Desdichado
Hero
After a digression that is threatening to take over another thread entirely, I decided I'll pull the discussion back into its own thread. This may not belong in General, as it applies to books, games, movies, TV... but also to games, and since games are on what it was originally predicated, and since it's a spin-off of a thread about the use of a particular style of gaming, I'm starting it here at least until I'm told it needs to be moved or something.
Anyway, what is fantasy? In a discussion with Zander on the latest "do you use psionics" thread, he refers to a long-standing debate and editorial summarization by the editors of the Realms of Fantasy wherein fantasy was defined as a set of images; fantasy has to have knights in shining armor, swords, dragons, and stuff like that, or it isn't fantasy, it's fiction. Specifically, the point was that psionics, because it was coined by a nominally science fiction author, and because it surrounds itself with "pseudo-scientific-sounding jargon" it is a science fiction concept. Zander then went on to point out stories by authors like Weis, Hickman and Poul Anderson that play around with the standard genre conventions, put them at odds, and compare and contrast them, stating that if the trappings of the genre didn't actually make the genre, then the stories wouldn't make any sense.
Personally, I think this is complete rubbish. I've read dozens of books on authorship of science fiction and fantasy by folks like Arthur C. Clark, Isaac Asimov, Ben Bova and others, and they define the genres completely differently, and in a way that makes much more sense, IMO. Science fiction depends on scientific principles, or extrapolation of scientific principles. Aliens? Scientifically they are plausible, so they can exist. FTL space-travel? Sure, we have scientific theories that could explain that, even if its certainly beyond our reach today. Psychic powers? Uh, no. We have no reason whatsoever to believe that they exist. Therefore, they are not science fiction.
Technically, to be True Science Fiction, the plot itself of the stories needs to hinge on that bit of science, but I'm not that rigorous; plus I think that's a bit snobbish. But technically, if a story has only the trappings of science fiction, it is considered space opera, not science fiction.
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. Magic, being a good example. Elves being another. It is not necessarily about knights in shining armor rescuing princesses, although it could be, and obviously often is. There's a whole slew of books about elves in the modern day slumming at Ren Faires, for example. Is it not fantasy just because it takes place in the modern day, doesn't have any knights or swords or dragons? Of course it is! How about Urban Arcana; the setting for d20 Modern? According to Zander's definition, that is also not fantasy; a notion that I find absurd. Star Wars is steeped in science fiction trappings, but features no science at all, and in fact a core element of the plot is this whole mystical Force thingy, making it a fantasy. Warhammer 40k has elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. in space in the year 40,000 A.D., and has magic, daemons, and whatnot, although the mages are renamed psykers. I find it telling that some of the "psychic powers" are (or at least were in earlier editions of the game) identical to the "magic powers" of the fantasy battle game. So again, despite some superficially science fiction-like trappings, it's fantasy.
Zander also seemed to define fantasy that does not feature the traditional fantasy imagery as merely fiction, rather than fantasy, a notion that boggles my mind. Clearly there's a spectrum of "made-up" starting at fiction as the broadest scale, and moving towards fantasy at some point, and branching off another direction towards science fiction. But where do you draw the line? Is it fantasy only if it's classical, traditional fantasy? Or is it fantasy anytime you say, "that couldn't ever happen?"
Zander's arguing, based on the claims of the editors of Realms of Fantasy for the former, which is probably a good marketing move for them. They don't want to hint to their audience that they're playing around with the type of material that will be featured between the covers of their magazine. I'm arguing for a line much closer to the latter. If I want to devise in a setting that is more steampunk than High Fantasy, it's still fantasy.
Anyway, what is fantasy? In a discussion with Zander on the latest "do you use psionics" thread, he refers to a long-standing debate and editorial summarization by the editors of the Realms of Fantasy wherein fantasy was defined as a set of images; fantasy has to have knights in shining armor, swords, dragons, and stuff like that, or it isn't fantasy, it's fiction. Specifically, the point was that psionics, because it was coined by a nominally science fiction author, and because it surrounds itself with "pseudo-scientific-sounding jargon" it is a science fiction concept. Zander then went on to point out stories by authors like Weis, Hickman and Poul Anderson that play around with the standard genre conventions, put them at odds, and compare and contrast them, stating that if the trappings of the genre didn't actually make the genre, then the stories wouldn't make any sense.
Personally, I think this is complete rubbish. I've read dozens of books on authorship of science fiction and fantasy by folks like Arthur C. Clark, Isaac Asimov, Ben Bova and others, and they define the genres completely differently, and in a way that makes much more sense, IMO. Science fiction depends on scientific principles, or extrapolation of scientific principles. Aliens? Scientifically they are plausible, so they can exist. FTL space-travel? Sure, we have scientific theories that could explain that, even if its certainly beyond our reach today. Psychic powers? Uh, no. We have no reason whatsoever to believe that they exist. Therefore, they are not science fiction.
Technically, to be True Science Fiction, the plot itself of the stories needs to hinge on that bit of science, but I'm not that rigorous; plus I think that's a bit snobbish. But technically, if a story has only the trappings of science fiction, it is considered space opera, not science fiction.
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. Magic, being a good example. Elves being another. It is not necessarily about knights in shining armor rescuing princesses, although it could be, and obviously often is. There's a whole slew of books about elves in the modern day slumming at Ren Faires, for example. Is it not fantasy just because it takes place in the modern day, doesn't have any knights or swords or dragons? Of course it is! How about Urban Arcana; the setting for d20 Modern? According to Zander's definition, that is also not fantasy; a notion that I find absurd. Star Wars is steeped in science fiction trappings, but features no science at all, and in fact a core element of the plot is this whole mystical Force thingy, making it a fantasy. Warhammer 40k has elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. in space in the year 40,000 A.D., and has magic, daemons, and whatnot, although the mages are renamed psykers. I find it telling that some of the "psychic powers" are (or at least were in earlier editions of the game) identical to the "magic powers" of the fantasy battle game. So again, despite some superficially science fiction-like trappings, it's fantasy.
Zander also seemed to define fantasy that does not feature the traditional fantasy imagery as merely fiction, rather than fantasy, a notion that boggles my mind. Clearly there's a spectrum of "made-up" starting at fiction as the broadest scale, and moving towards fantasy at some point, and branching off another direction towards science fiction. But where do you draw the line? Is it fantasy only if it's classical, traditional fantasy? Or is it fantasy anytime you say, "that couldn't ever happen?"
Zander's arguing, based on the claims of the editors of Realms of Fantasy for the former, which is probably a good marketing move for them. They don't want to hint to their audience that they're playing around with the type of material that will be featured between the covers of their magazine. I'm arguing for a line much closer to the latter. If I want to devise in a setting that is more steampunk than High Fantasy, it's still fantasy.
