Short treatise on Fantasy

[Virginia Wilde]

Originally posted on WotC boards (please note that the posters I speak of are a minority):

Hello and welcome to Mr. Author's class on fantasy and the speculative fiction genre. I have gone up and down these boards, as well as many others, and have come to the conclusion that many posters on this and other boards are under the impression that in fantasy, "anything can happen." I believe this fallacy stems from the idea that "there aren't any spells in real life," or, "dragons couldn't fly in real life!"

I understand that this is a misrepresentation and that the vast majority of posters understand that there are still rules that must be obeyed, even in fantasy. As a writer of speculative fiction, the genre that contains both science fiction and fantasy, I feel I must point out a few inaccuracies about the current ideas that seem to be vocalized perhaps a bit too often. I know these ramblings will fall upon deaf ears and that these mistakes will still occur, but it is my hope that at least one person will understand what I am trying to say.

Thus, this post. I will save a copy of it to place on my website for future readings so that others can benefit from it at a later date. I will also post this on a few other boards for readers to look at there as well. I may expand and add to this later as posters respond (if they do) with questions, comments, and the severed body parts of my family members as warnings. I will begin with a few simple definitions.

Speculative Fiction: a genre of fiction that contains both science fiction and fantasy.

Science Fiction: a genre of speculative fiction which works within known existing physcial laws and theorems and does not alter them or add new ones.

Fantasy: a genre of speculative fiction which alters one or more known existing physical laws and theorems or adds a new one, but does not arbitraily create them. Note that in most fantasy worlds, most physical laws of nature are unchanged, but there are new physcial laws pertaining to the existence of magic and/or other unknowns.

For example, in most D&D campaigns, magic works the same way. It has laws and boundaries which must be followed to achieve a desired result. Magic items have rules in their creation and usage. Even games like Mage: The Ascension work this way. If anything is possible, then your subjects, be they players, readers, or viewers, lose their willing suspension of disbelief. Anything could be possible, of course, I'm not saying it can't, but it must be able to occur within the pretext of the physcial laws established for your world. If something is a known fact, even if it is magical fact, then changing that fact arbitrarily to fit the context of a situation destroys any belief your subjects could have held. If, however, you present an explanation in the terms of physical laws present in your world, then you can maintain that suspension of disbelief.

 

[Drawmack]

Fantasy: a genre of speculative fiction which alters one or more known existing physical laws and theorems or adds a new one, but does not arbitraily create them. Note that in most fantasy worlds, most physical laws of nature are unchanged, but there are new physcial laws pertaining to the existence of magic and/or other unknowns.

Very nice disertation. Though I am left with some questions on the above quoted section.

You say specifically that a new physical law or theorum can be added. Is there a reason for restricting it to a single new law or theorum?

 

[InvaderSquoosh]

As a well read sci-fi and fantasy reader, I know what you're talking about. I have only one nitpick: Sci-fi can add rules of physics, say the existence of a hyperspace, and still remain essentially sci-fi. You can even add telepathy on top of that and it's still sci fi. Consider the Rowan series by Anne McCaffrey. I have a hard time deciding how to categorize it. It's sci-fi, yet not quite fantasy enough to classify as speculative fiction. The point is, I think the relationships between the genres are much more complex than you say they are.

On top of that, I think when people say anything is possible in fiction, they really mean that anyting is possible through magic. Magic is supposed to be this weird thing that can make the impossible happen. So if you wish to help clear up misconceptions about fantasy not having constraints, you'll have to convince people that magic has limitations. I think you were getting to that, so I'd be interested in reading more of what you have to say.

 

[Virginia Wilde]

No, not really. You can add or change as many as you like, as long as you specify what you're adding or changing, and exactly how it ties in with or is capable of altering those that already exist.

To use D&D as an example again, most notably Faerun, note that the "weave" is a rather complex set of created laws that lays down a set of "physics" for magic. Note that spellcasters in this situation don't just create their effects from air, but that their abilites hinge upon already present rules. This is true in every fantasy case, even if it is not blatantly explained and must be extrapolated.

This allows certain laws to be assumed, such as the forces of inertia and gravity and the need of livings things for food. It porvides a stable resting ground upon which to build the fantastic, but does not place too rigid of restrictions on the creation of the fantastic.

______________

Secondarily, telepathy and hyperspace are theoretical possibilities. Many scientists argue on a daily basis on the topics of expanded human perception and hyperdimensional theory, but gross alteration of physical laws remains the realm of fantasy. Just because there's spaceshps involved or dressed up with technobabble doesn't make it science fiction. Remember that "Star Wars" is classed as "science fantasy" by some authors. Also note I lumped both science fiction and fantasy into a single genre: speculative fiction, and made the two into sub-genres that are often indistiguishable.

Since the two are interchangeable as our knowledge of the universe and the laws that make it up change, the line between the two can often be blurred.

Perhaps the definition should be expanded or emphasized.

Science Fiction: a genre of speculative fiction which works within known existing physcial laws and theorems, as well as those within the realm of probability (such as theoretical metaphysics), and does not alter them or add new ones.

 

[InvaderSquoosh]

Ok, I'm fine with the clearer definition of science fiction. It's decent.

But even if there are arcane rules that govern magic, it is quite easy to rule-0 them through the intervention of a higher power, like a deity. Additionally, one can say that the rules are invented and self-imposed by an order of arcane wizards and indoctrinated into their students mainly because it's one known method of making sense of the bewildering potential of magic. The magic itself can still be ruleless. If the arcane order says there's no way X can be done, it doesn't rule out the possibility that some shaman can come out of nowhere and do X. The rules, if any, are arbitrary and don't place any substantial contstraint on the possibilities within a fantasy world. Fantasy, or specifically magic, is unbounded by its nature.

 

[Virginia Wilde]

What matters is not what's done, but how it's done. I'm not saying that magic can't do X. I'm saying that you must define how magic does X, and how exactly one gets it to do that. In essence, if X is your desired result, how does a +b =X? If a=c, does c +b=X? Why?

If a cabal of wizards can't figure out how it's done, and some shaman comes out of nowhere and does it, how does he do it? Spirits of the land that the wizards can't sense or that don't fit in with the wizards' way of magic? If so, how do the spirits fit in? How does the wizardly magic affect the spirit magic, and vise-versa?

Another thought is magic use. Who uses magic and why? How do they do it? What makes them powerful? In games, balance comes into play here. If the laws are so straightforward, why can't everyone do it? I mean, anyone with access to a library and a garage can make a pipe bomb, so why isn't it the same for magic? Why isn't the layman with a magic instruction manual just as dangerous as some of my friends with The Anarchist's Cookbook? After all, you don't need training to use the laws of physics to your advantage (try hitting someone with something heavy and watch as the momentum of the object transfers to their head; it's fun). In films and books, magic can be possible through some sort of sacrifice on the part of the user, but I know well that too many players in a game would have no problem with taking out a kobold or roasting something small and defenseless on a spit to cast a spell, and that many players don't really care enough about their characters to worry about personal sacrifices. Another thought is to have a stipulation built into the laws of magic stating that only those who know what they're doing through training can control it, but this is getting dangerously close to "I can do anything."

 

[Desdichado]

While that is good advice on the creation of fantasy, it's not a definition. Certainly not a trade definition. And deus ex machina is bad writing no matter the genre.

 

[Drawmack]

I think I understand the point that Virginia is getting at here.

Anything that occurs in nature has laws that govern it. Since arcane mages wield a power that occurs naturally but is untapped by most and invariably difficult to tap into what laws govern magic must be laid down for a fantasy world and once those laws are laid down they must be followed.

Let me deviate from DnD for the example briefly. In the Martix Morpheus states: ''This is a world based on rules, but those rules are no different then the rules of a computer system, some can be bent and others can be broken.''

Isn't this by definition magic. So then is the Matrix sci-fi or fantasy from this definition?

Anyway onto the real point. So in the Matrix ''magic'' is performed by bending the rules of physics that the computers impose on the matrix. Thus there are no rituals to perform, no components to spells, etc. it is simply an internal psychological state that allows a person to manipulate physics within the matrix.

In bibilical stories ''magic'' is performed through the devine grace of god in the form of miricales.

So what Virginia is getting at is, what rules govern magic in your world. If it is simply a means of bending the rules of physics then this has limitations and something (i.e. not being plugged in) must make it so that not everyone can do it. However, in steps Neo who breaks the rules that other mages must follow. So therefor anything can be done in the matrix, if you're the right individual.

The point that I got from what she is stating is that you have to properly explain why what is being done can be done.

 

[diaglo]

Anything that occurs in nature has laws that govern it.

I don't think I agree. And this is going into the realm of what is religion or what do you want to believe. or maybe what is philosophy.

The only thing I know is I don't know anything. I can make assumptions. And I can base them on what others have attempted to prove as true. But as soon as something is disproven, does that mean it didn't exist?

It just means the assumptions I made were wrong. I asked the wrong questions or tried to pigeonhole the question.

 

[Virginia Wilde]

Oh, yeah. Faith and Philosophy. The two most confusing things on Earth (but I can't prove that, so that's a belief).

"'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish proves you exist. It could not have evolved purely by chance, so it proves you exist, and by your argument, you thereby don't.'
'Oh,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that.'
And God vanishes in a puff of logic. Man, for an encore, goes on to try and prove that black is white and promptly gets himself killed at the next crosswalk." -Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy