Psionics: Do you use 'em or did you lose 'em

[Zander]

No! You can't agree that fantasy is a sub-type of fiction (among others) and also claim that because psychic powers are fictitious they must therefore be fantasy and not some other genre of fiction. Your logic here is flawed.

No, it's not.

I'm afraid that as a matter of formal logic, it is. If A, B and C are sub-sets of X, an element in X is not definitionally in A. The element could be in B or C without being in A.

Fantasy is not "the literature of imagery" as you seem to be claiming. Imagery has nothing to do with fantasy.

As my bicycle argument shows, imagery has quite a bit to do with the fantasy genre.

My argument is sound. Yours is based on a "out of left field" definition of what fantasy is... You are confusing "classic" fantasy with all fantasy.

Please explain how "classic fantasy" is "left field".

Psychic powers may not be "classic" fantasy... but they are fantasy, because they are fantastic. They completely do not exist, and cannot with our current understanding of the universe, so they are fantasy.

You continue to assert that fantasy and fiction are synonymous despite earlier acknowledging that they aren't. Just because something is fictional doesn't mean it must logically be part of the fantasy genre.

Please, if you're going to argue about the definitions of sci-fi vs. fantasy, don't make up your own definitions of the two.

As you already know, I've referred to Realms of Fantasy. I didn't contribute to the debate in that magazine. The definitions aren't mine.

Find a good book on writing sci-fi or fantasy (or both) and see how the authors make the distinction. That's why we're fundamentally at odds on this thread; your definition of fantasy vis à vis sci-fi is one that you've concocted yourself.

Tolkien was opposed to the introduction of (pseudo-)science/technology in fantasy, and both Hickman & Weis and Poul Anderson have played on the difference between fantasy and sci-fi. While there are authors who disagree with me, I'm in pretty good company.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm afraid that as a matter of formal logic, it is. If A, B and C are sub-sets of X, an element in X is not definitionally in A. The element could be in B or C without being in A.

Uh, yeah. That's why your argument about "imagery" and classical fantasy elements make no sense. You're appealing to the smaller subset, and trying to apply it to the larger set. Your formal logic is pretty bad.

As my bicycle argument shows, imagery has quite a bit to do with the fantasy genre.

Your bicycle argument shows nothing except that, again, you mistake the smaller subset for the entire set.

Please explain how "classic fantasy" is "left field".

I never said it was. I said that "classic fantasy" isn't equivalent to "fantasy" and your referals to fantasy being all about imagery is from left field.

You continue to assert that fantasy and fiction are synonymous despite earlier acknowledging that they aren't. Just because something is fictional doesn't mean it must logically be part of the fantasy genre.

No, I've never once asserted that, although you've continued to try and argue it with me as though I had. Your definition of the fantasy genre is flawed, because it isn't broad enough. Again, for the nth time, stop trying to define the entire genre by only one subset of it.

As you already know, I've referred to Realms of Fantasy. I didn't contribute to the debate in that magazine. The definitions aren't mine.Tolkien was opposed to the introduction of (pseudo-)science/technology in fantasy, and both Hickman & Weis and Poul Anderson have played on the difference between fantasy and sci-fi. While there are authors who disagree with me, I'm in pretty good company.

That's because they wrote in a similar subset of fantasy. They did not attempt to speak for the entire genre. While you refer to some authors, you pointedly ignore others.

Besides, I'm talking more about the authors of books on writing fantasy and science fiction, the distinctions that they, and publishing houses, make between them.

EDIT: I also think this discussion has strayed sufficiently from the point of this thread that it deserves it's own. I'll start a new one shortly, and come back here and edit this post again to include a link when it's up.

 

[Zander]

Uh, yeah. That's why your argument about "imagery" and classical fantasy elements make no sense. You're appealing to the smaller subset, and trying to apply it to the larger set. Your formal logic is pretty bad.

There's nothing wrong with my formal logic. You seem to imagine that there is a kind of fantasy that isn't "classic", isn't another genre altogether but is still fantasy. It would be helpful if you would define what you mean by "classic fantasy" and the various other genres.

I said that "classic fantasy" isn't equivalent to "fantasy" and your referals to fantasy being all about imagery is from left field.

I didn't say it was allabout imagery. As you'll see in my earlier posts, I said that was part of it.

The imagery which has shaped fantasy and came to partly define it is among the reasons that fantasy is as popular as it is. Even within the hugely creative worlds of the great fantasy authors, it is these common elements that allow readers/viewers/gamers to recognise fantasy for what it is and contribute to their enjoyment of the genre.

Please note that I will going away for a week. I may not have access to the Internet from where I'll be but I'm interested in continuing this debate. It may have to wait though.

 

[Desdichado]

There's nothing wrong with my formal logic. You seem to imagine that there is a kind of fantasy that isn't "classic", isn't another genre altogether but is still fantasy. It would be helpful if you would define what you mean by "classic fantasy" and the various other genres.

Yes, absolutely. There is fantasy that does not feature pseudo-medieval imagery at all. There is fantasy about elves slumming at Ren Faires. There is fantasy about vampires in Victorian England. There is fantasy about mages in the far future that travel the stars.

There's all kinds of fantasy, but according to you, it must not be fantasy.

I don't know how you can claim your formal logic is just fine. You point out the truism that you can't define an entire set by the qualities of a subset, but that's exactly what you're doing. You're artificially narrowing fantasy to a smaller subset.

I didn't say it was allabout imagery. As you'll see in my earlier posts, I said that was part of it.

I just reread your posts, and that, along with what you've posted here, doesn't include anything but imagery in your definition of fantasy. If you're not saying it can't be fantasy without the images of paladins in shining armor, dragons, etc. then I don't know what you're saying. That message seems pretty clear from all of your posts in this thread.

The imagery which has shaped fantasy and came to partly define it is among the reasons that fantasy is as popular as it is. Even within the hugely creative worlds of the great fantasy authors, it is these common elements that allow readers/viewers/gamers to recognise fantasy for what it is and contribute to their enjoyment of the genre.

Oh, no doubt. But that doesn't mean it isn't fantasy anymore if it eschews those images and has different types of characters in different types of settings. It may be a poor marketing move on anyone's part to abandon the traditional conventions of the genre, but I can't see making an argument that it no longer belongs in the genre at all. If not, to what genre would it belong?

Please note that I will going away for a week. I may not have access to the Internet from where I'll be but I'm interested in continuing this debate. It may have to wait though.

Indeed, and I apologize to Dannyalcatraz for bogging down his thread on psionics with it. To that end, I've created a new thread for the discussion of what makes the fantasy genre what it is.

 

[Voadam]

I've used a few psionic demons in my campaign and the descriptions were a lot fun as their powers assaulted the pcs' minds (usually ineffectually, but still).

I've just made my first 3.5 psionic character for a pbp game and I'm loving the mechanics of the soul knife and the psionic focus feats. Simple, easy to use cool powers for D&D without slots, preparation, or points. The move equivalent refreshing psychic strike and full round refreshing psionic focus are very good mechanics. It will be very easy to track the character's powers over an adventure, only the multiclass paladin powers of the character introduce times per day mechanics.