Fantasy

[wellinghall]

camillofan has asked me:
"Is the distinguishing feature of fantasy (as opposed to other sorts of speculative fiction) Magic?"

And she has also said:
"What you need is a bracing debate on what exactly constitutes fantasy literature."

So - over to you, oh wise FList. What made a book "fantasy"?

Comments

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

I'm inclined to say that there must be at least a hinted element of the supernatural in one form or another, but I'll will no doubt get my head chopped off for this.

Also, I've had this argument in SF fandom. If a book is simply set in an alternate history, is it SF? What is the difference between Farthing and Fatherland, save that the first is written by an acknowledged SF writer and the latter by someone better known for thrillers and historicals. If you consider one of them SF, then you must also accept the other. However, neither have a hint of either speculative science (or speculative social science or arts) or the supernatural...

I'm inclined to put alternative histories without a hint of the supernatural in any of its forms (including religion) outside fantasy and into 'slipstream'. There are one or two books of Guy Kay's (and I adore his work) that would be slipstream if it wasn't for a mention of the Weaver or Fianovar, and one or two that don't even have that, so they do slide out of fantasy, in my 'umble opinion.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

For me, magic is secondary to:

1. Absence of modern technology
2. A setting that is either clearly not our world, or one where it is our world but something significant is different (e.g. magic works, dragons are real).

However, the setting depicted in my userpic is one which I would say is fantasy, yet is set in the far future and where magic is (supposedly) derived from technology lost in earlier ages.

This isn't an easy question to answer...

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

Maybe what we need is a list of works (not just books, but films, TV etc) that might be considered 'speculative'. You could then ask people whether each work is 'SF', 'Fantasy', 'Science Fantasy', 'Horror', 'Alternative History', 'Myth', 'Allegory' etc.

[didiusjulianus.livejournal.com]

Genres killed my hamster!

[http://www.google.com/profiles/Troelsfo (from livejournal.com)]

So, what makes a book ‘fantasy’?

I deliberately refrained from discussing this question earlier because I find that while most people can agree most of the time on whether a book is ‘fantasy’ or not, they rarely agree on why. Putting it in more concise terms, there is generally a huge intersection between that subset of books that one person calls fantasy, and the subset that someone else would call fantasy, but the two subsets are rarely identical: A ≠ B, A ∩ B > A\B and A ∩ B > B\A.

I am not entirely convinced that the distinction between ‘fantasy’ and ‘science fiction’ is entirely useful — it seems to me to be a matter of taste rather than an actually meaningful literary distinction. In both cases the author, in my opinion, builds a sub-created Secondary World in which some of the limitations that nature impose on us can be lifted (not necessarily by violating the basic rules of nature as we know them — in general this is rather achieved by adding to them), so that a model can be created in which certain aspects of the human condition can be investigated with less ‘noise’ than is found in the Primary Reality and in literature that attempts to build a universe which more closely matches the ordinary reality.

The operative element here, to me, is the changing of the normal rules of nature (as we understand them) -- by adding, subtracting or merely changing them. This is what I would call the ‘fantastic element’ of both fantasy and science fiction, and the interesting distinction to me is not the way these changes are explained, but the use to which the author puts them, and the inner consistency the author achieves for their sub-creation (Tolkien has much to say about this ‘inner consistency of reality’ in his essay ‘On Fairy-Stories’).

Keeping in mind Clarke's third law (the one about technology and magic), the difference between ‘fantasy’ and ‘science fiction’ becomes one of perception only: if the deviations from our normal rules of nature (as we understand them) are explained as technology and machines, we tend to call it ‘science fiction’, and if this is not the case, we call it ‘magic’ and say the book is ‘fantasy’. How many have not read the first few books of Anne McCaffrey's Pern series and come away from them with the firm conviction that they belong to the fantasy genre? I wouldn't be surprised to even find people who were disappointed to learn that they are really science fiction (insofar as that distinction is really meaningful). My point, however, is that this distinction is merely a matter of taste -- call it magic or call it sufficiently advanced technology: in the end it serves the same function in the book.

If you wish sub-divisions in the subset of books that utilize fantastic elements, I propose that Tolkien's attempt to define fairy-story is probably the most useful one, since this looks into the literary qualities as well as the mere setting.

Hmm — I'm afraid this turned out pretty long, sorry! :-)

[elegaer.livejournal.com]

Imagination. Imaginative setting or imaginative reality. I thinks that's how I'd try and define the thing in 1 sentence.

Looked up what dic.com had to say, and was somewhat surprised at the similarity:

fan·ta·sy   [fan-tuh-see, -zee] Show IPA noun, plural -sies, verb, -sied, -sy·ing.
–noun
1.
imagination, esp. when extravagant and unrestrained.
2.
the forming of mental images, esp. wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing.
3.
a mental image, esp. when unreal or fantastic; vision: a nightmare fantasy.
4.
Psychology . an imagined or conjured up sequence fulfilling a psychological need; daydream.
5.
a hallucination.
6.
a supposition based on no solid foundation; visionary idea; illusion: dreams of Utopias and similar fantasies.
7.
caprice; whim.
8.
an ingenious or fanciful thought, design, or invention.
9.
Also, fantasia. Literature . an imaginative or fanciful work, esp. one dealing with supernatural or unnatural events or characters: The stories of Poe are fantasies of horror.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

The difference between sci fi and fantasy exists, so far as I can see, to allow people to quibble about it and serves no other purpose.

I strongly suspect that this is also the difference between 'fantasy' and 'fiction'. A lot of historical fiction should be fantasy really, because it includes characters and attitudes that could never exist at the supposed period in which they were set. Plenty of whodunnits depend on mechanisms or procedures that couldnt' actually really exist ('And then there were none'?)

Basically what we've got here is a really big pile of books but people just adore the whole pigeonholing thing.

[foradan.livejournal.com]

I would define the difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy based on whether the 'rules' of the fictional universe are logical and consistent. If the principle of induction works in the fictional universe, and can be used to deduce the 'rules' of the fictional universe in a scientific fashion then it is science fiction. If any whim imaginable by a wizard or supernatural being can be satisfied based on their innate powers, then it is fantasy. This definition can be, however, very hard to implement, as authors do not usually describe in detail the rules of their universe, even if they do try to come up with some. If they try, then the result would be liable to end up in SF by my definition, as such rules would tend to be logically consistent. Even if the universe is intended by the author to be scientifically understandable, they may or may not be very convincing about it, so that the fictional universe may work better when understood as fantasy rather than SF (by my definitions of course). An author saying that Clarke's third law makes any 'magic' effect work in their SF novel isn't enough to make it work as SF for me.

eg Star Wars. If you take the original trilogy, I would place it as Fantasy, due to the Force. The prequel trilogy makes a bad attempt to scientifically explain the Force, indicating that it is supposed to be SF, but not being very convincing about it, so that Star Wars works better as fantasy than SF under my definition. The other fact that the general plot of the original film ticks virtually all the boxes of a cliche fantasy plot, just supports my position.

eg Mind powers in Babylon 5. An author could convince me that telepathy could work in an SF novel, but telekinesis is more of a difficult one, but maybe possible. However, I see no logical reason for any connection between telepathy and telekinesis. They are completely different effects. The only connection is that they are both 'will power' effects (ie magic in the not-SF sense).

For 'true' SF fiction, the possibility of a scientific understanding of the fictional universe should not just be intended, but should also be important in some way to the plot. Otherwise it is just a story within an SF setting.

I happen to be particularly interested in fiction which is intended to stand just on what I consider the SF side of the fantasy/SF divide. Such as 'The Flying Sorcerors' by Niven, 'The Practice Effect' by Brin, and slightly differently, 'Wyrms' by Card. These are all fantasy-type stories which are actually SF by my definition, and make use of Clarke's law in a convincing manner. Fiction that seems to me to stand just on the other side of the divide I often find a bit disturbing. The conclusion of Stevenson's 'System of the World' trilogy for instance.

Here I seem to be defining SF more than I am defining Fantasy. Any sensible definition of Fantasy would seem to include all speculative fiction, unless they specifically exclude SF and Horror of course.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Add a very important one; Roger Zelazny's superb Lord of Light which has all the trappings of Hindu mythology, but which is actually science fiction, verging into hard SF.

[fallingtowers.livejournal.com]

But aren't points 1 and 2 mutually contradictory? In most urban fantasy settings, the world is comparable to our own, but magic / supernatural creatures exist alongside 21st century technology. Books like Jim Butcher's Dresden Files may not be high / epic fantasy à la Tolkien, but I'd definitely consider them fantasy, and their protagonist is a modern-day wizard driving a VW Beetle...

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

It's a personal thing - but that wouldn't be fantasy to me. Maybe some related genre like as you say 'urban' fantasy.

[skordh.livejournal.com]

I think you are right that it is about the explanation of the deviation from the normal rules of nature (such as they are). I think Julian May's 'Saga of the Pliocene Exile' is Science Fiction despite the fact that the main action takes place with a bunch of heroic fairies and goblins fighting each other with magic: because it all has a scientific explanation! Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea books are fantasy for me while her Ekumen novels are SF purely because of the mode of explanation. Though some of those SF books seem to me to fit Tolkien's definition of 'fairy story' better than some fantasy. (I seem to recall that Tolkien said the same about HG Wells' The Time Machine).

Veering off topic

[tovaglia.livejournal.com]

Obviously, all fiction is fantasy when you come down to it - fantasy is anything that isn't real - but that would be a bit of a glib answer.

I have read so little fantasy / SF (esp SF, due to early bad experiences with some poor-quality, overly-macho works) that I hardly feel qualified to comment on the fantasy / SF division compared to the other, much wiser people on your flist.

Thinking about this, though, I guess it must be hard to write good SF because you do always have to judge where you can stretch the science a bit in favour of a good story (or come up with something scientifically plausible which helps your plot)

But also it must be hard to write good fantasy without it all getting a little bit silly / ironic / over the top.

It's probably all about pretending you are writing credible, consistent, cool SF while actually writing fantasy and hoping nobody will notice :-)

[scribblerworks.livejournal.com]

You win a cookie!

:D

[camillofan.livejournal.com]

So... are the Doctor Dolittle books, for instance, fantasy lit? The setting is meant to be real-world, and DD's ability to talk to animals is understood as a scientific thing rather than a mystical power. Then again, there are fantastical beasts, and the animals all have personalities-- and they communicate with each other! Still, it'd be a stretch to say that Lofting did any "world-building."

[didiusjulianus.livejournal.com]

Thank you, I graciously accept :D