Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Genre Conventions: What is fantasy?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Wayside" data-source="post: 2302004" data-attributes="member: 8394"><p>Which two ways am I trying to have it?</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is where you're confused, although what I said originally was that you were making a mistake in your reading of my argument, not that you were confused about it. We don't need a narrative element <em>ABSENT</em> from other genres to define SF and F in their respective SFness and Fness. The mixedness of writing works both ways. Elements of SF and F can be present in other genres just as easily as elements of other genres can be present in SF and F. Argument by exclusion isn't necessary, or even desirable.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't know whose posts you're referring to here, but they aren't mine. From my very first contribution to the discussion itself, I said "I almost want to say fantasy isn't necessarily anything to do with the narratives, styles or settings themselves, but with the conditions that make it possible, desirable or imperative that we invent such styles, settings and narratives"--in short, with the historical conditions that produce them (and I've reiterated this half a dozen times since that post). In considering the narrative approach I did say that SF <em>should</em> have some kind of narrative of its own (and when I say narrative I mean real <em>content</em>, not arbitrary aesthetic; bare plot, in my opinion, <em>is</em> mere imagery, not content--content is what Celebrim's arguments have tried to give us), but I wasn't talking plot points here, and I really don't agree with the narrative approach any more than I do the imagery one.</p><p></p><p>I will say on barsoomcore's behalf that I think you're confusing narrative and plot. Two books can have the exact same plot, while differing wildly in terms of their respective narratives. barsoomcore did say "type of story," but the way he subsequently approached the discussion was actually from the direction of larger narrative similarities and not mere plot points. And on behalf of <em>everyone</em> who rejects the approach from imagery or setting, let me reiterate: there have been two failures in this thread. The first was a failure to define SF and F in terms of plot or narrative, and the second was a failure to define them in terms of imagery. </p><p></p><p>You keep saying imagery, but there hasn't been any attempt to produce such a definition yet, I assume because you realize that as soon as the attempt is made it will be defeated in the same way barsoomcore's and Celebrim's attempts to isolate narrative elements have, in some measure, been defeated (but their arguments were only formulated in an ad hoc way, and have only been defeated in the same measure). At the same time, the counterarguments to their positions aren't as successful as you seem to think, especially Celebrim's more abstract formulations, because the former have failed to meet the latter in terms of sophistication. It's like comparing those Kushiel books to de Sade because of some basic similarities in plot and imagery, when they aren't comparable at all (you're assuming an imagery-derived genre in order to prove an imagery-derived genre; that doesn't work). The narrative analysis has to go up a few steps. I'm not saying that it will work ultimately, but in order to successfully argue against it, you have to go up those steps and meet it at that level. At the same time, I don't see how you can fail to see that the same arguments used against plot and theme on a basic level can be extended and turned against imagery on that same basic level; and further, if you were to posit a more sophisticated <em>interpretation</em> of imagery, I can actually see the argument from imagery coalescing with the argument from narrative.</p><p></p><p>In any case, this isn't a black and white argument with two sides and people choosing between them. Many of us have moved around a bit during the course of the discussion, and, at least in my case, I know that I can agree with a little bit of what everyone says, including you, without committing to any position, including yours. I've even found myself defending at one time or another something everyone else has said. But I remain committed to a historical analysis, one which I, because I've read so little genre fiction, cannot perform myself, not without putting some time into the literature and its historical determinations at any rate.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This isn't my position, but it's a perfectly valid position in any case. If a SF work uses Tragedy, Tragedy is still Tragedy, it's only being used by the SF work. Similarly, if whatever is unique about SF pops up in Tragedy, SF is still SF, it's only being used by this work of Tragedy. Your dog example is invalid for a number of reasons. If "furry," "cute" and "animal" are genres, the dog narrative borrows from all three. But there is still something essential to the dog, a "dog" genre ("horseness is the whatness of allhorse"), which is more than the fact that it looks like a dog superficially. A hologram of a dog looks like a dog too, but it's a hologram, not a dog. "Furry," "cute" and "animal" are all still essential features of dogs, not things that can be changed out for other features. At least, I myself have never seen a "vegetable" dog. The concept of a Linnaen taxonomy of genres does strike me as a bit ridiculous.</p><p></p><p></p><p>SF may be worthless as a genre, but a particular work of SF can still be valuable. You seem to miss this when you say "accept that they are genres worthy of being considered literature DESPITE their chimeric natures." As genres they aren't worthy of being considered literature. As genres they are nothing whatever. As <em>works</em>, on the other hand, as <em>mixed works</em> containing a variety of other valuable literary material, they may be worthy of being considered literature. But in this case as SF and F they are still worthless--it is only their genre impurity that provides them with literary value.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Just as we have failed to find any image that is unique to SF and F and distinguishes them from other genres.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wayside, post: 2302004, member: 8394"] Which two ways am I trying to have it? This is where you're confused, although what I said originally was that you were making a mistake in your reading of my argument, not that you were confused about it. We don't need a narrative element [I]ABSENT[/I] from other genres to define SF and F in their respective SFness and Fness. The mixedness of writing works both ways. Elements of SF and F can be present in other genres just as easily as elements of other genres can be present in SF and F. Argument by exclusion isn't necessary, or even desirable. I don't know whose posts you're referring to here, but they aren't mine. From my very first contribution to the discussion itself, I said "I almost want to say fantasy isn't necessarily anything to do with the narratives, styles or settings themselves, but with the conditions that make it possible, desirable or imperative that we invent such styles, settings and narratives"--in short, with the historical conditions that produce them (and I've reiterated this half a dozen times since that post). In considering the narrative approach I did say that SF [I]should[/I] have some kind of narrative of its own (and when I say narrative I mean real [I]content[/I], not arbitrary aesthetic; bare plot, in my opinion, [I]is[/I] mere imagery, not content--content is what Celebrim's arguments have tried to give us), but I wasn't talking plot points here, and I really don't agree with the narrative approach any more than I do the imagery one. I will say on barsoomcore's behalf that I think you're confusing narrative and plot. Two books can have the exact same plot, while differing wildly in terms of their respective narratives. barsoomcore did say "type of story," but the way he subsequently approached the discussion was actually from the direction of larger narrative similarities and not mere plot points. And on behalf of [I]everyone[/I] who rejects the approach from imagery or setting, let me reiterate: there have been two failures in this thread. The first was a failure to define SF and F in terms of plot or narrative, and the second was a failure to define them in terms of imagery. You keep saying imagery, but there hasn't been any attempt to produce such a definition yet, I assume because you realize that as soon as the attempt is made it will be defeated in the same way barsoomcore's and Celebrim's attempts to isolate narrative elements have, in some measure, been defeated (but their arguments were only formulated in an ad hoc way, and have only been defeated in the same measure). At the same time, the counterarguments to their positions aren't as successful as you seem to think, especially Celebrim's more abstract formulations, because the former have failed to meet the latter in terms of sophistication. It's like comparing those Kushiel books to de Sade because of some basic similarities in plot and imagery, when they aren't comparable at all (you're assuming an imagery-derived genre in order to prove an imagery-derived genre; that doesn't work). The narrative analysis has to go up a few steps. I'm not saying that it will work ultimately, but in order to successfully argue against it, you have to go up those steps and meet it at that level. At the same time, I don't see how you can fail to see that the same arguments used against plot and theme on a basic level can be extended and turned against imagery on that same basic level; and further, if you were to posit a more sophisticated [I]interpretation[/I] of imagery, I can actually see the argument from imagery coalescing with the argument from narrative. In any case, this isn't a black and white argument with two sides and people choosing between them. Many of us have moved around a bit during the course of the discussion, and, at least in my case, I know that I can agree with a little bit of what everyone says, including you, without committing to any position, including yours. I've even found myself defending at one time or another something everyone else has said. But I remain committed to a historical analysis, one which I, because I've read so little genre fiction, cannot perform myself, not without putting some time into the literature and its historical determinations at any rate. This isn't my position, but it's a perfectly valid position in any case. If a SF work uses Tragedy, Tragedy is still Tragedy, it's only being used by the SF work. Similarly, if whatever is unique about SF pops up in Tragedy, SF is still SF, it's only being used by this work of Tragedy. Your dog example is invalid for a number of reasons. If "furry," "cute" and "animal" are genres, the dog narrative borrows from all three. But there is still something essential to the dog, a "dog" genre ("horseness is the whatness of allhorse"), which is more than the fact that it looks like a dog superficially. A hologram of a dog looks like a dog too, but it's a hologram, not a dog. "Furry," "cute" and "animal" are all still essential features of dogs, not things that can be changed out for other features. At least, I myself have never seen a "vegetable" dog. The concept of a Linnaen taxonomy of genres does strike me as a bit ridiculous. SF may be worthless as a genre, but a particular work of SF can still be valuable. You seem to miss this when you say "accept that they are genres worthy of being considered literature DESPITE their chimeric natures." As genres they aren't worthy of being considered literature. As genres they are nothing whatever. As [I]works[/I], on the other hand, as [I]mixed works[/I] containing a variety of other valuable literary material, they may be worthy of being considered literature. But in this case as SF and F they are still worthless--it is only their genre impurity that provides them with literary value. Just as we have failed to find any image that is unique to SF and F and distinguishes them from other genres. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Genre Conventions: What is fantasy?
Top