these movies are the laws of reality broken? Where is the supernatural?

Are you talking about "Hollywooditis' where 6-shooters never seem to run out of bullets? Given the existence of speed loads, thats explainable in all but the most egregious examples.

 

[Celebrim]

How? Honestly, the veracity this assertion escapes me.

There are alot of things I will put up with, but calling me a liar is not one of them.

Where in these movies are the laws of reality broken? Where is the supernatural?

Well, in both movies there is some indication that the men in question are actually avenging ghosts or other supernatural agents. In both movies, the Eastwood character's existance seems bound by the frame of the story, appearing and disappearing mysteriously. In 'High Plains Drifter' the entire movie has the surreal character of a horror story. In Pale Rider, the Eastwood character is introduced accompanied by a prophetic reading from the Book of Revelation. The movies never really clarify what the nature of the nameless gunman is, leaving the audience to wonder whether the man was left for dead, survived by mere natural means, and has returned for vengeance or whether something more supernatural is at play in man's quest for vengeance.

I don't think its terribly original or contriversial for me to suggest that the genera of the Western is enfused with romantic fantasy elements. For example, http://www.answers.com/topic/western-movie

 

[Psion]

There are alot of things I will put up with, but calling me a liar is not one of them.

I don't think he's calling you a liar, just the validity of your assertion.

I don't think its terribly original or contriversial for me to suggest that the genera of the Western is enfused with romantic fantasy elements. For example, http://www.answers.com/topic/western-movie

Having elements (or common elements; I don't even think these are even necessary elements) of a genre is a bit of a different thing from saying that it is properly and compellignly classified as being part of a genre.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't think he's calling you a liar, just the validity of your assertion.

He may question the validity of my assertion all he wants with my blessings, but that is very different than questioning the veracity of my assertion.

Having elements (or common elements; I don't even think these are even necessary elements) of a genre is a bit of a different thing from saying that it is properly and compellignly classified as being part of a genre.

Except, I never said that Western's were part of the Fantasy genera. I said only that Westerns movies were a romantic genera and that the dividing line between the romantic and the fantastic was blurred. I then pointed out that in some of Clint Eastwoods modern Westerns, that line appeared to me to be very blurred indeed, so much so that if someone wanted to argue that 'High Plains Drifter' was a fantasy movie, I wouldn't strongly object.

Likewise, if someone wanted to argue that in Kirosawa's presentation of Seven Samurii, the rifles were in fact magical artifacts with apparantly unlimited range and lethality striking down the heroes as randomly as a lightning bolt, then I'd not argue with that either. To me its sufficiently of a borderline case, that I don't feel like arguing it one way or the other, since I've already thrown enough fuel on the fires of contriversy.

UPDATE: Really, I don't know why I'm being nice about this. I've just been called a liar by a fellow that seems utterly taken aback by the suggestion that just maybe there might be something supernatural going on in 'High Plains Drifter'. Why should I continue to give any credibility to anything that he has to say? If he can't parse out the symbolism and hints of the supernatural in 'High Plains Drifter', why in the world should I think him capable of seeing and intelligently commenting on the symbolism (or lack there of) in Leiber's 'Swords' works?

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Come on now...nobody is meaning to insult anybody else here...lets not be reduced to bickering or, even worse, insulting commentary.

edit: Besides, I'd be more insulted by 'validity' then 'veracity'. One challenges the truth of a statement while the other challenges the source and context...that's just me though.

 

[S'mon]

Celebrim, no offense, but I think you've talked yourself into a corner there. If you say that fantasy is about abstract virtues made flesh, and then say that in many of these stories that abstract virtues are merely a side-effect of the characteristics of some of the characters, you are certainly not creating a very compelling argument. The same could be said of any fictional character in any genre.

Exactly. Nice try C.

 

[Desdichado]

He may question the validity of my assertion all he wants with my blessings, but that is very different than questioning the veracity of my assertion.
[...] UPDATE: Really, I don't know why I'm being nice about this. I've just been called a liar by a fellow that seems utterly taken aback by the suggestion that just maybe there might be something supernatural going on in 'High Plains Drifter'. Why should I continue to give any credibility to anything that he has to say? If he can't parse out the symbolism and hints of the supernatural in 'High Plains Drifter', why in the world should I think him capable of seeing and intelligently commenting on the symbolism (or lack there of) in Leiber's 'Swords' works?

Oh, c'mon. You haven't been called a liar. He just doesn't believe your assertion is true. I certainly question the veracity of many of your assertions in this thread as well, but I don't think you're a liar. I just think you're mistaken.

 

[Desdichado]

Here's another twist on things as well. John Carter of Mars. Not very scientific. Not even, necessarily, by the standards of its day. Although, keep in mind that when it was written, our knowledge of things that we take for granted today was yet to be discovered. Einstein wasn't to have spelled out relativity for decades. Percival Lowell was in the national news all the time with this theories of canal building civilizations on Mars (which Burroughs actually follows relatively closely, in many ways). Although the genre of science fiction hadn't been really "invented" yet when Burroughs wrote the JC of Mars stories, it's hard to see them as anything else, unless we can take works back out of the the corpus of sci-fi as the science on which they are predicated is invalidated by newer discoveries.

Similarly, the same could sorta be true for Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon, which were written a good 70-80 years or so ago. Ironically, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow which very closely imitated Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon in many ways, would not pass muster because of the time when it was written.

Clearly, extremely hard and fast rules of genre categorization are difficult, but I still think there's plenty of value in the discussion.

 

[Celebrim]

Celebrim, no offense, but I think you've talked yourself into a corner there. If you say that fantasy is about abstract virtues made flesh, and then say that in many of these stories that abstract virtues are merely a side-effect of the characteristics of some of the characters, you are certainly not creating a very compelling argument. The same could be said of any fictional character in any genre.

*sigh*

Ok, fine I'll address this point. No offense, S'mon, but I think the subtleness of what I was suggesting went right over your head.

Suppose you set out to immitate Tolkein's works, but you lack sufficient understanding to recognize his palete of themes for what they are. Instead, you are entralled by the epic action, swords, sorcery, and conflict and you miss the deeper meanings entirely. (I would argue that to a large extent this is true of the movie treatment of the books.) You can then tell a story filled with swords and sorcery elements without any awareness of what you are telling other than you find knights, wizards, dragons, demons and such to be exciting. Your story can simply be a high adventure story in which the meaning of the elements in your story is never explicitly discussed or examined, or which the theme is only expressed intermittantly and inconsistantly. But, if you tell such a story in a compelling way its highly likely that the reason the story is compelling is that on some level you've unconsciously in your imitation tied into mythic themes of good versus evil, birth and death, renewal and harvest, and your protagonists are probably larger than life exemplers of some heroic ideal (or anti-heroes which call into question these same conventions). You won't need to deliberately set out to make a morality play, you'll create one incidently merely by using the paints by which fantasy stories are created.

The same would not be true if you set out to imitate the works of Agatha Christy or Tom Clancy. Instead, in imitation of them you'd end up creating a story which was about the sort of things those authors stories are about, and without entering into a debate on what that is, it would not be a fantasy story but rather a detective story or geo-political thriller.

All I'm saying is that following the conventions of a genera is going to create a story about what the conventions of a genera are about, and even deliberately setting out to defy the conventions of a genera still produces a story which is shaped by those conventions. 'Unforgiven' may not use the same moral palette as the traditional romantic western, but by deliberately trying to turn those conventions on thier head, its still a story about those moral conventions.

On a completely unrelated note, while I'm refuting assertions people are making, I'd like to refute the notion that SF and fantasy can be distinguished merely because one has 'plastics' and 'machines' in them and the other doesn't. It seems to me that 'plastics' could fit quite well in Ebberon without removing it from the fantasy genera, and I could easily see Terry Pratchette writing a story about the beginning of the petro-chemical industry on the Diskworld.