# Genre Conventions: What is fantasy?



## Desdichado (May 20, 2005)

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.


----------



## jmucchiello (May 20, 2005)

This is why most "scifi" authors refer to themselves as Speculative Fiction authors. SpecFic is setting independent. Whether the plot hinges on a scientific or fantastic element is not important. The important part is to speculate: What if ...?

So while I agree with you JD, I also feel the "argument" is spurious. Whether or not fantasy must contain certain elements is not important. If Terry Pratchett add psionics to his diskworld does that cause the series to shift out of humorous fantasy into humorous science fiction? Not at all. I think the most telling point that scifi and fantasy are not hard genres comes from bookstores that intersperse these two genres on the same shelves. Arguably, all scifi contains fantastic (not-real) elements. That doesn't mean all scifi should contain knights and swords.


----------



## francisca (May 20, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Anyway, what is fantasy?



It's what each reader/gamer/movie watcher defines it as.

Probably not what you are looking for, but I think the question is too open ended and "in the eye of the beholder" to even come close to an answer.


----------



## Desdichado (May 20, 2005)

francisca said:
			
		

> It's what each reader/gamer/movie watcher defines it as.
> 
> Probably not what you are looking for, but I think the question is too open ended and "in the eye of the beholder" to even come close to an answer.



That's a slippery slope into making the word fantasy completely useless, though.  If I write a letter to Penthouse about my night with the entire Dallas Cowboy Cheerleading squad, is that part of the fantasy genre?


----------



## francisca (May 20, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That's a slippery slope into making the word fantasy completely useless, though.  If I write a letter to Penthouse about my night with the entire Dallas Cowboy Cheerleading squad, is that part of the fantasy genre?



Maybe for you.  Though perhaps "wishful thinking" might be more apt.    

I understand your point, however.  I just don't think there is any point to defining the term "fantasy" beyond the general idea that already exists.  Trying to do so will just end up with lots of discussion and flamage, with some people walking away finding those that have the same ideas about fantasy as they do, others agreeing to disagee, and still others adding more users to their ignore list.  In other words, we'll be right where we are now.


----------



## Zander (May 20, 2005)

Joshua,

While the idea of starting a new thread is a good one, I think it is quite unfair for you to do so knowing that I'll be away and not able to respond. :\  

You have misrepresented my position in your post above but I don't have time to respond - I have to pack my bags and a hundred other things.

If this thread hasn't been too active and if I can find it again when I can next get online, I'll try to reply to your post.

Adios for now...


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (May 20, 2005)

Honestly, from my perspective the differences between fantasy and sci-fi are not large enough to qualify them as distinct genres.

For my money, sci-fi is a subset genre of fantasy in literary terms and the reverse is true in marketting terms.

The idea of speculative fiction seems rather spurious to me, though I might qualify it as equivalent to magical realism in that its an attempt to grant literary credibility to fantasy/sci-fi genre tropes that often prove fairly liberating and analytical when applied to literary modes of writing.

In all of the above I am operating off of a more basic technical division between literary and 'genre' forms of the novel and short story, where said division was, I feel, articulated best by the debates between HG Wells and Henry James where, in my much simplified synopsis, James maintained that the future of the novel lay in character interaction and Wells claimed that it lay in its ability to create worlds and tell stories.  I only use the term 'genre' to express Well's view because, well, James's side effectively won the debates and got their own prestigious category where Wells's scions have been relegated to various literary ghettoes.

Naturally, neither camp would deny the techniques of the other, but it's fairly clear to tell where the nature of the analysis lies.

Now, none of this is neat from the perspective of audiences for these works, but audiences are always the messiest and worst way to analyze fiction save from the perspective of functionality.  And in that case I don't really know that there's enough of a difference.  You could argue for a difference in speculative effect, but the potential speculative result of either fantasy of science fiction is still a speculative result.


----------



## Mallus (May 20, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Science fiction depends on scientific principles, or extrapolation of scientific principles.



Sure, that's a handy starting point, but even as such, its problematic. It isn't just a question of a work being 'dependent on scientific principles', but a question of which ones, and how rigorously. Consider a first contact novel that's accurate in terms of its biology, but handwaves FTL travel. What do you do with a book that combines good science with stuff that's little better than magic? And what about soft SF, like Iain Bank's Culture novels? Its space opera about economics (which is takes pretty seriously) , where the science is essentially a parody of both Star Wars and Star Trek, all turned up to 11. Or what I brought up in another thread, Well's Time Machine. Is that best though of a politically-minded fantasy a la Garcia-Maquez, or its it SF? Is "soft SF" even SF at all?


----------



## Voadam (May 20, 2005)

I disagree with your definition of sci-fi. Star Trek seems to be classic sci-fi but your definition excludes it because it has mind powers for vulcans. I think Sci-Fi is high tech specific and not exclusive to fantasy.

So I see star trek as sci fi with a little element of fantasy in it. It is dominated by the spaceships and high tech junk, placing it solidly in sci-fi.

Similarly many fantasy stories have a background of sci-fi apocalypse in their past (shanara, Wheel of Time, etc.)


----------



## S'mon (May 20, 2005)

In terms of describing genre as pertains to derivative art forms like films, tv series & RPGs, I think basically Zander is right and you're wrong - it's the trappings that matter.  That hard sf authors wish to distinguish their work by labelling Star Trek or Buck Rogers "not sf" is irrelevant to me.

BTW I think there's at least as much scientific basis for psychic powers as for FTL travel.


----------



## Voadam (May 20, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> 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.




And yet I expect to find star wars novels in the sci-fi sections of the library and bookstore, not the fantasy sections.

I don't deny that it has significant fantasy elements with the force, but I still classify it as sci-fi. Again its the space ships and blasters.


----------



## S'mon (May 20, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> I don't deny that it has significant fantasy elements with the force, but I still classify it as sci-fi. Again its the space ships and blasters.





Exactly.  It's the trappings that matter, to the general public and to the audience.  If George Lucas (or Arthur C Clark!) considers Star Wars to be a psycho-sexual melodrama but everyone else says it's space opera, to me it's space opera.


----------



## Wombat (May 20, 2005)

I dunno...  I've read a fair amount of works that are categorized as sci-fi that don't seem to fit the definitions above.  There is a heck of a lot of what I call "military sci fi" that is merely a series of wishy-washy politics, lots of things going "boom", and little to no scientific rationalization for any of the abilities in the book other than that they seem keen -- would that still count as sci fi?  If not, what is it?

I have also read a number of sci fi books that _do_ include psionic/psychic powers over the years.  Does the inclusion of these powers drop them out of sci fi?

Is Flash Gordon fantasy or sci fi?  What of John Carter?  How about Star Wars?  These seem to have their feet solidly planted in both camps...

What is fantasy?  Well, I can bat around that topic, if not nail it.  Usually (this qualifier will be used a LOT!) there is a pre-modern system of government -- maybe imperial, maybe feudal, maybe city-states, maybe absolutist; very rarely is is democratic or socialist.  Usually the technology is kept to a Renaissance-or-before level.  Usually combat does not involve gunpowder.  Often there are non-human races -- elf/fey-analogs, goblin/orc-analogs, sometimes dwarves and "little people sporting furry feet".  Usually there is magic involved, but this might be anything from small scale healing to ripping up the crust of the earth.  Usually there is a directly identified quest, often either to gain a specific item or to get rid of it.  Often there are identifiable Good and Evil sides, but this has become far less common.  

That's a lot of "usuallys" in there, none of which are solid and thus the whole definition gets pretty maleable.  

One big difference I have noticed over the years between sci fi and fantasy is that often in fantasy literature a single individual (or a very small group) can Totally Change The World; in sci fi, conversely, there is _less_ of a tendency this way, though it does still pop up.

I don't think there is going to be a solid definition of what makes a book Fantasy or Science Fiction any more than what separates Romance and Historical Novels from General Fiction -- often the definitions are left to individual readers.


----------



## Rackhir (May 20, 2005)

I think the important difference is the presence of Technology. Star Wars may have a lot of mystic mumbo jumbo, but they are flying around in machines, shooting at each other with gun like objects and have video displays. 

Technology is typically absent from fantasy settings. Usually this means machines no more sophisticated than in pre-modern times, water wheels, carts, creatures used for transport. 

While magic and technology can be indistinguishable in terms of effects, how those effects are brought about is really what differentiates the two for me.


----------



## The_Gneech (May 20, 2005)

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Anne McCaffrey (or was it Le Guin? it's been a long time since I heard the story) was told point-blank by a prospective editor: "If it has deck plates, it's sci-fi; if it has trees and dragons, it's fantasy." I think that most casual fans have pretty much that attitude about it.

Being a bit of a genre nerd, my own definitions are basically:

Fantasy-As-Broad-Term: Anything where some or all of the rules of reality go deliberately out the window. Thus, "The Twilight Zone" is fantasy, so is Tolkien, so is _Star Wars_.

Weird Tales: Stories, generally in a modern or not-too-distant-past setting, where someone in a more or less "normal" world is confronted with the supernatural or at least the extremely bizarre, including ghosts, multitentacled horrors from beyond space and time, telepathic conspiracies, or gray alien proctologists.

Sword and Sorcery: A subset of fantasy concentrating on ambiguous or even dark, relatively low-power heroes, in settings where magic tends to be rare and generally sinister.

High Fantasy/Big Fat Fantasy: A subset of fantasy tending towards long, epic plots with lots of subplots and supporting characters, a lot of magic all over the place, for both good and ill, and usually good or at least well-meaning heroes.

Hard SF: Made-up stories based on accepted scientific theories and/or the plausible extractions thereof. Can have one or two handwavey sorts of things (FTL travel being a common one), but such things are avoided when possible, and the ramifications of their existence are well thought-out.

Space Fantasy: Basically, high fantasy with spaceships and cat-headed aliens. My personal favorite, actually, but pooh-poohed by most editors.

Space Opera: Any kind of massively epic tale set in space. Can just as easily be hard SF as space fantasy.

...

By those definitions, psionics could be an element of hard SF if they were one of the "ground rule changes" and had a convincingly scientific underpinning*. However, they are more likely to be an element of weird tales or space fantasy.

   -The Gneech  

*ESP and the like has been scientifically studied; the problem is/was/probably always will be that it's not reproducable. You can't prove a negative, so therefore you can't really prove that they aren't there ... but there isn't enough solid evidence to solidly prove that they ARE there, either, at which point science throws up its hands and says, "Whatever, I've got some atoms to smash." Suffice to say, the people at the Cayce Institute certainly believe that it's real and work from the assumption that it is, so a hard SF story that included it would basically start from the premise that they're right and project from there.


----------



## Vraille Darkfang (May 20, 2005)

Game Convention Fantasies?

See: 'Booth Babe'

Sorry, you meant GENRE conventions.

Economically, it's what is in the Fantasy Section of your local bookstore.

Interestingly, most book stores have combined their Science Fiction & Fantasy into 1 single section.

I mean, whether Isaac Asimov calls I: Robot, Fantasy, Science Fiction, or Satire; it mattets where somebody goes to actually read it (whether the fantasy section at Barnes & Noble, or the Sci-fi section of the local library).

Publishings a business, people.  Where the head honchoes of Publishing Companies & book sellers decide to call a book, that is what it is.

Would you go look for Anne Rice in Fantasy or Fiction (85% of the time she's in fiction).

Personaly, once you start labeling yourself, that's what you'll write.


----------



## Desdichado (May 20, 2005)

Zander said:
			
		

> While the idea of starting a new thread is a good one, I think it is quite unfair for you to do so knowing that I'll be away and not able to respond. :\



Actually, I had written all of it before I saw your post saying you'd be out of town, so I didn't do so deliberately to misrepresent you when you couldn't defend yourself!

Anyway, if I've misrepresented you, please feel free to correct me!  I thought I summarized quite clearly what you had said in the earlier thread.  I look forward to your responses when you are back.  Maybe you could subscribe to the thread, so it doesn't get lost in case it's quiet next week?


----------



## RSKennan (May 20, 2005)

I wouldn't say that fantasy *has* to get rid of any laws of reality to be 'in genre'. My loose, working definition of fantasy is *the presence of magic*. That alone does it for me. Fantasy is a template that can be applied to any base genre. It could also be thought of as a metagenre. 

One thing that I haven't seen so far is the fact that any decent imaginative work _replaces_ any rules it gets rid of with others. For example, if instead of becoming inert, a murderer's corpse reanimates with a spirit of rage, you've replaced one rule (the rule that dead people generally stay dead) with another. 

Every set of writer's guidelines I've seen for novels rightly says that any magic system you create for a novel to be published has to be rigorous and self-consistent. 

I don't see how this is complicated. 

This may seem hypocritical in light of the above, but: 

Worrying about what defines a genre is fine for academics and publishers, but I don't see it as a practical excercise for the rest of us. In my opinion, all a genre is, is a percieved pattern in a set of stories. The best stories redefine a genre for the simple reason that genre is artificial. If a story is beloved, it gets wedged into the closest genre, breaking any constraints it has to to set the taxonomist's mind at ease. I guess my position is that genre is a matter of convenience.  I might say that my story is fantasy or hard science fiction when discussing it, but ultimately, I don't believe in genre in the strict sense that critics and such do. 

The rules of drama and storytelling are more important than any arbitrary rules of genre; which is at best a convenience. 

I hope this doesn't come across as rude, I don't intend it to be.


----------



## Desdichado (May 20, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> I disagree with your definition of sci-fi. Star Trek seems to be classic sci-fi but your definition excludes it because it has mind powers for vulcans. I think Sci-Fi is high tech specific and not exclusive to fantasy.



Well, for the most part the definitions predate Star Trek anyway.  Like I said, folks like Arthur C. Clark, Ben Bova, Isaac Asimov; they're the ones who formulated the categories.


			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> So I see star trek as sci fi with a little element of fantasy in it. It is dominated by the spaceships and high tech junk, placing it solidly in sci-fi.



I see it as completely fantastic.  More about James Kirk geting into fisticuffs with various bad make-up jobs and making out with alien babes.  I don't know whats so sci-fi about that.    


			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> Similarly many fantasy stories have a background of sci-fi apocalypse in their past (shanara, Wheel of Time, etc.)



Neither Shanara nor Wheel of Time have a "sci-fi" apocalypse, they have a higher technologically advanced civilization that was destroyed, and the present is a sort of "dark age."  That's not sci-fi.


----------



## Desdichado (May 20, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> In terms of describing genre as pertains to derivative art forms like films, tv series & RPGs, I think basically Zander is right and you're wrong - it's the trappings that matter.  That hard sf authors wish to distinguish their work by labelling Star Trek or Buck Rogers "not sf" is irrelevant to me.



I think that in terms of the mainstream public, there may not be any difference at all.  And yes, the mainstream public is completely concerned with the trappings, and to them, sci-fi is the trappings.  It's not like a movie or a T.V. show has much time to spell out the scientific basis of the premise without losing their audience anyway.

But, like The_Gneech, I'm a bit of a genre nerd, and I like to take my hobby a bit more seriously.  After all, the general public also doesn't see much different between Beowulf and the Iliad, but just because they don't see it doesn't mean that differences aren't there.  I'm also a bit of a splitter; I like to have lots of categories to put stuff in, rather than more generic buckets.  So, I prefer to split even further than simply "sci fi" or "fantasy" and recognize that there's a very broad range of works that share many features with each other and differ in other respects, that _can_ be described better with various sub-genres; sword & sorcery vs. high fantasy vs. planetary romance vs. hard SF vs. space opera, etc., etc., ad nauseum.  Even then, you don't have a perfect picture, as some works end up both defining and being the single work in an extremely specialized little compartment.

What sparked the conversation in the first place was the idea that psionics didn't belong in a fantasy campaign, because they were a sci-fi element.  That struck two nerves with me, the first being that since there's no scientific basis for psychic powers, they actually are, by definition, a fantasy element, and the second being that I don't accept such a limited definition of "fantasy" that only includes a narrow subset of all that's out there.


----------



## Desdichado (May 20, 2005)

RSKennan said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say that fantasy has to get rid of any laws of reality to be 'in genre'. My loose, working definition of fantasy is *the presence of magic*. That alone does it for me. Fantasy is a template that can be applied to any base genre. It could also be thought of as a metagenre.



What's the difference between "magic" and "breaks the laws of reality?"  Is a story not a fantasy that features unicorns or faeries but no magic?

And fantasy can only be applied to other genres because it is defined differently than many other genres.  A mystery, for example, is defined by the way the story is told, as is a sitcom, or a romance, for instance.  Because neither fantasy nor sci-fi are really defined by anything in the structure of the story, but rather by the setting in which the story takes place, you can easily have a fantasy sitcom or a sci-fi mystery or a fantasy romance, etc.


			
				RSKennan said:
			
		

> Every set of writer's guidelines I've seen for novels rightly says that any magic system you create for a novel to be published has to be rigorous and self-consistent.
> 
> I don't see how this is complicated.



Neither do I.  That's good advice.  But I'm not sure what it has to do with the question at hand...    


			
				RSKennan said:
			
		

> Worrying about what defines a genre is fine for academics and publishers, but I don't see it as a practical excercise for the rest of us. In my opinion, all a genre is, is a percieved pattern in a set of stories. The best stories redefine a genre for the simple reason that genre is artificial. If a story is beloved, it gets wedged into the closest genre, breaking any constraints it has to to set the taxonomist's mind at ease. I guess my position is that genre is a matter of convenience.  I might say that my story is fantasy or hard science fiction when discussing it, but ultimately, I don't believe in genre in the strict sense that critics and such do.



Actually, I think it even more practical for us; the fans, who like to talk about the center of our hobby.  I certainly don't think it matters much to publishers; every bookstore and library I've been into in living memory lumps all the sci-fi and fantasy together anyway.  And few critics spend much time in the ghettoes of genre fiction; it's always been the fans that give genre fiction its life in the first place.


----------



## Wombat (May 20, 2005)

Yet in _Childhood's End_ by Arthur C. Clarke that children are developing psychic powers by the end.  Equally in Olaf Stapeldon's _The Star Maker_ there appear to be a lot of psychic powers (psychic melding, thought projection, etc.) going on.  Both of these books are considered classical works of Science Fiction.  Equally Philip K. Dick includes many wildly improbable technical elements in several of his stories, very far from "true" science fiction, because he is more interested in social commentary, and yet he is also acknowledged as one of the masters of Science Fiction.

I think the problem is that there are a lot of definitions out there.

Let me take one counter example for you.  Bernard Cornwell is famous for his _Sharpe's Rifles_ series.  His books are found under General Fiction.  However, is Arthurian trilogy is found in the Sci Fi/Fantasy section of nearly every bookstore I have been in.  Why?  Because they are about King Arthur?  Hardly -- you find T.H. White's _The Once & Future King _and all of Rosalind Miles' books on the same topic in General Fiction.  Because there is magic?  Well, there is no identifiable, or at least provable, magic in Cornwell's books, but there is magic in the works of many authors found in General Fiction.  

In the end, genre hairsplitting is vaguely amusing, but no one will ever agree on definitions.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 20, 2005)

Ah, If only I could draw Venn diagrams on this board:

Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Horror, etc., are all subcategories of fiction (within the Venn Circle of Fiction, you'll find circles for Fantasy, Sci-Fi, & Horror)- ignoring all other subcategories of Fiction for purposes of this discussion.

The circles for each genre, Fantasy, Sci-Fi, and Horror, overlap the 2 others, but do not envelop the 2 others.  There are portions of each circle that do not touch any other.  In other words, you can have pure Fantasy, fantasy with horror elements or fantasy with Sci-Fi elements.  Likewise, you can have pure Horror or with Fantasy or Sci Fi elements added, and pure ("Hard") Sci-Fi or add Horror or Fantasy tropes.

Space Opera would be a circle within Sci-Fi that partially overlaps the portion of Fantasy that overlaps the circle of Sci-Fi.  In other words...Space Opera is a subset of Sci-Fi which may or may not have fantastic elements.  Generally, it has the trappings of science-fiction, but is more about telling an interpersonal story without regard to the scientific probability of its scientific elements.  The science doesn't matter- just the story.  Technobabble gets us past any and all real-world barriers to the storyline.

Two of the biggest sci-fi franchises- _Star Trek_ and _Star Wars_- are classic space opera.  _Dune_ could also be categorized as such.

_Shanarra_ books CLEARLY have a sci-fi element.  The lost civilization before the timeline of the storylines produced robots and computers with AI (see _Antrax_).  And yet, unless Brooks pulls a Niven or Clarke- style switcheroo that explains EVERYTHING in terms of science (Trolls, etc are the result of genetic experiments, spells work because of a "Krell Machine" or nanomachines), it is clearly a world of magic- and thus, predominantly fantasy.


----------



## sword-dancer (May 20, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> 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.  .



Would somebody like to state ad nsexplain me why these aren`t fantasy:
Is Glorantha not Fantasy(because the knight with a big sword is thoroughly lacking)?
Would you call the Deryni Setting of Katherine Kurtz Science Fiction?
How would you call the Westria series of Diana Paxon?
The Mind Magic in Mercedes Lackeys >Valdemar(or other in this world) stories?
The Solomon Kane Stories from R.E Howard or the writting of Clark Ashton Smith?





> 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.



The Story from Oger the Danske don`t make sense?
or Midsummernightsdream, Haddon etc don`t made sense?
How would he call The Lions of Al Rassam or other Books from Guy Gavriel Kaye?


----------



## The_Gneech (May 20, 2005)

Well, of the ones you list, the only one I'm familiar with is Solomon Kane, who is solidly, grimly, bloody-handedly in the "weird tales" category of fantasy-as-broad-category, but also dabbles in the "sword and sorcery" category. (S&S tends to be a little more removed from historical reality, but doesn't HAVE to be.)

   -TG


----------



## Voadam (May 20, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Well, for the most part the definitions predate Star Trek anyway.  Like I said, folks like Arthur C. Clark, Ben Bova, Isaac Asimov; they're the ones who formulated the categories.




The definition of words change over time with usage. If they defined the genre and categories thus then they have lost control of the term and their technical definitions and categories no longer apply to the word as currently used.  

Sci-Fi = very high tech IMO as someone who has not studied the technical definitions but enjoys the genre. This definition does not exclude fantasy. Fiction set in dragonstar would be both sci-fi (for the tech) and fantasy (for the magic).

My webster's new world dictionary defines sci-fi as "fiction of a highly imaginative or fantastic kind, typically involving some actual or projected scientific phenomenon."


----------



## Space Coyote (May 20, 2005)

> And yet I expect to find star wars novels in the sci-fi sections of the library and bookstore, not the fantasy sections.
> 
> I don't deny that it has significant fantasy elements with the force, but I still classify it as sci-fi. Again its the space ships and blasters.




After seeing the first Star Wars movie when I was a kid, I was discussing the movie with my brother. I knew that my brother loved reading science fiction movies and watching sci-fi movies, but he didnt particularly care for Star Wars.

I asked him, "How come you dont like Star Wars, I thought you liked science fiction?"

To which, he replied, "I do. But Star Wars is not science-fiction, it is science fantasy."

He described science fiction as stories that had some scientific merit to them (i.e stories or technology that are *plausible* based on current knowledge of science), but happen to be "fictional" stories. Whereas Star Wars, had a lot of things that were deemed "fantastical", thereby making it science (-related, because it dealt with things like spaceships, lasers and aliens), but sheer fantasy.


----------



## RSKennan (May 20, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> What's the difference between "magic" and "breaks the laws of reality?"  Is a story not a fantasy that features unicorns or faeries but no magic?




You can add to the laws of reality without breaking them. You can suspend them without breaking them. Magic as I define it is a set of laws that exist outside of the laws of reality. Two sets; reality, and magic. They don't have to cancel each other out. This distinction is probably just a nitpick about the use of language from where I stand. 

To the second question; it depends on how it's explained. Are they computer projections that are able to interact with reality? Just because something looks like magic doesn't mean it is. It's all in the telling.  



> And fantasy can only be applied to other genres because it is defined differently than many other genres.  A mystery, for example, is defined by the way the story is told, as is a sitcom, or a romance, for instance.  Because neither fantasy nor sci-fi are really defined by anything in the structure of the story, but rather by the setting in which the story takes place, you can easily have a fantasy sitcom or a sci-fi mystery or a fantasy romance, etc.




I can’t argue with that, except to say that I don't see boundaries to the genres the way that some people do.   



> Neither do I.  That's good advice.  But I'm not sure what it has to do with the question at hand...




I left out a few dots. I've got to work on that. I was referring to the loose use of the idea elsewhere in the thread that magic was simply defenestrating reality. It's not; it's as systematic as any other element of a story’s reality. 

Ultimately, I think that a given story’s system of reality is all that’s important. I can see both sides- for genre, and against it, but for me, thinking in terms of genre in any but the loosest sense (that of trappings alone) is needlessly constraining. 

As long as the rules of the setting are consistent enough to tell a good story, the rest is pedantic, IMHO. 



> Actually, I think it even more practical for us; the fans, who like to talk about the center of our hobby.  I certainly don't think it matters much to publishers; every bookstore and library I've been into in living memory lumps all the sci-fi and fantasy together anyway.  And few critics spend much time in the ghettoes of genre fiction; it's always been the fans that give genre fiction its life in the first place.




There are fantasy and science fiction critics. They exist. They may have less clout among the shining literati, but they exist, as this thread proves. 

Regarding publishers, they need to be able to classify the books for catalogs. I didn't say editors, but a publisher as a commercial body needs to decide what to tell buyers. 

Regarding the usefulness of genre to everyone else, I was just chiming in with my opinion; I'm not trying to tell anyone how to spend their time. 

I won't go further into my perspective since I don't have the time, but suffice it to say that I don't see the "rules of genre" as something that need to be rigorously walled off, because that leads to creative cannibalism and imaginative bankruptcy. The boxes are only there if you want them to be. I know how the experts classify these things, and I even see their logic, I just don’t care to box things in.


----------



## Celebrim (May 20, 2005)

Fantasy is the genera of fiction which primarily seeks to address the question of, 'What is the meaning of good and evil?', and similar abstract moral questions by incarnating or extantiating the abstract principals as tangible things, and then producing from there a narrative structure which serves to illustrate the principal in question.   A fantasy is at its heart a morality tell which serves to warn against or promote certain sorts of behavior.  

Fantasy is different from science fiction - and in particular soft science fiction - in that science fiction is typically not about morality, and instead is more interested in the question, "What does it mean to be human?", and the invented characters of science fiction (aliens, robots) serve not as embodiments of some moral principal, but rather as means by which humanity can be compared and contrasted with things that are not human in order to understand the fundamental things which make humans 'human'.  

Swords, sorcery, space ships, ray guns, telepathy, and so forth have nothing to do with it.   Those are just incidental and conventional trappings of the art form.   Likewise, it has little to do with whether or not the invented things are 'realistic'.   Science fiction remains science fiction even if its blatantly unrealistic.   Fantasy remains fantasy even if its given a futuristic and technological setting.


----------



## Desdichado (May 20, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Fantasy is the genera of fiction which primarily seeks to address the question of, 'What is the meaning of good and evil?', and similar abstract moral questions by incarnating or extantiating the abstract principals as tangible things, and then producing from there a narrative structure which serves to illustrate the principal in question.   A fantasy is at its heart a morality tell which serves to warn against or promote certain sorts of behavior.



That's fairly easily demonstrated against.  I can think of dozens of works of fantasy that never even attempt to do that just off the top of my head.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Swords, sorcery, space ships, ray guns, telepathy, and so forth have nothing to do with it.   Those are just incidental and conventional trappings of the art form.   Likewise, it has little to do with whether or not the invented things are 'realistic'.   Science fiction remains science fiction even if its blatantly unrealistic.   Fantasy remains fantasy even if its given a futuristic and technological setting.



But that I agree with; indeed its the main thrust of my argument.


----------



## Celebrim (May 20, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That's fairly easily demonstrated against.  I can think of dozens of works of fantasy that never even attempt to do that just off the top of my head.




Please do elaborate.  The breadth of my fantasy reading is nowhere near as strong as my Sci-Fi, but I'm not offering these definitions from complete illiteracy.

While were at it, I'd like to say that:



> 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.




Is such a broad definition that it would either be easily demonstrated against (we could find works we both agree are Sci-Fi but which contain elements which are 'flat-out impossible to explain') or else would encompass virtually the entire genera of Science Fiction.

I can think of any number of science fiction works from major Sci-Fi authors (Clifford Simak, Gene Wolfe, Robert Silverburg, Phillip K. Dick) which are simply impossible to explain, but whose works differ in character from Fantasy very dramatically.


----------



## jmucchiello (May 21, 2005)

RSKennan said:
			
		

> Magic as I define it is a set of laws that exist outside of the laws of reality.



This really doesn't make sense. To people who live in a world with magic, magic is one of the laws of reality. Something outside the laws of reality cannot interact with that reality. Once it does, it is part of that reality.

Also, you are implying that world where doing X and Y always results in Z is not magic, yet the most popular fantasy book with magic in it at the moment is the Harry Potter books where magic is taught to children in a school. Sounds reproducible to me.

Ever read Master of the Five Magics by um er Lyndon Hardy? Magic that world was very codified. Does that mean it's not fantasy?


----------



## RSKennan (May 21, 2005)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> This really doesn't make sense. To people who live in a world with magic, magic is one of the laws of reality. Something outside the laws of reality cannot interact with that reality. Once it does, it is part of that reality.
> 
> Also, you are implying that world where doing X and Y always results in Z is not magic, yet the most popular fantasy book with magic in it at the moment is the Harry Potter books where magic is taught to children in a school. Sounds reproducible to me.
> 
> Ever read Master of the Five Magics by um er Lyndon Hardy? Magic that world was very codified. Does that mean it's not fantasy?




If it alter it to say "a set of laws that exist outside of reality that we, as people in the *real world* know it." does it make more sense?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (May 21, 2005)

Space Coyote said:
			
		

> After seeing the first Star Wars movie when I was a kid, I was discussing the movie with my brother. I knew that my brother loved reading science fiction movies and watching sci-fi movies, but he didnt particularly care for Star Wars.
> 
> I asked him, "How come you dont like Star Wars, I thought you liked science fiction?"
> 
> ...




Star Wars is funny that way.  It not only draws upon many classic fantasy archetypes (young idealistic but naive hero, aged and mysterious mentor, descent into underworld, finding the hidden power within, etc...) but also quite plainly has magic.  It's the classic mythical fantasy story overlaid on a backdrop of starfighters and aliens.  Hell, they even fight with swords to rescue a princess.

Also, the whole "knight rescuing princess" thing is more properly romance than fantasy.  Some of the earliest popular fiction was French literature in the romance genre, and unless I'm mistaken it's the origin of the French word for novel, "roman."  However, the difference between romance and fantasy is, again, the presence of magic.  Not in the sense that an evil wizard kidnapped the princess, but in the sense that the world operates on a set of rules that are different than the real world, and this affects the outcome of the story, usually by the main character achieving some mastery over these rules.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (May 21, 2005)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> This really doesn't make sense. To people who live in a world with magic, magic is one of the laws of reality. Something outside the laws of reality cannot interact with that reality. Once it does, it is part of that reality.
> 
> Also, you are implying that world where doing X and Y always results in Z is not magic, yet the most popular fantasy book with magic in it at the moment is the Harry Potter books where magic is taught to children in a school. Sounds reproducible to me.
> 
> Ever read Master of the Five Magics by um er Lyndon Hardy? Magic that world was very codified. Does that mean it's not fantasy?




I'd argue that these aren't magic.  They're science.  If magic followed rules and was reproducable by anyone, it's not magic anymore.  To a certain extent Harry Potter makes a nod in this direction--not everyone is a wizard, after all.  But magic has traditionally divorced itself from mundane science by having two major features: It focuses on personal strength of will rather than simply knowing how to wave your hands and what words to say, and it follows rules of common sense, rather than reason.  In science, all effects follow logically from their causes, and the connection is drawn by reference to mechanistic laws.  In magic, effects follow causes by way of common sense, so you end up with rules such as "like affects like".

I think that it's fairly definitive of magic that it's not supposed to be something that just anyone can do, and that it "breaks the rules".  It seems to follow its own logic, but that can be altered by someone who masters it.  I think perhaps that's one of the reasons that Harry Potter seems somewhat uninteresting to me, and why I'm not fond of Vancian magic.  It's too...all worked out ahead of time.


----------



## JohnClark (May 21, 2005)

I think it's more an issue of feel than of any specific thing that defines a genre. For example, there's no reason you couldn't have elves in a sci-fi setting. The way I seperate them is just the overall tone of things. Take Star Trek vs. Star Wars. In Star wars there's no real effort to explain the technology, and as you said the mystical force that is also unexplained pervades the setting. In Star Trek it's basically wall to wall technobabble and there's no mystical aspect. I'm not sure how concrete of a definition that is, but I don't think there's a clear line where this side is fantasy, that side is sci-fi.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 21, 2005)

> *jmucchiello*:
> Ever read Master of the Five Magics by um er Lyndon Hardy? Magic that world was very codified. Does that mean it's not fantasy?






> *Dr. Awkward* :
> I'd argue that these aren't magic. They're science. If magic followed rules and was reproducable by anyone, it's not magic anymore. To a certain extent Harry Potter makes a nod in this direction--not everyone is a wizard, after all. But magic has traditionally divorced itself from mundane science by having two major features: It focuses on personal strength of will rather than simply knowing how to wave your hands and what words to say, and it follows rules of common sense, rather than reason. In science, all effects follow logically from their causes, and the connection is drawn by reference to mechanistic laws. In magic, effects follow causes by way of common sense, so you end up with rules such as "like affects like".




I have yet to see a magic system that DOESN'T follow rules, and just because they aren't spelled out for us doesn't mean the rules don't exist.  "Rules following" can't be the dividing line.

Yes, Arthur Clark said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."  That doesn't mean there aren't factors we can point at that allow us to distinguish between Sci-Fi, Fantasy, and Horror genres.

With certain exceptions (that we can find with a little work):

Sci-Fi almost always deals with a tech level/setting ranging from the recent past to the distant future _relative to the author at the time of its writing_.  Most of it is speculative in nature- trying to predict societal structures and inventions, extrapolating from current scientific understanding, once again, from the viewpoint _of the author_.  It deals with *what might be*.

Fantasy almost always deals with a technological level/setting that we would recognize as "The Past" in some way, usually between 500-1000 years ago.  What speculation there is is largely about outcomes of situations, like wars, rather than the invention of new technologies.  The questions about the future of the characters is personal, possibly apocalyptic, but the societal structures are usually familiar in some way.

Horror is also written temporally relative to the author, and usually deals with the recent past, present, or near future.  It has a fairly mundane backdrop which is used to accentuate and emphasize the_ otherness_ of the adversary, which may range from the mundane evil of man to the supernatural evil of completely alien, immeasurably powerful beings.


----------



## Afrodyte (May 21, 2005)

*my working definition of fantasy*

A definition of fantasy that I find particularly functional is the one this guy uses: "a world in which the exotic, the ancient, the far-away and legendary is still solid and immanent, a fact of life."  However, I replace "world" with "piece" or "work" to emphasize the product rather than the setting.


----------



## Mean Eyed Cat (May 21, 2005)

I thought I would post the policy from the US Library of Congress regarding how they define Fantasy and Science Fiction.  While many may feel they are not the final authority on this subject, I thought it would be interesting to have the opinion of the world’s largest library on this matter (actually, this policy might make things a little more obscure). Here it is:

A. Fantasy 

Fantasy includes the sub-genres of science fiction, horror and adaptations of traditional myths. The distinguished writer, Arthur C. Clarke, has stated that "any sufficiently advanced technology is undistinguishable from magic." (Omni, April 1980, p. 87.). This view is borne out by the fact that the distinctions between science fiction and the various other sub-genres of fantasy are indeed blurred at times and usually artificial. In fact, many authors in the genre frequently cross these artificial barriers in mid-work or in mid-career. Publishers, furthermore, often confuse these sub-genre identifications even further by failing to differentiate among them.

Publishers do, however, frequently identify books in these various sub-genres with tags which usually appear on the spine or cover of the individual books stating that they are specifically fantasy, horror, science fiction, etc. These tags may be very useful in identifying materials whose precise classification is doubtful or subject to various interpretations.

Although difficult to define with precision, fantasy usually requires a willing suspension of disbelief. Works in its various sub-genres often 1) adapt, rework, or provide an alternate telling of a myth or folktale; 2) involve an alternate reality or alternate universe; 3) rely on a displacement of time or space; or 4) make use of elements of the horrific, supernatural, paranormal, or the occult.

B. Science fiction 

In addition to sharing any or all of the general characteristics listed above for fantasy, science fiction usually 1) is speculative in nature; 2) assumes change as a given; 3) projects a story-line into the future or into an alternative reality or history; 4) explores a problem in technology, culture, philosophy, etc. beyond its current state; and 5) presents an atmosphere of scientific credibility regardless of the reality. Not all science fiction 1) takes place in the future; 2) involves space travel; 3) describes technology beyond current reality; or 4) deals with alien cultures. However, these elements are common in this sub-genre and uncommon outside it.

More can be read here:  Library of Congress


----------



## S'mon (May 21, 2005)

I think Celebrim's definition of fantsy might work for 'high fantasy' - Tolkien, Stephen Donaldson, even CS Lewis, arguably even for Moorcock's high fantasy swords & sorcery (Elric, Corum).  It doesn't make much sense for low fantasy though - REH (Conan) or Leiber (Fafhrd/Mouser) though. Or Vance (Dying Earth), or even Gene Wolfe (Book of the New Sun).


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (May 21, 2005)

I largely agree with the Library of Congress.

The only exceptions/additions I would make would be:

A.) Some discussions of the man vs. world/world building plot dynamic.

B.) An addendum discussing how horror works, particularly distinguishing it by its commanility of narrative form and tone.

C.) Not really in the same category of certainty as the other but I think it is possible to construct a fairly structured hierarchy of the major fantasy sub-genres.  Most of the sub-genres have pretty specific relationships to each other in terms of both structure and prestige, in much the same way that literature has the ability to claim greater prestige over any aspect of the fantasy genre by default and may also carefully co-opt certain tropes. The only area of slippage that I might predict in such a structure would be between varying genres of science fiction.  As, for instance, Atwood's claim that she does not write science fiction as there are no ray-guns and monsters, or, on the other hand, the divisions of the fantastic that might result in a book falling into science fiction as we are discussing here.


----------



## sword-dancer (May 21, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Please do elaborate.  The breadth of my fantasy reading is nowhere near as strong as my Sci-Fi, but I'm not offering these definitions from complete illiteracy.
> .



Kane from Karl Edward Wagner, the "Hero" is in fact the biblical Caine, and his opponents are normally as evil as he is.

Elric, good vs evil?, Elric feeds Souls to his sword, and e is the good guy.


----------



## Celebrim (May 21, 2005)

"It doesn't make much sense for low fantasy though - REH (Conan) or Leiber (Fafhrd/Mouser) though. Or Vance (Dying Earth), or even Gene Wolfe (Book of the New Sun)."

Conan and Fafhrd simply offer different definitions of what is heroic than the Judeo-Christian tradition, but that doesn't mean that Conan and Fafhrd aren't heroic examples.  In fact, Conan and Fafhrd are the same sort of characters as Theseus and Oddyseus - both of whom are explicitly within the story moral models despite the fact that we (from our moral perspectives) might find thier treachery less than virtuous.  There are several different ways that one can define 'virtue'.  One of the classic ways to do it is through a narrative.  Conan, Fafhrd, and (for example) The Count du Monte Cristo and John Carter are all classic boy heroes designed to enstill in boys a certain admiration for thier courage, perserverance, cunning, and other classic 'warrior virtues'.  Sometimes this is explicitly the goal (it certainly is with ERB's John Carter and Tarzan), and sometimes this is merely a side effect of writing a story which appeals to those 'boyish virtues'.  In fact, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser in particular are interesting because there are points in the stories where Fafhrd seems to be on the verge of moral revelation but never quite completes the thoughts that reader reading the story can make.  

I've only read one Vance story and I don't remember much of it, but I wouldn't be surprised to find the same true about Vance.

And Gene Wolfe only appears to be a work of low fantasy, and is only fantasy in part (at the least).  I generally classify Book of the New Sun as science fiction.  Book of the New Sun is an extremely complex work, and its hard to summerize it.  Once you begin carving away the settings trappings, he is in fact explicitly science fiction, and one the questions he's most concerned with in Book of the New Sun is what is the nature of identity.  Another question he is interested in is how myth shapes the human experience, how stories become myths, and the relationship of telling stories to being human.  These are very much the concerns of alot of science fiction stories, and not the primary concerns of a fantasy story.  You are not generally going to see a fantasy in which the storyteller weaves the greek myth of Theseus, with the battle between the Monitor and the Merrimac, and with a short story by Ray Bradbury for the purpose of talking about how stories shape culture, nor does the typical fantasy retale the Appollo moon landing in mythic terms with a robot who remembers the actually history commenting on how the stories differ from the truth.


----------



## Celebrim (May 21, 2005)

sword-dancer said:
			
		

> Elric, good vs evil?, Elric feeds Souls to his sword, and he is the good guy.




What do you think the author is trying to assert about good and evil then?  Does the protagonist have to be a perfect model of goodness in order for the story to be about the nature of good and evil?


----------



## sword-dancer (May 21, 2005)

I don`t think the author is going in this story anything about good vs evil.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 21, 2005)

First off--I didn't read the whole thread...sorry.  If I am simply reiterating a view already expressed sorry.

It was my impression that the two genres were not separated through imagery but by ideology.  

Phantasy is a setting where it is believed that the past contains more power than the future or present.  There is/was a de-evolution.  The past holds all of the secrets and the societies of the past were more advanced.  Which is why I believe typical imagery for phantasy works contain middle age imagery.  The middle ages being one of the few times in human history when it was generally believed that past civilizations were more advanced (though arguably not in actuallity).  And with this mystery of past springs usually a secondary or tertiary form of mytery such as magic or monsters--devils of our lack of knowledge if you will.

Science Fiction is a setting that is just the oposite.  The future always contains more knowledge and mystery.  The further you go into the future the more advanced and powerful you become...understanding controls mystery allowing a leashing of the power through discovery.  Magic is usually developed rather than found (magic being a catch word for mysterious powers) and can eventually co-exist as a form of ultimate understanding.  Mysteries are a matter of debate and disection rather than faith and acceptance.  

Some maintain that science fiction is any medium that contains a degree of science that doesn't exist and phantasy is environment that can never exist save for in the imagination.

I believe these are the general parameters for old genre theory, but with the slow seeping of new genre theory, from rhetoric to literature, I imagine most of these arguments will become mute--if not irrelevant.


----------



## Westgate Polks (May 21, 2005)

Different people define Sci-Fi and Fantasy differently; their view points ARE important depending upon the circumstances.  For example, if I am Ray Bradbury and I write a new short story and call it Sci-Fi, then for all intents and purposes that new work will "be" Sci-Fi - at least in terms of how it is marketed and stocked in book stores.  Similarly, if I am a senior editor at TOR Publishing and I say a manuscript is Fantasy, then the book will be dealt with accordingly.

If we examine what about the story itself defines it as either Sci-Fi or Fantasy, then we can ignore the above thoughts.  I find that Orson Scott Card has working definitions as good as I have seen:

"If the story is set in a universe that follows the same rules as ours, it's science fiction.  If the story is set in a universe that doesn't follow our rules, it's fantasy.  

In other words, science fiction is about what _could_ be but isn't and fantasy is about what _couldn't_ be." <How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy - O.S. Card>

Starting with (for me) what's makes fantasy really fantasy, magic doesn't exist (at least in the scope of our science and our collective understanding).  Therefore, stories containing magic are fantasy.  Turning to Sci-Fi, the big item is space flight.  And while our current understanding of relativity precludes FTL travel, there is no reason to assume that we COULD NOT develop that technology.  Therefore, FTL is a scf-fi artifice.

Using these rules of thumb to explore some common films and books, we determine that Star Trek, Babylon 5, and Battlestar Galactica are all Sci-FI (well, duh).  We get to Star Wars, however, and things begin to get a little crazy.  We have the ships, the droids, etc. that all point to Sci-Fi.  But we get to The Force and we have to think awhile.  If The Force is magic, then Star Wars would be a fantasy work.  But very few (if any) people would NOT consider Star Wars Sci-Fi.  Therefore, we have to find a way to explain The Force using the laws of our universe; it's not easy.  Looking at the Lord of the Rings, the magic of Gandalf, Sauron, and Saruman clearly make the trilogy as fantasy.  The same is true of the Wheel of Time series.

The biggest division seems to be magic - because our universe does not seem to include magic (certainly nothing in our scientific knowledge points to magic) it's presence essentially instantly indicates Fantasy.

The real stickler (and the item that led to this thread) is psionics.  These abilities seem to be magical (or at least mirror magical effects) and yet they exist is what appear to be Sci-Fi realms.  I believe we classify these abilities as mental (either as the product of different synaptic pathways, the usage of a higher percentage of brain capacity, or as some type of mutation).  Of course, this leads to the introduction of a "Sci-Fi" element into a "Fantasy" setting and some people disdain that notion (or visa-versa).


----------



## Celebrim (May 21, 2005)

> Using these rules of thumb to explore some common films and books, we determine that Star Trek, Babylon 5, and Battlestar Galactica are all Sci-FI (well, duh). We get to Star Wars, however, and things begin to get a little crazy. We have the ships, the droids, etc. that all point to Sci-Fi. But we get to The Force and we have to think awhile. If The Force is magic, then Star Wars would be a fantasy work. But very few (if any) people would NOT consider Star Wars Sci-Fi.




Well, I'm one of those people that most certainly does not consider Star Wars sci-fi.  It's a typical faerie tale story of farmboy meets wizard, goes on quest to save a princess, learns to use a sword and magic, and ends up slaying the 'dragon' and saving the kingdom.   The fact that the sword is a 'light sabre', the wizard is a 'jedi', and the stead is a starship is pretty much irrelevant.

Battlestar Galactica and Babylon 5 are borderline cases which are really hard to classify and it would probably depend on the particular episode in question.  Some of the episodes are science fiction in character, but mostly they are fantasy.

Babylon 5 features angels, demons, magic (psionics) and a battle between good and evil.  Psionics are nothing but magic.  They make no attempt to appeal to any rational force, and there is no attempt to explain how they defy principals like conservation of energy.  

Likewise, Battlestar Galactica features angels, demons, and is principally interested in theological questions like 'who is god?', 'where do we come from?', 'is this all that there is?' and 'what is the difference between good and evil'?  This was certainly true of the old battlestar galatica, and appears to be true of the new Battlestar Galactica.  So sure, there are some sci-fi elements to both B5 and BG, but both of them belong to the much wider range of fantasy.

Star Trek is similarly complex and deals with different themes from episode to episode, but it leans more strongly Sci-Fi than either B5 or BG.  Despite its meaningless technobabble, elves (vulcans), orcs (klingons) the typical episode is that we get to meet something which isn't human, and then we get to see how this thing that isn't human is different or similar to humans.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 22, 2005)

Star Wars is phantasy.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 22, 2005)

I'm afraid I'd have to categorize Vance's _Dying Earth_ stories as sci-fi, despite the fantasy feel and the fact that they're the origin of IOUN Stones and the "fire and forget" magic system common to all versions of D&D.  Other aspects of the story are clearly sci-fi (setting the stories hundreds of millions of years into the future of Earth is one)- and the "magic" of the stories could just as easlly be explained by Clark's aphorism about high-tech.



> *Celebrim*
> Well, I'm one of those people that most certainly does not consider Star Wars sci-fi. It's a typical faerie tale story of farmboy meets wizard, goes on quest to save a princess, learns to use a sword and magic, and ends up slaying the 'dragon' and saving the kingdom. The fact that the sword is a 'light sabre', the wizard is a 'jedi', and the stead is a starship is pretty much irrelevant.




That tech is not irrelevant at all.  That storyline plus the interstellar tech level trappings put Star Wars solidly into the subgenre of Sci-fi called space opera.  The impossible odds, the mysticism, etc., would be completely familiar to any audience in the past 500 years but for the fact that its all wrapped up in technology.

See also_ Battlefield Earth_, in which virtually powerless humans throw off the shackles of interplanetary, slavery, largely through the interaction of luck and deus ex machina.  In hard sci-fi, those humans would be dust (possibly literally), yet because this is space-opera, success is _never_ in doubt.  The outcome is certain, what is in question is the journey.

In space opera, what matters is the story (which is usually some variant on a classical trope).  The heroes must succeed, the villains must fail, and all must do  so spectacularly.  When something would render the desirable outcome impossible, <insert technology here>.  The tech is the magic is the tech.


----------



## Celebrim (May 22, 2005)

> Science Fiction is a setting that is just the oposite. The future always contains more knowledge and mystery. The further you go into the future the more advanced and powerful you become...understanding controls mystery allowing a leashing of the power through discovery.




Except that this definition would completely exclude post-apocalyptic settings (like David Brin's 'The Postman'), and future primitive settings in which humanity has forgotten much of what it once knew (Gene Wolfe's 'Book of the New Sun' is an example, but maybe not the best one).  Also, what would you do with a work like Robert Silverburg's 'Dying Inside' which isn't set in the future at all?


----------



## Celebrim (May 22, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I'd have to categorize Vance's _Dying Earth_ stories as sci-fi, despite the fantasy feel and the fact that they're the origin of IOUN Stones and the "fire and forget" magic system common to all versions of D&D.  Other aspects of the story are clearly sci-fi (setting the stories hundreds of millions of years into the future of Earth is one)- and the "magic" of the stories could just as easlly be explained by Clark's aphorism about high-tech.




I'm afraid I'm not much of an expert on Vance.  I've got much of his collected works downstairs, but I've only read one story and it didn't really grab me.  'Sufficiently Advanced Technology' provides a useful way to hand wave away the problems with realism, and its one of the reasons why definitions like OSC's (much as I respect him as a writer) don't fully hold up once we start talking about high sci-fi works like Iain M. Banks culture setting, Charles Stross's works, or for that matter even something as lowbrow as Star Trek.  There are alot of reasons in science to suspect that things like FTL travel, production of near infinite energy without waste heat, thousands of native sentient species per galaxy, interstellar trade empires, artificial gravity without rotation, time travel, long distance macro-mass teleportation and so forth are impossible.  Maybe not strictly impossible, because its hard to prove a negative, but certainly as best as we know impossible and the more we learn the more fraught with difficulty they appear sort of impossible.  Yet, we wave them off as a necessary conventions of the genera and pretend to themselves that someday the god of technology will render the strictly impossible as possible as it rendered the seemingly impossible possible in the past.  How can we then continue to think that we are talking about 'this universe' when the laws of this universe are broken whenever it is conveinent to the story?

The answer is that being 'in this universe' isn't really the point.

Look at it from a different angel.  If you are setting out to write a story - say a war story - what is the attraction of setting it in space?  Why not set the story in the present or past in the universe as we understand it?  Certainly some literary snobs seem to think that that is the surest sign of maturity.  But what is the attraction of placing the war in space when the fundamental conflicts and story could just as easily be set anywhere?  Put most simply, why write science fiction in the first place?  The answer is I think bound up in the notion of the 'the alien'.  The attraction of writing science fiction is it allows us to introduce the device of the truly alien, whether it be an alien species with appearance and custums different to us, or an alien place physically or psychologically (usually both) where we have no record of mankind ever being before.   By using this device, you can hold up humanity as if into a mirror and mentally examine humanity in a revealing way (or what you believe to be a revealing way) that you just can't when you have no basis of comparison or contrast.  



> That tech is not irrelevant at all.  That storyline plus the interstellar tech level trappings put Star Wars solidly into the subgenre of Sci-fi called space opera.  The impossible odds, the mysticism, etc., would be completely familiar to any audience in the past 500 years but for the fact that its all wrapped up in technology.




I'm not sure I understand you.  Or you saying that the space opera is a 500 year-old genera, or are you merely saying that 'space opera' is fantasy with a high tech spin?  Or something completely different?  If you are agreeing that 'space opera' is merely the latest verion of a 500 year old genera, then I don't see on what disagree.  Let me just say that I don't think that 'alien abduction' stories are fundamentally different from 'being abducted by the faerie people', except that each is garbed in the trappings necessary to suspend a certain level of disbelief in the society of the time.   Likewise, 'space opera' is by and large just a genera of romantic fantasy.  I wouldn't however feel entirely comfortable with saying that all 'space opera' is merely reclothed romantic fantasy, and that in particular what we see at the beginning of the Golden Age is space opera's beginning to take on those more serious questions like 'who are we?'



> See also_ Battlefield Earth_...




*shudder* I'd rather not.  Once was enough.  More than enough.  I'll say this, LRH's introduction to the story is a laugh riot.  Too bad the joke is on him.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 22, 2005)

Many (perhaps even most?) post-apocalyptic settings are phantasy.  The difference emerges from the application and ideology of the characters concerning the past and present coupled with the setting's realm of imagination and/or (fictional)reality.  

Science Fiction post-apocalyptic settings involve a belief that there is a rebuilding in the same fashion that was accomplished in the past.  The methods are the same...there are no mysteries there are unknowns.  Knowledge has been lost...but WILL be rebuild...if given enough time.  

In a phantasy post-apocalyptic setting power isn't so much rebuilt as discovered or developed through some sort of vergence.  There is an intuit belief that the past always contains more knowledge than the future...which is the BIGGEST phantasy in phantasy.


----------



## Corinth (May 22, 2005)

Publishers, advertisers and the general public disagree with all of this academic dialogue.  The distinction, for them, really is all about the trappings.  If it looks like X, then it is X and that's how the labels get applied- and those labels stick.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 22, 2005)

Yep.

edit:  And to be fair, there are cross genre compostions, genre bending fiction, and even satirical works examining genre.  So, most of this literary classification is really quite irrelevant--to most people.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 22, 2005)

> Celebrim
> If you are agreeing that 'space opera' is merely the latest verion of a 500 year old genera, then I don't see on what disagree. Let me just say that I don't think that 'alien abduction' stories are fundamentally different from 'being abducted by the faerie people', except that each is garbed in the trappings necessary to suspend a certain level of disbelief in the society of the time. Likewise, 'space opera' is by and large just a genera of romantic fantasy. I wouldn't however feel entirely comfortable with saying that all 'space opera' is merely reclothed romantic fantasy, and that in particular what we see at the beginning of the Golden Age is space opera's beginning to take on those more serious questions like 'who are we?'




We don't agree.  What you call fantasy, in the case of Star Wars in particular, I call Space Opera, a subgenre of Sci-fi, which has commonalities with classic opera.  However, where opera has its spirits and dragons and magic, Space Opera uses tech to leap the bounds of improbability.

Like classic opera, space opera is all about conventions.  In both, there is no question that the good guy will win, whatever the odds.  The bad side will ALWAYS lose.  Evildoers actions will rebound upon them.

Where they differ is that opera invokes fate, the Norns, Divine Justice, etc., concepts based in human mythology, whereas space opera depends on speculative tech-usually moreso than hard sci-fi.

Yes- you're right that _Star Wars_ has a fantasy feel to it- it was, after all, based on the Samurai movies of Akira Kurosawa.  But the setting makes all the difference.  It is a self evident truth that any tale can be told in any setting.  I've seen most of Shakespeare's plays, ranging from straight up to cultural retellings (_Ran_), to modern (_West Side Story, Romeo Must Die, 10 things I hate about you, and Richard the 3rd in a Naziesque setting_).  _Wrath of Khan_ was a retelling of _Moby Dick_, as was _Of Unknown Origin_.

After all, there are only 5 major plots: Man against Man, Man against Self, Man against God, Man against Society, and Man against Nature.  All the rest is details and backdrops.

Edit: _The Science of Star Wars_ is airing RIGHT NOW (1AM CST, May22) on Discover.  Unless it were a show about swords and trebuchets, I doubt you'd see "The Science of Lord of the Rings" on any channel.


----------



## S'mon (May 22, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Conan and Fafhrd simply offer different definitions of what is heroic than the Judeo-Christian tradition, but that doesn't mean that Conan and Fafhrd aren't heroic examples.  In fact, Conan and Fafhrd are the same sort of characters as Theseus and Oddyseus - both of whom are explicitly within the story moral models despite the fact that we (from our moral perspectives) might find thier treachery less than virtuous.  There are several different ways that one can define 'virtue'...




But what I was responding to was your statement "Fantasy is the genera of fiction which primarily seeks to address the question of, 'What is the meaning of good and evil?', and similar abstract moral questions by incarnating or extantiating the abstract principals as tangible things, and then producing from there a narrative structure which serves to illustrate the principal in question. A fantasy is at its heart a morality tell which serves to warn against or promote certain sorts of behavior" - you're now stretching it to include any tale with an heroic protagonist!  Including myths like the Odyssey, apparently.  The idea that Conan or Fafhrd/Mouser are 'morality tales' in any sense, even a "non Judaeo-Christian" sense, seems ridiculous to me.  This kind of swords & sorcery fiction takes a highly modernist approach which deliberately eschews the very things you claim to be characteristic of fantasy.

Now, like I said, your definition somewhat fits a wide range of high fantasy, not just "Christian fantasy" like Tolkien & Lewis - I would say Moorcock's humanist swords & sorcery fits it pretty well, for instance.  But stories of amoral heroes battling other amoral characters or evil wizards has IMO almost nothing to do with "'What is the meaning of good and evil?', and similar abstract moral questions by incarnating or extantiating the abstract principals as tangible things, and then producing from there a narrative structure which serves to illustrate the principal in question".


----------



## Wombat (May 22, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> But what I was responding to was your statement "Fantasy is the genera of fiction which primarily seeks to address the question of, 'What is the meaning of good and evil?', and similar abstract moral questions by incarnating or extantiating the abstract principals as tangible things, and then producing from there a narrative structure which serves to illustrate the principal in question. A fantasy is at its heart a morality tell which serves to warn against or promote certain sorts of behavior" - you're now stretching it to include any tale with an heroic protagonist!  Including myths like the Odyssey, apparently.  The idea that Conan or Fafhrd/Mouser are 'morality tales' in any sense, even a "non Judaeo-Christian" sense, seems ridiculous to me.  This kind of swords & sorcery fiction takes a highly modernist approach which deliberately eschews the very things you claim to be characteristic of fantasy.




Have to agree with this.  I mean, I love Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser, but the notion that their tales are all about Good vs. Evil, or any other specifically moral centerpiece, is rather ridiculous.  Those tales, which are definitely fantasy, are more about rollicking good times, close work with swords and danger, and Boys' Own Adventures writ large and bawdy.  Yes, I would agree that several fantasy works deal with Good vs. Evil, but not all or even necessarily the majority.  The Conan tales might be labelled as having a social darwinist feel to them, but that is about as close as you come to Good vs. Evil, and given the many hands that have written Conan stories after the fact the tales go all over the board.

And then what of Lovecraft?  Does he count as horror or as science fiction?  His antagonists are aliens in an alternate dimension who would crush all of humanity, not out of any hatred of humans, per se, but rather simply because humans cannot fathom the reality that the Great Old Ones represent; still, later writers try to impose morality or at least elemental identifications on several of these beings.

And for all of this you will always have books that defy definition.  Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun will never really feel "set" in any category.  It is at the end time of our planet, in that the sun is red and will soon go out altogether.  There are space-travelling aliens with strange devices that defy description.  There are sword fights.  There are strange monsters and maidens in distress.  There are psychic powers.  There are dungeons and torturers.  There are doctrinaire communists versus ardent royalists.  There moral considerations, considerations on what makes one human, and literally hundreds of embedded stories -- where do these books fall in a category?

I think the problem with these definitions is that no one will agree.  Offered for your consideration are three possible solutions:

1)  Call it Speculative Fiction and include everything we consider sci fi, fantasy, and horror, withouth further differentiation.
2)  Breakdown between Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror, based primarily on gut reaction or publisher's whim.
3)  Subdivided into 200+ micro-genres that everyone gets confused over and can never remember.

I am willing to walk into a bookstore and find the SciFi/Fantasy area, which usually has Horror right next door.  I am quite willing to look for the books that I like, withouth worrying about which books truly belongs where.  The most important distinction I can think of is Authors I Like versus Authors I Do Not Like.  **shrug**


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 22, 2005)

I'd categorize Lovecraft's "C'thulhu Mythos" stories as horror with a sci-fi element.

From your description, I'd categorize Wolfe's "New Sun" stuff like Vance's "Dying Earth" stories- Sci-fi with fantastic elements, with Clark's "Sufficiently Advanced Tech" words in mind. 

Leiber's duo and Howard's Conan are solidly fantasy- I'm unaware of any sci-fi elements in either series.  There are, however, horror elements.


----------



## Celebrim (May 22, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> We don't agree...Yes- you're right that _Star Wars_ has a fantasy feel to it- it was, after all, based on the Samurai movies of Akira Kurosawa.  But the setting makes all the difference.  It is a self evident truth that any tale can be told in any setting.




You're right.  We just don't agree, and that answer makes it pretty clear that there isn't much in the way of middle ground between us, so its unlikely we'd ever be able to convince the other one of anything.  I simply can't agree that the setting makes all the difference, and that setting alone or fundamentally defines a genera.  The fundamental story and the questions it revolves around remains the same no matter how you dress the story.  If I take 'Beowulf' and dress him in powered battle armor and have him fight an alien monstrousity, it's still the same story.  If I move Hamlet to Alpha Centauri, and have his father a digital ghost, it's still the same story.


----------



## Celebrim (May 22, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> ...you're now stretching it to include any tale with an heroic protagonist!




No, I'm not.  Don't over simplify what I'm saying.  Have you ever studied ethics?  Do you understand the different ways in which ethical systems can be defined?  One of the most common ethical exortations simply boils down to, 'Live a heroic life.', and then accompany that with a narrative that gives an example of what you mean by 'heroic'.  Not every story with a heroic protagonist is explicitly a heroic narrative, but once the artist starts choosing to draw his characters larger than life and setting them in setting were good and bad are tangible things, then yes, I do think we've strayed into a story that is a heroic narrative and has metaphysical ambitions (or at the least is immitating stories that have metaphysical ambitions).



> Including myths like the Odyssey, apparently.




Yes, exactly.  I would argue that say 'super hero comic' books and Conan fantasy novels are merely the modern versions of an age old story telling system, and that the modern versions - even if they are expressedly fictional to the reader in a way that the older stories weren't to the listerners then - are no more or no less instructional morality plays than the Illiad and the Oddyssey.  



> The idea that Conan or Fafhrd/Mouser are 'morality tales' in any sense, even a "non Judaeo-Christian" sense, seems ridiculous to me.




Why?  Leiber is very much a 'boy's' writer in his style.  Have you read his works other than his 'Swords' stuff, for example 'The Wanderer'?  Writing in pseudonym about his own works, Leiber wrote: 

"What seems to make the Fafhrd Mouser stories stand out is that the two heroes are cut down to a plausible size without loss of romance and a believed in eerie, sorcerous atmosphere and with a welcome departure from forumla. They are neither physical supermen the caliber of Conan and John Carter, nor moral or metaphysical giants like Tolkien's Strider, etc., and Morcock's Elrich. They win out by one quarter brains, another quarter braun, and at least fifty percent sheer luck. They have an engaging self interest, blind spots and vices, a gallantry of sorts, and an ability to laugh at themselves - even if the Mouser occasionally quite galling. One's first impression may be that the Mouser is the darkly clever comedian and Fafhrd the somewhat stupid straight man, or Fafhrd the hero and Mouser the comic relief, but a little reading reveals the self infatuation underlying and sometimes tripping the Mouser's cunning, and also the amiable wisdom that now and then shows through Fafhrd's lazy complacency."

To me that smacks of a conscious or at least emotional desire to say something about the nature of heroism and life in general.  If physical supermen like Conan and John Carter, and obviously metaphysical constructs like Aragorn and Elrich don't appeal to Leiber as heroes, we have to ask why they don't appeal to Leiber as heroes.  Why create such earthy heroes and then place them into such highly metaphysical sitautions as a confrontation against an incarnated Death? 



> This kind of swords & sorcery fiction takes _a highly modernist approach_ which _deliberately eschews_ the very things you claim to be characteristic of fantasy.



 [emphasis mine]

Would you look at what you just wrote again?    



> Now, like I said, your definition somewhat fits a wide range of high fantasy, not just "Christian fantasy" like Tolkien & Lewis - I would say Moorcock's humanist swords & sorcery fits it pretty well, for instance.  But stories of amoral heroes battling other amoral characters or evil wizards has IMO almost nothing to do with "'What is the meaning of good and evil?', and similar abstract moral questions by incarnating or extantiating the abstract principals as tangible things, and then producing from there a narrative structure which serves to illustrate the principal in question".




I'm not sure if you have actually come up with an example of amoral heroes battling other amoral characters and amoral wizards in a setting berift of any metaphysical things made tangible, and free of any implicit or explicit message about how to (or not to) live ones life.  At most you've shown that Fafrd and the Grey Mouser (and Conan for that matter) might serve as some sort of satirical jab at the heroic characters of other fantasies, because they are very much espousing a raw philosophy which is superficially the anti-thesis of the Victorian heroes, but I don't even buy that you can look at the stories that simply.  Fafrd and the Grey Mouser (while they are very different sort of characters) often serve the same sort of narrative role that Forest Gump serves in that though they may pass through these tales without ever having the insight to see what this all means, we the reader can see from thier perspecitive things that they the character can't.  And even if you could argue that Leiber wasn't conscious of the fact that fantasy was a metaphysical framework in which moral things could be incarnated in forms more tangible and easy to relate to - and I don't think you can - it would nonetheless remain that the whole genera of swords and sorcery, clerics, wizards and whatnot that he dipped his pen in was, so that even if he wrote had no intellectual or moral guidance in mind, he couldn't help but tripping over metaphors every where he went.  

It's been more than 15 years since I've read the Swords series, but if I must I'll go back into them.  But as long as we are going to argue this, let's drag up a few more stories which are difficult to characterize and see what we can make of them.  Neil Stephenson's 'Snow Crash'; fantasy or science fiction?  Anne Mcaffrey's 'Dragon Rider of Pern'; fantasy or science fiction?  Neil Stephenson's 'Baroque Cycle'; fantasy, science fiction, or merely historical romance?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 23, 2005)

Celebrim, it is a fact: certain story types are defined by setting, others by story-type, others by style of narrative, and other factors.

A comedy is a story type that can have any kind of setting (fantasy, sci-fi, horror, romantic)- its defining characteristic is its predominant use of humor, as opposed to humor as used in other styles of storytelling- to break dramatic tension, to highlight the horror of what comes next, etc.  Likewise, a thriller is defined not by setting, but by narrative style.

Sci-Fi and Fantasy are dependent upon setting.  Near future vs improbable past, far-future vs the plainly impossible, etc.  Either genre can be used to tell any kind of story- cautionary tales, comedies, tragedies- the difference is in the trappings, in the possibility of certain events, and certain mechanisms

Then there are classics: tales we are all so familiar with that we recognize them no matter how they are disguised (or would, with the proper cultural references): _La Boheme_ as _Rent_; _King Lear_ as _Ran_; _Moby Dick_ as _Wrath of Khan_;  _The Tempest_ as _Forbidden Planet_;  _Romeo and Juliet_ as _West Side Story_, _ Romeo Must Die_ or_ Romeo + Juliet_;  _The Oddysey_ as_ O Brother, Where Art Thou?_; _Taming of the Shrew_ as _10 things I hate about you_, etc.  Setting is unimportant.  Narrative style is unimportant- the only thing that matters is the story.

So, when you move Beowulf to the stars (like Larry Niven, Steven Barnes and Jerry Pournelle did in "The Legacy of Heorot" and "Beowulf's Children"), it is no less sci-fi than Asimov's "Nightfall."  Its a retelling of the tale in a sci-fi setting/way/etc., and is not epic poetry or fantasy.  Same story, different genre.


----------



## Celebrim (May 23, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> So, when you move Beowulf to the stars (like Larry Niven, Steven Barnes and Jerry Pournelle did in "The Legacy of Heorot" and "Beowulf's Children"), it is no less sci-fi than Asimov's "Nightfall."




That would work as a definition for me except - as this thread proves - no one seems able to provide an encompassing definition of what the science fiction setting is.   Sure, there are setting - such as 'too the stars' - which are so prevalent in science fiction and so essentially non-existant outside of it, that we could probably universally agree that they were a science fiction setting.  But notice that, for example, Orson Scott Card is very careful to avoid that sort of definition because he is well aware just how broad the sort of settings in which science fiction occurs have now become.  'Dying Inside' is set on a normal college campus.  So for that matter is 'As She Climbed Across the Table'.  The movie 'Sliding Doors' is set in the present day.  

And the playing field just keeps moving.  We are living in a science fiction world.  What happens today, happened only in the stories of a decade or two past.  Is the present world suddenly not a fitting setting for science fiction simply because it is the present?  If we move our definition of setting from place to time, what are we to do with science fiction stories set in the past?  If I write a story about alien landings in 1950 is it a fantasy, but if I write about alien landings in 2050 is it science fiction?  Is it only science fiction or fantasy because its implausible?  What about FTL travel?  What are the boundaries of implausibility around which implausible things are accepted in science fiction, but across the border lies fantasy?  What if I write a story about the disappearance of the clock work makers of Rhodes?  Now the story is plausible, and in the past, is it now not science fiction?


----------



## Campbell (May 23, 2005)

Celebrim, I'm interested what you would make of Roger Zelazney's Amber series. Given your definitions of science fiction and fantasy, I really can't find a place for it. While the activities of the Amberites seem to serve as a mirror for deeper questions of what it means to be human, the forces of the Courts of Chaos and the Order birthed Out of Chaos that Amber is a manifestation of itself seems to deal with the nature of good and evil.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 23, 2005)

Kurt R. A. Giambastiani , S.M. Stirling and Harry Turtledove (among others) have published many novels and stories set in the past in which something happens other than what ACTUALLY happened in real world history.  Some of them involve time travel, some explore what could have happened if a certain sequence of events had occurred differently.

This genre is called "Alternate History," and its considered Sci-fi.

Why: Alternate History doesn't involve magic explicitly, nothing occurs that violates actual or theoretical outgrowths of known science.


----------



## sword-dancer (May 23, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if you have actually come up with an example of amoral heroes battling other amoral characters and amoral wizards in a setting berift of any metaphysical things made tangible, and free of any implicit or explicit message about how to (or not to) live ones life.



The Saga of Kane.
Special Ravens Eyrie, Dark Crusade.
Elric of Melnibone would also fit this description.


----------



## S'mon (May 23, 2005)

Celebrim:
>>setting them in setting were good and bad are tangible things<<

Good & bad are _not_ tangible things in Fafhrd/Mouser, or Conan, or even Moorcock's fantasy.

>>are no more or no less instructional morality plays than the Illiad and the Oddyssey.  <<

"instructional morality play" just isn't a definition of fantasy IMO.  


>>Why?  Leiber is very much a 'boy's' writer in his style.  Have you read his works other than his 'Swords' stuff, for example 'The Wanderer'?  <<

Not that, but I've read a bunch of his short stories.

>>Writing in pseudonym about his own works, Leiber wrote: 

"What seems to make the Fafhrd Mouser stories stand out is that the two heroes are cut down to a plausible size without loss of romance and a believed in eerie, sorcerous atmosphere and with a welcome departure from forumla. They are neither physical supermen the caliber of Conan and John Carter, nor moral or metaphysical giants like Tolkien's Strider, etc., and Morcock's Elrich. They win out by one quarter brains, another quarter braun, and at least fifty percent sheer luck. They have an engaging self interest, blind spots and vices, a gallantry of sorts, and an ability to laugh at themselves - even if the Mouser occasionally quite galling. One's first impression may be that the Mouser is the darkly clever comedian and Fafhrd the somewhat stupid straight man, or Fafhrd the hero and Mouser the comic relief, but a little reading reveals the self infatuation underlying and sometimes tripping the Mouser's cunning, and also the amiable wisdom that now and then shows through Fafhrd's lazy complacency."<<

To me this supports my position, to you it supports yours.  *shrug*

>>To me that smacks of a conscious or at least emotional desire to say something about the nature of heroism and life in general. <<

"A desire to say something about life in general" is a good definition of all literature (as opposed to pure hack-work), I'd say.  A desire to say something about the nature of heroism is something that literary fantasy very commonly displays, but it shares this with many other genres.  And it's a long long way from "incarnated good and evil" which is very much a hallmark of 'high fantasy' written primarily in the JudaeoChristian/Zoroastrian tradition with "dark lords" vs "forces of light".

>>It's been more than 15 years since I've read the Swords series, but if I must I'll go back into them.  But as long as we are going to argue this, let's drag up a few more stories which are difficult to characterize and see what we can make of them.  Neil Stephenson's 'Snow Crash'; fantasy or science fiction?  Anne Mcaffrey's 'Dragon Rider of Pern'; fantasy or science fiction?  Neil Stephenson's 'Baroque Cycle'; fantasy, science fiction, or merely historical romance?<<

I'm not actually having the argument with you that you seem to think I'm having.  I was merely objecting to your initial definition of fantasy; which was too narrow and only fits high fantasy (IMO).  Since you then broadened it to include pretty much _everything_... *shrug*

I am on the side of "genre = trappings", but I don't regard genre as a very important label. Good authors are not constrained by genre.  Genre is an aid to publishers, to the buying public looking for books they'll enjoy, and I guess to hack writers cashing in for a quick buck.  Good authors play with it but are never constrained by it.


----------



## S'mon (May 23, 2005)

sword-dancer said:
			
		

> The Saga of Kane.
> Special Ravens Eyrie, Dark Crusade.
> Elric of Melnibone would also fit this description.




Elric isn't amoral, of course.  He thinks he's a good guy, only he destroys everything.  Basically he's an angsty Goth teenage adolescent trying to understand the world and why he's controlled by his Big Sword.  Unlike some posters I think Moorcock's swords & sorcery can be fitted to Celebrim's definition of fantasy, whereas Conan or Fafhrd/Mouser or Beowulf or the Iliad cannot.


----------



## Desdichado (May 23, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Please do elaborate.  The breadth of my fantasy reading is nowhere near as strong as my Sci-Fi, but I'm not offering these definitions from complete illiteracy.



What's the message with personified abstract principles in Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, or heck, all of the D&D fiction?

EDIT:  More detail below...


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Is such a broad definition that it would either be easily demonstrated against (we could find works we both agree are Sci-Fi but which contain elements which are 'flat-out impossible to explain') or else would encompass virtually the entire genera of Science Fiction.



According to the authors quote above who developed the definition, then those would also be fantasy.


----------



## Desdichado (May 23, 2005)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I largely agree with the Library of Congress.



So do I, as they appear to largely agree with me!    

It looks like we're pulling from the same sources, more or less, though, so that's not surprising.


----------



## Desdichado (May 23, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Conan and Fafhrd simply offer different definitions of what is heroic than the Judeo-Christian tradition, but that doesn't mean that Conan and Fafhrd aren't heroic examples.  In fact, Conan and Fafhrd are the same sort of characters as Theseus and Oddyseus - both of whom are explicitly within the story moral models despite the fact that we (from our moral perspectives) might find thier treachery less than virtuous.  There are several different ways that one can define 'virtue'.  One of the classic ways to do it is through a narrative.  Conan, Fafhrd, and (for example) The Count du Monte Cristo and John Carter are all classic boy heroes designed to enstill in boys a certain admiration for thier courage, perserverance, cunning, and other classic 'warrior virtues'.  Sometimes this is explicitly the goal (it certainly is with ERB's John Carter and Tarzan), and sometimes this is merely a side effect of writing a story which appeals to those 'boyish virtues'.



Celebrim, no offense, but I think you've talked yourself into a corner there.  If you say that fantasy is about abstract virtues made flesh, and then say that in many of these stories that abstract virtues are merely a side-effect of the characteristics of some of the characters, you are certainly not creating a very compelling argument.  The same could be said of any fictional character in any genre.


----------



## Psion (May 23, 2005)

Westgate Polks said:
			
		

> If we examine what about the story itself defines it as either Sci-Fi or Fantasy, then we can ignore the above thoughts.  I find that Orson Scott Card has working definitions as good as I have seen:
> 
> "If the story is set in a universe that follows the same rules as ours, it's science fiction.  If the story is set in a universe that doesn't follow our rules, it's fantasy.
> 
> In other words, science fiction is about what _could_ be but isn't and fantasy is about what _couldn't_ be." <How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy - O.S. Card>




Card's book has a first class discussion of what is and is not Sci-Fi and Fantasy in this book, and anyone feeling like they need closure on the issue (in addition to expecting to be disappointed) should check out this book.

To say the least, you leave a LOT out of his discussion. Yes, that statement is a good starting point, but is only a snippet in about 4 of 5 pages of discussion on the issue. The above statement follows a short recollection of how his story about a psionic character on a backwards planet got rejected from an SF magazine because it was not SF (_noted with delightful bemusement in reference to the inspiring thread_  ), Card goes on to discuss how established writers push and cross these boundaries, such as SF forays that end up dealing with gods, or fantasy yarns which are revealed to be on space colonies.

Card goes on to say cite, in the midst of all this confusion, what he thinks the REAL dividing line that is usually respected amongst editors (paraphrasing since the book is at home but I am not): *Science Fiction has plastic and metal and heavy machinery and fantasy does not.*



> Using these rules of thumb to explore some common films and books, we determine that Star Trek, Babylon 5, and Battlestar Galactica are all Sci-FI (well, duh).  We get to Star Wars, however, and things begin to get a little crazy.  We have the ships, the droids, etc. that all point to Sci-Fi.  But we get to The Force and we have to think awhile.  If The Force is magic, then Star Wars would be a fantasy work.  But very few (if any) people would NOT consider Star Wars Sci-Fi.




I think the above point by Card addresses the real WHY here.


----------



## Jupp (May 23, 2005)

While I am generally hesitant to agree with administrative authorities I have to give the Library of Congress the thumbs-up  I was looking for a good definition when I saw that link and for my taste they are pretty much spot on, generally. Sure, someone will always be able to find novels and stories that are cross-genre that thus could indicate someting different but they cannot be taken as an argument because of their special nature. Oh, and btw..."Christian fantasy" is a horrible term. Why do people always have to read biblical things into fantasy stories? That's somehow irritating


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (May 23, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> So do I, as they appear to largely agree with me!
> 
> It looks like we're pulling from the same sources, more or less, though, so that's not surprising.




Well, I think that the thing to recognize is that while there is some slippage the way you analyze this genre works best if you do set it up as a hierarchy.

So to answer one of your original questions:

No, I don't think psionics are un-fantasy.  There are a number of reasons I think that, but the most important is that I think fantasy is the larger genre, so once you've achieved the bare bones structure necessary to qualify pretty much anything goes.   There are more specific reasons I think psionics belong, but they don't go to the overall point.

On the other hand:

Fusangite has, in our perrenial arguments over the grace given to the Monk class, articulated an ethos of fantasy that, although I have numerous large scale objections to it, I find very intriguing in its specifics.  I don't think Fusangite thinks of this as an aesthetic in its own right otherwise I would have expected him to have posted to this thread already.  But the basics of it apply.  And that is that there is an organization to fantasy that relies on some very specific sense of 'cosmology' and that you can mount a critique based on how possible a thing would be within that sense.  Now bear in mind I am freely misrepresenting Fusangite to serve my own argument and observations, but hopefully he will show up and provide his own inimitable thoughts and spin on the issue.

Now I find that idea intriguing in this case as that would cover almost all of the complaints without providing a solution, since the idea works on a level below that of genre.   I can't really argue against the fact that works based off a star trek cosmology belong to some sort of coherent group, or at least I can't argue on that level though I certainly would on others, but it seems such an obvious point that it's hard to figure out what to do with it.  What I find fascinating is that if there is a disconnect between this idea of literary or conceptual coherence and the workings of genre, then a great many fans seem to be spending a great deal of labor trying to negotiate away or obliterate that disconnect.  That effort seems to me to be misdirected in that direction, but I'm certain that it accomplishes something or is significant of something I just don't know what.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (May 23, 2005)

Jupp said:
			
		

> Oh, and btw..."Christian fantasy" is a horrible term. Why do people always have to read biblical things into fantasy stories? That's somehow irritating




Well, LoC avoids the cross-genre thing by saying that most of these are sub-genres of something larger, which to my mind is a good move.

'Christian fantasy' is a horrible term, but it's not without merit.  Christians and Christianity were very important to the development of modern and contemporary fantasy.  It's just misleading for other reasons, and mostly people find it useful because of those misleading reasons.

Tolkien, for instance, is frequently claimed as Christian fantasy, but while I'm certain he did have some distinctly Christian ethical issues with fantasy I think his specific goal was probably distinctly a-Christian and I don't think it provides much more insight into his work than any of a number of other contexts and factors.  It's useful to talk about Christianity in relationship to Tolkien I don't think its useful as a genre designator.


----------



## Voadam (May 23, 2005)

I say again, 

Sci-Fi = High Tech

Fantasy = Magic

and add

Horror = Scary/Creepy

These seem the common usage and can be applied to every genre story I can think of pretty naturally. They are not mutually exclusive categories of an either/or type. It is easy to have a fantasy element in a Sci-Fi movie or a horror element in a fantasy story.


----------



## Voadam (May 23, 2005)

Westgate Polks said:
			
		

> Starting with (for me) what's makes fantasy really fantasy, magic doesn't exist (at least in the scope of our science and our collective understanding).  Therefore, stories containing magic are fantasy.  Turning to Sci-Fi, the big item is space flight.  And while our current understanding of relativity precludes FTL travel, there is no reason to assume that we COULD NOT develop that technology.  Therefore, FTL is a scf-fi artifice.
> 
> Using these rules of thumb to explore some common films and books, we determine that Star Trek, Babylon 5, and Battlestar Galactica are all Sci-FI (well, duh).  We get to Star Wars, however, and things begin to get a little crazy.  We have the ships, the droids, etc. that all point to Sci-Fi.  But we get to The Force and we have to think awhile.  If The Force is magic, then Star Wars would be a fantasy work.  But very few (if any) people would NOT consider Star Wars Sci-Fi.  Therefore, we have to find a way to explain The Force using the laws of our universe; it's not easy.  Looking at the Lord of the Rings, the magic of Gandalf, Sauron, and Saruman clearly make the trilogy as fantasy.  The same is true of the Wheel of Time series.
> 
> ...




Your categories are not mutually exclusive even though the ones from Card are. Magic and FTL space ships are not mutually exclusive. You don't have to find a way to explain the force so that it is not magic and still justifiably feel that it is a sci-fi movie if the definition of Sci-Fi is the space ships and blasters or other high tech and advanced science as opposed to a limiting definition of what sci-fi is not.


----------



## Voadam (May 23, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Fantasy is the genera of fiction which primarily seeks to address the question of, 'What is the meaning of good and evil?', and similar abstract moral questions by incarnating or extantiating the abstract principals as tangible things, and then producing from there a narrative structure which serves to illustrate the principal in question.   A fantasy is at its heart a morality tell which serves to warn against or promote certain sorts of behavior.
> 
> Fantasy is different from science fiction - and in particular soft science fiction - in that science fiction is typically not about morality, and instead is more interested in the question, "What does it mean to be human?", and the invented characters of science fiction (aliens, robots) serve not as embodiments of some moral principal, but rather as means by which humanity can be compared and contrasted with things that are not human in order to understand the fundamental things which make humans 'human'.
> 
> Swords, sorcery, space ships, ray guns, telepathy, and so forth have nothing to do with it.   Those are just incidental and conventional trappings of the art form.   Likewise, it has little to do with whether or not the invented things are 'realistic'.   Science fiction remains science fiction even if its blatantly unrealistic.   Fantasy remains fantasy even if its given a futuristic and technological setting.




A heroic morality tale addressing the meaning of good and evil can be placed in WWII with good and evil defined sides, etc. I would have a hard time classifying Saving Private Ryan as Fantasy in the same genre as Lord of the Rings, although they are both heroic war stories.

Seven Samurai is a heroic morality tale and has swords, but I would not classify it, or Last Samurai, etc. as Fantasy genre either. Wire Fu movies come closer when people start flying around with martial arts superhuman powers.

Classifying fantasy as morality tale seems arbitrary. Why not just call it a morality tale genre then if it has nothing to do with swords and sorcery?


----------



## Odhanan (May 23, 2005)

> Fantasy is the genera of fiction which primarily seeks to address the question of, 'What is the meaning of good and evil?', and similar abstract moral questions by incarnating or extantiating the abstract principals as tangible things, and then producing from there a narrative structure which serves to illustrate the principal in question. A fantasy is at its heart a morality tell which serves to warn against or promote certain sorts of behavior.
> 
> Fantasy is different from science fiction - and in particular soft science fiction - in that science fiction is typically not about morality, and instead is more interested in the question, "What does it mean to be human?", and the invented characters of science fiction (aliens, robots) serve not as embodiments of some moral principal, but rather as means by which humanity can be compared and contrasted with things that are not human in order to understand the fundamental things which make humans 'human'.
> 
> Swords, sorcery, space ships, ray guns, telepathy, and so forth have nothing to do with it. Those are just incidental and conventional trappings of the art form. Likewise, it has little to do with whether or not the invented things are 'realistic'. Science fiction remains science fiction even if its blatantly unrealistic. Fantasy remains fantasy even if its given a futuristic and technological setting.




Yes, I agree with all this to some extent. To summarize my point of view:
- Fantasy is about morality, and trying to develop the question "what is it, archetypally, to *be* human?", through the physical representation of abstract concepts.
- Science fiction answers "what if..." questions and tries to bring *meaning* and political theories (in the large sense of the word "political", not necessarily as "institutional" ). 

I am a fan of Fantasy. I despise Science Fiction.


----------



## Celebrim (May 23, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Classifying fantasy as morality tale seems arbitrary. Why not just call it a morality tale genre then if it has nothing to do with swords and sorcery?




Classifying fantasy as having something to do with swords and sorcery is equally arbitrary.

Captain America vs. Red Skull is WWII done as a fantasy.  Saving Private Ryan is not.   Seven Samurii comes alot closer, because the samurii do indeed have a mythic character as do the rifles which 'magically' cut them down.   Seven Samurii isn't a historical drama so much as a romance and the dividing line between romance and fantasy is not at all clear and bright to me.  At some level, movies like 'The Magnificent Seven', 'Fight Full of Dollars' and the 'True Grit' start shading off into fantasy as well.  This is particularly true of alot of Eastwood's later work in westerns like 'High Plains Drifter' and 'Pale Rider'.   But, no swords and sorcery are actually involved.


----------



## Andor (May 23, 2005)

*Lots of stuff*

It is an accepted convention of the Sci-Fi genre (and has been for as long as SF has existed as it's own genre) that the author gets one 'gimme' that he can handwave in order to tell the story he wishes to write. Often this is FTL, sometimes it is Psionics, sometimes aliens amoung us, time travel,  etc. 
________________________________________________________________

There is a distinction between hard sf and soft sf. In Hard SF the story revolves around the technology and the laws of nature (even if altered by the gimme) must be observed. Often exploring the ramifications of the gimme is the point of the story.

Examples include Asimovs Robot stories, Heinliens 'Beyond this Horizon', Poul Andersons Asteroid stories.

Soft SF uses the trappings of SF, but ignores the details of the technology to focus on the characters. Examples include Lois McMaster Bujolds 'Nexus' series although she often does spend a lot of time exploring the ramifications of new technology. I would also put Anne McCaffreys dragon books into this category although doubtless some would argue with me.
__________________________________________________________________

Psionics were explored as an area of scientific possibility during the silver age of science fiction and factored heavily into some archtypal stories like E.E. 'Doc' Smiths Lensmen series. 
They are still accepted as part of the genre in part because the jury is still out on the scientific validity of them. (I.E. Most studies show a staticially significant variance from pure chance.)

Nonetheless it is silly to claim they are not allowed in fantasy, because many of the powers associated with Psionics are also staples of fantasy. 

Tolkien in particular has many telepaths, and some other 'psionic' powers in his characters, he just doesn't use psionic terminology to describe them.
____________________________________________________________________

My personal take on Star wars is that it is fantasy just barely dressed in the trappings of SF. Nothing in the movies _ever_ hinges on technology. I think Lucas cast his story as SF instead of Fantasy because he (correctly) percieved that his audiance would respond more strongly to the SF trappings than they would to Fantasy trappings. 

The original Star Trek series is soft SF. The more recent series try to be, but they continually break my suspension of disbelief because the tech never works the same way twice. This is a crime by the standards of SF. 

Babylon 5 is hard SF. The one 'gimme' is Psionics and the emergance of them amoung humans is explained within the context of the series. The technology works consistantly within the series, and some episodes hinge on correct applications of technology. 
___________________________________________________________________

I'm with the past/future distinction between SF and Fantasy. David Brin as an excellent essay on the difference in his book 'Otherness'.

Fantasy looks to an ancient past when we reached heights unobtainable to us in these degenerate days. This has been a central feature of the genre since the tales of atlantis.

SF looks to building a future that is better than today. Even 'The Postman' falls within this context. The war may have delt civillization a setback, but all it take is a single seed crystal (the postman) for the rebuilding to begin. If you err, you learn and the move forward.

If a story doesn't look outside of itself then I look to the trappings.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 23, 2005)

> Unlike some posters I think Moorcock's swords & sorcery can be fitted to Celebrim's definition of fantasy, whereas Conan or Fafhrd/Mouser or Beowulf or the Iliad cannot.




I would say that a definition of fantasy that can exclude Conan, Fafhrd/Grey Mouser, Beowulf or Illiad is severely flawed.  In those stories, we have magic, supernatural entities, and even the occasional intervention _by the GODS_.



> At some level, movies like 'The Magnificent Seven', 'Fight Full of Dollars' and the 'True Grit' start shading off into fantasy as well. This is particularly true of alot of Eastwood's later work in westerns like 'High Plains Drifter' and 'Pale Rider'. But, no swords and sorcery are actually involved.




How?  Honestly, the veracity this assertion escapes me.  Where in these movies are the laws of reality broken?  Where is the supernatural?

Are you talking about "Hollywooditis' where 6-shooters never seem to run out of bullets?  Given the existence of speed loads, thats explainable in all but the most egregious examples.


----------



## Celebrim (May 23, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> How?  Honestly, the veracity this assertion escapes me.




There are alot of things I will put up with, but calling me a liar is not one of them.



> Where in these movies are the laws of reality broken?  Where is the supernatural?




Well, in both movies there is some indication that the men in question are actually avenging ghosts or other supernatural agents.  In both movies, the Eastwood character's existance seems bound by the frame of the story, appearing and disappearing mysteriously.  In 'High Plains Drifter' the entire movie has the surreal character of a horror story.  In Pale Rider, the Eastwood character is introduced accompanied by a prophetic reading from the Book of Revelation.  The movies never really clarify what the nature of the nameless gunman is, leaving the audience to wonder whether the man was left for dead, survived by mere natural means, and has returned for vengeance or whether something more supernatural is at play in man's quest for vengeance.  

I don't think its terribly original or contriversial for me to suggest that the genera of the Western is enfused with romantic fantasy elements.   For example, http://www.answers.com/topic/western-movie


----------



## Psion (May 23, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> There are alot of things I will put up with, but calling me a liar is not one of them.




I don't think he's calling you a liar, just the validity of your assertion.



> I don't think its terribly original or contriversial for me to suggest that the genera of the Western is enfused with romantic fantasy elements.   For example, http://www.answers.com/topic/western-movie




Having _elements_ (or common elements; I don't even think these are even _necessary_ elements) of a genre is a bit of a different thing from saying that it is properly and compellignly classified as being part of a genre.


----------



## Celebrim (May 23, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> I don't think he's calling you a liar, just the validity of your assertion.




He may question the _validity_ of my assertion all he wants with my blessings, but that is very different than questioning the _veracity_ of my assertion.



> Having _elements_ (or common elements; I don't even think these are even _necessary_ elements) of a genre is a bit of a different thing from saying that it is properly and compellignly classified as being part of a genre.




Except, I never said that Western's were part of the Fantasy genera.   I said only that Westerns movies were a romantic genera and that the dividing line between the romantic and the fantastic was blurred.   I then pointed out that in some of Clint Eastwoods modern Westerns, that line appeared to me to be very blurred indeed, so much so that if someone wanted to argue that 'High Plains Drifter' was a fantasy movie, I wouldn't strongly object. 

Likewise, if someone wanted to argue that in Kirosawa's presentation of Seven Samurii, the rifles were in fact magical artifacts with apparantly unlimited range and lethality striking down the heroes as randomly as a lightning bolt, then I'd not argue with that either.   To me its sufficiently of a borderline case, that I don't feel like arguing it one way or the other, since I've already thrown enough fuel on the fires of contriversy.

UPDATE: Really, I don't know why I'm being nice about this.  I've just been called a liar by a fellow that seems utterly taken aback by the suggestion that just maybe there might be something supernatural going on in 'High Plains Drifter'.   Why should I continue to give any credibility to anything that he has to say?  If he can't parse out the symbolism and hints of the supernatural in 'High Plains Drifter', why in the world should I think him capable of seeing and intelligently commenting on the symbolism (or lack there of) in Leiber's 'Swords' works?


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 23, 2005)

Come on now...nobody is meaning to insult anybody else here...lets not be reduced to bickering or, even worse, insulting commentary.

edit:  Besides, I'd be more insulted by 'validity' then 'veracity'.  One challenges the truth of a statement while the other challenges the source and context...that's just me though.


----------



## S'mon (May 23, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Celebrim, no offense, but I think you've talked yourself into a corner there.  If you say that fantasy is about abstract virtues made flesh, and then say that in many of these stories that abstract virtues are merely a side-effect of the characteristics of some of the characters, you are certainly not creating a very compelling argument.  The same could be said of any fictional character in any genre.




Exactly.  Nice try C.


----------



## Desdichado (May 23, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> He may question the _validity_ of my assertion all he wants with my blessings, but that is very different than questioning the _veracity_ of my assertion.
> [...]  UPDATE: Really, I don't know why I'm being nice about this.  I've just been called a liar by a fellow that seems utterly taken aback by the suggestion that just maybe there might be something supernatural going on in 'High Plains Drifter'.   Why should I continue to give any credibility to anything that he has to say?  If he can't parse out the symbolism and hints of the supernatural in 'High Plains Drifter', why in the world should I think him capable of seeing and intelligently commenting on the symbolism (or lack there of) in Leiber's 'Swords' works?



Oh, c'mon.  You haven't been called a liar.  He just doesn't believe your assertion is true.  I certainly question the veracity of many of your assertions in this thread as well, but I don't think you're a liar.  I just think you're mistaken.


----------



## Desdichado (May 23, 2005)

Here's another twist on things as well.  John Carter of Mars.  Not very scientific.  Not even, necessarily, by the standards of its day.  Although, keep in mind that when it was written, our knowledge of things that we take for granted today was yet to be discovered.  Einstein wasn't to have spelled out relativity for decades.  Percival Lowell was in the national news all the time with this theories of canal building civilizations on Mars (which Burroughs actually follows relatively closely, in many ways).  Although the genre of science fiction hadn't been really "invented" yet when Burroughs wrote the JC of Mars stories, it's hard to see them as anything else, unless we can take works back out of the the corpus of sci-fi as the science on which they are predicated is invalidated by newer discoveries.

Similarly, the same could sorta be true for Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon, which were written a good 70-80 years or so ago.  Ironically, _Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow_ which very closely imitated Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon in many ways, would not pass muster because of the time when it was written.

Clearly, extremely hard and fast rules of genre categorization are difficult, but I still think there's plenty of value in the discussion.


----------



## Celebrim (May 23, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Celebrim, no offense, but I think you've talked yourself into a corner there. If you say that fantasy is about abstract virtues made flesh, and then say that in many of these stories that abstract virtues are merely a side-effect of the characteristics of some of the characters, you are certainly not creating a very compelling argument. The same could be said of any fictional character in any genre.




*sigh*

Ok, fine I'll address this point.  No offense, S'mon, but I think the subtleness of what I was suggesting went right over your head.  

Suppose you set out to immitate Tolkein's works, but you lack sufficient understanding to recognize his palete of themes for what they are.   Instead, you are entralled by the epic action, swords, sorcery, and conflict and you miss the deeper meanings entirely.   (I would argue that to a large extent this is true of the movie treatment of the books.)  You can then tell a story filled with swords and sorcery elements without any awareness of what you are telling other than you find knights, wizards, dragons, demons and such to be exciting.  Your story can simply be a high adventure story in which the meaning of the elements in your story is never explicitly discussed or examined, or which the theme is only expressed intermittantly and inconsistantly.   But, if you tell such a story in a compelling way its highly likely that the reason the story is compelling is that on some level you've unconsciously in your imitation tied into mythic themes of good versus evil, birth and death, renewal and harvest, and your protagonists are probably larger than life exemplers of some heroic ideal (or anti-heroes which call into question these same conventions).   You won't need to deliberately set out to make a morality play, you'll create one incidently merely by using the paints by which fantasy stories are created.

The same would not be true if you set out to imitate the works of Agatha Christy or Tom Clancy.  Instead, in imitation of them you'd end up creating a story which was about the sort of things those authors stories are about, and without entering into a debate on what that is, it would not be a fantasy story but rather a detective story or geo-political thriller. 

All I'm saying is that following the conventions of a genera is going to create a story about what the conventions of a genera are about, and even deliberately setting out to defy the conventions of a genera still produces a story which is shaped by those conventions.   'Unforgiven' may not use the same moral palette as the traditional romantic western, but by deliberately trying to turn those conventions on thier head, its still a story about those moral conventions.

On a completely unrelated note, while I'm refuting assertions people are making, I'd like to refute the notion that SF and fantasy can be distinguished merely because one has 'plastics' and 'machines' in them and the other doesn't.   It seems to me that 'plastics' could fit quite well in Ebberon without removing it from the fantasy genera, and I could easily see Terry Pratchette writing a story about the beginning of the petro-chemical industry on the Diskworld.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 23, 2005)

But, the introduction of plastic to those realms might be considered satirical.

p.s.  'genera' is a plural form


----------



## Celebrim (May 23, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> But, the introduction of plastic to those realms might be considered satirical.
> 
> p.s.  'genera' is a plural form




Somehow I don't think using the word 'genus' in place of what I wrote is going to clarify anything, but I'll take it under advisement.   

By way of a sweeping apology, my spelling has always been horrible.   I beg your pardon for all the words I mangle in advance.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 23, 2005)

I wouldn't have said anything if I thought it was a spelling mistake.  Sorry, I guess it was pretty rude...I hate when others do that to me...I'll stop.

No more corrections.


----------



## Celebrim (May 23, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Here's another twist on things as well.  John Carter of Mars.  Not very scientific.  Not even, necessarily, by the standards of its day.




It should be obvious from my definitions that I consider the Barsoom stories to be firmly in the category of fantasy (I think I've already mentioned them in that context at least once in this thread).   I would put Princess of Mars into exactly the same category of Fantasy as I do the Star Wars saga.   

In fact, I could hardly ask for a better example of a fantasy work than the Barsoom stories, since John Carter is a larger than life superhero (both physically and morally) that travels around a stage of perfect moral clarity, and the meaning of the entire work can be summed up simply by making a list in which every sentence begins with "A Virginia Gentlemen..."

For example...
    "A Virginia Gentlemen will fight any foe and travel any distance of the love of a woman."
    "A Virginia Gentlemen does not understand women."
    "A Virginia Gentlemen is a fast and loyal friend, and a dangerous enemy."
    "A Virginia Gentlemen refuses to accept an insult."
    "A Virginia Gentleman obeys a code of martial honor, and gives respect to his enemy when it is due."
    "A Virginia Gentlemen does not get overly involved in the rituals of organized religion and mocks the foolish guiliblity of     those that do."
    "A Virginia Gentlemen does not judge people by the color of thier skin, and mocks the foolishness of those that become obsessed with such distinctions."

And so on and so forth.

I'm quite certain that the only reason that ERB drapes his stories in the occasionaly trappings of super-science is that he feels that given the interests of audience, that doing so will give his story a little more heft and grit.   One could even argue that the superficial trappings of science are part of his code of a Virginia Gentlemen.   As in...

    "A Virginia Gentlemen doesn't read girly fairie stories."
    "A Virginia Gentlemen has a scientific mind which rebels at rank superstition."

And so forth.



> Clearly, extremely hard and fast rules of genre categorization are difficult, but I still think there's plenty of value in the discussion.




I agree.


----------



## jmucchiello (May 23, 2005)

Why is it important to be able to definitively say "This is Fantasy" or "This is not Fantasy"? What is the value in this discussion that I am missing?


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 23, 2005)

So that you know which books go under which sign when you are stocking shelves at the local bookstore.


----------



## Mallus (May 23, 2005)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Why is it important to be able to definitively say "This is Fantasy" or "This is not Fantasy"? What is the value in this discussion that I am missing?



Because how you classify something --even loosely-- affects what expectations are raised, and therefore, how you read it.


----------



## Desdichado (May 23, 2005)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Why is it important to be able to definitively say "This is Fantasy" or "This is not Fantasy"? What is the value in this discussion that I am missing?



If nothing else, there's value in the enjoyment I get out of having it.

Why is there value in the discussion of any art form?  To say that there's no value in the discussion is, by implication, to say that there's no value in trying to define cubism.  Or trying to define who and who isn't a Romantic composer and why.  Or defining jazz.

The discussion helps fans understand it more.  And frankly, although the idea has been tossed out many times that there are some works that defy easy classification, and that good authors aren't constrained by genre definitions, and whatnot, let's keep in mind that most of the material out there is certainly classifiable after all.  We're looking at the exceptions to prove our points, in many ways, not the mainstream.


----------



## S'mon (May 23, 2005)

That was Joshua Dyal you quoted C, not me.  I'm finished with this argument.


----------



## Desdichado (May 23, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Ok, fine I'll address this point.  No offense, S'mon, but I think the subtleness of what I was suggesting went right over your head.



Just to clarify; it was most likely _my head_ over which they went; that quote was mine, not S'mon's.    


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Suppose you set out to immitate Tolkein's works, but you lack sufficient understanding to recognize his palete of themes for what they are.   Instead, you are entralled by the epic action, swords, sorcery, and conflict and you miss the deeper meanings entirely.   (I would argue that to a large extent this is true of the movie treatment of the books.)



And of the entire sub-genre of "high fantasy" that Tolkien inspired.  In which case, of course, it's difficult to say that that pallette of themes is intrinsic to the genre, if only the first, or the best, of the genre even make an attempt to utilize them, and the rest of the corpus of the genre ignores them completely.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> You can then tell a story filled with swords and sorcery elements without any awareness of what you are telling other than you find knights, wizards, dragons, demons and such to be exciting.  Your story can simply be a high adventure story in which the meaning of the elements in your story is never explicitly discussed or examined, or which the theme is only expressed intermittantly and inconsistantly.



You seem to be saying that you can't have simply a high adventure story in which "those themes", whatever they may be that you believe so intrinsic, _are not even a part of the work at all._  That's where I fundamentally disagree with you.  Of course, I also disagree with your apparent assertion that even if those themes are not a part of the work at all, well, really, they actually _are_, the poor authors are just too ignorant to realize that they are unconsciously using Tolkien's same themes after all, if that is indeed what you are saying (it certainly appears to be.)

You might say I question the veracity of that assertion.


----------



## mmadsen (May 23, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> "A Virginia Gentlemen does not get overly involved in the rituals of organized religion and mocks the foolish guiliblity of     those that do."
> "A Virginia Gentlemen does not judge people by the color of thier skin, and mocks the foolishness of those that become obsessed with such distinctions."



My ironimeter is on the fritz.  Were those last two supposed to be sincere or sarcastic?


----------



## Celebrim (May 23, 2005)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> My ironimeter is on the fritz.  Were those last two supposed to be sincere or sarcastic?




You've read the books right?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 24, 2005)

Celebrim- no insult was intended.  I honestly did not see the truth of the assertions you made about those particular movies, nor had I seen any such implication of supernatural elements in any critique of the movies- thus, "veracity."

I still don't.

A man with no name is not indicative of fantasy.  A larger than life character is not indicative of fantasy-its indicative of someone being cast as a heroic figure.

As for Eastwood's character appearing after a Biblical reading...its the storytelling device called foreshadowing, and while it does derive from ancient concepts like karma and recieving punishment in kind, it in no way automatically shunts something into the realm of fantasy.  It occurs in many works of fiction.  In _The Terminator_ (based on the sci-fi story "Second Variety" by Phillip K. Dick), Arnold's character pulls up to the house of his first victim, halting just after it crushes a toy semi.  At the end of the movei, a semi with the same design, color and markings is used to run _him_ over.  Would you call this movie fantasy?  If so, why?

Other than the claim:







> Westerns have drawn on other arts forms as old as the Norse Saga, as other art forms have drawn on the Western.
> 
> To add to the international influences on westerns, many westerns after 1960 were heavily influenced by the Japanese samurai films of Akira Kurosawa. For instance The Magnificent Seven was a remake of Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, and both A Fistful of Dollars & Last Man Standing were remakes of Kurosawa's Yojimbo, which itself was inspired by Red Harvest, an American detective novel by Dashiell Hammett.




(and the existence of the series _Kung Fu_) there is little in that link you posted that actually supports your assertion fantasy as a source for Westerns.  The problem is that the Samurai movies ALSO have no real link to the supernatural, other than certain beliefs held by some of the characters.  A character's belief that there are elves in the woods is not sufficient to make something a fantasy- you need the elves.

Instead, the link provides ample evidence of the influence Westerns have had on other genres.  They note that _Outland_ is essentially the classic Western _High Noon_ set in space.  By the rationale of contagion by which you called _Star Wars_ a fantasy (if it has swords, etc. its a fantasy), Outland must then be a Western.

In contrast, I would counter that _Outland_ is a sci-fi film with a plot borrowed from a Western, and is not a Western itself.

The logic train you followed with defining_ Star Wars_ as fantasy would also make every film in the _Alien_ or_ Predator_ franchises a slasher flick.

Your link also has a link to a definition about Space Opera ...and it notes many prominent examples of the form, including those mentioned in this thread:  _Star Wars, Battlefield Earth, Star Trek, Battlstar Galactica, Barsoom, Dune_...


----------



## glass (May 24, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> And yet I expect to find star wars novels in the sci-fi sections of the library and bookstore, not the fantasy sections.




Most bookshops that have also had the Dragonlance Chronicles in the 'sci-fi' section. Doesn't make them sci-fi, it means the bookshop thought 'Sci-fi/Fantasy' was too long-winded for there shelves.

FWIW, I'm in the camp of Star Wars being fantasy. It does have magic, it doesn't have any science. To my mind that makes it fantasy.

OTOH, there was a radio 1 DJ on the radio last year saying he wasn't interested in seeing LotR because he didn't like sci-fi, so both terms are probably beyond salvation.   

glass.


----------



## Desdichado (May 24, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> In fact, I could hardly ask for a better example of a fantasy work than the Barsoom stories, since John Carter is a larger than life superhero (both physically and morally) that travels around a stage of perfect moral clarity, and the meaning of the entire work can be summed up simply by making a list in which every sentence begins with "A Virginia Gentlemen..."



A flawed example, though.  If the meaning of the John Carter stories is a list summed up by a number of sentences that begin with "A Virginia gentleman..." shouldn't John Carter be a little less generic?  Every single character Burroughs ever wrote, heck, even Tarzan and the Mucker, for the most part, were just the same as John Carter without being Virginia gentlemen.  A much better explanation is that ERB only really wrote one plot (by his own admission) with standard characters, not that he was trying to make a point about the characteristics of the characters.  Because of who the audience was, John Carter had to be handsome, brave, super-capable, charming, charismatic, daring -- he was providing vicarious wish-fulfillment for his audience, not standing out as an example of a "perfect hero."

No, I think you're trying to project an already flawed definition of fantasy and apply it to works to which it doesn't apply.


----------



## francisca (May 24, 2005)

Just stopped in to check on this thread.

I still stand by what I said in post #5.


----------



## Celebrim (May 24, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> A flawed example, though.  If the meaning of the John Carter stories is a list summed up by a number of sentences that begin with "A Virginia gentleman..." shouldn't John Carter be a little less generic?




No, not really.  Quite the contrary, if John Carter is just an idealized Anglo gentleman, wouldn't you expect him to be generic?   'A virginia gentlemen' is pretty darn generic as far as I'm concerned.  That he happens to be from Virginia is as close as we can come to distinguishing him from any other sort of gentlemen.  

ERB was himself a Northerner, the son of a Union captain.  His father was an Anglophile, an abolutionist, and a staunch opponent of organized religion.  ERB very much carries his Father's sentiments forward in his stories.  I find it interesting that he choose for his hero a down and out Southern soldier of a Virginia family.  I have two theories on that.   First, that John Carter is very much a typical 'Western' hero of the day, and in the dime store novels the wandering gunslinger heroes were always ex-confederate soldiers.  Second, that the stories anti-racist messages would resonate more strongly if the hero was a man of the South himself.



> Every single character Burroughs ever wrote, heck, even Tarzan and the Mucker, for the most part, were just the same as John Carter without being Virginia gentlemen.




Absolutely.  But I don't really see how that argues against my point.   We'd come up with the same list regardless of whether we are talking 'An English Gentlemen' or whatever.



> A much better explanation is that ERB only really wrote one plot (by his own admission) with standard characters, not that he was trying to make a point about the characteristics of the characters.




No, but he was trying to make a point about what the characteristics of a gentlemen - whether Virgianian, Yankee, or English - should be.   ERB's own beliefs are expressed far too clearly in what he wrote - even when they defy the conventional thinking of the day - for this merely to be a message massaged to fit the expectations of his audience.



> Because of who the audience was, John Carter had to be handsome, brave, super-capable, charming, charismatic, daring -- he was providing vicarious wish-fulfillment for his audience, not standing out as an example of a "perfect hero."




But the two points aren't mutually exclusive.  ERB can be providing vicarious wish-fulfillment to his audience, AND providing an example of an exemplary hero.  Vicarious wish-fulfillment is probably intrinsicly tied to emulation - especially in young boys.  Do you recall in Huckleberry Finn (itself arguably an elevated boys story) where the character of Tom Sawyer demands that they break Jim out according to the rules set down in Dumas 'Count of Monte Christo' because, as he says, 'That is the way these things are done'?   Don't you think that at some level, showing the audience the way 'these things are done' is part of the point?  Vicarious wish-fulfillment, and creating an idolizable hero, are ends in themselves (they sell books), but they are also means to an end - or else John Carter wouldn't spend so much time lecturing the reader. 



> No, I think you're trying to project an already flawed definition of fantasy and apply it to works to which it doesn't apply.




I'm rather startled that you read the Barsoom stories and not see the influences from Victorian morality tales for boys.  I mean, to me (especially reading them as an adult) it hits me like a brick in the face that this is a instructional faerie tale for boys dressed up in clothing (or lack of clothing as is more likely on Barsoom) which the author feels is more suitably masculine than the often limb wristed fairie tales.     Nothing you've said has shown in any fashion that the Barsoom tales are not morality tales, that they are not tales of the fantastic, and that in fact these two things are not in some fashion connected.  Quite the contrary, the thing that you see to be providing as evidence against my point - that John Carter is a generic super hero roaming a fantastic stage of two dimensional cleanly heroic characters - seems to me to be arguing my point.


----------



## Voadam (May 24, 2005)

glass said:
			
		

> Most bookshops that have also had the Dragonlance Chronicles in the 'sci-fi' section. Doesn't make them sci-fi, it means the bookshop thought 'Sci-fi/Fantasy' was too long-winded for there shelves.
> 
> FWIW, I'm in the camp of Star Wars being fantasy. It does have magic, it doesn't have any science. To my mind that makes it fantasy.
> 
> ...




Then allow me to clarify. In bookstores with both a fantasy and science fiction section, I expect star wars to be in sci-fi. And IME that is where I find it. Even the jedi focused books. I believe it is because of the space ships, blasters, death star, etc. aspects of the star wars universe.


----------



## Voadam (May 24, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Classifying fantasy as having something to do with swords and sorcery is equally arbitrary.
> 
> Captain America vs. Red Skull is WWII done as a fantasy.  Saving Private Ryan is not.   Seven Samurii comes alot closer, because the samurii do indeed have a mythic character as do the rifles which 'magically' cut them down.   Seven Samurii isn't a historical drama so much as a romance and the dividing line between romance and fantasy is not at all clear and bright to me.  At some level, movies like 'The Magnificent Seven', 'Fight Full of Dollars' and the 'True Grit' start shading off into fantasy as well.  This is particularly true of alot of Eastwood's later work in westerns like 'High Plains Drifter' and 'Pale Rider'.   But, no swords and sorcery are actually involved.




So the super soldier serum, his indestructible SHIELD, and the red skull's red face are fantasy yet Saving Private Ryan is not.

I agree, but I don't see how this demonstrates one as morality tale with good guys and  inspiring behaviour while the other one is not. The difference seems to be in the SUPER aspects versus the heroic normal soldier aspect.

Defining fantasy as magic is not as arbitrary as defining fantasy as morality tale. The normal use of "fantastic" in this context is "unnatural" not "morality exemplar". Defining it technically to contradict the common usage does not seem to suit any useful purpose.

Morality tales don't have to have anything associated with the common understanding of the term fantasy. You could have a mundane person acting as an exemplar in a mundane world with no problems. Why should that be considered the fantasy genre?


----------



## Celebrim (May 24, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz: I don't know what to tell you.  You're understanding of what I've said is becoming increasingly muddled, and while that's probably my fault I don't know how I'd go about getting things straight again.   

If you can't see the supernatural themes in High Noon and High Plains Drifter, I'm at a loss as to what to do.  Particularly in High Plains Drifter, in the final scene in Hell in which the Dwarf asks the man with no name, "Sheriff, I don't know your name.", and the sheriff, standing before what is apparantly his own grave says, "Yes you do." most people understood this to be leaving open or even strongly suggesting the possibility that the Sheriff was the ghost of the previously murdered man.   If you say you can't see any supernatural themes in the movie, well I'm at a loss of how to show it to you seeing as you've already seen it with your own eyes and you still don't believe it.   All I can say in my defense is that I'm far from being the only person who sees these things.   Try googling "High Plains Drifter" and any one of the following words, "ghost", "fantasy", "surreal", "horror".   You should get thousands of links.  Things like the number of bullets fired by the gun and the fact that the man had no name are rather irrelevant.   That the character is massively larger than life is closer to the point, but certainly not the whole of it.

But this has all become a red herring because I never said that the Western was a genus of fantasy.  I only said that the Western had a lot of highly romanticized content, and that the line between a romance and a fantasy was not clean as far as I'm concerned - to the extent that I felt I did not have a good definition for where one ended and the next began.   In fact, as long as we are on the subject, the line between a SF and a fantasy is not perfectly clean and bright to me either - which is not to say that I don't think it can be, merely that it isn't always.   There are examples of stories which we might call 'Science Fantasy' in which the author is interested in themes of both 'The Other' and 'Good and Evil' to a greater or lesser extent and so cross the genera.  But I still don't define either Science Fiction or Fantasy by what I consider its most superficial and easily discarded elements - the particular visuals evoked by the setting.  

I know what foreshadowing is.  Let's please stop pretending that its so remarkable to claim that High Plains Drifter and Pale Rider have elements of the supernatural, because frankly given how common this claim is, it's rather tiresome to have to defend it at such length.   By analogy, just because _you_ didn't see the Arthurian imagery at the heart of Tortilla Flats doesn't mean it isn't in there, and you claim of ignorance about it would not increase confidence in your ability to discuss the book at depth.   Therefore, since the character of the Western is not at all central to anything I'm talking about it, why don't we move on.



> The logic train you followed with defining _Star Wars_ as fantasy...




You mean the fact that I pointed out that its basically a swords and sorcery story only the magic swords are called 'light sabers' and the sorcerers are called 'Jedi'?  The farm boy still goes off on a quest to save the Princess, and still discovers that he's actually not really a farm boy but was born a Prince, and even if the dragon is called a Death Star he still slays it with a single blow using his sorcerous skills that he learned from the old wizard.   You mean _that_ train of thought?  Why should I be defending my train of thought?  You haven't said a damn thing to show me that that isn't a fantasy.  Changing his loyal steed into a Starfighter and his squire into a robot in order to make the story more powerful and evocative to the audience is no different _at all_ to me than painting King Arthor and Gwain in recently invented state of the art plate mail, even though the stories are set centuries into the past.

For crying out loud, how hard is it to see these things?  Did you ever see the 'Making of Myth' exhibition when it was at the Smithsonian?  I am more than happy to argue with you over the meaning of the facts, but I'm getting a little tired of arguing with you over the existance of the facts.


----------



## Celebrim (May 24, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Morality tales don't have to have anything associated with the common understanding of the term fantasy. You could have a mundane person acting as an exemplar in a mundane world with no problems. Why should that be considered the fantasy genre?




It goes without saying that not all morality tales are fantasies.  I'm trying to show that contrary to expectation, the reverse - that all fantasies are morality tales - is true.   I don't expect this to be obvious, and I'm not 100% sure of the definition myself, but I am sure that of the fantasy stories I've read they have this in common far more than they have any particular setting, and so I find this definition - incomplete as it is likely to turn out to be - far more compelling than defining fantasy as 'magic' or any singular particular setting convention.

Defining a fantasy as containing that which is fantastic is a circular definition.   It's like saying 'magical stories' are stories about 'magic'.   Well, what do you mean by magic then?   As this thread shows, the definition of magic is hard to pin down, because simple definitions like 'things that break the laws of the universe' or 'stories that couldn't happen in this universe' at the least gather in things which you meant to exclude.   So what I'm saying is that when we are speaking of magical stories, the particular kinds of fantastic things we are speaking of are intrinsically related to incarnating, simplifying, or magnifying abstract concepts like 'good', 'evil', 'virtue', 'power', in order to make them more tangible and hense easier to deal with.   And that is at some level the reason that we are willing to exclude conventions like FTL travel as 'not magic' because we recognize that in the story it is in, 'FTL travel' is unlike ordinary magic in that it has no mythic connection to an abstract idea.  

You probably could argue that at least some of the time, magic is sterlized in order to serve as the same sort of story vehical that FTL travel and intersteller trade empires serve in science fiction, but I would counter that so long as you still tie that magic to the mythic themes from which it originates that you are still going to be at some level dealing with the supernatural as the incarnation of the abstract, and as long as you have larger than life heroes in such stories, you'll still be dealing with the ancient idea of virtue being defined by a life lived like those in the larger than life mythic heroic narratives.   I might even be willing to advance (though I'm unsure how I feel about this idea since it just came to me), that the more you sterlize your magic and remove it from its usual purpose in the story, the more magic starts to seem to be conventional technology rather than the supernatural.   But that is, I agree, a rather debatable (yet to me interesting) point.


----------



## Voadam (May 24, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> It goes without saying that not all morality tales are fantasies.  I'm trying to show that contrary to expectation, the reverse - that all fantasies are morality tales - is true.   I don't expect this to be obvious, and I'm not 100% sure of the definition myself, but I am sure that of the fantasy stories I've read they have this in common far more than they have any particular setting, and so I find this definition - incomplete as it is likely to turn out to be - far more compelling than defining fantasy as 'magic' or any singular particular setting convention.
> 
> Defining a fantasy as containing that which is fantastic is a circular definition.   It's like saying 'magical stories' are stories about 'magic'.   Well, what do you mean by magic then?   As this thread shows, the definition of magic is hard to pin down, because simple definitions like 'things that break the laws of the universe' or 'stories that couldn't happen in this universe' at the least gather in things which you meant to exclude.   So what I'm saying is that when we are speaking of magical stories, the particular kinds of fantastic things we are speaking of are intrinsically related to incarnating, simplifying, or magnifying abstract concepts like 'good', 'evil', 'virtue', 'power', in order to make them more tangible and hense easier to deal with.   And that is at some level the reason that we are willing to exclude conventions like FTL travel as 'not magic' because we recognize that in the story it is in, 'FTL travel' is unlike ordinary magic in that it has no mythic connection to an abstract idea.
> 
> You probably could argue that at least some of the time, magic is sterlized in order to serve as the same sort of story vehical that FTL travel and intersteller trade empires serve in science fiction, but I would counter that so long as you still tie that magic to the mythic themes from which it originates that you are still going to be at some level dealing with the supernatural as the incarnation of the abstract, and as long as you have larger than life heroes in such stories, you'll still be dealing with the ancient idea of virtue being defined by a life lived like those in the larger than life mythic heroic narratives.   I might even be willing to advance (though I'm unsure how I feel about this idea since it just came to me), that the more you sterlize your magic and remove it from its usual purpose in the story, the more magic starts to seem to be conventional technology rather than the supernatural.   But that is, I agree, a rather debatable (yet to me interesting) point.




So if fantasy is morality tales in a magical world there can be magical setting non morality tales that would not be in the Fantasy genre. Can you think of examples of such magical non morality tale stories that would fit the trappings of fantasy but not reasonably be classified as fantasy for you?

I'm not positive I understand what would constitute a non-morality tale for you so that it is a meaningful term as you define fantasy. Excluding fantasy can you give some fiction examples of what you consider morality tales versus not morality tales? I'll then try and think of non-morality tales that I also consider fantasy.

And though circular, I think the definition of fantasy is as simple (and broad) as "fantastic" or "containing magic".


----------



## Gentlegamer (May 24, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> You mean the fact that I pointed out that its basically a swords and sorcery story only the magic swords are called 'light sabers' and the sorcerers are called 'Jedi'?  The farm boy still goes off on a quest to save the Princess, and still discovers that he's actually not really a farm boy but was born a Prince, and even if the dragon is called a Death Star he still slays it with a single blow using his sorcerous skills that he learned from the old wizard.   You mean _that_ train of thought?  Why should I be defending my train of thought?  You haven't said a damn thing to show me that that isn't a fantasy.  Changing his loyal steed into a Starfighter and his squire into a robot in order to make the story more powerful and evocative to the audience is no different _at all_ to me than painting King Arthor and Gwain in recently invented state of the art plate mail, even though the stories are set centuries into the past.
> 
> For crying out loud, how hard is it to see these things?  Did you ever see the 'Making of Myth' exhibition when it was at the Smithsonian?  I am more than happy to argue with you over the meaning of the facts, but I'm getting a little tired of arguing with you over the existance of the facts.



This is all accurate as part of the ingrediants that make up the "Star Wars" soup is Campbell's _Hero with a Thousand Faces_, particularly in regard to the "hero journey."


----------



## Celebrim (May 24, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> So if fantasy is morality tales in a magical world there can be magical setting non morality tales that would not be in the Fantasy genre? Can you think of examples of such magical non morality tale stories that would fit the trappings of fantasy but not reasonably be classified as fantasy for you?




Yes, I can, but my answer isn't going to make you happy because you are going to think I'm dodging the question.

Keep in mind that as I defined it traditional magic is to me all about making abstract concepts tangible.  For example, werewolves are about the dual capacity of people for both good and evil, sanity and insanity, the bestial and the sublime, and the fact that evil can lurk underneath a skin which does not betray the evil that lies underneath.  So so long as we tie into those mythic themes, we aren't going to escape telling stories that are in some fashion about good and evil - even if we want to (as for example White Wolf did) change to some extent exactly what it means to be 'bestial' because we live in an age were people are toying with post-modern ideas like maybe that civilization is worse than the natural.   So, in order to create a fantasy which can explore new themes without being dragged into the old themes, we have to sanitize the magic and remove from all its old baggage.  Hense, it won't look on the surface like 'magic' anymore.

You probably see where I'm going with this, and I'm going to guess you are _not_ going to like it.   An example of a magical non-morality tale story that fits the trappings of fantasy but is not classified as fantasy by me would be (in part) Iain M. Bank's 'Culture' stories.   I say in part, because clearly Iain M. Banks is writing about morality at least in part and if you want to argue that the 'Culture' stories are at least in part fantasy, I won't begrudge it.  But, at some point it is also clear to me that our area of interest is beginning to shift, and that Iain M. Banks has stepped over a line that seperates him from fantasy.  He's begin looking more deeply at the idea of 'The Other' and at what it means to be human in a way that is transcendent of morality questions.  In a fantasy, typically you have the notion of a universal system of morality and you have 'The Other' serving only as an embodiment of the not good.   In science fiction, as it matured, you increasingly see 'The Other' used as a contrasting value system even among authors that believe in something like a universal and absolute system of morality for mankind.   The purpose of the other is not to show what man shouldn't become, because man is stuck being himself and can't be the other, but rather to hold up a mirror and say that our nature as who we are arrises because of this character of ourselves, and if we changed this character in some fashion we wouldn't get 'evil non-humans' but rather a different system of virtues reflecting the needs of that different character of existance.  

Step a little further away from fantasy, and you get something like David Brin's 'Uplift' stories - which are equally fantastic and contain a great many things which we have good reason to believe are unrealistic and probably impossible, but which are even less interested in traditional questions about morality and less interested in making any of its fantastic elements allegories for abstract ideas.  Step back the other way towards fantasy, and you run into people like Chine Meiville, who is writing fantasy but arguably beginning to invent a genera of science fiction which has little at all to do with science, suggesting that maybe you could be inventive enough with your magic to eventually divest yourself of the old mythic obligations and write stories which don't even attempt to handwave away the magic but which aren't fantasies in any traditional sense.  On that, I'm not yet certain, and I don't think we've had enough time to digest his work.



> And though circular, I think the definition of fantasy is as simple (and broad) as "fantastic" or "containing magic".




Except that alot of what started this thread was asking the question, "How is science fiction different from fantasy?", and teh above definition doesn't provide any really clear guidance.

By the way, I would say that for me Science Fiction begins with 'Frankenstein'.   Frankenstein is the first other in which the author is capable of using science as a tool to pry off the old things like necromancy and say to the audience, "What I really want to talk about here is not just the morality of playing God, but the relationship of man to his not self.  And I don't want to use this character of the not-self merely as a metaphor for something that is not good, but for something completely different.   And in fact, I'm not even going to have a hero which is a heroic example, but instead I'm going to have a deeply flawed and troubled protagonist."


----------



## Voadam (May 24, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Except that alot of what started this thread was asking the question, "How is science fiction different from fantasy?", and teh above definition doesn't provide any really clear guidance.




And it seems an easy question for me to answer, fantasy = magic, sci-fi = high tech that does not exist, and the two groups are not mutually exclusive so Star Wars can be Sci Fi even though it has fantasy elements such as the Force and Jedi.


----------



## Voadam (May 24, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Yes, I can, but my answer isn't going to make you happy because you are going to think I'm dodging the question.
> 
> Keep in mind that as I defined it traditional magic is to me all about making abstract concepts tangible.  For example, werewolves are about the dual capacity of people for both good and evil, sanity and insanity, the bestial and the sublime, and the fact that evil can lurk underneath a skin which does not betray the evil that lies underneath.  So so long as we tie into those mythic themes, we aren't going to escape telling stories that are in some fashion about good and evil - even if we want to (as for example White Wolf did) change to some extent exactly what it means to be 'bestial' because we live in an age were people are toying with post-modern ideas like maybe that civilization is worse than the natural.   So, in order to create a fantasy which can explore new themes without being dragged into the old themes, we have to sanitize the magic and remove from all its old baggage.  Hense, it won't look on the surface like 'magic' anymore.
> 
> ...




Unfortunately I have not read any of those stories. Would you say D&D novels are not fantasy because the magic is pretty sterilized in there? Any horror stories with fantastic elements not fantasy? Game of Thrones series because it is just a War of the Roses in a low fantasy and harsh world?


----------



## Desdichado (May 24, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> ERB was himself a Northerner, the son of a Union captain.  His father was an Anglophile, an abolutionist, and a staunch opponent of organized religion.  ERB very much carries his Father's sentiments forward in his stories.  I find it interesting that he choose for his hero a down and out Southern soldier of a Virginia family.  I have two theories on that.   First, that John Carter is very much a typical 'Western' hero of the day, and in the dime store novels the wandering gunslinger heroes were always ex-confederate soldiers.  Second, that the stories anti-racist messages would resonate more strongly if the hero was a man of the South himself.



Anti-racist?  ERB?  That's all well and good to point out that he says the red and green men of Mars should get along, but you ignore where he paints the red men of _Earth_ with a broad brush as uncouth savages, and "the only good Injun is a dead Injun" mentality.  He did the same for black Africans and Arabs in other books, particularly the Tarzan ones.

I think that's another example of you having the message already in mind, and then forcing an interpretation out of the work rather that reading the works first and _then_ finding the messages that actually are there.  Not that that's inconsistent with your attempt to define all fantasy as a morality tale, but it's just as quixotic and absurd.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> No, but he was trying to make a point about what the characteristics of a gentlemen - whether Virgianian, Yankee, or English - should be.   ERB's own beliefs are expressed far too clearly in what he wrote - even when they defy the conventional thinking of the day - for this merely to be a message massaged to fit the expectations of his audience.



I don't see what your point is, or how it relates to fantasy.  Even accepting for the moment your position that ERB was essentially writing a handbook for would-be gentlemen, complete with sample perfect gentleman John Carter, and fantastic setting to keep the audience's attention, we still have the problem that your forcing an interpretation on the books that could just as easily be forced on any book.  Is Jack Ryan the ideal American patriot, and _A Clear and Present Danger_ a morality tale?  Is Keyser Soze the ideal criminal mastermind and _The Usual Suspects_ a morality tale?  If not, I can't see how they differ from your analysis of John Carter.  And if so, I can't see how they are not fantasy instead of, respectively, a technothriller and a psychological thriller.

Although you denied it when S'mon paraphrased your argument as such, I don't see how this isn't exactly what you _are_ doing; any protagonist with any desirable quality becomes a role model, and no matter how obliquely, or even against the intentions of the author!, the story becomes a morality play based on the characteristics of the protagonist.  Then, you conveniently only look at fantasy stories, apply this twisted forcing of your model to them, and then say, voila!  I've defined fantasy! while also conveniently ignoring the fact that your definition could just as easily apply to many --in fact, most-- stories, including those that _nobody_ accepts as fantasy.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I'm rather startled that you read the Barsoom stories and not see the influences from Victorian morality tales for boys.  I mean, to me (especially reading them as an adult) it hits me like a brick in the face that this is a instructional faerie tale for boys dressed up in clothing (or lack of clothing as is more likely on Barsoom) which the author feels is more suitably masculine than the often limb wristed fairie tales.



I'm rather startled that you can profess that as well -- ERB was a pulp writer, and his stories were very harshly criticized in his own time as being exceptionally racy, and _not_ grounded in the morality of the time.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Nothing you've said has shown in any fashion that the Barsoom tales are not morality tales, that they are not tales of the fantastic, and that in fact these two things are not in some fashion connected.  Quite the contrary, the thing that you see to be providing as evidence against my point - that John Carter is a generic super hero roaming a fantastic stage of two dimensional cleanly heroic characters - seems to me to be arguing my point.



Yeah, but nothing you have said has done that either; unless you're now willing to admit most works of fiction ever written.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 24, 2005)

> *Celebrim*
> You mean the fact that I pointed out that its basically a swords and sorcery story only the magic swords are called 'light sabers' and the sorcerers are called 'Jedi'? The farm boy still goes off on a quest to save the Princess, and still discovers that he's actually not really a farm boy but was born a Prince, and even if the dragon is called a Death Star he still slays it with a single blow using his sorcerous skills that he learned from the old wizard. You mean that train of thought? Why should I be defending my train of thought? You haven't said a damn thing to show me that that isn't a fantasy.Changing his loyal steed into a Starfighter and his squire into a robot in order to make the story more powerful and evocative to the audience is no different at all to me than painting King Arthor and Gwain in recently invented state of the art plate mail, even though the stories are set centuries into the past.
> 
> For crying out loud, how hard is it to see these things? Did you ever see the 'Making of Myth' exhibition when it was at the Smithsonian?




In response: 
1)  I don't live in DC, and haven't visited the Smithsonian in over 15 years, so no, I didn't see the Making of Myth exhibit.

As to what has been said that is both relevant and counter to the Star Wars = Fantasy logic:



> *Psion*
> Having elements (or common elements; I don't even think these are even necessary elements) of a genre is a bit of a different thing from saying that it is properly and compellignly classified as being part of a genre.






> *ME*
> But the setting makes all the difference. It is a self evident truth that any tale can be told in any setting. I've seen most of Shakespeare's plays, ranging from straight up to cultural retellings (Ran), to modern (West Side Story, Romeo Must Die, 10 things I hate about you, and Richard the 3rd in a Naziesque setting). Wrath of Khan was a retelling of Moby Dick, as was Of Unknown Origin.
> 
> After all, there are only 5 major plots: Man against Man, Man against Self, Man against God, Man against Society, and Man against Nature. All the rest is details and backdrops.




As well as the he entirety of my post #62 and the link to the definition of Space Opera contained within your own link to Answers.com.

Star Wars takes a classic dragonslayer plot...one that can be traced through Kurosawa and Wagner and so forth, but it changes its setting from one of fantasy to one of an interstellar empire.  But all it takes is the PLOT- all of the mechanisms have been changed.  Simply taking the plot of a fantasy is insufficient to make something a fantasy, unless you beleive in the magic of contagion.

Science/Sci-Fi extrapolation abounds within the storyline: FTL travel.  Holography.  Beam Weapons.  Cybernetics.

As to the "magic" of Star Wars, Lucas himeself said that "The Force" that you defend as a fantastic element was based on an extrapolation of the abilities of Shao Lin martial artists (_The Science of Star Wars_).  If you have ever seen a demonstration of their prowess, you will note that some of them take blows to the larynx, gonads, and other spots without flinching,  can do handstands on 2 fingers, or can bend and break spears by pressing the points against their bodies and walking forward.  How do they do these things?  Undoubtedly by intense training, but they claim that training is insufficient- one must also "armor himself in chi."



> *Celebrim*
> But I still don't define either Science Fiction or Fantasy by what I consider its most superficial and easily discarded elements - the particular visuals evoked by the setting.




Looking over this thread as a whole, seeing all the crossovers created by various authors, and, once again, Clark's brilliant observation about high tech, I'm not sure that there IS a meaningful difference other than setting, trapping, and storytelling vehicles.  In one genre, the hero is transported from one land to the other by an act of the gods, while in another, its "Welshie" at the controls of a teleporter.  In one, a scrying crystal is used to observe distant events, in the other, "hyperwave transmitter".  Intervention of the Gods saves the hero in one, in the other, the Infinite Improbability drive.

Both Fantasy and Sci-Fi contain morality tales.  Both genres examine the nature of what it means to be human.  Both delve into the metaphysical.

The differences lie not within the beams and walls of their particular houses, but in the carpet and drapes.


----------



## Celebrim (May 24, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> And it seems an easy question for me to answer, fantasy = magic, sci-fi = high tech that does not exist, and the two groups are not mutually exclusive so Star Wars can be Sci Fi even though it has fantasy elements such as the Force and Jedi.




Well, if you think that it is that simple, certainly I agree that such common sense working definitions are probably what most people go by.  While common sense has its uses, and at times is vastly superior IMO to academic sense, it isn't particular useful for looking at things below the surface.  

Essentially I see the above definition as being equivelent to, "It's fantasy if I have to suspend my sense of disbelief, and its science fiction if I don't."   The problem with that definition is that it is entirely relative.   What offends your sense of realism - and is thus to you magic - might not offend someone else, and vica versa what doesn't offend your sense of realism might well offend someone else who like me finds interstellar trade empires, hundreds of native sentient species, casual FTL travel, and apparantly infinite energy sources that somehow manage not to produce waste heat to be pure bunkum. 

Also, you casually observe that although Star Wars has mixed elements, that it remains Science Fiction to you.  Well, where is that dividing line?   At what point does the story have enough magic in it that it becomes fantasy?   By your definitions, we ought not expect any agreement about what is science fiction and what is fantasy, in which case its kinda silly to worry about whether someone agrees with your definition or not.


----------



## John Morrow (May 24, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Essentially I see the above definition as being equivelent to, "It's fantasy if I have to suspend my sense of disbelief, and its science fiction if I don't."   The problem with that definition is that it is entirely relative.




If the real world sense of which is which were not so subjective, then we wouldn't see endless debates about where the line really is between them.  I take the constant disagreement over how to define these terms as evidence that the real world definitions are quite subjective.



			
				Celbrim said:
			
		

> Also, you casually observe that although Star Wars has mixed elements, that it remains Science Fiction to you.




I would argue that it remains science fiction to most people, even though it's clearly space fantasy.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Well, where is that dividing line?   At what point does the story have enough magic in it that it becomes fantasy?




It's not simply a matter of how much magic but also how much technology and whether the magic has the trappings of science (e.g., psionics) or religion (e.g., summoning demons).  The magic in Star Wars is given the trappings of science by it's very name and the explanation of it.  It's a natural "force" that one can be trained to manipulate.  Change "The Force" into "The Ancient Gods", turn Obi-Wan into a priest who prays to higher powers for his abilities, and make Darth Vader posessed by demons rather than "The Dark Side" and things would feel far more like Space Fantasy. 



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> By your definitions, we ought not expect any agreement about what is science fiction and what is fantasy, in which case its kinda silly to worry about whether someone agrees with your definition or not.




While I agree that one shouldn't expect agreement about what is science fiction and what is fantasy, it can still be interesting to find out what other people think and why.


----------



## Celebrim (May 24, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Anti-racist?  ERB?  That's all well and good to point out that he says the red and green men of Mars should get along, but you ignore where he paints the red men of _Earth_ with a broad brush as uncouth savages, and "the only good Injun is a dead Injun" mentality.  He did the same for black Africans and Arabs in other books, particularly the Tarzan ones.




Yes, ERB comes from a family that abhors racism and its clearly evident in the texts.  It's all well and good to hand wave stories in which he mocks the _white_ martian racists with thier notions of racial supremacy and then makes a _black_ martian show them up in terms of honor, martial prowess, decorum, intellect, and the ability to learn.  You can pretend that he doesn't have something in mind in the real world when he writes that all you want, but it's still sorta staring you there in the face.

Frankly, if you believe that ERB is a racist, you probably believe that Rudyard Kipling is a racist and there is no point in having this conversation because we'll have to drag into the conversation Edward Said, 'orientalism', and a bunch of other politically charged notions of what it means to be racist.   Suffice to say that while I think ERB didn't have a racist bone in his body and did not believe in racial superiority in any fashion, he was very much a believer in the superiority of Western and particularly Anglo-sphere culture.   ERB is unabashedly a 'culturist'.  Whether you believe that this is the same thing as racism ,worse, or better is a whole other can of worms, but in the case of the 'Injuns', Arabs, and black africans you are quite right to think he sees them as 'uncouth savages', but this is not at all the same as thinking that they are uncouth savages _because_ they are Arabs, black, or 'Injuns'.   Like Rudyard Kipling, ERB's relationship to non-Anglo cultures is more complex than that.



> I think that's another example of you having the message already in mind, and then forcing an interpretation out of the work rather that reading the works first and _then_ finding the messages that actually are there.  Not that that's inconsistent with your attempt to define all fantasy as a morality tale, but it's just as quixotic and absurd.




And frankly, that's bull crap.   I FREAKING READ 'PRINCESS OF MARS' FOR THE FIRST TIME WHEN I WAS EIGHT.   I'VE READ IT AND THE REST COUNLESS TIMES SINCE THEN.  THE WORKS ARE MOST CERTAINLY NOT BEING FITTED TO THE THEORY.  THE THEORY IS BEING FITTED TO THE WORKS.   I DID NOT DEVELOPE THIS IDEA AT AGE SEVEN AND THEN TRY TO FORCE ERB'S WORKS TO FIT IT, NOR FOR THAT MATTER DID I FAIL TO NOTICE THE INSTRUCTIVE LECTURING IN THESE WORKS WELL BEFORE I DEVELOPED A THEORY THAT ENCOMPASSED IN GENERAL WHAT THE OBJECTIVES AND METHODS OF A FANTASY STORY WHERE.



> I don't see what your point is, or how it relates to fantasy.  Even accepting for the moment your position that ERB was essentially writing a handbook for would-be gentlemen, complete with sample perfect gentleman John Carter, and fantastic setting to keep the audience's attention, we still have the problem that your forcing an interpretation on the books that could just as easily be forced on any book.




Really.  I suppose you think that when A is always within the set of B, that it naturally follows that B is always within the set of A.



> Is Jack Ryan the ideal American patriot, and _A Clear and Present Danger_ a morality tale?




Do you think anything in 'A Clear and Present Danger' is a symbol for anything other than itself?  Do you think Tom Clancy invented things in 'A Clear and Present Danger' in order to serve as symbols for abstract ideas?  What things in 'A Clear and Present Danger' are abstract concepts put into cleaner, simplier, more tangible forms?  Even if he was writing morality tales, what Tom Clancy is doing has exactly the opposite goals of a fantasy and he goes about in exactly the opposite manner a fantasy writer would.   The only romantic element of the story is his reoccuring heroes, and I certainly agree that a romantic hero is in and of itself no proof of a fantasy.

Frankly, I don't think you are getting it, and the utility of trying to explain it to you is increasingly in doubt.



> I'm rather startled that you can profess that as well -- ERB was a pulp writer, and his stories were very harshly criticized in his own time as being exceptionally racy, and _not_ grounded in the morality of the time.




Are you actually listening?  Or did you just blink when I wrote, "RB's own beliefs are expressed far too clearly in what he wrote - even when they defy the conventional thinking of the day - for this merely to be a message massaged to fit the expectations of his audience."

ERB's anti-religious and anti-racist sentiments, disguised by the fantastic setting though they were, probably caused an equal ammount of consternation amongst the moralists of the day.   Just because ERB does not agree with convention morality, doesn't mean he doesn't have one.   If an ten year old boy can parse out ERB's agenda in his story telling, why are you having problems?  If you don't believe the agenda is there, then do as that ten year old boy did later as an adult and read about the things ERB and his father said about the real world outside of the stories.


----------



## Desdichado (May 24, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Frankly, if you believe that ERB is a racist, you probably believe that Rudyard Kipling is a racist and there is no point in having this conversation because we'll have to drag into the conversation Edward Said, 'orientalism', and a bunch of other politically charged notions of what it means to be racist.   Suffice to say that while I think ERB didn't have a racist bone in his body and did not believe in racial superiority in any fashion, he was very much a believer in the superiority of Western and particularly Anglo-sphere culture.   ERB is unabashedly a 'culturist'.  Whether you believe that this is the same thing as racism ,worse, or better is a whole other can of worms, but in the case of the 'Injuns', Arabs, and black africans you are quite right to think he sees them as 'uncouth savages', but this is not at all the same as thinking that they are uncouth savages _because_ they are Arabs, black, or 'Injuns'.   Like Rudyard Kipling, ERB's relationship to non-Anglo cultures is more complex than that.



I agree that "racism" applied to authors at the turn of the century is a bit absurd, because no such concept even existed at the time.  I could pull out examples of Jane's black help from Tarzan, who was culturally American, or his characterization of the French, for example, from the same work.  Similarly, there's the concept, largely left by the wayside today, of "classism" which is pretty rampant in ERB's work.

But doing so is most likely futile.  As is pointing to an "anti-racism" message in the text.  It's applying idealogy that post-dates the work in question by a _long_ time, and therefore, as I said earlier, futile.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> And frankly, that's bull crap.   I FREAKING READ 'PRINCESS OF MARS' FOR THE FIRST TIME WHEN I WAS EIGHT.   I'VE READ IT AND THE REST COUNLESS TIMES SINCE THEN.  THE WORKS ARE MOST CERTAINLY NOT BEING FITTED TO THE THEORY.  THE THEORY IS BEING FITTED TO THE WORKS.   I DID NOT DEVELOPE THIS IDEA AT AGE SEVEN AND THEN TRY TO FORCE ERB'S WORKS TO FIT IT, NOR FOR THAT MATTER DID I FAIL TO NOTICE THE INSTRUCTIVE LECTURING IN THESE WORKS WELL BEFORE I DEVELOPED A THEORY THAT ENCOMPASSED IN GENERAL WHAT THE OBJECTIVES AND METHODS OF A FANTASY STORY WHERE.



Well, I guess you got me there.  YOU READ THE BOOK VERY YOUNG AND SWITCHED TO ALL CAPS, SO NATURALLY YOUR ARGUMENT IS FREE OF ANY FLAW.   

I don't think anything you've stated is even relevent to how good your theories and interpretations are, frankly.  I'd prefer you stick to relevent statements.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Really.  I suppose you think that when A is always within the set of B, that it naturally follows that B is always within the set of A.



Huh?  If anything, that seems to be the thrust of _your_ argument.  Fantasy _must_ be a morality tale is certainly a case of misapplied logic; or maybe circular semantics.  You define fantasy as a morality tale (even though nobody else does) and then argue that anything not a morality tale is obviously not fantasy despite whatever other features it has.  Similarly, other works that are not generally accepted as fantasy, yet which _do_ meet your defining criteria are excluded "just because."


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Do you think anything in 'A Clear and Present Danger' is a symbol for anything other than itself?  Do you think Tom Clancy invented things in 'A Clear and Present Danger' in order to serve as symbols for abstract ideas?  What things in 'A Clear and Present Danger' are abstract concepts put into cleaner, simplier, more tangible forms?  Even if he was writing morality tales, what Tom Clancy is doing has exactly the opposite goals of a fantasy and he goes about in exactly the opposite manner a fantasy writer would.   The only romantic element of the story is his reoccuring heroes, and I certainly agree that a romantic hero is in and of itself no proof of a fantasy.



And yet...

Its just you that sees any invented things as symbols of abstract principles whether or not the author intended them as such. 


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Frankly, I don't think you are getting it, and the utility of trying to explain it to you is increasingly in doubt.



Nobody's getting it.  Maybe you should take a hint and realize that it's not just that *everyone else but you* is incapable of getting it, but that your "theory" is incoherent and flat-out absurd.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Are you actually listening?  Or did you just blink when I wrote, "RB's own beliefs are expressed far too clearly in what he wrote - even when they defy the conventional thinking of the day - for this merely to be a message massaged to fit the expectations of his audience."



And here we see yet more of your semantic wrangling.  Apparently you now define "listening" as "accepting everything you say."  Of course I "listened", or more accurately read your post.  I think it's full of crap, though, and I agree with very little of it.

You also have conflated the semantics of "my interpretation" with "the TruthTM and apparently can no longer distinguish between the two of them.  Hey, you as a 10-year old came up with this interpretation of ERB and his writings, and by golly, if you figured it out as a 10-year old, it must be the "way things are."


----------



## Voadam (May 24, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Well, if you think that it is that simple, certainly I agree that such common sense working definitions are probably what most people go by.  While common sense has its uses, and at times is vastly superior IMO to academic sense, it isn't particular useful for looking at things below the surface.
> 
> Essentially I see the above definition as being equivelent to, "It's fantasy if I have to suspend my sense of disbelief, and its science fiction if I don't."   The problem with that definition is that it is entirely relative.   What offends your sense of realism - and is thus to you magic - might not offend someone else, and vica versa what doesn't offend your sense of realism might well offend someone else who like me finds interstellar trade empires, hundreds of native sentient species, casual FTL travel, and apparantly infinite energy sources that somehow manage not to produce waste heat to be pure bunkum.
> 
> Also, you casually observe that although Star Wars has mixed elements, that it remains Science Fiction to you.  Well, where is that dividing line?   At what point does the story have enough magic in it that it becomes fantasy?   By your definitions, we ought not expect any agreement about what is science fiction and what is fantasy, in which case its kinda silly to worry about whether someone agrees with your definition or not.




I think you are misinterpreting much of what I have said here.

Fantasy = magic

Sci-Fi = High Tech that does not currently exist.

My definitions for the genres are not mutually exclusive. It is not an either or situation.

If accepted they also are pretty easy to apply consistently.

Sci-Fi can have elements of fantasy in it and still be sci-fi. Star wars is a prime example of sci-fi with fantasy elements. Why do I classify it as Sci-fi with fantasy elements and not Fantasy with Sci-Fi elements? Because I think of Space Ships, Blasters, light sabres, robots, aliens, space, etc. as predominant images and associations compared to the force when thinking of Star Wars.


----------



## Celebrim (May 24, 2005)

> Well, I guess you got me there.  YOU READ THE BOOK VERY YOUNG AND SWITCHED TO ALL CAPS, SO NATURALLY YOUR ARGUMENT IS FREE OF ANY FLAW.




No, I switched to all caps because you were flat out wrong in suggesting that the theory predated the reading of the Barsoom books.  Forget the larger issue of whether you agree with my big thesis here.   You can call my big thesis utter bunk, but don't use calling my big thesis utter bunk to stand for an argument against the specific case of whether ERB's barsoom books fit in the genera of 'boys stories' and whether just maybe all that moral instruction is intentional.   



> I don't think anything you've stated is even relevent to how good your theories and interpretations are, frankly.  I'd prefer you stick to relevent statements.




Which is itself not a relevant statement to the particular case being debated.  It may well be true that I'm wrong in general, but your claim that I'm wrong in general does not prove that I'm wrong here in the specific case of ERB's Barsoom tales.



> Fantasy _must_ be a morality tale is certainly a case of misapplied logic; or maybe circular semantics.




OK, fine.  You don't connect the two.  That has nothing to do with whether or not in this case 'Princess of Mars' has rather obvious moral instruction elements.



> Similarly, other works that are not generally accepted as fantasy, yet which _do_ meet your defining criteria are excluded "just because."




And that is simply not true, and shows that whether or not I'm completely wrong, you aren't even aware of what my argument is.



> Its just you that sees any invented things as symbols of abstract principles whether or not the author intended them as such.




Fine its just me that sees this.   That has nothing to do with whether or not ERB's intended the white and black skinned martians to be deliberate commentary on the state of race relations in early 20th century America, or whether or not Clint Eastwood's 'High Plains Drifter' has a strong supernatural theme - both of which I've spent more time arguing in the past few posts than anything to do with my definition of fantasy.



> Nobody's getting it.  Maybe you should take a hint and realize that it's not just that *everyone else but you* is too stupid to get it, but that your "theory" is incoherent and flat-out absurd.




Incoherent it may be given my limitations as a writer, but it is most certainly not flat-out absurd.   And seeing as I've been told that its flat out absurd that 'High Plains Drifter' has a supernatural element to it, and that its is flat out absurd that ERB's moral sentiments were coming out deliberately and strongly in his Barsoom stories, I'm not necessarily going to rely on someone else to tell me what is absurd or not.   Thanks for the advice though.



> And here we see yet more of your semantic wrangling.  Apparently you now define "listening" as "accepting everything you say."  Of course I "listened", or more accurately read your post.  I think it's full of crap, though, and I agree with very little of it.




HA!  Let me get this straight, you are busy redefining my words in ways I clearly didn't mean them, but that makes me a semantic wrangler.   I was forced to quote myself solely because you made the absurd charge that just because conventional moralists objected to ERB's text, that he couldn't possibly have elevated intentions, even though I myself had pointed out earlier that ERB's conformity to traditional mores had no bearing one whether his story was trying to convey some sort of moral instruction.  I don't expect you to agree with this, but at least acknowledging that I said it would be a start. 



> you as a 10-year old came up with this interpretation of ERB and his writings, and by golly, if you figured it out as a 10-year old, it must be the "way things are."




I haven't seen you present an alternative interpretation.  For example, what do you think ERB is trying to communicate to the reader during the worship services to Tur in 'Mastermind of Mars'?  What attitude does the hero have when presented with these religious mysteries?  What attitude do you think ERB expects the reader to have to Dar Tarus's religious beliefs?  Is this attitude consistant with the other presentations of organized religion on Barsoom?  Is this attitude consistant with ERB's upbringing?  Is this attitude consistant with ERB's stated views?  By all means, if you think you've got a better understanding on the meaning of ERB's works, then come forward with it.

UPDATE: Cool.  ERB's works are on the web, so I can give you a quick quote to go buy.



			
				ERB said:
			
		

> But it was Gor Hajus who told me most about the religion of Tur one day when Dar Tarus was not about. He said that the Phundahlians maintained that Tur still created every living thing with his own hands. They denied vigorously that man possessed the power to reproduce his kind and taught their young that all such belief was vile; and always they hid every evidence of natural procreation, insisting to the death that even those things which they witnessed with their own eyes and experienced with their own bodies in the bringing forth of their young never transpired.
> 
> Turgan taught them that Barsoom is flat and they shut their minds to every proof to the contrary. They would not leave Phundahl far for fear of failing off the edge of the world; they would not permit the development of aeronautics because should one of their ships circumnavigate Barsoom it would be a wicked sacrilege in the eyes of Tur who made Barsoom flat.
> 
> ...




Now of course, none of this relates directly to my big theory, but hopefully it squashes the claim that ERB didn't have any intention to make moral commentary merely because he was a writer of 'pulp fiction'.


----------



## Celebrim (May 24, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> I think you are misinterpreting much of what I have said here.




It's certainly possible.  People do it to me all the time.



> Fantasy = magic
> 
> Sci-Fi = High Tech that does not currently exist.




No, that's pretty much what I thought you said.  I disagree with you that such standards are easy to apply consistantly.  To saw the famous saw, "A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.", and I note that most science fiction (certainly the popular stuff) typically makes use of 'sufficiently advanced technology'.   Much of this stuff is nothing but magic, but its accepted with a handwave and a very thin dressing of technobabble simply because it has become part of the conventions of Sci-Fi.  Most popular science fiction makes no real attempt to conform to the laws of physics at all.  It is to me merely magic by a different name, attractive only in so far as magic is more attractive if you believe in it.  



> My definitions for the genres are not mutually exclusive. It is not an either or situation.




Good.  My definitinos for the generas are not mutually exclusive either, since its possible for one work to have many themes and elements.



> Sci-Fi can have elements of fantasy in it and still be sci-fi.




Earlier in the thread, several posters seemed to try to advance the idea that the presence of magic was a sharp bright dividing between science-fiction and fantasy.  Clearly, you aren't among them.



> Star wars is a prime example of sci-fi with fantasy elements. Why do I classify it as Sci-fi with fantasy elements and not Fantasy with Sci-Fi elements? Because I think of Space Ships, Blasters, light sabres, robots, aliens, space, etc. as predominant images and associations compared to the force when thinking of Star Wars.




Common sense tells you that, and I've learned a long time ago that there wasn't much use arguing against common sense.  And heck, I even believe that most of the time when you argue against common sense you're wrong, so maybe your right.  I just happen to think that there is alot more to the generas than the superficial imagery of them, that there is more to the novel than novelty, and that there are in fact literary themes within them which are extremely difficult to address from outside them.


----------



## Desdichado (May 24, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> No, I switched to all caps because you were flat out wrong in suggesting that the theory predated the reading of the Barsoom books.  Forget the larger issue of whether you agree with my big thesis here.   You can call my big thesis utter bunk, but don't use calling my big thesis utter bunk to stand for an argument against the specific case of whether ERB's barsoom books fit in the genera of 'boys stories' and whether just maybe all that moral instruction is intentional.



To be semantically quibblish, that's not what I suggested, what I suggested was that the theory was formulated, and then applied to the work.  That doesn't mean you hadn't already read the work.

But I'll take your word for it and accept that you got that interpretation out of the book upon first reading.  Me, I got nothing more than a rousing adventure story, much like his more or less contemporary writer Raphael Sabatini, but set in fantastic locations.  It still seems to me that the fact that ERB used fantastic locations is the primary driver of your interpretation of his writings as morality tales, and presumably your belief that _Captain Blood_ is not one, even though the primary difference between them is nothing so much as late 1800s set on a fictional Mars vs. set during the heyday of Port Royale pirate Caribbean.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> And that is simply not true, and shows that whether or not I'm completely wrong, you aren't even aware of what my argument is.



If it's not, then you haven't given a very coherent definition of what is fantasy and what is not, then.  I still mainatin that being a morality tale with symbols representing abstract principles can occur in works other than fantasy, and works of fantasy may still eschew morality and symbolism altogether.  I also still fail to see why you so inextricably entwine morality tale and fantasy when the two are not deterministically related.  I'll agree that _much_ of fantasy does indeed have symbolic visions of evil, or whatever, but I still do not agree that it _must_ or that it fails to be fantasy.  Again, it's a case of using a subset of fantasy, and trying to define all of fantasy by the qualities of the subset.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Fine its just me that sees this.   That has nothing to do with whether or not ERB's intended the white and black skinned martians to be deliberate commentary on the state of race relations in early 20th century America, or whether or not Clint Eastwood's 'High Plains Drifter' has a strong supernatural theme - both of which I've spent more time arguing in the past few posts than anything to do with my definition of fantasy.



You haven't spent much time at all arguing about ERB's racial commentary, and I still hold out that you can't, because racism as we understand it was not defined in his time.  And I haven't made any comment on _High Plains Drifter_; heck, I haven't even seen that movie.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Incoherent it may be given my limitations as a writer, but it is most certainly not flat-out absurd.   And seeing as I've been told that its flat out absurd that 'High Plains Drifter' has a supernatural element to it, and that its is flat out absurd that ERB's moral sentiments were coming out deliberately and strongly in his Barsoom stories, I'm not necessarily going to rely on someone else to tell me what is absurd or not.   Thanks for the advice though.



Your misrepresenting me.  I didn't say that your interpretation of _High Plains Drifter_ or ERB was absurd --I have no opinion on the first, and I disagree with the second and think that it's extremely unlikely, but I don't think it's absurd-- I think it's absurd that you define fantasy as being a morality tale, and that you're stretching examples beyond common sense to attempt to demonstrate that "grand theory."  I quibble with your details, but I don't really think they're absurd.  It's your grander theory that I think is absurd.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> HA!  Let me get this straight, you are busy redefining my words in ways I clearly didn't mean them, but that makes me a semantic wrangler.



Uh, no, I never did that.  You asked if I was even listening to you, implying that if I was, well, of course I would agree!  I didn't redefine any words you said.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I was forced to quote myself solely because you made the absurd charge that just because conventional moralists objected to ERB's text, that he couldn't possibly have elevated intentions, even though I myself had pointed out earlier that ERB's conformity to traditional mores had no bearing one whether his story was trying to convey some sort of moral instruction.  I don't expect you to agree with this, but at least acknowledging that I said it would be a start.



No, you did say that.  I still think it's out of left field, patently unlikely, and I don't agree with it, though.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I haven't seen you present an alternative interpretation.  For example, what do you think ERB is trying to communicate to the reader during the worship services to Tur in 'Mastermind of Mars'?  What attitude does the hero have when presented with these religious mysteries?  What attitude do you think ERB expects the reader to have to Dar Tarus's religious beliefs?  Is this attitude consistant with the other presentations of organized religion on Barsoom?  Is this attitude consistant with ERB's upbringing?  Is this attitude consistant with ERB's stated views?  By all means, if you think you've got a better understanding on the meaning of ERB's works, then come forward with it.



I already did.  It was escapist adventure fiction, as I said earlier.  Personally, I don't think ERB is the kind of author who really does well under an extremely critical analysis of the text, looking for deeper meaning, because I don't think there was much.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Now of course, none of this relates directly to my big theory, but hopefully it squashes the claim that ERB didn't have any intention to make moral commentary merely because he was a writer of 'pulp fiction'.



Why should it?  Why does he _have_ to be making moral commentary?

Oh, that's right.  Because it's fantasy, and the way you define fantasy, it _has_ to be making moral commentary.  So if ERB isn't making moral commentary, then your definition doesn't work.


----------



## Celebrim (May 24, 2005)

> I already did. It was escapist adventure fiction, as I said earlier. Personally, I don't think ERB is the kind of author who really does well under an extremely critical analysis of the text, looking for deeper meaning, because I don't think there was much.




These are claims which you have made no attempt to back up.  You simply asking me to accept your word that it is merely escapist adventure fiction with no higher aspirations what so ever, and further that you ask me to accept your word over that of the evidence that I've presented to the contrary.  Your word against my senses.   Now there is a contest.  When I present quotations from the text which seem to be about something more than merely escapist adventure fiction (whatever that means), you fail to even address the text.  Instead, you dismiss me as reading into the text things which are not there, even though they aren't exactly complex symbolism, and despite the fact that I could back my interpretation of the text with quotations by the man about the subjects in question.   If its present in the text, and its present in the man, why is it so astounding to you that it was deliberately put there?

To throw your method of debate back in your face, is it because ERB is about as lowbrow of fantasy as one can get, and if you can't make your claims stick here with a subject you consider yourself familiar with, then its highly unlikely that you would be able to make them stick anywhere?  So are you just going to continue digging in your heels, putting your hands over your eyes and going, "I can't see anything.  I just don't know what you are talking about."?  

Or maybe you reject these claims merely because you don't want ERB's Barsoom books to be about anything, but it offends your view of the world?  Fine.  In the same way maybe you don't want to see why the the supernatural and the metaphysical are intrisically linked because it offends your view of the world, but if that's your reasoning you'll pardon me for not accepting your commentary as definitive.



> Why should it? Why does he have to be making moral commentary?
> 
> Oh, that's right. Because it's fantasy, and the way you define fantasy, it has to be making moral commentary. So if ERB isn't making moral commentary, then your definition doesn't work.




You know what the funny thing is?  The sort of satirical commentary I quoted in which an one institution stands for another institution, doesn't even prove my assertion about ERB's barsoom books in particular, much less fantasy in general.   But you don't understand that because you don't have a clue what actually would satisfy my definitions - even though you reject everything out of hand.  I only brought up the obvious moral instruction in ERB's books, because I thought it would be a good way of opening up people's minds to the fact that there might be something deeper going on even in the simpliest of low fantasy.  But foolish me, I underestimated people's powers to be obstinate, because I've spent the better part of the time since then arguing with people over the simple obvious facts and not what they actually mean.   

It's as close to a factual literary analysis as a literary analysis can be that Gulliver's Travels is a satire.  It's as close to a factual literary analysis as a literary analysis can be that the religious cermonies and beliefs of the Tur worshipers is a satire.  One is like the other.  Nothing about those facts makes or breaks my larger argument, but since you treat that simple assertion as if it was flat-out absurd and provide no basis why whatsoever, I see no reason why I should care that you think my far more complex arguments are flat-out absurd.   In fact, since the sort of passages as the Tur worshiper passage occur all throughout the books, the fact that you don't see even that renders your larger rejection rather ubsurd.   It's like a blind man telling me I can't see and that I'm prepostrously arrogant for claiming that I can.   

Fine.  Eat your straw and be happy escaping from reality.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 24, 2005)

Off the top of my head-

*Works of fantasy without an overarching moral message/commentary:*

Mary Gentle's Books of Ash series.
Larry Niven's Magic Goes Away series.
Most of Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion arc of stories.
Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel series
Most of Tanith Lee's output.


*Works of Sci-Fi with an overarching moral message/commentary:*

C. J. Cherryh's Foreigner series.
Asimov's Robot series.
Greg Bear's Forge of God series.
Heinlein's _Starship Troopers_.
Most of the works of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells.
Ben Bova's Planet Series.

I could go on, but I think I've proven my point: the presence or absence of morality lessons cannot in any way be used as a test for whether something is fantasy or sci-fi.

The only meaningful dichotomy between the styles is entirely one of the settings, trappings, etc.  It is the only one with any consistency.

And even that consistency is only partial.  There are crossovers, as I fully admitted in my "venn diagram post"  One need look at the works of Piers Anthony, Terry Brooks, Frank Herbert and many others to see sci-fi splashed with fantasy (or vice versa).  Fritz Lieber's Ningauble and Seelba were definitely radically non-human, but the writer never said whether they were alien or extraplanar entities.


----------



## Andor (May 25, 2005)

*Let me explain... No, let me sum up.*

Look, guys, the fundamental problem here is simple. 

Whether you think Fantasy looks to the past and SF looks to the future...

Whether you think Fantasy discusses morality and SF discusses humanity...

Whether you think Fantasy breaks physical laws and SF adheres to them...

You must recognize that any story can be cast in the trappings of the either. EG: Seven Samurai = Magnificent Seven = Battle Beyond the Stars

Even if you think Fantasy is magic and SF is blasters you can see that a single tale can contain elements of both. EG: Star Wars

It is therefore impossible to come up with definitions that are mutually exclusive. 

Of course that wasn't the goal of the discussion in the first place. What is fantasy? I'd say it is something that has one, some or all of the following elements:

The supernatural. The distinction between the supernatural and technology being that the supernatural can never be fully understood or controlled. I would consider the prophesies of the computer in Alpha Ralpha Boulevard to be supernatural, but DnDs Arcane magic seems like technology to me. It is because of that lack of understanding/control that the supernatural must touch on morality. Conversely you can call something magic but if it acts like technology it need touch on morality no more than a butter knife must.

A backward looking aesthetic. If the glories of the past can never be reached, but only dreamed of, if progress is only illusion, then the work is fantasy (And anti-thetical to the central trope of SF.)

Heros. Individuals can shape the course of events by sheer willpower/chutzpah/coolness. 

The trappings of Fantasy. These being magic (howeverso mechanical it may be), fantastic creatures(dragons, griffons, talking corgis), anachronistic elements (like 14th century technology, 12th century politics, and 20th century morality), non-human sentients, etc...

Anyone have a definition of fantasy that this doesn't encompass?


----------



## Prince of Happiness (May 25, 2005)

I like J.G. Ballard.


----------



## Desdichado (May 25, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> These are claims which you have made no attempt to back up.



Of course not.  You can't prove a negative.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> When I present quotations from the text which seem to be about something more than merely escapist adventure fiction (whatever that means), you fail to even address the text.



Because, again, its irrelevent.  _Even if_ I were to agree that he were making a religious commentary in the small part of the text you quoted, _it does not_ extend to the whole work of even that book, much less the entire John Carter of Mars mythos.  It's not an _overarching theme_, it's a snippet of a theme tucked away in the corner.  You're trying to make it much bigger than it is.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> To throw your method of debate back in your face, is it because ERB is about as lowbrow of fantasy as one can get, and if you can't make your claims stick here with a subject you consider yourself familiar with, then its highly unlikely that you would be able to make them stick anywhere?  So are you just going to continue digging in your heels, putting your hands over your eyes and going, "I can't see anything.  I just don't know what you are talking about."?



You honestly think that if I wasn't just being stubborn that I would naturally agree with you?  Look, you want to make symbolic connections in ERB's work, more power to you.  I dislike that entire methodology of trying to craft symbols out of text, and I only tend to look for them when the author's deliberately put them there.  Even then, I dislike the reductionist method of turning everything I read into a "message" fraught with symbols.  So no, I don't really see them.  No, I don't think they're obvious.  No, I don't think that its necessary to draw them out of ERB's work.

Why are you so insistent that I accept your position?  You're not going to change my mind.  And, despite what you think, it's not because your arguments are so blindingly brilliant and I'm so dense.  Your arguments are at best rushed, nearly incoherent and lacking in relevent supporting evidence.  At worst, they're completely your own fabrications with no relevency to what ERB actually wrote at all.

And contrary to what you keep trying to imply, I am under no burden to _prove_ that you are wrong; if anything, you are under the burden to prove that you are right.  I don't think you've really even tried to construct a compelling case yet, and frankly, I'm not interested in seeing you continue to try.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Or maybe you reject these claims merely because you don't want ERB's Barsoom books to be about anything, but it offends your view of the world?  Fine.  In the same way maybe you don't want to see why the the supernatural and the metaphysical are intrisically linked because it offends your view of the world, but if that's your reasoning you'll pardon me for not accepting your commentary as definitive.



Ah, yes.  The _ad hominem_ cop-out at last.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> But you don't understand that because you don't have a clue what actually would satisfy my definitions - even though you reject everything out of hand.



If not, you have only yourself to blame.  I've _almost_ quoted portions of your definition word for word when I've referred to it, so if I don't "have a clue what your definition is" that's indicative of either one of two things: 1) you have spectacularly failed to communicate what you mean by throwing out red herrings and confusing explanations, or 2) you're backpedaling something fierce from what you earlier said when it was pointed out how ludicrous it was.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I only brought up the obvious moral instruction in ERB's books, because I thought it would be a good way of opening up people's minds to the fact that there might be something deeper going on even in the simpliest of low fantasy.



The moral instruction in ERB's work is hardly obvious, and my mind is hardly closed.  But just because I keep an open mind about things doesn't mean I accept whatever clap-trap I hear.  You're not the only one who's read ERB since childhood, you know, nor are you the only one to presumably have read it many times.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> But foolish me, I underestimated people's powers to be obstinate, because I've spent the better part of the time since then arguing with people over the simple obvious facts and not what they actually mean.



Rather, foolish you for believing that _an interpretation_ of a literary work is in any way a fact.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Fine.  Eat your straw and be happy escaping from reality.



Heh.  OK.  Still, the whole ERB thing is irrelevent anyway.  The most relevent post I've seen for a while was Dannyalcatraz's list of fantasy works that do not contain your overarching morality message, and sci fi works that do.

So, naturally, I fully expect you'll ignore that one and instead continue to argue for your derived interpretation of _A Princess of Mars_ as a symbolic battle of good against evil.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (May 25, 2005)

A pretty interesting argument, so far, though I hope noone leaves having taken permanent offense.

I found Joshua's distinction between discrete and grand theory to be really very good.

And on Celebrim's side:



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Common sense tells you that, and I've learned a long time ago that there wasn't much use arguing against common sense.  And heck, I even believe that most of the time when you argue against common sense you're wrong, so maybe your right.  I just happen to think that there is alot more to the generas than the superficial imagery of them, that there is more to the novel than novelty, and that there are in fact literary themes within them which are extremely difficult to address from outside them.




Common sense is trickly, though I've gotten in trouble for it another thread, I would argue that if you have someone arguing against common sense it's probably less common than it's claiming.

I can't disagree with you that genre has more significance than imagery or novelty, but I'd argue that those are important, that much of the meaning is derived from how they are structured, and that while the dynamic of genre you describe might be uniquely served within a given genre most genres have to be a good deal more flexible than their unique service so I don't know that it serves as a good limitational factor for the genre in question.

That's less true of the huge genres such as Epic, Tragic, Comic, or Satyrical, but I don't know that fantasy really qualifies as one of those but rather as a sub-quality that any of those might have.


----------



## John Morrow (May 25, 2005)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I can't disagree with you that genre has more significance than imagery or novelty, but I'd argue that those are important, that much of the meaning is derived from how they are structured, and that while the dynamic of genre you describe might be uniquely served within a given genre most genres have to be a good deal more flexible than their unique service so I don't know that it serves as a good limitational factor for the genre in question.




I think that both Science Fiction and Fantasy can loosely be described as a single genre that involves telling stories using fantastic elements rather than real world elements.  That's why you'll often find both science fiction and fantasy on the same bookshelf in a bookstore and you'll find both at Science Fiction conventions and used as role-playing settings.  I think it's telling that the line that's being argued is not what differentiates fantasy or science fiction from all other genres but simply what distinguishes them from each other.  And for most people not heavily interested in the nuances of stories about make believe places, creatures, and powers, I think the difference is largely just a matter of trappings -- spaceships, robots, and rayguns vs. dragons, elves, and wands.  Take a good look at how Shadowrun, Dragonstar, and Warhammer 40K stake out a space between both genres and the trappings they use to do so.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (May 25, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> I think that both Science Fiction and Fantasy can loosely be described as a single genre that involves telling stories using fantastic elements rather than real world elements.




I very much agree.  Did you see the stuff earlier on Library of Congress definitions and the split between character driven and world-oriented novels in the 19th century?


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 25, 2005)

Celebrim, I’ve been following this thread for a while now and I’m still a bit puzzled as to how and why you wish to equate phantasy with morality.  Now, I can see a connection with a large section of phantasy that solidifies the polarity of morality.  Meaning, there are obvious ‘evils’ and ‘goods’ and a very narrow sense of grey—in fact the only sense of grey is the characters conflicts with the Author’s ‘right’ decision.  And, perhaps, phantasy could be defined by this common personal conflict—but it is such a large part of fiction that it could be considered the driving force of most fiction.  Though, I’m almost positive that you feel these absolutes encompass mostly poorly written or ‘low-brow’ phantasy…perhaps I’m wrong.

The idea that ‘defining humanity or exploring what humanity is’ and the idea that ‘morality and humanity’s association with his moral universe’ are completely…or even moderately separate, I feel, is a significant stretch for most people.  The links (between the two ideas) are very tangible and probably convolutes any argument that associates a concomitant structure—in terms of logical parallelism.  This becomes a major crux in any argument you make discerning the validity of morality being an integral part of phantasy…that, and the importance of morality in all fiction.

I feel, perhaps because of my misunderstanding, that your guidelines more accurately describe Epic prose.  This might be because of the only link I can find in your ideas (the absolute nature of morality in some phantasy) so closely mimics Epic structure that they are practically dependent upon each other.  I know I’m going off the mark here, but I just can’t recognize any other tangible connection…is there more?

Overall, I would suggest that the introduction of the modern novel was, in fact, a step toward defining, if not understanding humanity.  Consequently, there was an evolution of morality based upon the understanding of humanity and humanity’s morale universe—or in fact, the conflict of the understanding of humanity and humanity’ morale universe.  To suggest that either are a defining structure of a single genre I don’t feel creates a very productive model--considering the preponderance of the structure throughout literature.

I feel your pain in regards to the use of imagery to define genre…but let’s face it, imagery is a form of quick reference to earmark genre—traditionally.  Similarly, plot motif, character, form and resolution really define our modern literary definition of genre—just look at the definition of Romantic, Classical, Gothic, Grotesque, and even Modern literature.  Without the secondary…or tertiary agreement of imagery it would be hard to define any genre.  With that said, it would probably be wise—not—to argue literary idiosyncrasies with somebody who doesn’t recognise symbolism as a strong modifier of intention.  This can only cause frustration.  The proof is in the pudding—but only if you recognise that it is, in fact, pudding.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (May 25, 2005)

No offense intended, and I'm sorry if I missed this earlier, but why are you spelling fantasy with a ph?


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (May 25, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> I feel, perhaps because of my misunderstanding, that your guidelines more accurately describe Epic prose.  This might be because of the only link I can find in your ideas (the absolute nature of morality in some phantasy) so closely mimics Epic structure that they are practically dependent upon each other.  I know I’m going off the mark here, but I just can’t recognize any other tangible connection…is there more?




I don't know I can certainly see enough into Celebrim's argument that I think he's got a good case for distinguishing between the epic and his ethos of fantasy.  

Course he could come in here and prove me wrong pretty easilly.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 25, 2005)

I'm a Cunuckian...with a traditional bent.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 25, 2005)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I don't know I can certainly see enough into Celebrim's argument that I think he's got a good case for distinguishing between the epic and his ethos of fantasy.





It's just that Epic can't be separated from morality without it losing meaning.  Like I said, I'm probably missing something important.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (May 25, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> I'm a Cunuckian...with a traditional bent.




That's interesting.  I would have stuck with the f myself due to the grouping with fable, fabulous and fantasy, fantastic.  Do they get 'ph'ed as well?


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (May 25, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> It's just that Epic can't be separated from morality without it losing meaning.  Like I said, I'm probably missing something important.




No denying that, but I think Celebrim is specifically qualifying the fantasy of morality as having a lower goal and occupying a smaller subset of narrative morality than an epic would.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 25, 2005)

No...just phantasy...I'm not sure why.  Lol.


----------



## John Morrow (May 25, 2005)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I very much agree.  Did you see the stuff earlier on Library of Congress definitions and the split between character driven and world-oriented novels in the 19th century?




I skimmed over some of that.  I guess I should go back and take a look then...


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 25, 2005)

Hmmm, I could see it being more precise...but narrower?  I'm not sure I can see that.  (Perhaps, that's what you meant...sorry.) edit


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (May 25, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> Hmmm, I could see it being more precise...but narrower?  I'm not sure I can see that.  (Perhaps, that's what you meant...sorry.) edit




yeah, let me see if I can clarify.  By the time you reach the level of moral narrative necessary to construct an epic a conflict between good and evil can only be a subset of what's going on.

Lord of the Rings can really have concrete extrapolations of good and evil duking it out, though I'm not really certain that's what's going on there but let's accept it and move on, but even in Milton, the most fantastic epic, the fight between good and evil is only one part of the creation story of Hell and the fall of man.  Evil has to be personified and explored in a way that Fantasy doesn't really have to do.

And in the Divine Comedy good and evil aren't really fighting they're just different point on a continuum where good has definitively won and is trying to structure evil into the new order.

In both cases it's the structuring that's important, in the Lord of the Rings there's still a lot of structuring going on but it's not the action is a far more important focus of the narrative.

It's like the difference between novels and Mennippean satires.  Novels are narrower in the sense that they are more constructed and have a more focused scope, but I'm not arguing that Moby Dick is anything less than sprawling just that it's not got the invested breadth that Gulliver's Travels has to have.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 25, 2005)

I think you've successfully defined the difference between a novel and an Epic.  Direct (physical) conflict is never manditory in a moral tale.

Edit:  I think we can safely say that Moby Dick was more interested in Man while Gulliver's Travels was more interested in Morality.  It is just a margin that would be hard to equate to a genre...and difficult to explain to people who focus on imagery.


----------



## Desdichado (May 25, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> This becomes a major crux in any argument you make discerning the validity of morality being an integral part of phantasy…that, and the importance of morality in all fiction.



Don't you mean phiction?


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 25, 2005)

Hey!  Quit pokin' fun at my wordage!  I don't make fun of the way you people spell 'colour'!  All of these poor, poor, 'u's put out of work at such a young age.  Damn economy!


----------



## Desdichado (May 25, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> All of these poor, poor, 'u's put out of work at such a young age.  Damn economy!



They seem to have landed a pretty lucrative gig in chat-speak, so I think they'll do OK...


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 25, 2005)

Good point.  I'm just happy they're working.


----------



## Desdichado (May 25, 2005)

I decided it wouldn't hurt to put my money where my mouth is, and pony up an example of a very popular fantasy work that I _do not_ consider to have any underlying symbolism or exploration of abstract principles made flesh.  Although I had previously abandoned this work in frustration several books ago, I now find myself going through them again as audiobooks from my local public library, so it's all pretty fresh in my mind.  For those concerned about such things, this post at this point will contain spoilers for the _Wheel of Time_ series.

What?  No symbolic good vs. evil?  It even has a freakin' Dark Lord and everything!  Yeah, well, the Dark One can't be used to explore what evil is, because other than some set-up, and a few diversions from time to time to make sure we don't completely forget him, he's hardly an important aspect of the story.  At least so far.  The story has been about Rand Al'Thor rising to power and trying to unite folks that are nominally "good" yet are very willful and fractious behind him.  Similarly, neither Rand nor any other character can really be said to be a virtue, vice or other such characteristic made flesh; certainly as characters they _have_ virtues and vices, but they are not completely defined by them.

That said, there are several _themes_ that can be extracted from the books; some of them by the author's own admission.  But none of these themes makes the _Wheel of Time_ into anything like a morality play except by twisting and stretching the available evidence farther than it really has any right to go.  Here's a few of the themes I think are part of the story:

As alluded to above, people don't like to be united behind a single person, and people are stubborn, wilful and ambitious, even those who are nominally "good."  The Wise Ones of the Aiel and the Aes Sedai in particular have their own agendas for Rand, and intend to use him as much as they can.  The Whitecloaks have their own idea of what's right and what needs to be done, and nobody much else agrees with them.  Same for the Seanchan.  Yet all stand against the Dark One, or at least they would if they even believed him to be a serious threat.  This theme can perhaps best be encapsulated with the phrase, internal to the book, (and I'm paraphrasing since I don't remember the exact wording) "the paths of the heights are paved with daggers," alluding to the fact that once you become powerful and influential, there are people who can't wait to take you down, and others who can't wait to try and make you dance like a puppet.  Still, this theme hardly needs to be presented in a fantasy format.  Any history of Alexander the Great, in particular leading up to his ascension to the Macedonian throne through his uniting of all of Greece under his banner would of necessity have the same theme.  As would any work describing the rise to power of Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler, Cesare Borge, Genghis Khan, or any other historical figure who rose from (relative) obscurity to stand like a giant in historical textbooks.  Indeed, instead of a theme of the books, this could almost simply be interpreted as exploring the logical conclusions of Rand's rise to power.  Certainly this theme can't be pressed into any type of morality play.

What would it be like to be tapped on the shoulder some day and told, "hey, you're the guy who has to save the world.  And destroy it in the process, by the way."  Robert Jordan himself has stated that this is a theme of the books, although ironically, I think it's little explored.  Other than oft-repeated phrases about duty, responsibility and the burden they represent, this theme is surprisingly understated.  Again, no morality play fodder there.

What would a culture be like if they had a historical remembrance of specifically _men_ causing a major catastrophe?  Here, though, there's no "message" or symbolism inherent in this; rather, as Tolkien liked crafting languages, Jordan likes crafting ethnologies.  His exploration of the relationships between men and women are merely the logical follow-through of the Breaking of the World and what it meant to the survivors, nothing else.

Granted, he does mention several times that "the greatest works of the Age of Legends were done by men and women working together" and does allude to the fact that the constant sexual, or more precisely, gender-related tension does more harm than good.  This is probably the closest thing to the idea of making abstract ideas personified and putting them in the story, but even here, I think that's shaky.  Maybe it'll be more firm once the series is complete.  Other than the occasional phrase mentioned above, and the cleansing of _saidin_ requiring both Rand and Nynaeve working together, there's been little evidence in the book that men and women in harmony really would be any better than the status quo.  If anything, in some ways, the series seems to be forcibly pushing them farther apart.

What is appropriate action during times of war.  This is especially touched upon during Perrin's POV time and his absurd wishy-washiness about axe or hammer, and the Way of the Leaf.  However, this is strongly contrasted with Rand and the Aiel, and their own history of following the Way of the Leaf and why it was abandoned, and why the Aiel don't just return to it.  If there's a message here, it certainly seems that Jordan is trying to argue both sides at once, which is indicative to me that he's not imparting any such message at all.  Besides, this hardly needs the fantasy genre to explore; Gary Cooper's _Seargeant York_ did so much better, and any story about the homefront of the Vietnam War, for instance, could explore the same themes just as well, if not better.

If you're young and powerful, you get lots of hawt chick action.  Yeah, I dunno if the fact that _The Wheel of Time_ is a soap opera both in terms of plot elements but also in terms of characters all being young, beautiful, powerful and rich means anything or not.  I tend to think not.
Anyway, if Celebrim has even read _The Wheel of Time_ then I'm sure he disagrees with my interpretation of it.  I'll not be so arrogant as to claim my interpretation is _factual_; it's just my interpretation.  However, his theory that a fantasy _must_ be a morality tale only needs one work of fantasy that is not a morality tale to invalidate and disqualify his theory from being taken seriously, and my humble proposal is that _The Wheel of Time_ is not one.  With a little bit of thought, I'm sure I could come up with many others, though.


----------



## Celebrim (May 25, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I decided it wouldn't hurt to put my money where my mouth is, and pony up an example of a very popular fantasy work that I _do not_ consider to have any underlying symbolism or exploration of abstract principles made flesh.  Although I had previously abandoned this work in frustration several books ago, I now find myself going through them again as audiobooks from my local public library, so it's all pretty fresh in my mind.  For those concerned about such things, this post at this point will contain spoilers for the _Wheel of Time_ series....




LOL.  No, literally, I had to get up and leave the lab when I read that to avoid causing a disturbance.  I really intended to just stay out of this thread, but gee, is that the best you can do?

For the record, demonstrating that an author is often incoherent and that he raises themes for which he has no good answer or that he raises all sorts of mythic elements that he has no intention of exploring in an intellectual fashion is nothing like demonstrating that the work doesn't contain fantastic elements which embody abstract ideas such as good, evil, harmony, etc. 

Again, all you've demonstrated by claiming that this particular work doesn't fit my definition of a fantasy, is that you aren't very good at reading works critically.  The Wheel of Time is deeply steeped in Buddhist and Judeo-Christian mythic imagery and contains all sorts of fantastic elements which are in many cases explicitly stand-ins for abstract ideas.   Heck, Rand Al'Thor isn't just symbolically a Christ figure, Rand Al'Thor is EXPLICITLY WITHIN THE TEXT a Christ figure (and within the framework of the story, one must assume that he is literally the Messiah Returned).   Even if we where to argue that Robert Jordan had no higher aspirations than pulp fiction, which would be rather insulting IMO, this would be a really good example of why its impossible to write fantasy that doesn't end up getting tied into morality.  And in particular, I'd argue that alot of the reasons the WoT series is so compelling despite its flaws as a story is that it is so deeply tied into all this mythic imagery about good and evil, ying and yang, ad infinitum.


----------



## Celebrim (May 25, 2005)

Danny: I didn't get back to you because I was so tired of having to repeat myself, and not having much anyone reply with what I considered a reasonable objection that I decided to just drop it.  (Incidently, whether or not I'm arrogant for not considering the objections reasonable, it nonetheless is reasonable that if I'm not finding the debate interesting for me to not continue in it.   Just thought I'd say that to partially forstall the versus ad hominem attacks.)  

However, the post in which you listed works was a reasonable objection.   A list of counter-examples, some of them quite good, is a reasonable objection.   Had I been having more fun at the time, I'd been happy to respond.   

The other problem is that I've only read about half the examples in the list, and before I could really respond I'd have to read the rest.   I will respond to those that I have experience with.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> *Works of fantasy without an overarching moral message/commentary:*
> 
> Mary Gentle's Books of Ash series.
> Larry Niven's Magic Goes Away series.
> ...




As I said earlier, my sci-fi is much stronger than my fantasy.   I've read one book of the Stormbringer saga, but not recently enough to really comment on it.  I will note however that several other posters felt that Moorcock's books fit my definition, even though they didn't agree that my definition covered all of fantasy (which I admit is not immediately obvious).   

I know what the Kushiel series is about, but I've never read it.  It's just not my thing, and my sole further comment on the work is that I don't read it _because I object to it on moral grounds_ and you may make of that what you will. 

The only other work I'm familiar with on that list is Larry Niven's 'Magic Goes Away' series, and on that I feel I'm on firmer footing.  Firm enough at least to note that 'Magic Goes Away' is a work that is dead center of my definition of a fantasy.

To meet my definition of a fantasy, the book needs to have elements which are the embodiments or existantiations of abstract moral principals.  It's not enough for the book to just have something be a symbol for something else, or for that thing to be like something else.  That thing has to be that abstract thing made tangible.   Likewise, those abstract things can't be just any general idea, but something which would fall within the realm of things we would consider moral ideas or principals - whether humility, ambition, evil, good, hubris, love, prudence, or whatever.

So, what is 'The Magic Goes Away' about?  Well its a tale of a civilization in which supernatural metaphysical embodiments of ideas (gods and stuff) are fading away because the magic which empowers them is fading away.   Already, we've met the definitions of my fantasy simply because the Gods in 'The Magic Goes Away' are literally incarnated principals in the story in addition to merely being Man writ large.   But I don't have to stop there.  We can talk about what the story is about.   What does the narrator of the story learn in the course of the adventure?   Well, for most of the story, the narrator and most eveyone else in the story is rather depressed that there world filled with magical things is coming to an end.  The narrator goes on a quest to prevent the magic in the world from going away.   In the end he learns that the magic going away is probably a good thing, for though the magic in the world is a wonderful thing, it also keeps man enslaved to the metaphysical things.  Ultimately he decides that mankind will be better off letting the magic fading away and embracing a new world in which the gods are only faded memories.   Does this sound like a modernist morality tale to you?   If it doesn't, then pardon me for thinking you aren't paying very close attention.   We live in a world in which the magic is fading away under the pressures of modern science and reason.   We could chose to look back at the past regretfully as if the loss of the magic was a bad thing, but the writer of 'The Magic Goes Away' tells us, that would be a mistake - because life in the world filled with magic wasn't actually all that good of a thing.   All that magic just left man enslaved.   The real hope for man is not in the past with the magic, but forward in the future in a world were man is no longer subject to the magic.

And that is certainly a morality tale.   I'd also like to point out that 'The Magic Goes Away' breaks some of the definitions given here for a fantasy, in that ultimately the story is very forward looking and future looking and ultimately the man character rejects the glories of the fading past as being not all that they are cracked up to be.



> *Works of Sci-Fi with an overarching moral message/commentary:*
> 
> C. J. Cherryh's Foreigner series.
> Asimov's Robot series.
> ...




I've read the above except for Greg Bear and Ben Bova.  I've only read the first of CJ Cherryh's 'Foreigner' works, but I've read here other stuff semi-extensively.  Heinlein, Verne, Wells and Asimov I'm very familiar with.   

This is actually the harder question, because for the most part (with the possible exception of some of the Wells and Verne) I want to firmly classify the above as Science Fiction.   First, let me point out that its not enough for the story merely to have some moral messages in it for it to be moved into fantasy.  The moral message has to be carried in the form of an abstract idea which has been embodied in some fashion in order to be easier discuss and describe through narrative.   So what I would ask is things like, "Are the colonists in the Foreigner series symbolic of anything?  If so, what are they symbolic of?"  If the answer is something like, "I believe that they are symbolic of Western Imperialism.", then you have a colonists that are symbolic of well colonists, and not colonists that are symbolic of say 'man's rapaciousness'.   The colonists are pretty much just colonists.  Now, if you have a big smoke belching juggernaut that is symbolic of 'Western Imperialism', then we are probably on to something, but we don't.   Likewise, are the natives in CJ Cherryh's embodiments of some abstract principal?
No, at best the natives are metaphors for natives.   So, while its arguable that CJ Cherryh's work is filled with political (and perhaps moral) commentary, its not at all clear to me that anything in the story is an abstracted idea made tangible.  Perhaps it is.   But if your reading of the story is that everything in it is an embodiment of an abstract idea (and I'm going to guess that it isn't) then it would be my belief that you were emotionally and intellectually responding to the story as if it were a fantasy.   What CJ Cherryh's story is to me is something more like a speculative retelling of history (at least at one level), and that device of putting Man in an alien setting (especially among things that are Not-Man) and asking 'what if?' is to me the very heart of sci-fi.

You could do the same sort of thing for Starship Troopers, though here I confess that depending on how you read the story I've got a problem.  If you believe that the monstrous bugs are metaphors for communism, then we are bordering right on the edge of fantasy IMO.  I'm not sure I'd carry it that far, but I definately see the point. Actually, alot of Heinlien's early work still has a bit of the elements of the fantastic in it, as Heinlein still employs quite frequently the Space Opera device of the 'Big Bug Eyed Monsters' quite abit and doesn't do alot of exploring of 'the Other' in any sort of deep way (though there are examples of clearer cases in even his juvenile works like 'Space Cadet').   One thing we can be certain of though is that Heinlein is trying to say that Man is certainly not a horde of mindless bugs, but a thinking and independent being.  Even when the Hero has most subordinated himself to the needs of the group, he still remains something that is not part of a hive organism.

So actually, the hardest thing for me to show is not that the above aren't fantasy, but that they are in fact science fiction in every case.



> I could go on, but I think I've proven my point: the presence or absence of morality lessons cannot in any way be used as a test for whether something is fantasy or sci-fi.




This is what you get for making strawmen out of my definitions.  Go back to the start and read what I wrote again.  I most certainly didn't say what you say that I said, and if you've been arguing with simulacrum of my definition the whole time well then more the pity.



> And even that consistency is only partial.  There are crossovers, as I fully admitted in my "venn diagram post"




Me too, I should note.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 25, 2005)

To be fair, Celebrim, I think Joshua is confusing symbolism and allegory...a VERY common mistake.


----------



## ThirdWizard (May 25, 2005)

Okay, I admit I stopped reading on page five. Here is my general definition of sci-fi and fantasy, and indeed all genres really. It quite purposefully avoids any academic thought.

If it is written for a sci-fi audience then it is sci-fi. If it is written for a fantasy audience, then it is fantasy. Note this isn't saying that the author sees it as sci-fi so it is sci-fi. It is the intent of the writer with respect to audience and what kind of audience, with their preconceved notions of what they prefer, that is important. Thus, the fact that _Star Trek_ has vulcans that can read your mind is of little importantce. The fact that _Star Trek_ is written to appeal to a sci-fi audience is of primary importance.

Whether psionics is realistic or not is irrelevent in this view. What is important is how it is presented to the audience. That will determine whether it fits in with science fiction or fantasy.


----------



## Desdichado (May 25, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> For the record, demonstrating that an author is often incoherent and that he raises themes for which he has no good answer or that he raises all sorts of mythic elements that he has no intention of exploring in an intellectual fashion is nothing like demonstrating that the work doesn't contain fantastic elements which embody abstract ideas such as good, evil, harmony, etc.



If they are incoherent, or are contradictory, they can't very well embody an abstract idea.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Again, all you've demonstrated by claiming that this particular work doesn't fit my definition of a fantasy, is that you aren't very good at reading works critically.



I've never held literary criticism in high regard, and if you are an example of reading works critically, I have affirmed my prior suspicion that it is a completely useless "discipline" of academia.  You take the most tenuous of links and inflate it to ludicrous proportions in an attempt to "prove" the overarching themes and symbolism that doesn't exist.

In many cases, you do this _in spite_ of the author's stated intentions, or you simply ignore what the author was likely doing and look for symbolism anyway, because you're so ingrained to do so by the literary establishment.  And then, you take these completely fabricated overlays of what you believe works to be about, and go on to create completely spurious theories of genre, such as, what fantasy is all about.

Fine.  I'm not good at reading critically the way most English departments teach it.  In fact, I've purposefully eschewed the methodology, because I find it to be useless.  In your opinion, I'm completely blind to obvious textual symbolism.  In my mind, you're so desperate for hidden meaning and symbolism that you make it up.  The divide between how we read will probably never be bridged.  I highly doubt you will ever come around to my point of view, and I know for certain that I will never come around to yours.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> The Wheel of Time is deeply steeped in Buddhist and Judeo-Christian mythic imagery and contains all sorts of fantastic elements which are in many cases explicitly stand-ins for abstract ideas.



You say those as if they are the same thing.  Steeped in mythic imagery is _not_ the argument you were making for defining fantasy, and it has nothing to do with whether or not they stand in for abstract ideas.  Just because Artur Hawkwing is transparently King Arthur, for instance, and thus a mythic figure, does not mean that he stands for anything in _The Wheel of Time_.  In fact, I can't see that he does.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Heck, Rand Al'Thor isn't just symbolically a Christ figure, Rand Al'Thor is EXPLICITLY WITHIN THE TEXT a Christ figure (and within the framework of the story, one must assume that he is literally the Messiah Returned).



No, that's absurd.  If Rand al'Thor was supposed to stand in for Christ, then he wouldn't have such glaring differences to the iconic Christ figure.  He clearly has _some_ aspects of Christ-figure, but clearly diverges wildly in others.

Also, Christ was not an abstract principle either, he's a historical figure.  You seem to be freely mixing abstract principles and mythic figures, at least in this post if not in general, which doesn't help the coherence of your position at all, nor the clarity of the "definition" of fantasy.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Even if we where to argue that Robert Jordan had no higher aspirations than pulp fiction, which would be rather insulting IMO, this would be a really good example of why its impossible to write fantasy that doesn't end up getting tied into morality.  And in particular, I'd argue that alot of the reasons the WoT series is so compelling despite its flaws as a story is that it is so deeply tied into all this mythic imagery about good and evil, ying and yang, ad infinitum.



Those "deep ties" are little more than superficial surface features of the story, actually.  You haven't even made any attempt to show how the _Wheel of Time_ is in any way tied up with morality.  I still argue that it most certainly is not.  Robert Jordan clearly borrowed lots of mythic imagery and resonance, but he makes no moral statement about any of them.


----------



## Celebrim (May 25, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> To be fair, Celebrim, I think Joshua is confusing symbolism and allegory...a VERY common mistake.




Since when has Joshua been fair in this debate?  I dare suggest that Gulliver's Travels is a satire, and I'm blasted as being arrogant for foisting my interpretation on things as if I was offering some arguable point.   I point out from the text of ERB that he's wrong, and he says I'm choosing to find things in the text that aren't there.   I point out that I can find the same sentiments coming directly from the man, and he persists in statements like "I prefer to only read what the author put there".   I'm long since tired of being fair with Joshua.  I'm going to stop now only because I'm afraid I'll tell you what I really think.  He's certainly had no problem saying what he thinks of me.


----------



## Desdichado (May 25, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> To be fair, Celebrim, I think Joshua is confusing symbolism and allegory...a VERY common mistake.



No, actually I'm not, but I should probably be a bit more specific.  Symbolism that is not allegorical is --at best-- a tenuous attribution, though.  And symbols that don't actually _say anything_ -- they merely exist to spark "mythic resonance" with the reader and give the work a sense of false gravitas and history -- accomplish absolutely nothing with regard to Celebrim's spurious definition of fantasy.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 25, 2005)

Oh dear.  Celebrim.  After reading your post, I have come to the conclusion that neither of you are all that clear on the difference.  Your last post seems to indicate that all phantasy must contain allegory...or allegorical characters to be precise.  That is a very slippery slope to defend.  A good example of a true allegorical character would be:  Satan.  Good example of a forced (or weak if you will )allegiorical character would be:  The Emperor (from SW).  

Allegory is an absolute embodiment of an abstract.  Symbolism is a device that can embody an abstract and still promote plot and content while never reaching the total 'oneness' of an allegory.

I'll comtinue a bit later when I have more time.


----------



## Desdichado (May 25, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Since when has Joshua been fair in this debate?  I dare suggest that Gulliver's Travels is a satire, and I'm blasted as being arrogant for foisting my interpretation on things as if I was offering some arguable point.



Well, for one thing, I made no comment whatsoever about Gulliver's Travels.  You're confusing me with everyone else in the thread who thinks your theory is B.S.  See, here's our fundamental difference.  You believe that textual interprations are _fact_ when clearly they are not.  Because I will not accept that your opinions and interpretations are fact, you go on to say:


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I'm long since tired of being fair with Joshua.  I'm going to stop now only because I'm afraid I'll tell you what I really think.  He's certainly had no problem saying what he thinks of me.



I've said a great deal of what I think of your _arguments_, yet you ignore my most persistent one, and slide into sniping and name-calling.  Why will you not address the fundamental idea that any textual interpretation is opinion, and therefore not absolute and "factual" as you claim?  Other than your actual definition of fantasy, that's the only really big sticking point I have.  Oh, I've got plenty of other quibbles, mostly about your methodology, which seems almost an extreme parody of academic literary criticism, a discipline for which I have little patience to begin with.  But we could actually have an intelligent conversation if you'd stop digressing into details and address the main problems I have with your statements.


----------



## Celebrim (May 25, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> If they are incoherent, or are contradictory, they can't very well embody an abstract idea.




You mean people can't be bad writers, or do you mean that people can't have incoherent, contridictory and vague notions about things that are abstract?



> I've never held literary criticism in high regard, and if you are an example of reading works critically, I have affirmed my prior suspicion that it is a completely useless "discipline" of academia.




Well, good.  Then by all means hold it in low regard by leaving a thread discussing genre conventions.  It's indeed a 'useless' discipline, that's why they call it a 'liberal art' instead of a 'practical art'.   But, since I'm not posting to this board as part of my job, and merely for recreation it hardly seems important that it is a 'useless' thing.



> You take the most tenuous of links and inflate it to ludicrous proportions in an attempt to "prove" the overarching themes and symbolism that doesn't exist.




Who said anything about needing 'overarching themes'?  Overarching themes have nothing to do with my definition, its just merely interesting how often they appear.   Site one concrete example of me taking tenous links and inflating them to ludicrous proportions.   



> In many cases, you do this _in spite_ of the author's stated intentions, or you simply ignore what the author was likely doing and look for symbolism anyway




Oh, good grief.  Show me one example of me doing this despite the author's stated intentions.  Are you saying that Clint didn't intend for the supernatural hints in 'High Plains Drifter'?  Are you saying that ERB didn't intend to satirize religious extremism?  Are you saying the Larry Niven was completely unaware of the modernist sentiments behind 'The Magic Goes Away'?  What other examples in this thread have I done?



> Its because you're so ingrained to do so by the literary establishment.




Here we go with the ridiculous assertions about my background again.



> Fine.  I'm not good at reading critically the way most English departments teach it.  In fact, I've purposefully eschewed the methodology, because I find it to be useless.




Fine, then I wish you would eshew any involvement in a methodolical approach to defining literary genera.



> In your opinion, I'm completely blind to obvious textual symbolism.




No, in my mind you are not only blind to obvious textual symbolism, you are blind to the text.  It's not like I'm making complex arguments about the meaning of the work, nor is a complex meaning a requirement for meeting the rather simple definition I gave.  



> In my mind, you're so desperate for hidden meaning and symbolism that you make it up.




Where am I trying to make it up?   It's not like we are talking about deeply hidden things.   If you want deeply hidden meaning, then lets talk Tolkein, and I assure you that I won't be putting anything in thier the author didin't intend because we have lots and lots of letters about his own works.



> The divide between how we read will probably never be bridged.  I highly doubt you will ever come around to my point of view, and I know for certain that I will never come around to yours.




At last something we agree on.



> You say those as if they are the same thing.  Steeped in mythic imagery is _not_ the argument you were making for defining fantasy, and it has nothing to do with whether or not they stand in for abstract ideas.  Just because Artur Hawkwing is transparently King Arthur, for instance, and thus a mythic figure, does not mean that he stands for anything in _The Wheel of Time_.  In fact, I can't see that he does.






> No, that's absurd.  If Rand al'Thor was supposed to stand in for Christ, then he wouldn't have such glaring differences to the iconic Christ figure.




Within the context of the story, Rand al'Thor isn't a stand in for Christ - he is Christ.   Rand al'Thor isn't a christ figure.  He's the bloody eternal savior sent into the world by its creator to redeem it by the shedding of his blood.



> He clearly has _some_ aspects of Christ-figure, but clearly diverges wildly in others.




So what????



> Also, Christ was not an abstract principle either, he's a historical figure.  You seem to be freely mixing abstract principles and mythic figures, at least in this post if not in general, which doesn't help the coherence of your position at all, nor the clarity of the "definition" of fantasy.




I would prefer to stay out of religious discussions.   



> Those "deep ties" are little more than superficial surface features of the story, actually.  You haven't even made any attempt to show how the _Wheel of Time_ is in any way tied up with morality.  I still argue that it most certainly is not.  Robert Jordan clearly borrowed lots of mythic imagery and resonance, but he makes no moral statement about any of them.




It's your idea that the ties have to be 'deep' (whatever that means).  It has nothing to do with mine.



> And symbols that don't actually say anything -- they merely exist to spark "mythic resonance" with the reader and give the work a sense of false gravitas and history -- accomplish absolutely nothing with regard to Celebrim's spurious definition of fantasy.




So you say, but I believe I've already covered this.  It doesn't matter so much why the author is choosing to use fantasy elements, or even if the author intends to say anything.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 25, 2005)

Joshua, I feel his...and your lack of truely adressing the issue stems from the difference of ideologies rather than anything that could be considered a concrete argument.  I feel a bit empty here in this debate soley because I really haven't taken a hard side yet.  I have been absolutely entreched with literary theory.  So, I can sit here and mimic literary concerns like a parrot and not truely feel offended by anything anybody says--not to say that I don't understand the merrit or motive of the concerns.  While you, and Celebrim, have concocted a personal interpretation of literature that works for both of you...based on personal beleifs and biases that have been validified by your own ideas of reason.  The same can be said for current literary criticism; but, there is a substancial load of relevent disciplinary material to back it up...perhaps one day you will have this as well. 

Edit:  Drat, my slow typing!


----------



## Celebrim (May 25, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> Oh dear.  Celebrim....Your last post seems to indicate that all phantasy must contain allegory...or allegorical characters to be precise.




I'm sorry you got that imprecision.  I was merely pointing out that in that particular case there was pretty obvious allegory.  I do not maintain that all fantasy must contain allegory, though I would suggest that alot of it does.  



> That is a very slippery slope to defend.  A good example of a true allegorical character would be:  Satan.  Good example of a forced (or weak if you will )allegiorical character would be:  The Emperor (from SW).




Heh.  That's me.  The defender of slippery slopes.  But for the purposes of my arguement it doesn't really matter how strong our weak the particular allegory is, the fact is that you can recognize the similarity between say 'Satan' and 'The Emperor', or the deliberate (by the author's own admission) connection between Yoda and the Buddha.   But, I agree that the Satan/Emperor is a forced allegory, and I for one wouldn't want to make it.  I certainly don't think that 'The Emperor' is allegorical for Satan, but 'The Sith' certainly seem to embody some sort of ideological purity (chaos, evil, whatever you want to call it).  I'd much prefer to concentrate on the role of more obviously fantastic elements in the story, such as 'The Force'.



> Allegory is an absolute embodiment of an abstract.  Symbolism is a device that can embody an abstract and still promote plot and content while never reaching the total 'oneness' of an allegory.




Great.  But my definition doesn't require allegory.  It just so happens that in the cases under discussion, I think allegory is there to one degree or the other.   All that is required is that it contains a certain type of symbolism.



> I'll comtinue a bit later when I have more time.




Sure, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.


----------



## Desdichado (May 25, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Who said anything about needing 'overarching themes'?  Overarching themes have nothing to do with my definition, its just merely interesting how often they appear.



It is interesting how often they appear.  It is not, however, essential that they appear, which is where I take exception to what you'd stated.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Site one concrete example of me taking tenous links and inflating them to ludicrous proportions.



Ascribing an anti-racist agenda to ERB before racism as we knew it existed as an ideology, for one.  And ignoring his more obvious racism prevelant in his work when his characters are _not_ on some alien planet.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Are you saying that Clint didn't intend for the supernatural hints in 'High Plains Drifter'?  Are you saying that ERB didn't intend to satirize religious extremism?  Are you saying the Larry Niven was completely unaware of the modernist sentiments behind 'The Magic Goes Away'?



I've already said I haven't seen High Plains Drifter, I don't know what ERB's satire has to do with anything; as I've already said, that's not a "theme" of his work, that's just a minor footnote at best, and I've never read 'The Magic Goes Away.'


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Here we go with the ridiculous assertions about my background again.



I don't know anything about your background.  But I do know the academic literary criticism methodology, and you are most definitely using it.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Fine, then I wish you would eshew any involvement in a methodolical approach to defining literary genera.



You could, you know, not post in the thread if it bothers you that much.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> No, in my mind you are not only blind to obvious textual symbolism, you are blind to the text.  It's not like I'm making complex arguments about the meaning of the work, nor is a complex meaning a requirement for meeting the rather simple definition I gave.



Other than the insulting hyperbole, that's what I said.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Where am I trying to make it up?   It's not like we are talking about deeply hidden things.   If you want deeply hidden meaning, then lets talk Tolkein, and I assure you that I won't be putting anything in thier the author didin't intend because we have lots and lots of letters about his own works.



I already know about Tolkien.  I don't see what that has to do with anything; he hasn't come up in this discussion yet.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Within the context of the story, Rand al'Thor isn't a stand in for Christ - he is Christ.   Rand al'Thor isn't a christ figure.  He's the bloody eternal savior sent into the world by its creator to redeem it by the shedding of his blood.



Speaking of hyperbole...


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I would prefer to stay out of religious discussions.



So stay out of them.  This is a literary discussion, not a religious one.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> It's your idea that the ties have to be 'deep' (whatever that means).  It has nothing to do with mine.



Actually, the only reason I used the word 'deep' was because you had in the post I was quoting.  If it's not your idea, you must be back-pedalling again, because it is _exactly_ what you said.  From your posts on this thread, I'm not sure that that I can count on _exactly_ what you said being any guide to what you are saying _now_ though.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> So you say, but I believe I've already covered this.  It doesn't matter so much why the author is choosing to use fantasy elements, or even if the author intends to say anything.



And here we come to the main reason I have such a problem with the "look for symbols" methodology.  You claim that it doesn't even matter if the author intended to say anything.  And ironically you claim, earlier in this same post I'm replying to, "Oh, good grief. Show me one example of me doing this despite the author's stated intentions."

This methodology has very little to do with the actual work itself anymore and becomes all about the reader's biases and opinions.  Which, in some circumstances, I think are interesting to note, but in others I think are so many wasted words.


----------



## Desdichado (May 25, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> Joshua, I feel his...and your lack of truely adressing the issue stems from the difference of ideologies rather than anything that could be considered a concrete argument.  I feel a bit empty here in this debate soley because I really haven't taken a hard side yet.  I have been absolutely entreched with literary theory.  So, I can sit here and mimic literary concerns like a parrot and not truely feel offended by anything anybody says--not to say that I don't understand the merrit or motive of the concerns.  While you, and Celebrim, have concocted a personal interpretation of literature that works for both of you...based on personal beleifs and biases that have been validified by your own ideas of reason.  The same can be said for current literary criticism; but, there is a substancial load of relevent disciplinary material to back it up...perhaps one day you will have this as well.



Oh, definately.  I feel that my definition of fantasy (and I say "my" very loosely; it's not one I came up with, but it's one I subscribe to) is very much based on the actual content of the work, and can be examined and determined internally.  I feel Celebrim's definition is completely about the _reader_ and has very little to do with the content of the work; rather, it has to do with what the reader interprets from the work.

I think that's a quixotic line of thought, as different readers will naturally interpret different things.  Even the most supposedly blindingly obvious symbolism, as we've seen here, is often not so to others, especially folks like me that have shied away from symbolic interpretation of literature as a personal, rather than absolute, thing to do.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 25, 2005)

Whoa.  Celebrim.  OK, I think there is some definite misunderstanding.  

"The moral message has to be carried in the form of an abstract idea which has been embodied in some fashion in order to be easier discuss and describe through narrative"

"To meet my definition of a fantasy, the book needs to have elements which are the embodiments or existantiations of abstract moral principals. It's not enough for the book to just have something be a symbol for something else, or for that thing to be like something else. That thing has to be that abstract thing made tangible. Likewise, those abstract things can't be just any general idea, but something which would fall within the realm of things we would consider moral ideas or principals - whether humility, ambition, evil, good, hubris, love, prudence, or whatever."

Those are hard line definitions that border on allegory.
While...these...

"But for the purposes of my arguement it doesn't really matter how strong our weak the particular allegory is, the fact is that you can recognize the similarity between say 'Satan' and 'The Emperor', or the deliberate (by the author's own admission) connection between Yoda and the Buddha."

"Even if we where to argue that Robert Jordan had no higher aspirations than pulp fiction, which would be rather insulting IMO, this would be a really good example of why its impossible to write fantasy that doesn't end up getting tied into morality. And in particular, I'd argue that alot of the reasons the WoT series is so compelling despite its flaws as a story is that it is so deeply tied into all this mythic imagery about good and evil, ying and yang, ad infinitum."

...have nothing more than symbolic, antecedent, and connotive messages.  Do you see my problem?  I'm still looking for your definition.  I'm afraid...since you admit authorial intent is irrelevant--and I must agree, though on different grounds--connotation or likeness really doesn't eliminate enough conventions to make a working hypothesis.  Even if the abstract ideals are portrayed as invariably human concerns about morality.  Far too many texts can be examined to contain symbolic moral links--that could more accurately be described as 'sympathetic conflict' (sorry, an invented expression) rather than "existantiations of abstract moral principals."  Which, as I said before, really more accurately describes Modern fiction as opposed to phantasy.

I think you are far more interested in the obvious parallels that exist between Epic prose and phantasy...rather than a pure definition of a genre.  Admittedly, the mind wanders to the absolutes of Epic allegory far more often when reading phantasy...but I see that as more of an evolution than a definition.

Could you be more specific?  Or, I'm I more on the ball now?


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 25, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I think that's a quixotic line of thought, as different readers will naturally interpret different things.  Even the most supposedly blindingly obvious symbolism, as we've seen here, is often not so to others, especially folks like me that have shied away from symbolic interpretation of literature as a personal, rather than absolute, thing to do.




I think you have fallen for the same trap that academics fall for:  The belief that you can divine the intention of the author.  You might even say 'quixotic'--what a fun word. 

All anyone can go by is what is written--for if you have ever heard artists speak about their own works before you know how irrelevant their views can be.  

The labour involved with deconstructing text can be quit entertaining...and even quite persuasive, but the accumulation of textual examination create a body of understanding that can be applied, I feel, a bit more reliably.  Similar to how a poll or scientific experiment might create a data set, this body of work is worked over and applied in a type of 'average' application that becomes dogmatic...I'm sure you see this.  But, like logic, is a servicable tool.

I'm actually quite surprised that you expressed a lack of regard for the reader considering your stance.  I had a fourth year lit prof who almost directly expressed that same sentiment..except he blindly believed in the dogma of old genre theory...it was fun to make him angry.


----------



## Desdichado (May 26, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> I think you have fallen for the same trap that academics fall for:  The belief that you can divine the intention of the author.  You might even say 'quixotic'--what a fun word.



It is, isn't it?  I'm having loads of fun using it.  I'm not talking about authorial intent, though -- I'm advocating genre definitions that are based _entirely_ on the text, and _not_ on the reader's interpretation of it.


			
				Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> The labour involved with deconstructing text can be quit entertaining...and even quite persuasive, but the accumulation of textual examination create a body of understanding that can be applied, I feel, a bit more reliably.  Similar to how a poll or scientific experiment might create a data set, this body of work is worked over and applied in a type of 'average' application that becomes dogmatic...I'm sure you see this.  But, like logic, is a servicable tool.



I do.  But it's flimsy methodology.  It's easy to dismiss one interpretation as arbitrary or at least biased, but is an aggregate of bias any less biased just because it is common?

To be fair, I don't _mind_ deconstructing works of fiction looking for symbolism.  I happen to think that it's a bit over-done in most English classes I've ever been in or most literature journals I've ever read, though.  And I think it takes itself too seriously very frequently.  Much like Celebrim's assertion that his interpretation is "factual," for instance.  Claims like that are what get my back up about the entire methodology.


			
				Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> I'm actually quite surprised that you expressed a lack of regard for the reader considering your stance.  I had a fourth year lit prof who almost directly expressed that same sentiment..except he blindly believed in the dogma of old genre theory...it was fun to make him angry.



Why?  My stance doesn't really have anything to do with the reader, is completely about the easily demonstrable and non-debatable properties of the work.  I mean, yeah, readers are great, I am one and all that, but a definition that is only based on an individual readers _interpretation_ of the work seems... well, quixotic.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 26, 2005)

I'm missing something.  How, exactly do you interpret text without reading it?  Cause it would save me A LOT of time! 

edit:  Ok, I think I know where you are going.  You are takling about universal acceptance of textual material...like imagery...and um...well, just imagery and titles...grammar...definitions.  To me, that would be like defining the difference between signage and novels by saying a novel uses words.  I don't think it is possible.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 26, 2005)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Gazebo
The labour involved with deconstructing text can be quit entertaining...and even quite persuasive, but the accumulation of textual examination create a body of understanding that can be applied, I feel, a bit more reliably. Similar to how a poll or scientific experiment might create a data set, this body of work is worked over and applied in a type of 'average' application that becomes dogmatic...I'm sure you see this. But, like logic, is a servicable tool. 


"I do. But it's flimsy methodology. It's easy to dismiss one interpretation as arbitrary or at least biased, but is an aggregate of bias any less biased just because it is common?

To be fair, I don't mind deconstructing works of fiction looking for symbolism. I happen to think that it's a bit over-done in most English classes I've ever been in or most literature journals I've ever read, though. And I think it takes itself too seriously very frequently. Much like Celebrim's assertion that his interpretation is "factual," for instance. Claims like that are what get my back up about the entire methodology."

Flimsy methodology.  Hmm.  Well, one author makes a claim...several people debate its merits and faults...a concensus is formed or fractured...the fractured or concentual idea is debated by several academics and is further fractured or a concensus is made...  you see where I'm going with this, it's a evolutionary model of understanding--a structuralist argument if you will..  Each claim is not arbitrary.  Each claim is backed up with textual evidence that is acknowledged or dismissed by the discourse community...very similar to science--albiet in an artsy-fartsy way.  Your claim to the contrary appears far more arbitrary than centuries of critical analysis...but, I think your argument is based slightly more on poor experiences with terrible educators than with the authority of an entire discipline.  A discipline should not hamfistedly promote dogma...it should illustrate the tecnique that created the dogma.

The common, or average, aspect is not a median of a grouping...it is the result of an ongoing morphing or reinterpretation of understanding.  

And, yes.  Far too many academics take themselves far too seriously...I feel this is more of a self-defense mechanicism derived from a discipline that deals with more subjectivity than objectivety.  You should not be offended, you should pity them.


----------



## Andor (May 26, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> You honestly think that if I wasn't just being stubborn that I would naturally agree with you?  Look, you want to make symbolic connections in ERB's work, more power to you.  I dislike that entire methodology of trying to craft symbols out of text, and I only tend to look for them when the author's deliberately put them there.  Even then, I dislike the reductionist method of turning everything I read into a "message" fraught with symbols.  So no, I don't really see them.  No, I don't think they're obvious.  No, I don't think that its necessary to draw them out of ERB's work.




May I ask why it is that if you actively avoid perceiving symbolism, you are completely and utterly sure it is not present? It seems to me as if you were to wear tinted glasses and then insist there is no white.


----------



## Desdichado (May 26, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> Flimsy methodology.  Hmm.  Well, one author makes a claim...several people debate its merits and faults...a concensus is formed or fractured...the fractured or concentual idea is debated by several academics and is further fractured or a concensus is made...  you see where I'm going with this, it's a evolutionary model of understanding--a structuralist argument if you will..  Each claim is not arbitrary.  Each claim is backed up with textual evidence that is acknowledged or dismissed by the discourse community...very similar to science--albiet in an artsy-fartsy way.  Your claim to the contrary appears far more arbitrary than centuries of critical analysis...but, I think your argument is based slightly more on poor experiences with terrible educators than with the authority of an entire discipline.  A discipline should not hamfistedly promote dogma...it should illustrate the tecnique that created the dogma.



Not at all, although coming from a more "practical arts" background, as you call it, may have jaundiced my view of it.  Even an opinion that enjoys fairly widespread consensus is still just an opinion, is what I'm getting at.  It's not "factual" in the sense that a chemical equation is, for example, its an interpretation.  Subsequent generations may interpret works completely differently.  It's unlikely that we really understand Homer's works, for instance, all that well relative to his native audience, because we're too far removed from them in time and culture.  We can make a better claim at understanding James Joyce's work, but even so, different people emphasise different aspects of his work, and thus interpret it differently, even if they don't strictly disagree with their collegues.

I guess my point is, that while "symbolic understanding" might be an interesting exploration in its own right, I think it takes itself way too seriously, and tends to forget that the methodology on which it is based is incapable of rendering "truth" about the work except in the context of the reader, or else by accident.


			
				Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> I feel this is more of a self-defense mechanicism derived from a discipline that deals with more subjectivity than objectivety.  You should not be offended, you should pity them.



  Not offended, just turned off.


----------



## Desdichado (May 26, 2005)

Andor said:
			
		

> May I ask why it is that if you actively avoid perceiving symbolism, you are completely and utterly sure it is not present? It seems to me as if you were to wear tinted glasses and then insist there is no white.



My statement was that I don't see any need to interpret ERB as a symbolic "tutoring" exercise, in which John Carter represents the ideal gentleman, and is meant to teach young boys how to be one as well, or that any other aspect of JC of Mars is meant to do anything of the sort either.

I don't say there's _no_ symbolism at all, merely that any that _does_ exist are merely superficial surface features of the work, not the main thrust of them.

Of course, Celebrim will probably chime in and say that that's not at all what he's been saying all along after all, and so I'm arguing against a straw man.  If so, perhaps we aren't so diametrically opposed after all.  But based on his prior posts, I don't know what else he could possibly be saying.


----------



## Desdichado (May 26, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> I'm missing something.  How, exactly do you interpret text without reading it?  Cause it would save me A LOT of time!



  Yeah, you must be missing something.  I never claimed to be able to do that!  Although a good set of Cliff's Notes got me through many a reading assignment in High School.  Saved my bacon on _The Grapes of Wrath_ anyway...


			
				Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> edit:  Ok, I think I know where you are going.  You are takling about universal acceptance of textual material...like imagery...and um...well, just imagery and titles...grammar...definitions.  To me, that would be like defining the difference between signage and novels by saying a novel uses words.  I don't think it is possible.



Most authors of science fiction and fantasy would disagree with you.  As would most bibliographers and students of the literature.  The definition I espoused in the very first thread is pretty much exactly the one delineated by Ben Bova, Isaac Asimov, Orson Scott Card, and the Library of Congress.


----------



## Celebrim (May 26, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> It is interesting how often they appear.  It is not, however, essential that they appear, which is where I take exception to what you'd stated.




Fine.  People can hold that opinion for good and valid reasons.  You however don't seem to be willing to come up with them.  You think I can't turn around and argue against my own theory?  I know where it gets shaky.  You however dont, but you sure are damn sure of yourself.



> Ascribing an anti-racist agenda to ERB before racism as we knew it existed as an ideology, for one.




Are you saying that racism didn't exist before people invented a particular term for it?  Are you saying that until people invented for racism, that people couldn't be offended by and opposed to the sort of behavior that today we call racism?  Because that sure sounds like what you are saying.  Look, the man was the son of a prominent Republican abolutionist who detested the racial biases that we now call 'racism'.  But I have already addressed this point.



> And ignoring his more obvious racism prevelant in his work when his characters are _not_ on some alien planet.




And again, I have already addressed this point.  I heard you the first time.  I refuted the point.  I don't and never have expected you to accept what I have to say, but I do expect that if you are going to continue to debate me that you would offer some counterpoint to my rebuttle.  So again, Edgar Rice Burroughs is not a racist.  Edgar Rice Burroughs is a culturist who believes in the superiority of a culture.  So when Edgar Rice Burroughs paints a particular group as savage or barbaric, he does not think that they are savage or barbaric because of thier membership in a race.  He thinks that they are savage and barbaric as a result of being the products of a barbaric and savage culture.  He thinks that if you remove that person from his culture and raise him in a more enlightened one, that you get a enlightened person regardless of his racial identity.  Now, of course, if you think that culturalism is just another form of racism, then you'll have to prove to me that it is.  But I think that there is a subtle but very important distinction.  And I think that I could if I had the time and inclination do the research and show to you with the man's own words that that is exactly what he believes, but I have neither time nor inclination so I'll stick to what I do know - which is the text of the man's fiction.

On Barsoom, the role of the racial savages is played by the Green Martians.  These are the Martian equivalent of primitive savages which people his stories elsewhere.  But, if we read the text, what does the author say is the reason for their barbarism?  It's because they are ugly green skinned bug eyed monsters?  No, because we find in the text characters like Sola and Tars Tarkas who by the special circumstances of thier upbringing - ei they were raised in what the author finds to be a more civilized fashion become fast and honorable friends.



			
				ERB said:
			
		

> "But this counts for little among the green Martians, as parental and filial love is as unknown to them as it is common among us. I believe this horrible system which has been carried on for ages is the direct cause of the loss of all the finer feelings and higher humanitarian instincts among these poor creatures. From birth they know no father or mother love, they know not the meaning of the word home; they are taught that they are only suffered to live until they can demonstrate by their physique and ferocity that they are fit to live...I do not mean that the adult Martians are unnecessarily or intentionally cruel to the young, but theirs is a hard and pitiless struggle for existence upon a dying planet, the natural resources of which have dwindled to a point where the support of each additional life means an added tax upon the community into which it is thrown."




He then later goes on to introduce a green Martian hero, Sola, who according to the character, "hated cruelty and barbarity; I was confident that I could depend upon her..."  We soon learn the reason she is different from all the other Green Martians - it's her upbringing which has caused her to transcend her culture.



			
				ERB said:
			
		

> "Tears are a strange sight upon Barsoom," she continued, "and so it is difficult for me to interpret them. I have seen but two people weep in all my life, other than Dejah Thoris; one wept from sorrow, the other from baffled rage. The first was my mother, years ago before they killed her; the other was Sarkoja, when they dragged her from me today."
> 
> "Your mother!" I exclaimed, "but, Sola, you could not have known your mother, child."
> 
> "But I did. And my father also," she added. "If you would like to hear the strange and un-Barsoomian story come to the chariot tonight, John Carter, and I will tell you that of which I have never spoken in all my life before. And now the signal has been given to resume the march, you must go."




Or consider the speach of Dejah Thorus to the Tharks, is this the speach of someone that believes the Green Men of Mars are irrecovably dumb brutes by nature, or as the result of thier natural inferiority?



			
				ERB said:
			
		

> Why, oh, why will you not learn to live in amity with your fellows, must you ever go on down the ages to your final extinction but little above the plane of the dumb brutes that serve you! A people without written language, without art, without homes, without love; the victim of eons of the horrible community idea. Owning everything in common, even to your women and children, has resulted in your owning nothing in common. You hate each other as you hate all else except yourselves. _Come back to the ways of our common ancestors, come back to the light of kindliness and fellowship._ The way is open to you, you will find the hands of the red men stretched out to aid you. Together we may do still more to regenerate our dying planet. The grand- daughter of the greatest and mightiest of the red jeddaks has asked you. Will you come?"




Would a racist proclaim common ancestory with a brute?  No, Dejih Thorus is a culturist extending the hand of enlightment to a people she believes are here brethern.

It is a patriarchal and condescending view by our standards which reeks even to me of 'white man's burden', but such a view point does not at all perclude believing that ideas like racial hatred, racial supremacy, racial arrogance, and most especially those things taken to (what the author would regard) as a radical extreme are things which are wrong and to be strongly denounced - which he follows his father in doing but in life and in his texts.  Yes, this is a complex arguement.  You have to hold a nuanced view of ERB, because his personal feelings to Arabs, Africans, and Indians and all such (to his mind) disadvantaged people is as complex as his character's feelings toward the Green Martian people.  Read the damn books and stop pretending to yourself that there is nothing in there.



> I don't know what ERB's satire has to do with anything; as I've already said, that's not a "theme" of his work, that's just a minor footnote at best,




No, you don't do you?  Yes, ERB's anti-racist agenda and his anti-religious agenda are just part of his themes, but they are hardly footnotes in the work.  We could if I was a mind to go on and on and on in this vein, but its hardly the main point I want to get across.



> and I've never read 'The Magic Goes Away.'




Well then, how do you know I'm getting it wrong?



> But I do know the academic literary criticism methodology, and you are most definitely using it.




Thank you.  I'm not sure the folks down in the literature department would agree with you, but I'm giving it the old college try.  It's not really my field, and I thank to one whose field it is that it shows.  But, I guess that's irrelevant since as far as you seem to be concerned the fact that I'm using anything like it at all seems to immediately disqualify my opinion.



> I already know about Tolkien.  I don't see what that has to do with anything; he hasn't come up in this discussion yet.




He has, but he's not been important to it.  I'm just waiting for you to trot out all these things I'm reading into the text that the author didn't intend.  Why do you think your understanding of what the author intended is so superior to mine?



> Speaking of hyperbole...




It's hyperbole alright, but it isn't my hyperbole but Jordan's.  There isn't one thing about the assertion that Rand Al'Thor is the eternally reincarnating savior of the world that isn't straight out of the text, and I'm not talking about symbolism here.  The text says that he's the eternally reincarnating savior fated to shed his blood for the world.  You don't have to read it into the text; it's there.  That's why you seem so blind to the text to me.  I'm not asserting symbolism here.  It would be like me saying, "In the context of the story, the aliens in Clarke's 'Childhoods End' aren't symbols for devils (quite the contrary), they are devils", and then you accusing me of hyperbole and reading things into the text.  (Sorry for ruining one of the twists for you out there that haven't read the text.)



> Actually, the only reason I used the word 'deep' was because you had in the post I was quoting.  If it's not your idea, you must be back-pedalling again, because it is _exactly_ what you said.




I had to look for that.  What I said was that in a particular case something was 'deeply steeped' (as in soaking like a tea bag) religious imagery.  That is nowhere near saying that something is 'deep' in the since of heady intellectualism or whatever sense you mean it, much less implying that something had to be 'deep' to fit my theory ('deeper' maybe).



> And here we come to the main reason I have such a problem with the "look for symbols" methodology.  You claim that it doesn't even matter if the author intended to say anything.  And ironically you claim, earlier in this same post I'm replying to, "Oh, good grief. Show me one example of me doing this despite the author's stated intentions."




How is this ironic?  The claim that what the author intended is in general unnecessary to fit my larger theory is not at all incompatible with the claim that so far we haven't had one author under discussion where I've had to resort to the weaker claim that the author wasn't intentionally doing things that met my theory.  And even you admit, right back up at the top of your post, "It is interesting how often they appear.", so don't pretend to disagree now.  Again, show me one example of me fitting stuff into the text that isn't there?  How are you so certain that its not there?



> _This methodology has very little to do with the actual work itself anymore and becomes all about the reader's biases and opinions._




Boy is that going to come back to haunt you.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 26, 2005)

Edit:  to Joshua--I'm a slow typer.

I believe those are working definitions...not literary definitions.  Which is a quibble...but relative I feel.  There is quite a difference.  

And I'm quite sure that those authors...and most definitly the librarians assoiciated with the library of congress would never dismiss symbolism as a minor affection of literature.

My somewhat playfull argument refered to the very minor amount of objective information literary scholars deal with.  By all means they will claim far more information is objective, but quite honestly the only truely objective aspect of literature is grammar, definition, and form--and these all change over time.  These three aspects can never--objectively--dictate the difference between genre simply because the blurred borders would be far larger than the body of texts.  Only a certain degree of 'subjective embracement' (if you'll continue to allow me to develop my own terminology) can sufficiently contain these genres.  I know...it sounds silly...be more subjective to be more accurate...just bear with me.

Think of the idea of context and content.  Definitions are only limited to single words...by placing words in particular situations we can change their meaning.  Therefore, the structure of a sentence at any time can blur the actuallity of a group of definitions.  Further, place that sentence within a paragraph...the meaning of that sentence can change depending upon the placement and content of that paragraph.  Again...I'm sure you know where this is going...any group of obvious 'knowns' can quickly become unknowns when a system is complex.  The idea is using a similar complex system...like a type of unknown key in cryptography used to open a code...a subjective theory can be used to identify and predict other subjective situations.  It's a matter of being more than a sum-of-parts...a mode of thought that scientists are increasingly beginning to realize...though perhaps kicking and screaming.  A foundation in basics is important and a good way to be level headed but objecting to a quite workable idea as being "incapable of rendering truth"--truth being far beyond science even--seems a bit short sighted.

I think we are a bit off track regardless, I just hate to think that an entire body of knowledge is being spurned based on a technicality.  I don't feel Celebrim's argument are sound--as of yet--but lets not dismiss an argument based on a mistrust of accepted dogma...even if it is heavily flawed.  Most self important people take themselves too seriously--regardless of discipline.


----------



## Celebrim (May 26, 2005)

Since its been a long time since we looked at it, I thought I'd repost what I believe is Josh's definition of fantasy and science fiction:



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> 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.




First, I'd like to say that Joshua sure dismisses alot of things as 'complete rubbish'.  

Second, just for the record, I'd like to ask Joshua if this is in fact his definition?  If it's not and I grabbed the wrong text, I apologize in advance for the roasting its about to recieve.

And let's not forget, that Joshua has just said, "I'm advocating genre definitions that are based entirely on the text, and not on the reader's interpretation of it."


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 26, 2005)

I sense a storm-a-brewin'.


----------



## Celebrim (May 26, 2005)

Wild Gazebo: First, let me say that I'd rather be discussing this with you, as I think you are making the better points, but my blood is running abit hot right now and so I apologize if I'm not giving what you say the greater attention that it deserves.  Talking with you, I feel I might actually learn something.



			
				Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> Joshua, I feel his...and your lack of truely adressing the issue stems from the difference of ideologies rather than anything that could be considered a concrete argument.




I think that is absolutely correct.  Speaking only for myself, I'm a Socratic thinker by nature, and so I desire a definition of science fiction and fantasy which is all encompansing and encompanses not only all the science fiction that is, but all the science fiction that ever will be.  I will not be happy with an Aristolian definition of science fiction which is merely a list of setting elements added to whenever someone else - for reasons he cannot clearly explain - decides that this thing belongs on the list.  I believe that despite his protests to the contrary, the method he espouses is actually a more arbitrary means of classification than mine because depends precisely on things which are to internal to the reader and even on things as fickle as the reader's emotional responce to the work.

Which is what I intend to show next.  Not that I haven't already done this several times, but I guess I'm going to have to do this formally and at more length, because Joshua is not even offering an attempt to refute my objections but still parading out his claims as if I haven't made any argument against them.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 26, 2005)

Well, just call me a Sophist then...I'll take money for knowledge any day of the week!   


p.s.  Could we please leave Plato's (philisophical) offspring out of this...if we get into those old arguments I think my head will explode.  Besides they were ALL such arch-conservatives that thinking about their take on this discusion makes my skin crawl.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 26, 2005)

Arthur C. Clark's aphorism aside, one thing I noticed about most magic systems (in fantasy stories- not RPGs) versus high-tech is this:

*Magic is usually something that not everyone has access to, as opposed to tech, whose availability is limited only by law or money.*  I dub this* Dannyalcatraz's Arcane Observation*.  It is a counterpoint to Clark's aphorism.  While "Sufficiently advanced technogy is indistinguishable from magic" in effects, it is NOT neccessarily indistinguishable in CAUSE.

Somehow, someway, technology can ALWAYS be acquired.  Access may be restricted, but money, security clearances and even theft can alter that.  But no matter how advanced the tech is, it is still technology- no matter how much the tech warps reality, it still has intervening, actuating mechanisms.

But the use of magic is usally a birthright.  By that I mean, most mages and sorcerers are "gifted," apart from all the rest of the beings of the world they inhabit, by birth with the ability to manipulate the universe at their whim in ways others cannot.  You are either capable or incapable of using magic (ignoring magic items, of course).  It is an inborn trait, like eye color or a predisposition to sickle cell anemia.  Yes, training is usually required- except for the exceptionally gifted or exceptionally dangerous- but the world is divided inalterably into those who CAN practice magic and those who CAN NEVER practice magic.  And the ability to warp reality with magic has NO intervening mechanisms, unlike technology- just the will and skill of the magics manipulator.

Two of the best examples of this are the movie Forbidden Planet (intervening Reality warping tech= The Krell Machine), and David Brin's _The Practice Effect_ (intervening Reality warping tech= nanites).

There are exceptions, of course, and since there ARE, even D's Arcane Observation cannot be used as a bright-line test.


----------



## Wayside (May 26, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Oh, I've got plenty of other quibbles, mostly about your methodology, which seems almost an extreme parody of academic literary criticism, a discipline for which I have little patience to begin with.  But we could actually have an intelligent conversation if you'd stop digressing into details and address the main problems I have with your statements.



Just out of curiosity, what was the last "academic literary criticism" you read? I'm curious because most of your posts in this thread have more in common with contemporary literary criticism, for which considerations like theme and symbolism are vastly outdated, than Celebrim's, so I find your resistance to it odd. (This is not, of course, to say that there is such a thing as "academic literary criticism" in the first place, as opposed to a multiplicity of criticisms with their own arguments and goals.) I also find it odd that Celebrim would mention Ed Said, though, and then continue to rely on reified ideas about symbolism, allegory, theme for his argument.


----------



## Celebrim (May 26, 2005)

As best as I can gather, Joshua's definition of science fiction is this, "Science fiction depends on scientific principles, or extrapolation of scientific principles. Aliens? Scientifically they are plausible, so they can exist."  Now, I'm sure that he would argue that that isn't a formal definition, and I agree, so let me start off by saying I'm not going to nit pick it to death.  I'll accept that implicitly he means things like, "plausible [at the time they are written]", or "plausible [broad speculation, as opposed to the narrow speculation of ordinary fiction which eshews the fantastic]", and he just left out a bunch of details covering special cases with the understanding that an intelligent and fair minded-reader would understand what he meant.  Even so, even with various similar additions, the definition will not stand as an absolute definition of science fiction, and in fact I hope to show that ultimately it has no real meaning.

Likewise, as best as I can gather, Joshua's definition of fantasy is, "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."

Now, first, it's worth noting that there is something very important we both argree on.  The genera isn't defined by the imagery.  You can make a pretty decent argument that it is (at least better than Joshua's argument IMO), but since neither of us are arguing for that, I don't have to refute it at this time.  All I have to refute is the notion that the above definition can usefully distinguish science fiction from fantasy, or for that matter science fiction from anything.

The problem with the definition is that it depends on the reader's understanding of what is plausible.  Joshua wrongly assumes that everyone (or even anyone) will agree on what is reasonable speculation based on the laws of science, and wrongly assumes that everyone (or even anyone) will agree on what is flat out impossible to explain.  Thus, Joshua's definition depends on the interpretation, knowledge, biases, and beliefs of the particular reader.

Put simply, Joshua expects that every reader has the exact same degree of suspension of disbelief as he does, and so thinks that its possible to come to any reasonable agreement on what is plausible or not.  The fact of the matter is that what is actually classified or not classified as plausible depends not on what is actually scientifically plausible, but on the general "common sense" acceptance of the conventions of the genera.  But 'common sense' understanding is by no means universially shared, and in fact the more scientific knowledge you actually have the more this common sense notion of what is scientifically plausible breaks down.  In fact, the science fiction authors themselves are far more aware than the general public that they are writing stories that don't hinge on scientific plausibility at all, and have at all times thrown out scientific plausibility whenever it suited the needs of the story.  So in actuality, whether or not something is considered science fiction has almost nothing to do with science and never has.

Not that I'm saying that many SF authors aren't deeply interested in science and its implications, or that many authors (the so called 'hard sci-fi' writers) don't try to be rigorous about the science, but for the most part 'hard sci-fi' is terribly unpopular even among fans of science fiction.  Gregory Benford (to name one of the most prominent) is a name which doesn't necessarily ring a bell even among fans of science fiction.

To show you what I mean, take the example of 'Aliens'.  Now, I am by profession a programmer that writes bio-informatics software in a genetics laboratory.  I know a little bit about the genetic code, and its is to say the least enormously complicated.  To me, the odds that life just spontaneously generated itself althroughout the galaxy is about as likely as monkey typing out the code for MS Windows, or a bowl of petunias and a whale suddenly popping into being in orbit around the planet.  It's just so bloody unlikely that if it were to be the case, it would be a miracle - even in a universe as vast and complicated as our own.  And my objections don't have to end there.  The question arises that if our galaxy does have several hundred or thousand galactic civilizations in it, why haven't we heard from them?  Why wasn't there radio traffic filling the heavens the first time we aimed an instrument at the sky?  Why aren't they here already?  Why weren't they colonizing Earth millions of years ago?  You could of course answer something like, "Well, you see they communicate using this form of energy that we haven't discovered yet.", but to me whether true or not that is about as scientific of an answer as, "God did it."  If you are going to start suggesting that something is possible because it depends on something that we haven't discovered yet, then anything and everything becomes possible.  How does magic work?  "Well it employs forces that we haven't discovered yet."  It's a stock answer that answers everything, and at the same time answers nothing.

FTL travel?  "Well it employs forces that we haven't discovered yet."
Wouldn't the ammount of energy required to move a ship between two star systems perclude trading in commodities?  "Well, you see they have this means of generating nearly unlimited energy in a way that we just haven't discovered yet."
Wouldn't a power source that produced that much radiant energy melt the ship/lightsaber/blaster instantly if it leaked only .0001% of its energy as heat?  How do they defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics?  "Well, you see they have discovered this means of directing energy so efficiently that no waste heat is produced"

And so on and so forth.  To which I respond...

Casting a fireball with a wave of the hand? "Well you see it employs forces that we haven't discovered yet."

And there is another problem.  What someone considers real is pretty subjective to.  Joshua seems to believe that everyone agrees on what is magic and what is real, when in fact nothing could be further from the case.  If someone writes a story that features UFO abductions, I might consider it fantasy.  Someone else might consider it science fiction.  A third person might believe its a true to life drama in the vein of a Tom Clancy geo-political thriller.  On the other hand, if someone writes a story that features miraculous heaing, someone might consider it a true life account because he has a theological explanation for the event, someone else might believe its a science fiction account because he has a paranormal explanation for the event, and someone else might consider it a fantasy because he has a magical explanation for the event and doesn't believe in magic.

And BTW, there are science fiction stories about people being awakened from cryogenic slumbers by far future faith healers who discovered psychic powers, but need the person to program a computer for them because its become a lost art so its not like I'm talking about mere theoretical classification needs.  These are real issues.  By Joshua's definition, there is absolutely no way to classfy that except for yourself, and what good is a definition that only works for yourself?  Well, possibly a definition that works only for yourself is good for something, but even if it does a definition that works only for yourself doesn't match with the statement, "I'm advocating genre definitions that are based entirely on the text, and not on the reader's interpretation of it."

It gets even worse.  Because whether or not a reader is willing to suspend disbelief on a particular issue and say, "Yeah, I'm willing to accept that as plausible." is an emotional responce.  At what point does bending the rules of science suddenly get to you and you say, "You know, I was willing to accept using nukes to deflect an asteroid the size of Texas even though I know that really that's improbable and a couple 300kt nukes probably wouldn't dent a rock that size, but once I realized that they intended to do it from near earth orbit rather an a couple of AU's out where the angle of deflection just might be large enough, that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me."   What was the difference between the two law breaking plot elements?  Only that eventually the odds got too low to keep believing in it.  One librarian comes along and shelves it in science fiction.  The next comes along and shelves it in fantasy.

Joshua's inclination at this point in the past has been to shrug and say, "Well, the work must be 'space opera' then."  First, that's a misuse of the term, but I'm not going to quibble.  Secondly, the fact of the matter is that if we were to classify every science fiction book by whether it rigorously followed the science, we'd end up with nothing left in science fiction.  We'd have to call Iain M. Banks, 'Look to Windward', a 'space opera', and David Brin's "Uplift Wars' a 'space opera', but if we call a works that seriousness a 'space opera' (especially works by people with as impressive of scientific backgrounds as Brin) then we probably are going to have to call everything in the genera a space opera, or at the least someone will be able to call everything a 'space opera' because there will be someone who can't suspend enough disbelief to believe that the science is in fact plausible.

So much for a definition that depended only on the text and not the reader.


----------



## Celebrim (May 26, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Arthur C. Clark's aphorism aside, one thing I noticed about most magic systems (in fantasy stories- not RPGs) versus high-tech is this:
> 
> *Magic is usually something that not everyone has access to, as opposed to tech, whose availability is limited only by law or money.*  I dub this* Dannyalcatraz's Arcane Observation*.  It is a counterpoint to Clark's aphorism.




Does this mean that a sufficiently ubiquitous magic is indistinguishable from technology?  Would D&D in general, and Eberron in particular, be a good example of this?

Your observation reminds me of something I said earlier, that it might be possible if you sufficiently sterlized magic, that you could write science fiction stories that had nothing to do with science at all.  I'm not sure exactly how I feel about that statement, but if I decide that I accept it at some point, then I'm pretty sure that I would argue that in some cases its already been done.  For example, I believe that Robert Silverburg's 'Downward to the Earth' is a science fiction work, but Silverburg makes no real attempt at all in the story to explain the magic in terms of science.  And yet, it is in character vastly different in tone and theme than a fantasy story - or at least certainly what springs into the head the first time you think of a fantasy story - and obviously I would argue that the reason for that it that Robert Silverburg's exploration of indentity is done in a way that is firmly in the 'science fiction' camp in its use of fantastic symbols, as opposed to being in the camp of 'Star Wars' or 'Tolkein' in the way (and reasons) it uses symbols.



> Somehow, someway, technology can ALWAYS be acquired.  Access may be restricted, but money, security clearances and even theft can alter that.  But no matter how advanced the tech is, it is still technology- no matter how much the tech warps reality, it still has intervening, actuating mechanisms.




So, would you say that sufficiently inaccessible technology was indistinguishable from magic?  Is this the case in say Gene Wolfe's, "Book of the Long Sun"?

I think you are making interesting observations, but are you sure that they aren't just setting conventions?  If I altered the setting to the point that everyone could use the magic readily, would you cease to find it magical and if not, why not?



> There are exceptions, of course, and since there ARE, even D's Arcane Observation cannot be used as a bright-line test.




I'm guessing from the above, that you'd still find it magical.  But I am still interested in your explanation for _why_ you'd still find it magical.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 26, 2005)

"I also find it odd that Celebrim would mention Ed Said, though, and then continue to rely on reified ideas about symbolism, allegory, theme for his argument."


Yeah, that made me wince.  I get the feeling he was just doing a little bit of 'name dropping'--everybody does it from time to time.  I mean, I do it when I get angry...hopefully to confuse people...you know...to give me an advantage.    Not that you would do that, Celebrim.   LOL

"Ed Said" lol...I like to call him 'Eddy Said' pronounced 'sed'..lol.  Perhaps he was just alluding to 'othering' (albeit poorly considering his Culturist argument) rather than Said's strong structuralist positions.

edit:  And Celebrim...I think Joshua's arguments rely a lot more on imagery that you are realizing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 26, 2005)

I don't read Wolfe, so... :\ 

But the distinction isn't in the availability, its the NATURE of the availability.  Even if (almost) anyone can use magic, say, like in Piers Anthony's Xanth, there is still the lack of an intervening mechanism between will and effect.

With magic, I want X to occur- say, I want my enemy to be engulfed in a ball of fire- I recite the formula and voila! the enemy is engulfed in a ball of fire.  Will becomes reality nearly instantly.  All you need is knowledge and skill...or the right set of genes.  Magic is the direct manipulation of reality in ways that otherwise violate the known laws of science.

In Forbidden Planet, I could do the same fireball, should I wish, but not untill and unless I had been acclimated to use a Krell Machine.  And the Krell Machine does the work, not me.  No Krell Machine, no firball, beasts from the Id, or anything else.  Ditto Brin's _Practice Effect_ Nanites.  Science-Fiction level Technology is capable of warping reality as well as any other, but there is always the intervening technology- the manipulation is indirect.  In Alastair Reynold's _Absolution Gap_ books (and many others), there are nanotech enhanced übermen who are capable of great things.  In an Iron Age level society, they would be considered gods or demons...but unlike gods and demons, their powers come from technology that has been added to them, not something that has been integral to their nature from birth.  Its like the difference between a bionic arm and the one it replaced.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 26, 2005)

What about all the phantasy novels that revolve around ritual and sacrifice to determine magic...is the knowledge part of the exclusion?

It seems you are back to the tech-magic argument.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 26, 2005)

No- knowledge isn't the key.  Even when the Magic is based upon rituals or demonic pacts- Magic still manipulates reality directly.

The fireball of magic creates energy out of nowhere.  It violates thermodynamics.  A wave, a word, the fireball IS.  More energy exists than did before.

A fireball from the Krell Machine would require massive amounts of energy, projected at a distance, seemingly without effort.  While devastating, the energy delivered on target is less than the energy used to generate it.  And there is, of course, the intervening mechanism.  A physical machine that does the work.

And even in magic systems where magic "obeys" thermodynamics," it lacks the machinery.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 26, 2005)

Oh, so you are with Joshua...and crowd.  I thought you were developing another theory based on the the exclusionary factor of magic compared to the availability of technology.  Sorry, my mistake.


----------



## Celebrim (May 26, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> And Celebrim...I think Joshua's arguments rely a lot more on imagery that you are realizing.




Maybe, but he explicitly denied that.  I'm going to have to go to bed here soon, but this touches back again on your objection to my theory earlier.  Maybe later.  I'm fully aware that one of the problems with the theory is that out in the extreme case, it starts becoming almost impossible to distinguish my symbology argument from claiming that what matters is imagery, and I have to make some pretty complex (or torturous if you prefer) arguments to show how they differ.

I mentioned Edward Said solely to point out that we were getting into a highly politically charged topic, and that because of the political character this was an area that I really didn't want to argue extensively here.  It was name dropping, sure, but it was name dropping of the 'Please, I know it may be tempting to someone, but let's avoid getting sidetracked in this direction.' kind.  For the record though, when I read Said's introduction to Rudyard Kipling's "Kim", I wince, and I certainly don't mention him as someone whose theories and methods I agree with, hense the reason the way I construct my argument might strike you as so different.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 26, 2005)

No prob, 'night.


----------



## Celebrim (May 26, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> No- knowledge isn't the key.  Even when the Magic is based upon rituals or demonic pacts- Magic still manipulates reality directly.




Does it?  Are you sure that you know how magic works?



> The fireball of magic creates energy out of nowhere.




Does it?  Although this is irrelevant, it doesn't in my campaign.  Fireballs in my campaign world do not violate the law of conservation of energy.



> It violates thermodynamics.  A wave, a word, the fireball IS.  More energy exists than did before.




Are you sure you know how it works?  Are you aware that there exists a finite possibility that a particle of a given mass (or a cloud of particles of a given) mass, will be spontaneously generated in a vacuum?  Perhaps its possible to manipulate the space time fabric in such a way to alter this probablity, using a small ammount of energy to create a larger ammount.  This is actually said to be the principal behind the warp power core in Romulan starships.  Why can't it be the principal behind a fireball?



> And there is, of course, the intervening mechanism.




Like, say, a wand?

See what I think is that you've been given a sufficiently compelling explanation for the effect, and now you accept as part of your conventions about what is possible reflexively.  The problem for me though is that I know enough science that I often can't accept that its _possible_ for a 'machine' to do what it is claimed that it does, especially given the explanation for how the machine works.  Ultimately, saying that the machine does it somehow just isn't a any more compelling for me than saying that the spell caster does it somehow.  What's really going on is that we live in a world were we daily see machines do so many seemingly impossible things, that if someone tells you a machine does it, you are inclined to believe it unquestioningly.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 26, 2005)

A machine has gears, circuits, levers, etc.

AFAIK, a wand does not.

A weapon that creates a fireball must deliver the energy in some way...energizing an ion path as a carrier of energy and then supplying fuel along that path... or something.

AFAIK, a wand does not.



> Quote:
> The fireball of magic creates energy out of nowhere.
> 
> 
> Does it? Although this is irrelevant, it doesn't in my campaign. Fireballs in my campaign world do not violate the law of conservation of energy.




First: its not irrelevant- even sci-fi Hypertechnology doesn't violate the rules without at least explaining it in some technobabble way of explaining why it doesn't.

Magic doesn't even bother to try.

Second: Then how do your fireballs avoid this violation?  Explain.  Do they transfer heat from one space to your target?  How?



> Quote:
> It violates thermodynamics. A wave, a word, the fireball IS. More energy exists than did before.
> 
> 
> Are you sure you know how it works? Are you aware that there exists a finite possibility that a particle of a given mass (or a cloud of particles of a given) mass, will be spontaneously generated in a vacuum?




That is indeed a phenomenon that has been observed at the quantum level.  However, no one seriously expects this phenomenon to be possible beyond the quantum level.  The particles do not increase the energy level, either- they coalesce out of ambient energy- nearly a 1:1 matter/energy conversion.  Not an increase (there is still entropy). Those particles also only last for something like  1x-14power seconds before transforming back into energy



> Perhaps its possible to manipulate the space time fabric in such a way to alter this probablity, using a small ammount of energy to create a larger ammount. This is actually said to be the principal behind the warp power core in Romulan starships. Why can't it be the principal behind a fireball?




Romulans use microscopic black holes to power their warp engines.  Such black holes are theoretical possibilities.  Where is the immense gravity well that the mage is manipulating?  (This, by the way, would definitionally be science, not magic).



> Like, say, a wand?




A single reactor for the Krell Machine has harnessed "The power of a million exploding suns" and there were many reactors buried within the planet.  Heat and light sufficient to vaporize anything except Krell metal (some form of neutronium) was generated by such a reactor.

With enough of a difference in charge between 2 physical points, you don't even need a physical connector- energy will leap the distance...like lightning...which is accompanied by other effects.

I don't recall any such description of a wand or its effects.

And the existence of the wand, even if you accept it as a machine like the Krell Machine, does NOTHING to address any spell cast without one...i.e. any spell cast without a device.

Which, might I add, is something almost every mythology/magic system I know of allows.


----------



## Wayside (May 26, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> Yeah, that made me wince.  I get the feeling he was just doing a little bit of 'name dropping'--everybody does it from time to time.  I mean, I do it when I get angry...hopefully to confuse people...you know...to give me an advantage.    Not that you would do that, Celebrim.   LOL



Oh, I didn't really mean it like that. I often wish I could just shorthand ideas by referring to their articulations in the work of X around here, because it would save loads of time and I'd know whoever I was talking to was on the same page as me, as it would give us a common point of reference. The fact that I can't do that even dissuades me from participating in a conversation like this one because there are 2000 years of genre theory I can't really refer to without restating and oversimplifying it, and because really the issue here, the strife between sameness and difference, has been at the root of all philosophy since the beginning. So I want to have this conversation at a completely different level that isn't really productive for someone who only wants to think about what the fantasyness of fantasy or the scienceness of science is (or the fictionness of fiction, for that matter, since the difference between fiction and non-fiction is not the difference between real and made-up), since rather than simply the genreness of a genre I want to talk about the thisness of things in general. Consequently, I'll just shut up . I am curious about Joshua's experiences with what he is calling literary criticism though. (In terms of the argument about racism I was actually surprised not to hear about Conrad/Achebe, since I think that would really have driven home Celebrim's point. But again, Joshua seems to be negatively disposed toward theory in the first place, so in the context of this thread it's probably better to stay away from names of critics/theorists. I laughed earlier though because one of Joshua's comments could almost have come straight from the mouth of Gadamer or some other hemeneut.)



			
				Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> "Ed Said" lol...I like to call him 'Eddy Said' pronounced 'sed'..lol.  Perhaps he was just alluding to 'othering' (albeit poorly considering his Culturist argument) rather than Said's strong structuralist positions.



In one seminar I had there was an Indian girl, and she had had a professor as an undergraduate who pronounced Said's name that way, which was a source of endless amusement to our professor, who was I guess a friend of Said's.


----------



## mythusmage (May 26, 2005)

*A Few Observations*

*Every story has the author's morality at its core. No matter what the story is about, no matter how the story is about it, the author's moral sense informs it.

*Christ figures have far more to do with the Jesus of legend than the Jesus of history.

*Arthur C. Clarke: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Alan Kellogg: Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

*The word, "psionics" was coined by the late John Wood Campbell Jr. At the time he was working with J.B. Rhine of the then brand new Rhine Institute, and he came up with "psionics" for electronic devices designed to amplify psychic abilities. Since "psionics" sounds more scientific that "psychic abilities" it became used in place of the older term in science fiction fandom. E. Gary Gygax (our own Col. Pladoh) uses "psychogenic" in *Dangerous Journeys* and *Lejendary Adventures* in place of "psionics"  on the grounds that "psionics" really refers to electronic devices that amplify psychic (or psychogenic) abilities.

*Which last lead us to ...

But before we get to it I must first inform the reader that what I say deals not with the appearance but the heart. That is, my thesis deals not with the architecture but the engineering.

That said, the basis of fantasy is magical thinking. The idea that understanding is an individual thing, a matter of revelation. An understanding that cannot be taught to others. How one understands reality is unique to that person.

Fantasy is also romantic. Romantic in that it relies strongly on authority and authoritarianism. In that there is a right and wrong way to do things, and that what is right and what is wrong cannot change. *Star Wars* relies on magical thinking, *Star Wars* is at its core romantic. Once you learn to see the foundations instead of the decorations you see that *Star Wars* is a fantasy.

The basis of science fiction is scientific thinking. The idea that understanding is not unique to each person, but can be taught to others. That understanding, however imperfect and incomplete can be universal in application.

In that last comes another essential difference between magical and scientific thinking. In magical thought understanding can be perfect and complete. In scientific thought understanding cannot be perfect and complete because we as human beings are not capable of seeing things perfectly and completely. We are limited and so our understanding is limited. You get right down to it, a scientific theory is nothing more than the best description of a phenomenon we can come up with based on what we know about the phenomenon in question. When we learn more about a phenomenon we must perforce devise a better description.

The "the past was better and the future can only get worse" trope is not exclusive to fantasy. Nor is the "the future can only be better than today" trope exclusive to science fiction. You could write a fantasy in which the future means better things, and you could write a science fiction tale in which things are worse than they wore before, and will continue to get worse.

(Historical fact: The Tasmanian Aborigines lost their previous level of technology because they simply didn't have the people necessary to maintain it. They lost the fishing net because those who knew how to make and use fishing nets died without teaching others their knowledge.)

In short, it is possible for a fantasy story to have starships and lasers, while it is possible for a science fiction story to have magic spells and elves. What matters is whether it is magical or scientific thinking that informs it.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (May 26, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> Well, just call me a Sophist then...I'll take money for knowledge any day of the week!
> 
> p.s.  Could we please leave Plato's (philisophical) offspring out of this...if we get into those old arguments I think my head will explode.  Besides they were ALL such arch-conservatives that thinking about their take on this discusion makes my skin crawl.




Man you say things like that and you deserve an explodin head.

You can't go around libelling the founders of lit crit and then claim their take on the Sophists...

you got an attitude like that and you better believe that somethings gonna get ALL sorts of arch around here.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 26, 2005)

edit:  Wayside:

Hey, no problem.  I think we all wish we had a type of intellectual shorthand that projected our understanding (as opposed to our thoughts) more quickly and accurately than written or verbal communication.  

And yes, that is the major malfunction of genre theory--and why I feel new genre theory will eventually eclipse compostion and rhetoric and move more directly into literature.  

If you are truely interested in the "thisness of things in general" and are bored with Plato and his sycophants, and the contextual placement of structualism, post-structualism, and to an extent post-modernism (cringe...in the sense of reduction of ideology) take a tip-toe through Heidegger's work...and really any other existentialist based philosophers who deal with 'reality'...but Heidegger especially.  I feel the development of the thingliness of things in regard to self (and the thingliness of self ) to be a breath of fresh air compared to the concerns of academics hell bent on classification and pidgeonholing.  Though, more than likely you have already taken a gander.  Probably, MORE than, more than likely now that I think about it.

As for Joshua, I'm not sure what line you are refering to...Gadamer?!  I must be off kilter.  Sure he back-peddled a bit but I think everybody does a bit of that in a competitive discusion.  I think he would have significant problems dealing with hermeneutics in general--let alone the breadth that Derrida took it (I'm a bit of a structuralist nut--I've been studying new genre for the last couple of years) but I think I can turn him around with some gentle persuasion...heehehehhehehe.  

Nice talkin' ta ya.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 26, 2005)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Man you say things like that and you deserve an explodin head.
> 
> You can't go around libelling the founders of lit crit and then claim their take on the Sophists...
> 
> you got an attitude like that and you better believe that somethings gonna get ALL sorts of arch around here.





LOL

I assure you...it was in jest.

Sophists in the sense that they were simply teachers...if very biased and elite.

And arch-conservative in the sense that the simplest form of modern entertainment would set their moral radar on fire.  I mean, Plato felt that leaning to read was going to far...let alone writing fantastical fiction that served no obvious moral or educational means.

Come on...their heads would explode. 

LOL


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 26, 2005)

Some good points in there mythusmage, especially about magical thinking...  That IS one characteristic of fantasy that is fairly common.

However, just as many notable magical systems CAN be taught.  _Harry Potter_.  _Dragonslayer_.  The works of Terry Pratchett, Terry Brooks, Barbara Hambly, Ursula K. LeGuin, Harry Turtledove, C.J.Cherryh and so many others feature magic that is both systematically organized and taught...IF you have the right heritage.  Read their works and discover: Only the sons of Leah can use the Sword of Shannarah;  Only wizardborn can prepare the spells to fight the Dark;  The Laws of Contagion, Similarity etc are just the beginning of the rote; Archmages (while they must be taught) are born, not made;  You're a mage or you're a muggle. 

I also beg to differ on romanticism being the domain of fantasy moreso than sci-fi.

Follow Celebrim's Link from Post#82 ).  Click on the link there about Space Opera .  It too is full of romanticism, thus, an element of romanticism cannot be part of the test.  It is insufficiently distinctive.

And, to support your later assertion:



> The "the past was better and the future can only get worse" trope is not exclusive to fantasy. Nor is the "the future can only be better than today" trope exclusive to science fiction. You could write a fantasy in which the future means better things, and you could write a science fiction tale in which things are worse than they wore before, and will continue to get worse.




I believe it was the late C.M. Kornbluth who wrote "The Marching Morons"- in which high-intellect people were SO in the minority as compared to a "moronic" majority, they were essentially little better than babysitters.  It seems that low-intellect persons had out-reproduced the smart ones, and had thus, "inherited the Earth."

And of course, no less a series than C.S. Lewis' Narnia books demonstrate at least a modicum of the world of today or the future being better than yesterday...


----------



## Nyeshet (May 26, 2005)

Sigh. 

I don't have the patience to read all five pages of this thread, so I'll just summerize my own views on the subject. I tend to divide the spectrum thus: Science Fiction, Science Fantasy, Fantasy. 

Psionics, magi-tech [eg: Escaflowne], and psuedo-science concepts, creatures, objects, and places I tend to place in the grey area that is Science Fantasy. As science advances more and more concepts that were once (hard) science fiction seep into this category. Any story that openly mixes magic with post-ren technology I also tend to place in this category. 

Hard SF - plausible science fiction usually based on real science, often involving space travel, time travel, futuristic technology, aliens, and a variety of concepts that have come to be common in sf whether still plausible or not (such as FTL, worm hole portals, etc) I tend to consider Science Fiction. 

Fantasy I reserve for magic, magical creatures (including most traditonally mythic / magic creatures and beings, such as elves, dragons, chimeras, etc), magical places (such as the Land of Faerie, avalon, etc), and most mythic concepts that are readily and commonly known to be impossible or highly implausible. Also included are most religious concepts - as most myths are merely the stories of religions no longer practiced. So stories involving a plutonian style underworld, an oriental celestial court, etc would also be considered fantasy. Also included in fantasy are any fiction stories based on religions - past or present. Dante's Divine Comedy would be an excellent example. 

When you get right down to it, Fantasy involves stories based on ideas supported only by belief, and science fiction involves stories based on ideas supported only by fact or supposed potential future corollaries of currently known facts. Science Fantasy is the middle ground, the gray area between what must be accepted on faith and what can be accepted on current knowledge and theory. 

It's a vague system, I readily admit, but then I stated initially that it is only my own way of creating a psuedo-division between the two increasingly mixed genres. The two areas are melting into each other, but I doubt they will ever fully alloy. There will always be some stories that are most definately fantasy - not science fiction, and there will be some that are definately science fiction. The difficulty is that as science progresses what seems possible is increasingly narrowed - putting more stories that were once hard sf into the science fantasy area. 

I'm reminded of the phrase: 'Any sufficiently advanced form of technology is indistinguishable from magic.' In the current era we are beginning to better realize this, and the authors of our era are merely reflecting this realization in their stories.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 26, 2005)

"The "the past was better and the future can only get worse" trope is not exclusive to fantasy. Nor is the "the future can only be better than today" trope exclusive to science fiction. You could write a fantasy in which the future means better things, and you could write a science fiction tale in which things are worse than they wore before, and will continue to get worse."

I don't think you can based on your own definition.  Magical thinking is an absolute or truth meaning that once it is attained there can be no more.  The idea of the past and future doesn't deal with the actuallity of past or future but the mentality of the current culture...which closley mimics your idea.  So, that your magical thinking will always have a limit and be discovered quickly, become abused, and then lost (possibly).  The idea that the past contains the truth is more acurately described in your post...since past simply refers to the limits of knowledge and understanding of advancement as opposed to the actual chronology of the setting.  I guess I didn't describe it very well.  

It is not a matter of better, but an ingrained assumption that there are limits...in fact, you have it, pretty much dead on...you explained it better than me.  But, you must now add the modifiers of phantasy and science fiction trappings to define your parimeters...including the much touted tech vs fantastic.

As for science fiction thinking being non-absolute, I would suggest that it doesn't contain any perceivable limits...meaning that there is always an expansion of ideas and understanding...which is probably what you said...but I'm getting really tired.  I should go to bed, I'm not thinking straight.  But, yes.  I think you have a grasp of what Genre Theory suscribes as the difference between phantasy and science fiction.  But, the other trappings are important...just like defining other genres.  Yeah, I gotta go...I can barely type.  I'll look on this thrwead tomorrow.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (May 26, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> Sophists in the sense that they were simply teachers...if very biased and elite.
> 
> And arch-conservative in the sense that the simplest form of modern entertainment would set their moral radar on fire.  I mean, Plato felt that leaning to read was going to far...let alone writing fantastical fiction that served no obvious moral or educational means.




...better, but...





On a seperate note:



> And yes, that is the major malfunction of genre theory--and why I feel new genre theory will eventually eclipse compostion and rhetoric and move more directly into literature.




First:

hmmm.

Second:

he should go for it.  As *Aristotle* said the proof of a good theory is that it's teachable.  A good internet theory has a _couple_ of other correlaries, but I think he should go for it.  This thread isn't going anywhere, we've got time.


----------



## Wayside (May 26, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> If you are truely interested in the "thisness of things in general" and are bored with Plato and his sycophants, and the contextual placement of structualism, post-structualism, and to an extent post-modernism (cringe...in the sense of reduction of ideology) take a tip-toe through Heidegger's work...and really any other existentialist based philosophers who deal with 'reality'...but Heidegger especially.  I feel the development of the thingliness of things in regard to self (and the thingliness of self ) to be a breath of fresh air compared to the concerns of academics hell bent on classification and pidgeonholing.  Though, more than likely you have already taken a gander.  Probably, MORE than, more than likely now that I think about it.



Haha yeah, my copy of Being and Time is well worn . Don't let Akrasia hear about that though. I mentioned I think it was Deleuze in a thread a while ago, and he said something to the effect that anything south of Oxbridge was a waste of time. Actually, I have been following Heidegger back and reading Parmenides and Heraclitus, which is a very interesting way to get into haecceity if you have any Greek (or even not, the Phoenix Pre-Socratics series is quite good in terms of literalness). But in any case after Heidegger's "Identity and Difference" I think Deleuze's _Difference and Repetition_ is monumental in terms of the sameness/difference dynamic that controls the West's way of organizing information in, for example, genres (too many people in America got their first taste of Deleuze through the Guattari collaborations, which are admittedly intentionally anti-academic, but he's really starting to be recognized for the epochal thinker he was now). Actually, a really great "introductory" essay to the academic side of this debate is either the Preface or the Introduction (I forget which) to Foucault's _The Order of Things_, which is at its heart a history of the conditions under which our various ways of organizing information came about and then were abandoned in favor of other, sometimes totally contradictory ways.



			
				Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> As for Joshua, I'm not sure what line you are refering to...Gadamer?!  I must be off kilter.



Oh I meant that in a complementary way. Earlier when he criticized Celebrim's reading of a book he said something to the effect that Celebrim had had his interpretation in mind before reading and had forced the reading to correspond to the interpretation instead of vice versa. Strictly speaking, of course, most of us no longer believe in anything like an "aesthetic distance," as it used to be called, so it isn't possible to build genre totally from text anymore than it is to build text totally from genre; each is always to some extent fore-given to the other, as Dr. Strangemonkey argued early in his GnG thread. But I still heard an echo in Joshua's argument that reminded me of this (pg. 267 of _Truth and Method_ if you have a copy):


			
				Gadamer said:
			
		

> For it is necessary to keep one’s gaze fixed on the thing throughout all the constant distractions that originate in the interpreter himself. A person who is trying to understand a text is always projecting. He projects a meaning for the text as a whole as soon as some initial meaning emerges in the text. Again, the initial meaning emerges only because he is reading the text with particular expectations in regard to a certain meaning. Working out this fore-projection, which is constantly revised in terms of what emerges as he penetrates into the meaning, is understanding what is there.



That's why I was surprised by his disdain for criticism, since here and in many other places he's already doing, in a loose messageboard way, what critics do. My guess is that he's just got a bad taste in his mouth from reading some Cleanth Brookes or something  .

I actually get the feeling Joshua would really like Searle's work on social reality, if he isn't already familiar with it. Searle's an accessible writer and an analytic thinker, so I think he would satisfy Joshua's scientific mind (and he also has done a lot of work in A.I. and cog. sci.), and at the same time the whole "act" approach, whether to language or things like genre, is consosnant with Joshua's view that all interpretations are opinions with no absolute fact of the matter to be right or wrong about, so really we can only satisfactorily define fantasy or science fiction by agreeing on definitions for them; like any other word, there is no underlying metaphysical fact, only an interpretive strategy.



			
				Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> Nice talkin' ta ya.



You too. Always nice to find people with similar interests. Beyond gaming and all that, I mean   .


----------



## Desdichado (May 26, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> And again, I have already addressed this point.  I heard you the first time.  I refuted the point.  I don't and never have expected you to accept what I have to say, but I do expect that if you are going to continue to debate me that you would offer some counterpoint to my rebuttle.  So again, Edgar Rice Burroughs is not a racist.



You indeed said something about it, but you didn't refute it.  You also ignored what's actually in the text, like Esmerelda, whom I pointed out, who defies your statement that "racial stereotypes" are merely the result of culture.  You make a convincing case around the red and green men of Mars, but like I said, ignore everyone else Burroughs wrote about.  But you keep making the case about red and green men, which I've never once disputed.

In any case, the entire ERB line of thought is a tangent, we're wrangling about details, and you're not really addressing what I'm trying to say about it anyway.  I've grown weary of the ERB discussion.  If having the last word means anything to you, I'll gladly concede it.  I won't make any further replies to ERB related discussion.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Thank you.  I'm not sure the folks down in the literature department would agree with you, but I'm giving it the old college try.  It's not really my field, and I thank to one whose field it is that it shows.  But, I guess that's irrelevant since as far as you seem to be concerned the fact that I'm using anything like it at all seems to immediately disqualify my opinion.



How can an opinion be disqualified?  I'm mistrustful of a methodology that relies on interpretive opinions, and then trying to derive definitions therefrom.  Just because a connection, or symbolic link _can_ be drawn doesn't mean that it _should_.  Your interpretation of Rand al'Thor; saying that he literally _is_ Christ, is a perfect example.  He saves the world and he sheds his blood.  _That_ makes him Christ?  That's pretty tenuous.  Certainly in the case of the latter feature, many people have done that, and we don't know at this point if Rand will _die_ at the end of the series or not.  Does anyone who saves the world automatically become Christ, or at least a Christ figure?  How about the fact that Rand al'Thor, or more properly his former self Lews Therin Telamon _destroyed_ the world as it was known 3,000 years ago?  Last I checked, Christ also wasn't a conquering figure, nor was he supposed to die in battle against the Devil.  He certainly didn't get it on with three hot chicks who were falling all over him, nor did he have two companions anything like Perrin or Mat who were essential to his success.  He had a people, but the Jews and the Aiel have very little in common, and the Aiel accept Rand (for the most part) while the Jews famously did not.  Yet you ignore these not-insignificant discrepancies with Christ as an iconic figure, and focus on the "well, he'll save the world and shed his blood."

Pressing that argument a little --although not much-- you've also cast most games PCs as Christ figures.  You've cast most comic book characters are Christ figures.  You've cast almost every protagonist in almost every epic fantasy ever written as Christ figures.  Freakin' Elminster is a Christ figure; he's saved the world --more than once-- and he's lost hit points.

Do you see why I have little patience with your methodology?  You _can_ craft a symbolic link, sure.  I can craft symbolic links with practically every fiction I've ever read.  I can draw up a detailed point by point comparison of Jason Bourne of _The Bourne Identity_ and Oddyseus if I wanted, but I consider that to be a waste of my time.  Just because I _can_ make these comparisons doesn't mean that I should, or that anyone else should pay attention to them.  Beyond a certain point of near allegory-like one-to-oneness, symbolic interpretation breaks down to just some guy spouting off.  Some other guy can (and quite often does) spout off something completely different, and he's no less (or more accurately, no more) accurate than the first.  Both are certainly valid interpretations of the text, as are many others, but they're useless in terms of _defining_ the texts, or more especially the genre to which the text belong, and frankly, they don't mean much to anyone besides the person who formulated the opinion in the first place.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Why do you think your understanding of what the author intended is so superior to mine?



I never claimed to have any understanding of authorial intent.  In most cases, authorial intent is impossible to divine, which is why I favor a method of analysis that doesn't rely on it at all.  I'm talking about defining the genre based on _what's in the story_.  Authorial intent is immaterial.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Boy is that going to come back to haunt you.



I really don't think so.


----------



## Desdichado (May 26, 2005)

_EDIT:  By the time I posted this, it was meaningless in the context of the rest of the thread.  Nevermind.  Nothing to see here..._


----------



## mythusmage (May 26, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> Mythusmage said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Magical thinking doesn't really mean that all knowledge is already known. After all, it is always possible for new revelations to occur. And each new revelation could be used to improve life. While the knowledge or understanding is absolute, it is only absolute in a narrow sense. In effect the new revelation makes the understanding, the knowledge more comprehensive.

Then you have those situations where the new revelation apparently contradicts the old revelation. What really happens is that the new knowledge supplants the old. What was once true is no longer true.

Or, what is true for another is not true for you. That is the essential property of individual understanding, of personal revelation. How you see the world, how you understand things determines what is true and what is not true in your case. This is the heart of magical thinking, the idea that it's all valid.



> It is not a matter of better, but an ingrained assumption that there are limits...in fact, you have it, pretty much dead on...you explained it better than me.  But, you must now add the modifiers of phantasy and science fiction trappings to define your parimeters...including the much touted tech vs fantastic.




But there you're dealing with the paint instead of the framework. In my definition what matters is not what you include in your tale, but how what you include is handled. In a fantasy a spaceship travels through space because that's what spaceships do. In science fiction a flying carpet flies through the air through the use of a technology which allows the manipulation of gravity for a desired effect.



> As for science fiction thinking being non-absolute, I would suggest that it doesn't contain any perceivable limits...meaning that there is always an expansion of ideas and understanding...which is probably what you said...but I'm getting really tired.  I should go to bed, I'm not thinking straight.  But, yes.  I think you have a grasp of what Genre Theory suscribes as the difference between phantasy and science fiction.  But, the other trappings are important...just like defining other genres.  Yeah, I gotta go...I can barely type.  I'll look on this thrwead tomorrow.




I would say, no perceivable limits that we can see. As our understanding grows we learn there is more to a subject than we know. Add the fact that our ability to understand is likely to grow in the future, we'll be able to comprehend far more than we do now.

Genre trappings serve more as stage dressing than any other purpose. Really, they tend more to limit than define. You see 'flying carpet' and you think fantasy, even when the item follows scientific principles in its realm of existence. 'Spaceship' on the other hand means science fiction, even when it works in a magical fashion. My purpose in formulating my description of fantasy (my definition if you like) the way I have is to get past the trappings. To open up the possibilities of what fantasy (and science fiction, and horror, and romance etc.) can be. My concern is not with what the story is about, but how the story is about it.


----------



## Desdichado (May 26, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think that is absolutely correct.  Speaking only for myself, I'm a Socratic thinker by nature, and so I desire a definition of science fiction and fantasy which is all encompansing and encompanses not only all the science fiction that is, but all the science fiction that ever will be.



That'll be some trick, based on your definition.  The _main_ fault I've always found with it is that there is no way it _can_ be all encompassing, except by your forcing works to fit it even when they do not.  I'm not even the only one who's thrown out examples of works that do not fit your definition, and to say that no one ever could write a work of fantasy that didn't fit your definition is frankly absurd.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I believe that despite his protests to the contrary, the method he espouses is actually a more arbitrary means of classification than mine because depends precisely on things which are to internal to the reader and even on things as fickle as the reader's emotional responce to the work.



The mind boggles.  Do tell.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Which is what I intend to show next.  Not that I haven't already done this several times, but I guess I'm going to have to do this formally and at more length, because Joshua is not even offering an attempt to refute my objections but still parading out his claims as if I haven't made any argument against them.



Not refuted your objections...

I most certainly have.  You didn't think my refutation was credible, but I've thought the same of your arguments, naturally.


----------



## S'mon (May 26, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Last I checked, Christ also wasn't a conquering figure, nor was he supposed to die in battle against the Devil.  He certainly didn't get it on with three hot chicks who were falling all over him...




We-ell...   

Can we just say this is Religion and lock this thread now?  Please?


----------



## Desdichado (May 26, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, what was the last "academic literary criticism" you read? I'm curious because most of your posts in this thread have more in common with contemporary literary criticism, for which considerations like theme and symbolism are vastly outdated, than Celebrim's, so I find your resistance to it odd.



That's entirely possible.  I took some English lit classes in college some 10-15 years or so ago, but it wasn't my major, or even my minor, and I don't know how old the textbooks or methodology we used was.  It's entirely possible that my perception of English lit in general is frozen in time and it has since moved on completely past my perception of it.

In fact, I would quite hope so, as is probably obvious from my posts.


----------



## Desdichado (May 26, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> We-ell...
> 
> Can we just say this is Religion and lock this thread now?  Please?



Maybe that would be for the best...  it'll take some time to respond to Celebrim's longer post; I've barely had time to read through it once as it is.

I would just like to say that I wish he had posted something like that from the get-go, though.  _That's_ good discussion there.  Naturally, I still disagree with it, but I can't easily dismiss it, as he makes some excellent points.


----------



## Celebrim (May 26, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> ...Do you see why I have little patience with your methodology?...




No, but I see why you have little patience with what you think is my methodology.  I think you keep projecting on to me your feelings about 'literary criticism' and that you are reading my text no more carefully than you seem to read the texts of any authors that have come up in this discussion.  

I'm a Tolkien geek so you don't have to lecture me about how an allegory isn't an allegory unless everything in the allegory has a one to one and onto relationship between the thing and the thing it stands for, first because I don't need convincing, and second because the minute you start making that kind of argument it becomes painfully apparant that you aren't arguing with me but some teacher you had in an English Liturature class.   Nothing I've argued for requires a story to be allegorical, as I've already said, its only interesting how often they are and the reason that is interesting is that if every fantasy story were recognizably allegorical then it would make my argument very strong indeed.   But, again, 'The Lord of the Rings' isn't allegorical (by the author's definition which I accept) and yet _everyone_ agrees that it is fantasy.   On the other hand, no one has disagreed with me that my definition would apply to something like LotR either, the only disagreed on the universiality of the observation.

I really don't want to explain myself on the whole Messiah themes in The Wheel of Time, because I do not want to turn this into a religious discussion or even something that might be mistaken for a religious discussion.  Suffice I think to say that I think it really really unlikely that Robert Jordan invented those themes whole cloth, but is rather deliberately drawing on them for whatever reasons he has to draw on them - even if only to give the work 'false gravitas'.


----------



## Celebrim (May 26, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> Akrasia...Deleuze...Heidegge...Parmenides...Heraclitus...haecceity...Guattari...Foucault...Gadamer...Cleanth Brookes...Searle's




Ok, so who let the professionals out?  All I hear now is the yip yip yipping of the highly educated speaking in short hand (and naturally going right over my head).  Back.  Back.  Back into your ivory towers and drunken symposiums, I say.  Can't you see this was meant to be a discussion forum for the ignorant and bombastic?  We can't have anyone who actually knows something making comments.  This is a message board for crying out loud!


----------



## Gentlegamer (May 26, 2005)

Peanut gallery comment:  This is just the kind of discussion I enjoy!  Well done all!


----------



## Desdichado (May 26, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> No, but I see why you have little patience with what you think is my methodology.  I think you keep projecting on to me your feelings about 'literary criticism' and that you are reading my text no more carefully than you seem to read the texts of any authors that have come up in this discussion.



I think I read it carefully enough.  You defined fantasy by the presence of morality tale symbolism and the presence of iconic figures.  In order to do that, you have to find symbolism and iconic, mythic figures in every work of fantasy ever published.  In order to do that, you'll _have_ to go look for tenuous and weak connections.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I'm a Tolkien geek so you don't have to lecture me about how an allegory isn't an allegory unless everything in the allegory has a one to one and onto relationship between the thing and the thing it stands for, first because I don't need convincing, and second because the minute you start making that kind of argument it becomes painfully apparant that you aren't arguing with me but some teacher you had in an English Liturature class.



It should also be painfully apparent that I wasn't making that argument, though.  What I said was that _unless_ the connections are near allegorical in strength, they automatically are too weak to be held up as definitive.

You may well disagree, but _that's_ the argument I'm making.  I know you're not saying that the story has to be allegorical, but I question how useful the definition is if the symbolism is weak.  Assuming that I accepted your definition, yet didn't accept your symbolic interpretation of a work, which seems certainly plausible, I would exclude a work from the genre that you would include.  And I'm not talking about isolated instances, outlier cases and deliberate gray areas; I'm talking about your normal, mainstream, regular stuff here.  I can accept a certain amount of outlier, hard-to-define gray areas, but I can't accept that gray area swamping the majority of what's out there.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Suffice I think to say that I think it really really unlikely that Robert Jordan invented those themes whole cloth, but is rather deliberately drawing on them for whatever reasons he has to draw on them - even if only to give the work 'false gravitas'.



Just because he borrowed some themes doesn't make Rand into a Christ figure, is my argument though.  I have no doubt that Robert Jordan borrowed some ideas from the iconic Christ figure for Rand, just as he borrowed warrior soldalities from the Plains Indians for the Aiel.  That doesn't mean that Rand _is_ Christ anymore than it means the Aiel are Apaches and Comanches.  _Everybody_ borrows.  To me there's quite a difference between an element in a story that borrows from the iconic Christ figure archetype, and an element in a story that is symbolic and representative _of_ the Christ figure archetype.

And maybe in that distinction is where we are not seeing eye to eye.

And I still owe you a detailed response to your analysis of the definition I favor; but it'll take me a good half hour or so to type that out, and I've been too busy with work to spend that kind of time on it.  But just because I haven't responded yet, I do mean to!  As soon as I get a chance...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 26, 2005)

A question about _Star Wars_ specifically:  What are *mitichlorians*?  Are they ever explained by Lucas (I couldn't stomach any of Lucas' new crap after the entirely flushable _Phantom Menace_).

I ask because the impression I got was that *mitichlorians* were a detectible, biological feature- either a natural part of a Jedi's body or some kind of symbiote.

Symbiosis is how we wound up with *mitochondria* in our cells. * Mitochondria* are organelles in our cells that act like power plants, and have been shown to have once been organisms that were originally distinct from other life forms.

If *Mitichlorians* are little beasties that allow one to "tap into the life-force that surrounds us all"-read: manipulate the Force- like little biological power transformers, then this moves the _Star Wars_ series even further into the realm of sci-fi, IMHO.  (That is, its still Space Opera, but its doing a better job of justifiying its tech.)  How do they do it?  I don't know.

Perhaps its analogous to Faraday's Law: when a conductor of electricity is moved into a magnetic field, Faraday's Law of Induction would lead us to expect an induced electrical current in the conductor and its associated magnetic field which would oppose the applied field.  (BTW: this also works backwards- you can create a magnetic field by moving electrical currents a certain way.)  Thus, just like moving the electrical conductor in a magnetic field allows for wireless transmission of power (and makes it possible for us to have electric guitars), *mitichlorians* passing through the fields of "life-force" can convert it to energy.

Just a thought.


----------



## Desdichado (May 26, 2005)

Celebrim, before I start, let me summarize what I understand of your objections.  That way, at least, everyone will know to what I'm making a rebuttal.  If I am substantially misrepresenting what you are saying, well, then I misunderstood you and portions of the rest of my post will be irrelevent.  I'll have to cross that bridge if and when I come to it.

Not everyone has the same understanding of what is or is not scientifically plausible, leading to an inability to classify science fiction vs. fantasy based on scientific plausibility.  Related to this is the fact that practically _no_ science fiction is rigorous about scientific plausibility, shrinking the genre that fits this definition so small as to make the definition all but useless.
A science fiction writer can be rigorous in one field, yet sloppy --or more likely, merely uninterested-- in another.  Your cryogenic faith healers, for example.  Someone interested in genetics or biology may be rigorous about that aspect of his alien life while making embarrassing gaffes about his astronomy or vice versa.  I know you didn't strictly raise this point in those words, but I think your point about _where_ is the line in the sand about suspension of disbelief is, if not the same objection, at least very closely related to it.
Because that line in the sand is arbitrary for the reader, the definition cannot be extended beyond the reader and therefore becomes useless as a working categorization scheme for the genre.
Let me being by addressing the last point first.  _This_ at least, is patently untrue.  As I've said many times before, "my" definition isn't really my definition; it's one that I've picked up from several books on science fiction authorship, written by a variety of science fiction authors.  It is nearly identical in content to the Library of Congress distinction between the genres.  It is the one I found with a quick Google search on several literature professor's online syllabi and notes.

It is impossible to claim that the definition is too arbitrary and personal to broadly work, because _"my" definition is *the* working, mainstream definition that is commonly used by authors, libraries and academics._  This objection fails the practical lithmus test of, "if you claim its impossible, why do we see it actually in practice so frequently?"

Technically, I could stop there, my point demonstrated, but your other objections are too interesting, frankly, to not merit some response.  

For your first point about differeing levels of knowledge, suspension of disbelief, and belief patterns in general, while I think that's an interesting objection, I also think it's a bit of a red herring.  Part of that is based on my own lack of clarity up front in using the word plausible, I think.  Science fiction has pretty much _always_ been about exploring the cutting edge of the theoretical framework provided by scientists.  When I said that FTL was plausible, even if we can't get there, it would have been better worded as, "we have a theoretical framework for FTL travel (several, in fact) but no idea how to bridge the gap between theoretical framework and actual practice."  That is what I meant by plausible, but I think you're using it differently (and more accurately, I may add) by stating that if we have no idea how to bridge the gap between theoretical framework and actual practice, then how can it be considered plausible?

But that's where the handwaving of science fiction authors comes in.  They rarely handwave the theoretical framework, or else they'll be roundly accused of no longer being considered science fiction.  But the details of how the technology works _can_ and in fact, usually are handwaved.  _Naturally_ we wouldn't know how to accomplish FTL travel, or we would be already exploring the stars.  And there's some basis for that as well.  _Most_ of the really world-changing technological advances were completely unanticipated, so it only seems natural that although we don't know how to bridge the gap to the theoretical framework, it's possible to be bridged by something that hasn't occured to us yet.  That's not unlike Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, where folks are still calculating their spaceship's flight paths with a slide rule.  The breakthroughs in computing were yet to come, even though the theoretical framework, heck, even the early mainframes, were already in place.  Casting a spell, on the other hand, has no theoretical framework around it whatsoever.  Therefore, a story that handwaves FTL travel is science fiction, while a story that handwaves the fireball spell is fantasy.

It's possible you'll see that as a dodge, or perhaps a back-pedaling, but that's where I was going with this all along, and it's pretty much in line with the industry, I think.

The second part of my rebuttal to your first point about differing knowledge levels and suspension of disbelief thresh-hold is where I really feel you've tossed up a red herring.  The fact of the matter is, that practicing, professional scientists don't agree on the _science itself_, so naturally fiction that extrapolates from that will be even more contentious.  To use your own example, based on your work on genetics, you think the possibility of life spontaneously generating is so statistically small that it would literally take a miracle for it to occur.  However, I read a summary not longer than a year ago --or at most two-- of an article published (in _Nature_ I believe) by a team of biochemists, astrochemists and others who believe that the possibility of life is so statistically high that life is probably prevalent across the universe (although they do admit that _complex_, multicellular life is extremely unlikely.)  When the pages of peer-reviewed academic journals with articles written by professional, practicing scientists outright contradict each other, why do you demand a greater homogeneity of agreement for science fiction than we see in actual science?  Your reduction of scientific plausibility down to the individual level is unwarranted, I believe.  Science fiction doesn't require blessing by a panel of experts in the field.  It doesn't even require that the science in the science fiction necessarily be the mainstream model accepted by most practicing experts in the field.  I could write a science fiction story based on the tenets of M-theory and the interaction of various branes of reality on our own.  The fact that M-theory is still a highly controversial outgrowth of already contentious and controversial variants on string theory is beside the point.  M-theory is far from a totally accepted theory.  Heck, I could write a science fiction story about how life on earth is the product of bio-engineering of aliens from a planet around Rigel.  Despite the fact that this kind of Erich von Danniken theory has practically _no_ mainstream support, it would still be science fiction.  Although hardly anyone really believes it, few scientists would argue that there isn't a theoretical framework that couldn't at least admit the possibility.

If a story has, behind its setting, a scientific framework, based on theoretical models predicted by scientific analysis, then it's science fiction, not fantasy.

Your other objection is a little more difficult to address directly; that of science fiction authors who stack up scientifically unlikely, or even incorrect, notions until suspension of disbelief snaps.  However, I think you're combining two concepts here: not science fiction and sloppy science fiction.  An author who is really interested in the prospect, potential properties, etc. of intelligent life may get all the biological details as close as he can, while, as I did above, simply picking some place for them to be from.  Rigel, as a blue supergiant with another stellar companion, is actually an extremely bad choice.  The reader may very well object to the fact that complex life could develop on any planet of a short-lived blue supergiant, or even the possibility that any type of habitable planet could maintain a stable orbit in a binary system.  Those would be good objections too.  But it's not a case of the author inserting fantasy elements into the story, it's just a case of him being sloppy on elements that didn't interest him.

I agree that it's a bit of a gray area to try and define when such a work slips into the realms of space opera rather than merely sloppy science fiction, but I don't agree that there is any grayness between fantasy and science fiction in that case.

What this model doesn't really address is the fact that there are works that deliberately skirt the boundaries of science fiction and fantasy and contain elements of both.  But since those are purposefully genre-benders, I don't feel the model breaks down because they're not easily classified.


----------



## Celebrim (May 26, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> A question about _Star Wars_ specifically:  What are *mitichlorians*?...If *Mitichlorians* are little beasties that allow one to "tap into the life-force that surrounds us all"-read: manipulate the Force- like little biological power transformers, then this moves the _Star Wars_ series even further into the realm of sci-fi, IMHO...How do they do it?  I don't know.




The answer to your question is mitichlorians are a plot device.   The writer needed a way to show how and why the Jedi found the boy impressive and important.

Beyond that, mitichlorians are technobabble, in that they sort of sound scientific and lead people to go off on all these implausible theories about how they work.  But there is actually nothing at all scientific about technobabble.  It's just a trick being played on the you in order to get you to accept something fantastic as plausible.   This becomes obvious when you consider that you know absolutely nothing about midichlorians, but you have done your best to fit them within the scientific knowledge you do have - even if it means doing a little stretching to make it all fit.   But its just as possible that mitichlorians are a form of microscopic blue faerie creature, and even if they aren't, what's the difference really?

Let me explain how Evocation magic works in my world.  

One of the central features of my campaign's cosmology is the idea of the Great Cascade.  The Great Cascade is a higher dimensional structure in which the lower dimensional universe is 'hanging'.  So where ever you are in the universe, you are standing in the great cascade and are continually being effected by it, even if you need magical sight in order to see it.  Now, everything in the universe is made of strands of thread.  In fact, the universe is hanging in the cascade by a really might strand of thread which is supposedly attached at the other end to the hand of the nameless Creator (though noone really knows for sure).  

Wizards study the art of spell casting, one of the few surviving arcane arts.   Spell casters learn how to manipulate the threads of reality using the power of Important Numbers, Significant Runes, and True Names.   Each of these devices allows the user to grab hold of the threads of reality in some fashion, and create resonances in the strings using his thought, his voice, and the rhythmic motions of his hand and body.   Using these resonances to twist and warp the strings, the Evocation mage can temporarily enlarge one or more of the many microscopic gateways that allow the interchange of energy between the universe and the Great Cascade.   As a result of this open gateway, energy from one of the separate flows of the cascade which we in this universe see as 'elements' pours into thie universe.  In the case of a spell like 'fireball', all that is necessary is to briefly open a spherical gate to the flow we know as the Plane of Fire, and there is an immediate flash of fire in the area. 

This doesn't violate conservation of energy.   The ammount of energy required to open the gate is small compared to the ammount that flows in (though 'bad things' happen if you try to keep a gate open too long and don't arrange for the flow to have places to go).   The total ammount of energy in the local universe increases, but the total ammount of energy in the multiverse remains constant, and the concentration of energy locally will quickly be compensated for because it will tend to increase the flow of energy out of the universe as the cascade 'sucks' the power back out again.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 26, 2005)

> he should go for it. As Aristotle said the proof of a good theory is that it's teachable. A good internet theory has a couple of other correlaries, but I think he should go for it. This thread isn't going anywhere, we've got time.




I don't think he was interested in the particular facets of this discusion.  He was more interested in amusing parallels.  If we were to break-down the boundries of our rather 'binded' or 'cyclical' arguments and focus more on the pure abstraction of an individuals recognition of other 'things' compared to those 'things'' innate characteristics--that make it a 'thing'--we might be able to draw him back in...but only if he had enough time.  And I'm sure we would lose the interest of several other people...and be terribly off topic.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 26, 2005)

> But its just as possible that mitichlorians are a form of microscopic blue faerie creature, and even if they aren't, what's the difference really?




The difference is, if the technobabble is a bio-energy equivalent to Farraday's Law of Induction, then we're getting DAMN close to science, and a HELL of a lot less theoretical than extrapolating macroscopic effects from quantum observations.

Living bodies DO generate energy fields:  Electrical, Heat, etc.  Why not have some microbe (Mitichlorians) that convert bio-energy to other usable forms via induction?

(For the records, I HATE MITICHLORIANS- mainly because they were added in the new movies and that addition makes no sense in the light of the mysticism of the original films.  Characters who should have known of them- Obi-Wan, Yoda- were completly mystical about the Force, when they could have said "Its the bugs in your blood!"  In other words: Mitichlorians are BAD WRITING!)



> One of the central features of my campaign's cosmology is the idea of the Great Cascade. The Great Cascade is a higher dimensional structure in which the lower dimensional universe is 'hanging'. So where ever you are in the universe, you are standing in the great cascade and are continually being effected by it, even if you need magical sight in order to see it. Now, everything in the universe is made of strands of thread.




How does one gain that magical sight?  Is it inborn?  If so, that is a distinction from technology.  No one but a select few will ever have *the power*.



> Wizards study the art of spell casting, one of the few surviving arcane arts. Spell casters learn how to manipulate the threads of reality using the power of Important Numbers, Significant Runes, and True Names. Each of these devices allows the user to grab hold of the threads of reality in some fashion, and create resonances in the strings using his thought, his voice, and the rhythmic motions of his hand and body.




Those are not "devices" in the strictest, mechanistic sense of the word- they are concepts and symbols.  What you have described is the direct manipulation of reality without intervening mechanical devices.  The mage is using special knowledge to accentuate his will, and things happen.  He speaks, gestures and dances, and reality is radically altered.  No levers, no pulleys, no nuclear generators, no nanites.

Magic, not technology.

In a sci-fi setting, he'd have to subvocalize to his nanotech transmitters, which would relay a signal to a weapon, which would fire at the target.  Thought is transmitted to action, seemingly invisibly, but there are all those messy transistors, warheads and chemical reactions, etc.  If the weapon is a rocket of some kind, its thrusters push it forward while simultaneously pushing its weapons platform backwards.  If its an energy weapon, the weapon has to dissipate heat, recharge, etc. before reuse.

Technology, not magic.



> This doesn't violate conservation of energy. The ammount of energy required to open the gate is small compared to the ammount that flows in (though 'bad things' happen if you try to keep a gate open too long and don't arrange for the flow to have places to go). The total ammount of energy in the local universe increases, but the total ammount of energy in the multiverse remains constant, and the concentration of energy locally will quickly be compensated for because it will tend to increase the flow of energy out of the universe as the cascade 'sucks' the power back out again.




Its still a violation.  You have no entropy- there should be a net LOSS.  At the very least, the Plane of Fire should get *much* colder (in at least one spot)...and piss off the locals!

In the real world, there is always a loss of energy when work is done.  Here, you use a small amount of energy to get a huge amount on target- you have no magical equivalent to a lever or differential gears to convert low energy effort into massive results.

As was pointed out in a recent Scientific American, it takes more energy to produce fuel than we get out of it.  We produce fuel because we are converting it from one form to another, more useful form.


----------



## Celebrim (May 26, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Living bodies DO generate energy fields:  Electrical, Heat, etc.  Why not have some microbe (Mitichlorians) that convert bio-energy to other usable forms via induction?




Why not?  It doesn't matter though, because the ammount of energy produce by these fields is too small to explain the observed effects.  



> Its still a violation.  You have no entropy- there should be a net LOSS.




Actually, its an interesting theological question as far of the inhabitants of my campaign world are concerned whether the ammount of energy in the universe is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same.   My point was only to show that magic could be made to work in a very mechanical fashion, and there really is no particular reason why I couldn't put such a system in a 'real world' setting.  In doing so though, I wouldn't be making it any less magical.



> At the very least, the Plane of Fire should get much colder...and piss off the locals!




Considering the ammount of energy in the cascade, such a minor draw on it has no noticable effect on the plane of fire, but yes in some immeasurably small degree the plane of fire gets colder whenever you force more energy out of it.  A local on the other side in the vicinity of a fireball when it went off would suffer something like the effects of an implosion' as things in the vicinity were sucked out of the sudden hole in the universe, so yeah, it probably would tick them off.   Also, its possible to suck elementals out of thier home plane with magic like this.  

I don't really need a lever.  The effect is more similar to glass shattering when a sound at its resonate frequency is emitted over some duration.  The momentary energy of the sound is insufficient to break the glass, but the cumulative energy of the sound accumulates because its at the resonate frequency of the object.   In the same way, the momentary energy of the wizards voice is unable to 'break' the gate, but the cumulative effects of six seconds of carefully controlled modulation is.

Again, this is not intended to show that my hypothetical universe isn't fantastic, only that in theory it would be plausible to come up with a plausible explanation for anything.   All I've got to do is start throwing around nano-technology, quantum mechanics, and so forth and eventually you'll believe in wizards casting fireballs - even if (and especially if) I don't actually explain how it works but leave it up to your imagination to figure it out.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 26, 2005)

Mechanical resonance takes time.  And you still get loss.

Don't get me wrong- M.R. is POWERFUL.  Nicola Tesla supposedly caused tremors in a town near his laboratory by using the principle- he was using a piston-like setup to strike the earth at its resonant frequency.  But it took him a long time to do (many many hours) and a LOT of fuel, and the tremors were only enough to cause a jiggle.

Merely speaking a word and doing a boogie for a second cannot be enough to incinerate someone without violating thermodynamics.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 26, 2005)

mythusmage :

Sorry about my babbling last night--I hadn't slept in over 24hrs...things were really beginning to look the same.

I'll get back to you...hopefully a lot more intelligibly...later today, when I have more time.


----------



## Celebrim (May 26, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Merely speaking a word and doing a boogie for a second cannot be enough to incinerate someone without violating thermodynamics.




In this universe, I don't doubt that that is true.  In the game universe, there is this thin fabric separating reality from a nearly infinite ammount of energy, and getting to it takes no more energy than turning on a spigot.

What is interesting to me though is how rigorously you attack such notions.   Would you attack with the same rigors the thermodynamics of nano-replicators (or insert your conventional science fiction device)?

PS: There are alot of questions about the setting that you are asking that I'm ignoring simply because I don't want to get derailed on a tangent.


----------



## Desdichado (May 26, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> PS: There are alot of questions about the setting that you are asking that I'm ignoring simply because I don't want to get derailed on a tangent.



If being the starter of the thread means anything, I don't mind it drifting off on a tangent.  I think that kind of stuff is fascinating, personally.


----------



## mythusmage (May 26, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> mythusmage :
> 
> Sorry about my babbling last night--I hadn't slept in over 24hrs...things were really beginning to look the same.
> 
> I'll get back to you...hopefully a lot more intelligibly...later today, when I have more time.




The game's that good, eh? 

Considering how coherent your writing was when you were incoherent, I look forward to what you produce when rested. Hey, I used to translate Col. Pladoh, your compositions were a cinch in comparison. And thanks for helping to focus my thoughts.


----------



## mythusmage (May 26, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> In this universe, I don't doubt that that is true.  In the game universe, there is this thin fabric separating reality from a nearly infinite ammount of energy, and getting to it takes no more energy than turning on a spigot.




In *Mythus* such matters are governed by the Law of Emanation and the Law of Conduction. To quote myself:



			
				Alan Kellogg said:
			
		

> The fifth Law is the Law of Emanation. The Law of Emanation deals with  energy, source and flow. It allows for the use of energy, enabling the drawing and/or direction of energy for use in any number of purposes.
> 
> The Law of Emanation deals with all forms of energy. It applies in castings that affect mental ability as will as those that alter the local gravity. That is, such castings can quicken thought, or render thinking sluggish. A change, you could say, in the flow of mental energy.
> 
> ...




Hope this helps


----------



## Celebrim (May 26, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> Hope this helps




That's interesting, but I don't really need 'help' per se.  I've been thinking about this for at least 20 years.

None of your laws are actually applicable to the setting.   Energy doesn't really flow through objects, and in fact, energy doesn't have a meaningful existance in the universe anyway.  All energy is effectively the downward flow of the cascade draging on a particle.  'Energy' in the form of moving particles can tunnel through channels in an object, put there isn't really anything like 'electrons' (or there magical equivalent) in the game universe.   Hense, there isn't really anything like capacitors either.   You can't really store energy (the cascade would suck it off even if you could), but you can store potential energy in the form of 'wound' rune wheels, and you can keep a rune wheel continually turning by building a self-feeding gate system with an appropriate set of sinks, effectively building a mini-cascade. 

You can also get help by tieing into the Great Tree and letting the tree's own self-organizing principals do the complex work for you.  This is the principal behind spells that do seemingly impossible things like 'comprehend languages', and the principal involved in divinations.   

It's worth noting that there is no such thing as 'supernatural' in my campaign universe.  Everything operates according to the same principals.  If you have mage sight - and are stupid enough to try - you could magnify your vision to the point that you see the little spinning rune wheels winding and unwinding a person's muscles, the tree's branches extending into your own mind helping you to organize your thoughts, tiny little spells effects transforming the matrixes of your food into different shapes, and so on and so forth.   This however would classify as one of those things that mortal minds where just not meant to know, and if you were to try it without proper filters in place they'd be feeding your catatonic form through a straw for the remainder of your natural life.

While I'm still side tracked, I'll answer a few questions:



> How does one gain that magical sight? Is it inborn?




Anyone inborn with full fledged mage sight would probably not survive unless they weren't fully human (I suppose I should say not fully one of the Free Peoples).   However, mage sight can be trained into anyone of sufficient intelligence and patience.  You could assume that anyone that could complete as Masters program in Engineering could also develop mage sight.  In fact, the hard part isn't getting the eyes to see 'magic', because everything _is_ magical.  The hard part is overcoming the natural fliters in your mind protecting you from information overload without killing you or driving you insane.  I suppose someone could come up with a spell that actually gave mage sight to people, but as should be obvious giving mage sight to a mind without sufficient knowledge and discpline to handle it would be an extraordinarily cruel thing.  

Sorcerer's can develop mage sight as a consequence of exploring thier abilities, but most of them aren't fully human anyway and in general Wizards can't help them with what they do and vica versa.  



> Those are not "devices" in the strictest, mechanistic sense of the word- they are concepts and symbols.




In this universe, concepts and symbols are abstract things that lack tangible substance.   In the universe I'm describing, concepts and symbols are tangible things that anyone with sufficient intelligence and training can physically see.  In fact, the whole universe is at some level nothing more than a bunch of little concepts and symbols turning like intermeshing gears powered by little water wheels.  



> What you have described is the direct manipulation of reality without intervening mechanical devices.




No, what I've described is an intervening mechanical device.  A wizard can draw out on a peice of paper what the final device that the spell creates is supposed to look like.  In fact, that's exactly how one goes about learning 'spellcraft'.   A wizard can watch his apprentice building the device as the spell has cast and then say things like, "The spell failed because you put Exarch's Third Rune of Warding two finger spans from Molybion's Excellent Circumscribing Coil, which caused you fire channel to come unwound after travelling only a few inches.  Try again this time using less wiggle when transforming from the Eighth Position of the Wounded Crane into the Upturned Hand of Enlightenment"



> No levers, no pulleys, no nuclear generators, no nanites.




No, but there is a little more going on than just wish fulfilment (and for that matter, there is ALOT going on in wish fulfillment).  

But the point of all this was that at some level what science fiction authors are doing in thier universes is no different than what I just described to you.   The frame of science if usually only superficial.  It's just there to help you suspend your disbelief because fantasy is more powerful if you at least in part believe in it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 26, 2005)

One last point of clarification about my position on Celebrim's fireball:  the quantum events he described as being a potential sci-fi origins of a fireball only occur at incredibly high temperatures.  So, yes, you do get particles arising out of a sea of energy, but only when you're talking millions of degrees kelvin...birth of the universe/heart of a star/inside a supercollider type environments:  Truly unlikely energy levels to be contained and controlled by an old song-and-dance man with a stick.

Which is why if find Mitichlorians more likely than quantum fireballs.



> In the game universe, there is this thin fabric separating reality from a nearly infinite ammount of energy, and getting to it takes no more energy than turning on a spigot.




And how much energy does it take to control?

You're getting the impossible free lunch.  To get "near infinite amounts of energy"-say, clean fusion- in a sci fi setting requires years of resarch, unimaginable amounts of money, physical plant, as well as human capital- just to set up the mechanism capable of tapping that source.  Then there's upkeep.

Your universe?  Education and training are required, to be sure, but mere words and paper and ink to open a gateway to limitless power?  You're getting a lot more out than you're investing.



> No, what I've described is an intervening mechanical device. A wizard can draw out on a peice of paper what the final device that the spell creates is supposed to look like. In fact, that's exactly how one goes about learning 'spellcraft'. A wizard can watch his apprentice building the device as the spell has cast and then say things like, "The spell failed because you put Exarch's Third Rune of Warding two finger spans from Molybion's Excellent Circumscribing Coil, which caused you fire channel to come unwound after travelling only a few inches. Try again this time using less wiggle when transforming from the Eighth Position of the Wounded Crane into the Upturned Hand of Enlightenment"




Um...your "mechanical device" is nothing more than movements and ink and parchment.  It doesn't interact with reality in the way a true machine does.  The most favorable readings I can give what you described above is either a set of engineering plans or a magical battery.  Plans only describe the specs for a machine, and batteries don't do anything except store energy for use by a machine.



> In the universe I'm describing, concepts and symbols are tangible things that anyone with sufficient intelligence and training can physically see.  In fact, the whole universe is at some level nothing more than a bunch of little concepts and symbols turning like intermeshing gears powered by little water wheels.




Well, that's convenient for you.  We're trying to define and describe differences between magic and sci-fi, and you're redefining vocabulary to fit your purposes.  That's pretty counterproductive.

For the record, examine how far these words have been twisted:


> *Merriam-Webster*
> Concept
> 1 : something conceived in the mind : THOUGHT, NOTION
> 2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances
> ...




Where real world concepts and symbols are not things in themselves, your "chimaera" are both metaphysical entities AND things in themselves.

To be perfectly clear, I'm not asserting that magic can't operate by teachable rules.  I know it can- *I said as much in previous posts*.

And yes, I AM as critical about high-tech in sci-fi when I have to be.  The point of *Dannyalcatraz's Arcane Observation* was to illustrate that while magic and tech may look alike, when you start looking "under the hood", so to speak, there are discernable differences.  Magic usually doesn't require cause and effect to involve traceable physical connections, and technology- in every sci-fi book I've read- does.  Warp Drive requires power from matter/anti-matter reactions.  Nanites?- powered by temperature differential or decay engines.

The requirement of intervening mechanical devices is one of few non-cosmetic (read: setting and trappings) distinctions (along with magical thinking versus scientific thinking) that is pretty consistently different between the two genres.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (May 26, 2005)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> I don't think he was interested in the particular facets of this discusion.  He was more interested in amusing parallels.  If we were to break-down the boundries of our rather 'binded' or 'cyclical' arguments and focus more on the pure abstraction of an individuals recognition of other 'things' compared to those 'things'' innate characteristics--that make it a 'thing'--we might be able to draw him back in...but only if he had enough time.  And I'm sure we would lose the interest of several other people...and be terribly off topic.




I seriously need to respond to the genre elements of the Grim and Gritty thread sometime soon. Not to mention the promised analysis of Kill Bill.


----------



## Wayside (May 27, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> One last point of clarification about my position on Celebrim's fireball:  the quantum events he described as being a potential sci-fi origins of a fireball only occur at incredibly high temperatures.  So, yes, you do get particles arising out of a sea of energy, but only when you're talking millions of degrees kelvin...birth of the universe/heart of a star/inside a supercollider type environments:  Truly unlikely energy levels to be contained and controlled by an old song-and-dance man with a stick.
> ...
> You're getting the impossible free lunch.  To get "near infinite amounts of energy"-say, clean fusion- in a sci fi setting requires years of resarch, unimaginable amounts of money, physical plant, as well as human capital- just to set up the mechanism capable of tapping that source.  Then there's upkeep.
> ...
> Your universe?  Education and training are required, to be sure, but mere words and paper and ink to open a gateway to limitless power?  You're getting a lot more out than you're investing.



I can't rationalize Celebrim's setup for him, but "magic" is both mystical and mechanical in my game. Well, first there are a multiplicity of magics, but the one that has access to "near infinite amounts of energy," as you're talking about here, is mechanical without having anything to do with incantations or the waving of sticks in super-secret patterns of power. It's a question purely of "will," but not will in the modern sense of an autonomous agent who navigates between a number of possible choices (that would be will in the sense of, say, _Dune_), not "will power" or anything like that. In fact will in the sense we generally use it, and also self or ego or personality, aren't the causes of actions at all, but their _effects_. What I mean is that commonly, we posit a thinker behind every thought, and the thinker is the cause of the thought. But in my game the thinker is _produced_ as an effect _by_ the thought, is its slave not its master, and there is a deeper entity than this surface effect of an ego or self. One is able to "do magic" by undrawing the territories of the self and becoming a nomad in the steppes of this deeper entity, by taking the self out of play, in a sense de-mechanizing it. One takes oneself out of play as an effect--one learns to become a _cause_--and when the full power of a will begins to be unleashed in this way it can do almost anything. It can draw energy out of n-dimensional space and manipulate it, it can move backward or forward in time as easily as turn left or right (which makes for some insanely interesting fight choreography, incidentally), it can become other selves completely at that surface level, can know your next move in a fight by _becoming you_, and I don't see any of this as really handwaving science, no more than believing in human free will handwaves science. You could even make quantum uncertainty a product of the competing powers of these deeper wills, that is, could found science on this mystical possibility, as all science is already founded--that is, on a mystical possibility.


----------



## Wayside (May 27, 2005)

Joshua, and anyone else interested, I have taken the liberty of uploading a short and fairly recent (1996) article, "Disputes About Art," from _The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism_. I think it will particularly interest you because the author's approach to the problem of classification is to consider whether or not a role-playing game like D&D or Shadowrun can be a work of art. I don't think anyone will entirely agree with the line of thought, as I certainly don't, but it does have an interesting application here.


----------



## Desdichado (May 27, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> Joshua, and anyone else interested, I have taken the liberty of uploading a short and fairly recent (1996) article, "Disputes About Art," from _The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism_. I think it will particularly interest you because the author's approach to the problem of classification is to consider whether or not a role-playing game like D&D or Shadowrun can be a work of art. I don't think anyone will entirely agree with the line of thought, as I certainly don't, but it does have an interesting application here.



Thanks for the tip!  I'll try and read it today.


----------



## Desdichado (May 27, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> Joshua, and anyone else interested, I have taken the liberty of uploading a short and fairly recent (1996) article, "Disputes About Art," from _The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism_. I think it will particularly interest you because the author's approach to the problem of classification is to consider whether or not a role-playing game like D&D or Shadowrun can be a work of art. I don't think anyone will entirely agree with the line of thought, as I certainly don't, but it does have an interesting application here.



Oh, and sign me up for some of that Jane Austen d20 action...


----------



## barsoomcore (May 28, 2005)

Wow, this has been a great thread!

I'd feel better if JD and Cel would shake hands and say sorry for calling each other names at times, but we're all still standing, it looks like. Phew.

I keep going back and forth on all this. And I think I know why.

Because different genre definitions serve different purposes.

You CAN define genres based on "trappings". Which is, broadly what JD is doing. It looks like SF, it sounds like SF, it's SF. Whether you describe the trappings as "mechanical" or "plausible" or "derived from a theoretical framework", you're deciding which texts fit into which genres according to the trappings of the text, as opposed to the themes or "meanings" (can we just pretend those terms aren't problematic, for a second?) of the STORY (and once more, thanks).

That's a perfectly valid way to divide books into groups. It's the most commonly-used method, in fact, as any quick trip to a bookstore will show. That's because it's the EASIEST. You don't have to read the book to know which section it belongs in. Open to random page and scan.

"drive", "reactor", "plastic", "hyper-*", metric measure units -- SF

"dragon", "eldritch", "mystical", "cloak", ancient measure units -- Fantasy

That works for 90% of the books out there, so people use it. It's starting to break down a little now as assorted "-punk" genres start to evolve (my favourite being JD's very own "Lovecraftian Ringwaldpunk"), but it still works most of the time, and it's easy to use, so it's the most commonly-employed.

I don't happen to like it, but I'll agree it's useful for the purpose of deciding where to stack a given book so that people will find the books they expect to find.

Now, I don't work in a bookstore. And I don't organize my shelves by genre. So such a definition is frankly useless to me, so I have no interest in it.

I am, however, a writer. And a person who likes comparmentalizing things according to their "fundamental natures" (let us maintain our cordial willingness to let problematic terms lie, shall we?) just for the fun of it, so I'm looking for a way to distinguish fantasy from SF (assuming of course that they CAN be distinguished, which it's interesting nobody yet has asked about) that relies on, let us say, story considerations.

My question is, is there a TYPE OF STORY that all (or a reasonable subset of) fantasy stories make use of? Is there some quality to the stories that we generally call fantasy (as opposed to the settings, or the prose style or what have you) that distinguishes them from other stories? And if so, is that quality universally found in all stories we generally call fantasy, or only some subset thereof? And are stories that we generally DON'T call fantasy also demonstrating this quality?

Now if the answer to those last two questions are No and Yes, respectively, to portions sufficiently large, then we would have to conclude that the quality we've identified, however interesting it may be, does not in fact correspond to "Fantasy" and probably shouldn't be conceptually tied to that term. Otherwise people get confused and yell at us and start quoting Heidegger. And nobody wants that.

Okay, so what, core?

Well, I happen to like Celebrim's efforts. I find his efforts far more interesting than any "setting-based" definition, because it's more intellectually challenging. I need to spend more time thinking about the books themselves in order to determine which category they fall into. It seems to revolve around more "inherent" qualities of the stories the texts tell (as opposed to the texts themselves).

Let me try to refine Celebrim's a bit. To me, his definition suffers from broadness -- it can too easily be interpreted to apply to virtually any story.

I believe that fantasy stories involve an element that serves no other purpose than as a metaphor for power. Fantasy stories are stories that deal primarily with power -- the acquisition of, the loss of, the wielding of, whatever -- through metaphor. Whether that metaphor be dragons, or sorcery or the Force, they represent power, and their interactions with the characters in the story displays some sort of thinking/assumption/understanding of the nature of the relationship between power and the individual. 

That's an important point, but I'm not sure it's central. Fantasy stories tend to be about the individual, as opposed to society. I think that distinction is actually starting to break down with writers like Mieville and Erickson, but if properly motivated I might make a run at defending it.

SF stories, on the other hand, ARE about society. Specifically, SF stories are speculations on what society will look like if some aspect of our life/technology/worldview changes. Often that's a technological breakthrough or contact with some other society, but the focus of SF stories is on how society responds to such a transformation. Greg Bear, Arthur C. Clarke, David Brin, all fall very clearly into this camp. Likewise Jerry Pournelle, Larry Niven's SF stories (phew!) and Asimov.

Okay, so how do well-known works stack up? Pretty well, I think.

LotR is obviously fantasy by this definition, as is Moorcock's Eternal Champion, Leiber, Howard (how many Conan stories are about how the barbarian's strength and natural cunning allows him to overcome the fearsome magic of the bad guys? Right, all of them. Except "The Phoenix in the Sword", I guess. But that STILL fits the definition beautifully), Brust, Cook and Erickson. And that's everyone I like, so THAT'S alright.



Some border cases that are maybe more controversial:

ERB's Barsoom books -- these are definitely fantasy stories by my definition, so I agree with Celebrim here. I frankly don't think the "setting" definitions do a very good job of classifying these as SF, either, so I don't think that weakens my definition much. But Barsoom is about John Carter's ability to weild power, which is "metaphorized" in the story by his superior strength and agility, and by the many goofy races and technologies, all of which do a good job of  acting like assorted power tropes -- power through cranial development, power through religious fervour, power through philosophical goofiness, etc. John Carter interacts with these various metaphors for power and thus displays a certain relationship to power.

Star Wars is definitively fantasy, and again, I think the other definitions fall down on this one, too. The stories are about individuals coming to terms with power, as represented by the Force. Star Wars is a very long, very shiny, very noisy, rather infantile discussion on what it means to possess and make use of power, and how that possession and use affects the individual.

Well, that wasn't as thoroughly-thought-out as it might have been, I guess, but there you go. I've been on a cruise ship for seven days, what do you want?


----------



## Wild Gazebo (May 28, 2005)

> Well, that wasn't as thoroughly-thought-out as it might have been, I guess, but there you go. I've been on a cruise ship for seven days, what do you want?




What do I want?  I wanna be on a cruise ship for seven days. 

I forgot about this thread.  I was gonna give mythusmage a good and proper response--and I will, just not today.  I'm gonna be DMing in about an hour, so probably on Monday or Tuesday...after my weekend without internet...sorry.  Still, this is a pretty fun thread.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 28, 2005)

I've read Moorcock's entire Eternal Champion arc, including the short stories and the Jerry Cornelius/Dancers at the End of Time stuff, and even listened to the music (like Hawkwind).

If ever there was a series that is almost 50/50 sci-fi and fantasy, its this one.  While the modernist stuff (JC/DatEoT) still has a strong fantastic element, a great deal of it can be explained away by the extreme psychedelic nature of those works.  They aren't so much fantasy as they are LSD on paper.


----------



## Celebrim (May 28, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I'd feel better if JD and Cel would shake hands and say sorry for calling each other names at times, but we're all still standing, it looks like. Phew.




Bah. I have asbesteos underwear, which give me complete immunity to flames of every sort. And let me tell you sonny, they just don't make flames like they used to.  Back in my day, before anyone was allowed to log on to the internet, they recieved a verbal warning that they were about to enter into an extremely dangerous and forboding place.  Back in my day, the internet wasn't some kiddy friendly schoolyard filled of all sorts of pretty flashing pictures.  We didn't have these fansy-schmancy internet explorers and netscape navigators.  We scoffed at Mosiac like it was some Duplo sized information building block.  Real men surfed the ethernet, drank from the WELL, posted on usenet, and thought gopher was a bit too high tech.  Back in those days we had REAL flame wars, and not these namby pamby little sissy things that you call flame wars.

And as soon as I take my meds, I'm going to let JD have it...trying to make an argument from the ultilitarian about something that is fundamentally useless.  What does he thing this is, genera _engineering_ or something?


----------



## Celebrim (May 28, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> SF stories, on the other hand, ARE about society. Specifically, SF stories are speculations on what society will look like if some aspect of our life/technology/worldview changes.




Woo hoo!!  I've almost made a convert.  Good show, but not quite (unless of course you convince me otherwise).  SF stories are about _identity_.  SF is about the question, "Who am I?", "Who are we?", "What does it mean to be human?", and the method it employs is to speculate who we would be if we weren't who we are or who we would be (and what we would do) if we were someplace completely outside our ordinary experience.  

Alot of SF stories _are_ about society, but that's just because our society is one of the ways in which we define who we are. Greg Bear, Arthur C. Clarke, David Brin, Asimov and the like are fundamentally concerned with how are identity is defined by the societies we are in and form.  But if you move to some more introspective author, say a Robert Silverburg or even (when he's in good form) a David Gerrold then you are dealing with the question of identity on a very intimate level.

I keep trying to point out that the reason so many people think my definitions overly broad is that they are using a truncated version of what I actually said.  I did not say fantasies were merely stories about good and evil.  I did not say that science fiction were merely stories about what it means to be human.  I said that they were stories that approached these questions using a particular sort of device.


----------



## Wayside (May 28, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Oh, and sign me up for some of that Jane Austen d20 action...



That's _madness_ man--the Jane Austin RPG _has_ to be World of Darkness!



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> My question is, is there a TYPE OF STORY that all (or a reasonable subset of) fantasy stories make use of? Is there some quality to the stories that we generally call fantasy (as opposed to the settings, or the prose style or what have you) that distinguishes them from other stories? And if so, is that quality universally found in all stories we generally call fantasy, or only some subset thereof? And are stories that we generally DON'T call fantasy also demonstrating this quality?



This is exactly the way in which I've been chewing on the question, not because I think fantasy or science fiction _have_ to be defined in such a way, but because fantasy and science fiction have to be defined in this way if we want to make them _legitimate_, in the sense that a bildungsroman or a tragedy are legitimate narratives. The problem with the "setting" or "style" approach to genre is that it means all fantasy or science fiction narratives are, as narratives, something other than science fiction or fantasy, so there's no point to science fiction or fantasy as genres in that case. The point would always be the bildungsroman (Anakin in Eps I and II, for example), or the tragedy (Anakin in Ep III).

Yet 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. This sort of definition makes a unified idea of fantasy impossible, I admit. The unity of the genre would be anterior to every actual work, not in the sense of an ideal that the work approximates, but in the sense of a problem the work solves, but solves only for itself and only for the present--other works would solve the problem in their own ways, and the link between these works would not be the similarities of their solutions (which could be amazingly different) but that they were attempts to work out the same problem.

One thing that struck me today, as an example, was the difference between Star Wars and LotR. LotR, by I'm sure anyone's standard, is fantasy. Many others, myself included, often think of Star Wars in terms of fantasy as well, usually by drawing 1-to-1 parallels like magic=force, Jedi=knight and so on. But many of the major themes of Star Wars aren't fantastic at all. The politics, for example, the societal models, the level of tolerance among alien species; whereas in LotR we're working toward a King, all the good guys are white humans or close approximations thereof, evil bares a certain (certain hypersensitive citizens of the modern world might even say offensive) resemblance to cultures of our own world, etc. So it occured to me that I might call Star Wars science fiction because it looks forward on a lot of contemporary social issues, whereas LotR is very medieval and looks backward, which might be a characteristic of fantasy.

I disagree that fantasy has to be about power, whether metaphorically, symbolically, allegorically or any other way. Perhaps because I see metaphor, symbol, allegory and so on as being relatively recent ways of authoring and dealing with texts, which, while they may hold true for some of what is and has been written, need not hold true for what is yet to be written. And for whoever leaves these things behind, I don't think they are barred from writing fantasy as a result. If we say that metaphors of power, for example, come up in fantasy because of an anxiety about the modern impotence of the individual, I can see different authors tackling this problem in different ways. _Dune_ might be an interesting example in that you could say it meets your power requirement, thus making it fantasy; yet it also isn't about having power at all.


----------



## JEL (May 28, 2005)

My two favorite definitions:

"ScienceFiction is something that could happen - but usually you wouldn't want it to. Fantasy is something that couldn't happen - though often you only wish it could." - Arthur C. Clarke

"...[Science Fiction] means what we point to when we say it." - Damon Knight


----------



## Mark (May 28, 2005)

JEL said:
			
		

> My two favorite definitions:
> 
> "ScienceFiction is something that could happen - but usually you wouldn't want it to. Fantasy is something that couldn't happen - though often you only wish it could." - Arthur C. Clarke
> 
> "...[Science Fiction] means what we point to when we say it." - Damon Knight





A couple of broad, working definitions.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 28, 2005)

> *Merriam-Webster*
> Definition:
> 1 : an act of determining; specifically : the formal proclamation of a Roman Catholic dogma
> 2 a : a statement expressing the essential nature of something b : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol <dictionary definitions> c : a product of defining
> ...




This, I hope, helps.  According to the above, posters on all sides of this discussion (myself included) have been guitly of violating the process of defining fantasy and sci-fi, both in defending their positions and attacking others.

Why?  Because sci-fi and fantasy overlap, and they do it _a lot_.

You can't define the 2 genres by type of story- both can and have told any kind of story you'd care to mention.

For instance, I got up this morning thinking that the only storyline I have seen in sci-fi that I haven't seen in fantasy are stories dealing with what it means to be a sentient life form, the "Who am I""Who are we?", "What does it mean to be human?" set of questions Celebrim posted...then I remembered Pinnochio and all those stories about monsters trying to be accepted into human society.  Some of them were hominid in form...others weren't.

And if stories dealing with time-travel (to assassinate Hitler, to change one thing about your own life, to hunt dinosaurs, etc.) with all their attendant issues about looking backwards, or about facing impossible odds and effecting change on a massive scale aren't STILL sci fi...

(Side note: I am unaware of any *obvious* fantasy story/series dealing with time travel- anyone know of any?  The closest I can come are a series of short-stories from Fantasy & Science Fiction Magazine which is a clear hybrid.)



> * Barsoomcore*
> I believe that fantasy stories involve an element that serves no other purpose than as a metaphor for power. Fantasy stories are stories that deal primarily with power -- the acquisition of, the loss of, the wielding of, whatever -- through metaphor. Whether that metaphor be dragons, or sorcery or the Force, they represent power, and their interactions with the characters in the story displays some sort of thinking/assumption/understanding of the nature of the relationship between power and the individual.
> 
> That's an important point, but I'm not sure it's central. Fantasy stories tend to be about the individual, as opposed to society. I think that distinction is actually starting to break down with writers like Mieville and Erickson, but if properly motivated I might make a run at defending it.
> ...




I would counter that Lieber's Lannkhmar stories aren't about power- they're about 2 mercenary human beings getting through life in any way they see fit.

Jacqueline Carey's Kusheil books are about a powerful romance- not the kind of power you describe.  Terry Pratchett's Discworld books are also seldom about power.  They all tell stories about human relations and societal interactions...and jokes.  Glenn Cook's Garret books are murder mysteries based on the "Nero Wolfe" books, and as such aren't directly about power as you describe, but rather about the inevitability of capture and how society enforces its laws- the struggle between good and evil (as opposed to Good and Evil) within each of us.  Piers Anthony usually tells stories of personal discovery and self-realization.

And then there's Harry Turtledove's Darkness series, a re-imagining of WW2 as a fantasy world war.  It is concerned in equal parts about power, society and individuals (a long, but good, read, btw).

On the sci-fi side, I need look no further than Ben Bova's Planetary series which strikes a similar balance.

And as to your second point, I would counter with the output of William Gibson, Bruce Sterling, and Neal Stephenson- all writers who focus a great deal on the individual.

Larry Niven has a host of stories in his Known Universe setting (home of Kzin, etc.) that are not about society.  Gil "The Arm" Hamilton, Beowulf Schaeffer and many of his main human characters in that setting are used to tell HUMAN stories, not societal/reactionary ones.  Ditto his Dream Park series with Pournelle.  Ditto his _Beowulf_ (the epic poem) based series with Barnes and Pournelle.  As is Greg Bear's _Forge of God/Anvil of Stars_ series.

So?

This is all a roundabout way of returning to a point I made earlier:  The criteria for distinctions between sci-fi and fantasy with the *fewest illustratable exceptions* are the _setting and the trappings_.


----------



## Wayside (May 29, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Why?  Because sci-fi and fantasy overlap, and they do it _a lot_.



This is a silly argument against defining them. A bildungsroman and a tragedy can overlap as well, but that doesn't mean they aren't different kinds of narrative. I don't think any narrative can be pure, though we try to define it in its pureness to get a handle on it. (I'm not really disagreeing that the narrative approach won't work either, because I think the unity of science fiction and fantasy has to be more abstract and account for more diversity, like the unity of medical discourse.)



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> You can't define the 2 genres by type of story- both can and have told any kind of story you'd care to mention.



I admit that I don't have the background in genre fiction that you or the other posters in this thread have. It simply doesn't appeal to me. But even so, I'm fairly certain the second part of this claim is bogus. And I don't even mean that there aren't fantasy equivalents of Pynchon or de Sade, though that's true even if we look at the more cerebral folks writing fantasy, like Gaiman. But there are all kinds of narratives fantasy and science fiction haven't told, so it becomes an important question _why_ they haven't entered into those narratives, because if you can answer that question, it might help to define them. Like why isn't there a science fiction equivalent of _The Diary of Anne Frank_?



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> (Side note: I am unaware of any *obvious* fantasy story/series dealing with time travel- anyone know of any?  The closest I can come are a series of short-stories from Fantasy & Science Fiction Magazine which is a clear hybrid.)



The Dragonlance Legends trilogy deals extensively with time travel.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> This is all a roundabout way of returning to a point I made earlier:  The criteria for distinctions between sci-fi and fantasy with the *fewest illustratable exceptions* are the _setting and the trappings_.



And this definition is fine by me. But you understand, it invalidates science fiction and fantasy as literature. They need to be able to do something other literary types cannot do, otherwise there is no point. Exceptions are only a problem if you look for a timeless ideal of what science fiction and fantasy are--an approach that will always be a failure. There is nothing timless about them; they have their own historical determinations, appeared when they did for definite reasons we ought to be able to discover and think about. No doubt they will change a great deal as time goes on, as every other genre has changed and will continue to change, so that even the "setting" approach to defining them will lose all scope and become meaningless. In that way, I see the "setting" approach as a very temporary solution to the question before us.


----------



## Celebrim (May 29, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> Like why isn't there a science fiction equivalent of _The Diary of Anne Frank_?




I think an even better question would be, "If there was a science fiction equivalent of _The Diary of Anne Frank_, what would it be about that the original wasn't?"  If you argue that science fiction is only setting, then arguably it _isn't_ about anything that the original wasn't.  But to me, that's an answer which rings false on some level.   It seems to me that changing the setting of the story to a speculative one at the very least changes the story from being one about a specific person, to one that is about that idea in general.  And I think that there is even more to it than that, because I think that the choice of a science fiction setting over say a fantasy setting is choice between choosing two different symbolic languages designed to express different things well.  The villians in each story have a different character when are setting it in a magical world, and when we are setting into speculative history or a future place.  And that is a clue to me that the settings themselves are about something, and that if we were to remove the normal trappings of the setting but retain that 'something' then we would have retained the 'fantasyness' or 'science fictionness' of the story.  The question becomes how do we really recognize the fantasy setting for a fantasy setting, or the science fiction setting for a SF setting.  



			
				dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> This is all a roundabout way of returning to a point I made earlier: The criteria for distinctions between sci-fi and fantasy with the fewest illustratable exceptions are the setting and the trappings.




Wayside made some good points about what was wrong with this, but he missed one that I thought was glaringly obvious.  Which criteria for distinctions between sci-fi and fantasy has the fewest illustratable exceptions depends on what you consider to be an exception.  It's a circular argument.  You can't define what constitutes an exception until after you've made a definition, but the proof of your definition that you offer is that under your definition of an exception its produces the least exceptions.  But of course, that only works if you accept your definition in the first place.  By my definition, Star Wars is not an exception to the rule, and its departure from a traditional fantasy setting is irrelevant, and I can use it from my perspective to show an exception to your rule.  But of course, that's only an exception if you accept that its not a science fiction work in the first place.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 29, 2005)

Reragnlance Novels- Thanks,  I'll take your word for it- as a rule, I don't touch franchised fiction.



> And this definition is fine by me. But you understand, it invalidates science fiction and fantasy as literature. They need to be able to do something other literary types cannot do, otherwise there is no point. Exceptions are only a problem if you look for a timeless ideal of what science fiction and fantasy are--an approach that will always be a failure.




It doesn't invalidate them as literature.  It invalidates them as genres that are meaningfully distinct from each other.  They both do things that other genres don't do regularly or do well: sci-fi routinely explores the normative (what OUGHT to be) rather than actual world (what is), whereas fantasy routinely illustrate morality lessons and heroic archetypes, in the same way old fables and legends used to do.  (And, look hard enough, and you'll find normative fantasy and sci-fi morality tales.)



> Like why isn't there a science fiction equivalent of _The Diary of Anne Frank_?




Well, the obvious and trite answer is that _The Diary of Anne Frank_ is a work of non-fiction.  It also covers a sensitive matter that, if fictionalized, might be offensive to some...BUT WAIT: Harry Turtledove's aforementioned Darkness books examine the very ground Ms. Frank lived upon in a fictionalized way.  That's not the series' exclusive focus, but it is amply covered in the epic 6 book (3900+pgs) series.

And De Sade would be very intrigued by Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel series.

To try to answer your bigger question: I have not personally seen a type of fictional literature that either sci-fi or fantasy HAVEN'T ventured into.  I'm not saying I've personally read everything, but within the scope of my own personal library of books and visual media, I have sci-fi or fantasy romances (_Flatland_, _The Time Machine_), action adventures (the Worldwar & Battlefield Earth series), political thrillers (CJ Cherrhy's _Foreigner_), murder mysteries (the Garret books), military fiction (Hammer's Slammers series), horror stories ("Sandkings"), slasher fiction (_Alien_), comedies (Pratchett), westerns (Valley of Gwangi), survivor fiction (_Dawn of the Dead_ any other movie with a lot of zombies) and retelling of epics and classic literature (Niven and many more).  This is especially true of the old stuff when the pioneers were trying new fictional paths by branching off from extant ones.  IMHO, it might be easier to find a genre that DON"T have sci-fi or fantasy analogs than to define all the genres that have.

Where they differ from the archetypes of those ennumerated genres is in the number and nature of available solutions to the problems presented within the storylines.  In a typical murder mystery, a locked door homicide has only a few solutions available, but if the murderer can teleport (via spell or Scotty) or walk through walls...



> This is all a roundabout way of returning to a point I made earlier: The criteria for distinctions between sci-fi and fantasy with the fewest illustratable exceptions are the setting and the trappings..






> Which criteria for distinctions between sci-fi and fantasy has the fewest illustratable exceptions depends on what you consider to be an exception. It's a circular argument. You can't define what constitutes an exception until after you've made a definition, but the proof of your definition that you offer is that under your definition of an exception its produces the least exceptions. But of course, that only works if you accept your definition in the first place. By my definition, Star Wars is not an exception to the rule, and its departure from a traditional fantasy setting is irrelevant, and I can use it from my perspective to show an exception to your rule. But of course, that's only an exception if you accept that its not a science fiction work in the first place.




And yet it is also possible to define Star Wars as Sci-F (in the Space Opera subgenre)i, as is routinely done (Again ), so I can consider it an exception.  My favorite quote from that link, in terms of relevance is this:  *"Star Wars, with its Death Star and 'Force' lies close to the original pulp science fiction."*  Space Opera expressly includes the possibility of mystic abilities.

Using setting/trappings as a distinction is highly objective.  We can all look at each peice of fiction see space-ships or dragons, chainmail or reflec-vacc enviro suits.  Generally, if you just look at the surface, the differences are there.  It is exceedingly rare to find something like a pure fantasy story that is set on another planet (like Elves vs Dwarves on Omicron-Ceti IV), slightly less so a sci-fi story in a fantasy setting (Terminators invade Underhill!).

But when you delve into narrative types,  storytelling techniques, predominant tropes, etc. the waters get much muddier and subjective.  Where you see pure fantasy in the Force, others see pure sci-fi Psi Powers (telekinesis, astral projection, electrokinesis, molecular agitation/disruption), or Shao-lin Chi.  Where you saw the Emperor as the Dragon to be slain, someone familiar with Akira Kurosawa's body of work (from which Lucas derived his main plot) would see the powerful leader who has shown himself to be unworthy of his position, and who therefore must be overthrown- entirely an outgrowth of bushido, not mysticism, not dragonslaying.  Yes, European fantasy and Japanese historical fiction both have swords, but there are fundamental differences- the latter is based entirely on the real world.

Its because of this muddiness that some have (unsuccessfully) tried to supplant the terms "Sci-fi" and "Fantasy" with the broader term "Speculative Fiction."  It recognizes the commonality they share is greater than their respective differences.
_
*Edited to add some stuff about Star Wars.*_


----------



## Celebrim (May 29, 2005)

> They both do things that other genres don't do regularly or do well: sci-fi routinely explores the normative (what OUGHT to be) rather than actual world (what is), whereas fantasy routinely illustrate morality lessons and heroic archetypes, in the same way old fables and legends used to do. (And, look hard enough, and you'll find normative fantasy and sci-fi morality tales.)




You know, I maybe just don't understand how you are using them, but I'm not sure I see a meaningful difference between normative stories and morality tales.  Generally speaking, ethics and morality seem to me to be all about what is normative and what is normative behavior.  Ask someone what is good, and generally they will reply with what they think is normative.  In fact, CS Lewis builds his argument around the proof of the existance of good and evil on the concept that humans understand that there are things that people 'ought' to do.  I don't see how you separate them.

Likewise, I don't see how sci-fi routinely deals in 'what ought to be'.  I can think of a great many more sci-fi tales that are distinctively dystophian than I can think of that are utophian in outlook, and yet even amongst these few actually try to deal with what ought to be done to avoid these dismal fates and many seem uninterested even in what should be done to escape them.  A good example might be 'Brave New World' by Aldous Huxley.  He's less interested in showing the world as what it ought to be, as simply what the think it will be (the predictive, not the normative).  He offers neither solice nor remedy.  Most SF authors seem frankly uninterested in what ought to be to me, and certainly less interested in what ought to be than in other things like 'Is there something which is me?' (Silverburg) or 'What does it mean to feel pain?' (Banks) or 'What makes life worth living?' (Pohl).  Read Brin's 'Glory Season' and try telling me that he's suggesting through his setting what ought to be.  You can certainly find a few SF authors that are preachy, and are offering commentary on what they think ought to be - Heinlein comes to mind - but the fact that SF is occassionaly didactive is not what I think defines it.

A more interesting question to me is whether Heinlein remains Sci-Fi when he starts taking his preachiness to its logical extreme, in say 'Stranger in a Strange Land' or his other later works.



> And yet it is also possible to define Star Wars as Sci-F (in the Space Opera subgenre)i, as is routinely done so I can consider it an exception.




Look at it this way.  Under my definition, I've yet to see it demonstrated that there are exceptions to my definition.  In fact, if I am only strict in the application of my definition, then it will follow that everything that you claim is an exception to my science fiction definition, I counter claim you are falsely classifying as science fiction for the purposes of creating a false exception.  I do not accept that Star Wars is science fiction, and hense I have no exception under my definition.  But these things should only be compelling to you if my classification system produces the results you expect.   Apparantly it doesn't, since you expect a definition of SF for 'Star Wars'.   But likewise, I expect a definition of fantasy for 'Star Wars' (or reason _I_ consider highly reasonable and objective) and will tend to reject a classification scheme that puts it elsewhere.



> _My favorite quote from that link, in terms of relevance is this:  *"Star Wars, with its Death Star and 'Force' lies close to the original pulp science fiction."*  Space Opera expressly includes the possibility of mystic abilities._




Right, and I would expect the same thing under my definition, since 'mystic abilities' are just setting trappings and therefore produce no exception for you.  Whereas, they produce exceptions to any strict definition revolving around fantastic settings, something you seem completely comfortable with.  For my part, I won't be happy until I produce a definition which gives me no exceptions to my expectations as to where a particular work should be classified.



> Using setting/trappings as a distinction is highly objective.




A statement which totally ignores both the previous statement you made which suggests that the settings/trapping distinction is arbitrarily ignored when convenient, and the extensive arguments I made to show that one man's magic is another man's science - and vica versa.



> We can all look at each peice of fiction see space-ships or dragons, chainmail or reflec-vacc enviro suits.  Generally, if you just look at the surface, the differences are there.




But I would argue that such superficial elements are merely trite conventionality, and did not circumscribe the limits of the genera.  It would be like arguing that romantic fiction could be identified solely on the presense of torn bodices and strong willed women, and then when it was pointed out that there were exceptions to that rule glossing it over by assuring me that no other rule would produce fewer exceptions and abitrarily recognizing something without torn bodices as romantic fiction.



> It is exceedingly rare to find something like a pure fantasy story that is set on another planet (like Elves vs Dwarves on Omicron-Ceti IV)...




Depends on what you mean by another planet.  The vast majority of fantasy epics out there are explicitly set 'not on Earth'.  What you mean is that its really unusual to see a fantasy epic out there set on another planet which happens to use the same astronomical naming conventions as the Earth.  However, I could point you to several Burroughs style swords epics which feature essentially no science fiction trappings (no motors, plastics, rayguns, or any such) which are set on another planet in the galaxy - for example Lin Carter's "Under the Green Star's Glow".



> But when you delve into narrative types,  storytelling techniques, predominant tropes, etc. the waters get much muddier and subjective.  Where you see pure fantasy in the Force, others see pure sci-fi Psi Powers (telekinesis, astral projection, electrokinesis, molecular agitation/disruption), or Shao-lin Chi.




There you go contridicting yourself again.  Earlier, you said indentifying SF trappings from fantasy trappings was highly objective.  Would you make up your mind?



> Its because of this muddiness that some have (unsuccessfully) tried to supplant the terms "Sci-fi" and "Fantasy" with the broader term "Speculative Fiction."  It recognizes the commonality they share is greater than their respective differences.




Several science fiction authors I've read have said that they see no meaningful distinction between them.  I think that that is a stronger argument than most, but I'm not sure I completely buy it.


----------



## Wayside (May 29, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think an even better question would be, "If there was a science fiction equivalent of _The Diary of Anne Frank_, what would it be about that the original wasn't?"  If you argue that science fiction is only setting, then arguably it _isn't_ about anything that the original wasn't.  But to me, that's an answer which rings false on some level.



I agree, in that we could rewrite the diary using the "imagery" of science fiction or fantasy, yet the product itself would not be science fiction or fantasy, however much of their imagery it may have. Conversely, I think there ought to be _something_ about science fiction and fantasy that, if we were to take a story from either genre and rewrite it with different imagery, survives the translation.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Which criteria for distinctions between sci-fi and fantasy has the fewest illustratable exceptions depends on what you consider to be an exception.  It's a circular argument.  You can't define what constitutes an exception until after you've made a definition, but the proof of your definition that you offer is that under your definition of an exception its produces the least exceptions.  But of course, that only works if you accept your definition in the first place.  By my definition, Star Wars is not an exception to the rule, and its departure from a traditional fantasy setting is irrelevant, and I can use it from my perspective to show an exception to your rule.  But of course, that's only an exception if you accept that its not a science fiction work in the first place.



This is true to a point, but I think it misses what Dannyalcatraz was getting at. Different definitions of a genre will provide for different exceptions from those rules--that much goes without saying. So you're right that under your definition, what he sees as an exception is easily handled; conversely, under his definition, what for you is an exception might be just as easily dealt with. His point, I think, was only that the "setting/imagery" approach can best account for genre because it excludes the least amount of material (or requires fewer exceptions to admit this material than another approach). I still think he's wrong, not least because any time you draw a hard line, you pave the way for someone to specifically contradict your definition, making all hard definitions inferior to loose ones; but I don't think the fact that two different definitions may exclude different material has anything to do with it.

edit: Ah, I see where you are coming from in your last post. I don't think there is any point arguing with someone who lays down a rule, then simply sticks to it when confronted with something most people agree ought to be an exception to the rule. So if I produce a story that most people agree is science fiction, but your definition labels it fantasy, and you simply insist that it's fantasy because according to your definition it is, then I think the conversation has basically failed, and we can't go any further. Anybody can hide behind a definition.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> It doesn't invalidate them as literature.  It invalidates them as genres that are meaningfully distinct from each other.  They both do things that other genres don't do regularly or do well: sci-fi routinely explores the normative (what OUGHT to be) rather than actual world (what is), whereas fantasy routinely illustrate morality lessons and heroic archetypes, in the same way old fables and legends used to do.  (And, look hard enough, and you'll find normative fantasy and sci-fi morality tales.)



Yes, it invalidates science fiction and fantasy as literature if science fiction and fantasy are nothing more than an aesthetic. That doesn't mean a particular science fiction book isn't valuable--it means that whatever _is_ valuable about the book, it's not the fact that it's science fiction. The science fiction aspect of the book is disposable. Now, if you want to say that science fiction is legitimate because it explores what ought to be, and that fantasy is legitimate because it illustrates morality and archetypes, then great--you've just defined science fiction and fantasy in terms of something other than their imagery.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Well, the obvious and trite answer is that _The Diary of Anne Frank_ is a work of non-fiction.



Not so obvious or trite as you might think, though I was expecting that answer. The difference between fiction and non-fiction is at least partially only a difference of expectation on the part of the reader. Once upon a time Homer was considered to be non-fiction, as was Virgil's 4th Eclogue. And contemporary writers are actively looking for ways to blur the line between the two, as in Pat Barker's _Regeneration_ trilogy.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> BUT WAIT: Harry Turtledove's aforementioned Darkness books examine the very ground Ms. Frank lived upon in a fictionalized way.  That's not the series' exclusive focus, but it is amply covered in the epic 6 book (3900+pgs) series.



And this is fantasy simply because it has magic, not even as a central story element? Shouldn't this be one of your exceptions, if you're approaching fantasy as a set of imagery?



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> And De Sade would be very intrigued by Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel series.



How so? They don't really seem comparable to me, just from looking these Kushiel books up, reading a chapter and so on. I don't claim to know them well by any means, so is there something particuarly Sadistic (in the literary sense) about them?



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> To try to answer your bigger question: I have not personally seen a type of fictional literature that either sci-fi or fantasy HAVEN'T ventured into.



Thomas Mann's _Faust_, Joyce's _Ulysses_, Julian Barnes' _Flaubert's Parrot_, Maurice Blanchot's _Thomas the Obscure_, Rilke's _Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge_? It seems a little naive to say there's nothing genre fiction hasn't done. I don't need to be a big fan of the stuff to know it hasn't done what these books and many others have done. Or if you really believe there is some genre fiction that accomplishes what any of these books accomplish, I would be intensely interested in hearing about it. The only comparable example I have experience with is _Dune_, which is still a major cut down from the parody of Messianism in _Ulysses_, or the tragic elements of _Faust_.

Question: are _Alice's Adventures in Wonderland_ and _Through the Looking-glass_ fantasy? Why?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 29, 2005)

> You know, I maybe just don't understand how you are using them, but I'm not sure I see a meaningful difference between normative stories and morality tales.




A morality tale is usually presented as cause & effect: the one who does evil will have repercussions based upon the evil he does.  The boy who cries wolf dies because no one believes his cry for help when he actually sees a wolf.  They are personal to the character.

Normative stories are societal in scope.  They show a drive towards a utopian or at least better existence than most currently have.  Ben Bova's Planetary series & Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series both show groups overcoming those who would prevent the improvement of the human condition, at least in a scientific sense.



> Likewise, I don't see how sci-fi routinely deals in 'what ought to be'. I can think of a great many more sci-fi tales that are distinctively dystophian than I can think of that are utophian in outlook, and yet even amongst these few actually try to deal with what ought to be done to avoid these dismal fates and many seem uninterested even in what should be done to escape them.




Currently, dystopias are common, but up until the rise of Cyberpunk, they were the exception.  For every dystopian *1984*, *We*, or* Brave New World*, I can point out 2 relatively positive futures.  Larry Niven's Known Space books are generally positive- even when at war with the technologically more advanced Kzin, humans  win the wars.  Asimov's Robot books are generally positive, but for the murders that must be solved.  Both Kieth Laumers *Bolos* and Fred Saberhagen's *Berserkers* revolve around superpowerful, artificially intelligent killing machines capable of destroying armies...and yet in both universes, they have largely been defeated.  The ones in the stories are the last of their kinds.  Robert Heinlein's societies are generally positive, although they may be unfamiliar in structure: * Starship Troopers* has been described as faschisistic- but then again, its because the only ones who get to vote in the system are those who have demonstrated the willingness to die to defend the system. Gordon R. Dickson's Dorsai series about genetically tweeked supermen is also positive overall.   David Brin's Uplift cycle shows a future that has negative elements (humanity is weak relative to other alien races), but overall, it is a fairly free and open society.  And , humanity has not only uplifted (become sentient) itself (as far as anyone can tell), but at least 2 other species on its planet before first contact- unheard of in millions of years of the Galactic civilization.  In other words, we and our fellow terrestrian sapients (dolphins and chimpanzees) are the species to watch.  Despite our low current status, we have demonstrated superiority to our superiors  That, by the way, hearkens back to a common trope in early sci-fi: Humans #1- that you'd find in C.M Kornbluth, John Campbell, Eric Frank Russell, Ray Bradbury, Hal Clement, HG Wells, Jules Verne, Cordwainer Smith, Edmond Hamilton, James Blish, Raymond Z. Gallun, L. Sprague De Camp, and many, many others...who, of course, also wrote about dystopias, but not often.



> Look at it this way. Under my definition, I've yet to see it demonstrated that there are exceptions to my definition. In fact, if I am only strict in the application of my definition, then it will follow that everything that you claim is an exception to my science fiction definition, I counter claim you are falsely classifying as science fiction for the purposes of creating a false exception. I do not accept that Star Wars is science fiction, and hense I have no exception under my definition.




First- for convenience sake, could you please restate your definition of the two genres or point us to the post with the most succinct or precise formulation of it?  Thanks.

Second- I'm calling Star Wars sci-fi because it has starships in it.  It has blasters in it.  It has planet-sized vehicles in it.  It has a multistellar galactic empire and hyperdrive in it.  Roger Ebert calls it Space Opera. And, in a link _you provided_, it is cited as one of the best current examples of Space Opera- as does this one (a term it uses interchangibly with Science-Fantasy).  Its not _my_ classification- its the most common one, and one I happen to agree with.  Because *YOU* insist it is fantasy-a position counter to the norm-it is incumbent upon you to overcome the presumption that its a Space Opera.

And if a Space Opera can meet your definition of fantasy to the point of excluding it from the realm of Sci-fi, *that* is a serious flaw.

Other online sources helping to define space opera :http://members.aol.com/ATOMX13/ , http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=space+opera&x=0&y=0



> But when you delve into narrative types, storytelling techniques, predominant tropes, etc. the waters get much muddier and subjective. Where you see pure fantasy in the Force, others see pure sci-fi Psi Powers (telekinesis, astral projection, electrokinesis, molecular agitation/disruption), or Shao-lin Chi.
> 
> There you go contridicting yourself again. Earlier, you said indentifying SF trappings from fantasy trappings was highly objective. Would you make up your mind?




I'm not contradicting myself.  "Highly objective" is not a synonym for "Completely objective."  In my first formulation of this, I admitted that there were exceptions, and have admitted it every time.

Your original post Re: Star Wars cited the Force as magic.  Some see it as Sci-fi (see the thread that inspired this thread's creation, about Psionics in D&D, and George Lucas (in "The Science of Star Wars") and others see it as an extrapolation of Shao-lin concepts of Chi (which allows the monks to do their stupendous feats).  In other words, whatever the Force is, is entirely subjective.  But the setting (a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away), and the majority of Star Wars' other trappings (blasters, starships, star-spanning governments & trade, hyperdrive) are pure sci-fi.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (May 29, 2005)

My personal definitions work like this:

*Speculative fiction* is a genre of literature concerned with stories which take place in a world not "our own".

*Fantasy* is any work of speculative fiction which relies upon or partakes of mythic elements. Interestingly, a given work of fantasy can conceivably create its own mythology rather than rely upon reference to real-world legends, or can create myth from non-mythological elements of history and culture.

(For example, _Animal Farm_ mythologises the history of the Soviet Union by casting it in the form of a fable. Note that the legendry in question need not form the backdrop - in this case, the fabulous allegory is the whole of the tale.)

*Science fiction* is any work of speculative fiction which explores (or at least portrays) the impact of "scientific" change on the human experience. This can be as perfunctory as a crappy military SF story about future "space navies" or as sophisticated as an epic story chronicling the impact of intelligent robots on society from their invention to millennia in the future.

(The "scientific" is in scare quotes because I mean not only the hard sciences but also the soft "social sciences" - because there's been some very good science fiction written about sociological changes, much more in the spirit of science fiction dealing with the harder sciences and thus more deserving to share a designation than yet another "Rourke's Drift with laser rifles and power armour" story. Yet the latter, even when written by the worst hack getting paid to vomit forth words onto the page, qualifies as a portrayal of scientific change and its impact on the world - it has to show you how Rourke's Drift is possible in a world with power armour and laser rifles, at least. Even technoporn works these things out.)

These are not mutually exclusive categories - for instance, Greg Egan has a story, "Oceanic", which falls into both categories. It draws upon mythological Christian motifs *and* portrays a very different kind of human society, with "hard biology" central to the story.

There are other forms of speculative fiction which fit loosely into these categories, if at all - you can argue that horror is a very specialised form of fantasy, and that alternate history is a form of science fiction in which the "scientific change" is a change in the "soft science" of history. I think there's a stronger case for the former than the latter - there's not much of the scientific method in history, and I should know, whereas it's hard to think of a horror story which doesn't partake of myths, legends, or folklore, and again . . . I should know.

(Are slasher movies, those in which the killer is nominally a normal human, thrillers because they take place in a world not identifiably dissimilar to our own, or are they horror because of the extent to which they possess an undercurrent of mythic motifs? I say the latter.)


----------



## mhacdebhandia (May 29, 2005)

As an addendum, I disagree with Celebrim that the essential nature of mythology is moralistic. So while I agree with him that fantasy partakes of mythological motifs and that doing so is essential to fantasy, I don't believe that they're universally motifs of moral struggle.


----------



## barsoomcore (May 29, 2005)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> SF is about the question, "Who am I?", "Who are we?", "What does it mean to be human?", and the method it employs is to speculate who we would be if we weren't who we are or who we would be (and what we would do) if we were someplace completely outside our ordinary experience.



Well said. I agree completely with this definition, and it's basically what I was trying to say in my post.

Note that you've not so much convinced me as come to the same conclusion I (and my lovely and talented wife) have come to independently. We've been discussing this at some length for a while, so it was interesting to discover this conversation and see where thoughts were going.



			
				Wayside said:
			
		

> many of the major themes of Star Wars aren't fantastic at all. The politics, for example, the societal models, the level of tolerance among alien species...



So what? The point is that Lucas is NOT considering the question of identity by speculating on who we might be if we were someplace completely outside our ordinary experience. _Star Wars_ is fantasy. It can have all the mundane themes it wants.

Put it another way -- in order to tell the story of _Star Wars_ as the tale of how a young page came to sit at the Round Table, all you need to do is change the names and a few nouns. You would lose nothing that was essential to the tale itself. It's fantasy.

(I'm using _Star Wars_ here to refer to the movie I saw when I was nine -- it was called _Star Wars_. They've changed it's title since then, but I'm stubborn that way.)

Try translating the story of Case from _Neuromancer_ into an Arthurian tale. Or Dave Bowman's journey in _2001: A Space Odyssey_. Not so easy, is it, and I'm willing to bet that if you DID find a way, you'd lose either something essential to the story itself, or to the nature of Arthurian fantasy.



			
				Wayside said:
			
		

> disagree that fantasy has to be about power, whether metaphorically, symbolically, allegorically or any other way. Perhaps because I see metaphor, symbol, allegory and so on as being relatively recent ways of authoring and dealing with texts...



Can you provide a little more detail here on how you see literary devices as being "relatively recent"? Are you suggesting that, say, Homer, does not employ such devices? Or are you using the term "text" to refer to more than just graphical representations, and considering the entire oral tradition of storytelling that goes back who knows how long?

In either case, I think you're on shaky ground to assert that metaphor is a RECENT methodology, and reject its use thereby. Central to Celebrim's definition quoted above is the assumption that the writer will be using some sort of metaphor (another planet, an alien race, whatever) in order to represent some sort of altered circumstance that affects the human condition. Perhaps you don't want to suggest that such things need be metaphors?

But to return to our previous example, the original film _Star Wars_ is absolutely about individual power. It is about a young man who, powerless at the start of the film, comes to learn his own power and how to employ it. It is every bit as much a fantasy as is _The Lord Of The Rings_.

Fantasy stories employ a metaphorical representation of power and demonstrate ideas about the individual's relationship to that power. The Ring, the Grail, Ningauble's cave, the priests of the Black Circle, the Great Wheel of Dragaera, the Dominator, Phedre's sexual irresistibility... I think this is the unique quality that fantasy stories provide, the type of story they alone are able to tell.

Dannyalcatraz: if you're asserting that Gibson isn't speculating on who we might be if we were someplace completely outside our ordinary experience, I don't know what to say. I think that's the central theme of all his works -- discussing the very nature of the human experience and how our relationship with technology alters it. From _Neuromancer_ to _Virtual Light_ to _Pattern Recognition_, I think it's clear this is EXACTLY what he's talking about. I don't know exactly what you mean by "focuses on the individual" but it's certainly of no import as far as classifying the stories as to whether or not there's plenty of description of one person's point of view.

_Dream Park_ is "barely" SF. You MIGHT be able to extract some sort of vague discussion of identity through unfamiliar situations from it, if you wanted to give it more credit than it really deserves. It's also "barely" a fantasy (you could probably argue that the hero (or maybe the GM?) is used to explore a relationship with power, represented through the game itself) but really, Dream Park is a thriller with technological trappings (which are used to explain the fantastic setting of the story (which is used to provide "coolness")).

You seem to want a definition that will allow you to easily find SF or fantasy stories on a bookshelf. I agree with you that "setting-based" definitions are better for that purpose.

But I find Celebrim's and Wayside's ideas much more INTERESTING. They're discussing the nature of the stories themselves, and searching for the essential components of those stories to determine if there is a kind of SF or fantasy story that cannot be told in any other classification. Using them, you'll often find that stories you consider one form are stored at the bookshelf in another form's space, but that doesn't invalidate the usefulness of the definitions themselves.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 30, 2005)

1)  Interesting ≠ Better or more accurate or even useful.

2)  I agree that damn near the entirety of Gibson's output is about the "What does it mean to be conisdered a human being" since his and many other cyberpunk writers focus on AI.  I'm a little puzzled about how you came to think I felt otherwise.



> So what? The point is that Lucas is NOT considering the question of identity by speculating on who we might be if we were someplace completely outside our ordinary experience. Star Wars is fantasy. It can have all the mundane themes it wants.
> 
> Put it another way -- in order to tell the story of Star Wars as the tale of how a young page came to sit at the Round Table, all you need to do is change the names and a few nouns. You would lose nothing that was essential to the tale itself. It's fantasy.




3) A) Answering that question is not an inherent or neccisary feature of Sci-Fi.  Going back to the earliest writings of Verne and Wells, as well as the pulp sci-fi of the 40's-60's, sometimes Sci-fi was about themes like humanity's manifest destiny to rule the universe, exploring the void and conquering the unknown, recasting the cold war and other conflicts in sci-fi terms or otherwise dealing with Amerian isolationism in a non-political, generally discounted genre (remember the threat of McCarthyism and how it wrecked both movies and comic books).  That is a theme that has not evaporated.  Take Niven's "Neutron Star" (1966), a story about answering the question- "How and why was the crew of a state of the art starship turned into pulp?"  No questions of deep moral significance- just a mystery.  Or CJ Cherryh's Foreigner series, in which humanity does not adapt to the aliens, except one man who is the intermediary between the 2 cultures.  Largely, the series is political, almost Machiavellian in its intrigues-that aliens & humans are both sentient beings with internal states ("human") is taken as given.

And even so, there IS revelation: "Who am I" - Luke: the son of the 2nd most powerful man in the Empire, brother to the Princess, and a warrior of extreme power; Leia: Force sensitive at the very least, possibly a proto-jedi.  "What does it mean to be human?"- there is a standing assumption that aliens are no different from humans in the sense of being sentient beings with internal states- equal to us in all ways, including our capacity for "inhuman" behavior.  Despite their morphologies, they are all "humans."

You might say that this is a typical fantasy theme- the hidden royal, etc.  Sure.  Goes back to Oedipus at the very least.  But if an ancient Greek legend can ask and answer "Who Am I?", then clearly, it cannot be the exclusive purview of Sci-Fi.  If the child's fantasy "Pinnochio" can ask "What does it mean to be human?" then it isn't exclusive to Sci-fi.

In other words, Star Wars DOES answer those kinds of questions, even though it doesn't have to.



> But to return to our previous example, the original film Star Wars is absolutely about individual power. It is about a young man who, powerless at the start of the film, comes to learn his own power and how to employ it. It is every bit as much a fantasy as is The Lord Of The Rings.




As is the Battlefield Earth series of books.  Sci-Fi or Fantasy?  (My sources cite it as Space Opera.)  As is Greg Bear's classic _Forge of God/Anvil of Stars_ series in which Earth is destroyed, and still humanity gets its revenge...Fantasy or Sci-Fi?  Not only is it sci-fi, its considered HARD sci-fi.  Stephen Donaldson's Gap series is also Hard Sci-Fi, and contains not only the Nature of Humanity question, but is also a great deal about acquisiton of personal power.

3) B)  By comparing Star Wars to Arthurian Legend is to get off to a bad start- you're shoehorning it into flawed comparisons and weakening your assertion that it is fantasy.  Its well documented that Star Wars is based in an Eastern storytelling tradition: The original story's main inspiration is Akira Kurosawa's "jidai-geki" samurai drama _Hidden Fortress_ ("The episodic story was, of course, eventually borrowed by George Lucas for both the initial plot of Star Wars and the revived Princess Amidala-centered narrative of The Phantom Menace."- [URL="http://www.criterionco.com/asp/release.asp?id=116&eid=125&section=essay]Click this link[/URL] ).  How does this become fantasy when the "jidai-geki" genre is, essentially, historical fiction set in Japan's feudal era, Samurai period-piece dramas.  The Force is an expansion on the concept of Chi- which I'm sure Japanese would defend as not magic, but a different and scientific (at least in the sense of being able to be systematically taught) understanding of humans' power over their bodies.  Yes, its taken over the top as far as reality goes, but its congruent with Shao-Lin legends, and could be considered poetic license, or even _as Lucas himself suggested_, an extrapolation of a deeper understanding of Chi.  Viewed Lucas' way, The Force is no more Fantasy than FTL.

To my mind, calling the Force purely fantasy is to ignore the expressed view of the auteur who GAVE it to us.  Overruling the view of the originator should take EXTREMELY convincing proof.

4) *Dream Park/Barsoom Project/California Voodoo Game*.  Clearly a sci-fi mystery series.  The fantasy elements spring ENTIRELY from the high-tech enabled LARPG/Sport.  Its like being on Star Trek TNG's Holodeck.


----------



## Wayside (May 30, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> So what? The point is that Lucas is NOT considering the question of identity by speculating on who we might be if we were someplace completely outside our ordinary experience. _Star Wars_ is fantasy. It can have all the mundane themes it wants.



Okay, but I'm not sure what this has to do with my response. You say that the moral and cultural biases of Star Wars and LotR are "mundane themes," I say no, they're good candidates for defining science fiction and fantasy in terms of something other than imagery. You say that science fiction is about identity, which I don't buy. Most good literature is about identity (or power) in one form or another, yet most good literature is not science fiction. Fantasy can just as well be about identity, and science fiction can just as well be about power. I think you'd be better off arguing that the _problem_ of identity, for which the problem of power is one hypostasis (or vice versa), underlies both science fiction and fantasy, and that the two differ in the quality of their response to this problem.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Put it another way -- in order to tell the story of _Star Wars_ as the tale of how a young page came to sit at the Round Table, all you need to do is change the names and a few nouns. You would lose nothing that was essential to the tale itself. It's fantasy.



I have to disagree, not least because the Round Table, as I mentioned with reference to LotR earlier, is about white European males, monarchy and so on--the villain of Star Wars, in other words. It's also tied up with a host of Christian narratives that have no basis in Star Wars. I suppose that what I'm resistant to here is the sort of pure classification some people want out of this discussion: I don't think we're likely to find pure science fiction or pure fantasy, so while I can agree that Star Wars certainly has elements, strong elements even, of fantasy, I still see elements of science fiction as well, and I think it's a very borderline story that isn't mostly one or the other (which is perhaps one reason for its success).



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Try translating the story of Case from _Neuromancer_ into an Arthurian tale. Or Dave Bowman's journey in _2001: A Space Odyssey_. Not so easy, is it, and I'm willing to bet that if you DID find a way, you'd lose either something essential to the story itself, or to the nature of Arthurian fantasy.



I doubt these would be any more translatable than Star Wars is, though I haven't read them so I couldn't say for sure.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Can you provide a little more detail here on how you see literary devices as being "relatively recent"? Are you suggesting that, say, Homer, does not employ such devices? Or are you using the term "text" to refer to more than just graphical representations, and considering the entire oral tradition of storytelling that goes back who knows how long?



I'm suggesting that there's an enormous gap between a classical commentary on Homer and a contemporary one, sure. I don't know how much I should say about the origin of many of the criticals tools we're ingrained with in highschool (which I think Joshua is absolutely right to distrust), since most of that sort of criticism comes to us by way of Christian commentaries on problematic scriptural texts like "The Song of Songs" and troublesome classical texts like Ovid's _Heroides_ and the _Ars Amatoria_, as ways of making these(often pagan) texts conform to their unique needs as Christian readers. We got a little bit into Christian angles in one of the Star Wars threads in the movies forum and a moderator said knock it off, so maybe it is better to steer clear of the historical foundations of early twentieth-century literary methodology here.

I will say I don't dispute that the _words_ "symbol" or "metaphor" have long histories--I assert that they have long _and varied_ histories, in which time they have had very different meanings and been put to very different uses, much like the word "author." And I assert that as the practice of literary theory itself entered the modern era, these words were eroded in the classical sense you use them to the point that one could ask rhetorically "What is truth but a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms and anthropomorphisms?" The classical way of reading was by identity--how is this like something else? The modern way is by difference--how does this overthrow identity?



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> In either case, I think you're on shaky ground to assert that metaphor is a RECENT methodology, and reject its use thereby. Central to Celebrim's definition quoted above is the assumption that the writer will be using some sort of metaphor (another planet, an alien race, whatever) in order to represent some sort of altered circumstance that affects the human condition. Perhaps you don't want to suggest that such things need be metaphors?



Oh, I certainly think they aren't metaphors at all, or at least not in any meaningful sense. The concept of metaphor I am attacking, metaphor in the larger allegorical sense of a continuously manipulated parallel or stand-in (and not at the level of description, "her hair was white and soft like dandelions etc."), is one that has no value for me. I would be _perfectly_ content to agree with you that fantasy is about power in this way, but then fantasy is automatically invalidated for me as something worth reading or thinking about. My angle in this thread has been one from charity; that is, I'm not particularly concerned with the popular reading of a work, or even with what its author may have intended. The question for me is: what is necessary to validate science fiction and fantasy as literature? The first part of the answer, naturally, is that we need to be able define them in some way. But the second part, which I have barely even groped toward, is that how we define them has not only to distinguish them from other legitimate narratives (even if I were to accept power and identity, these are not distinguishing features of science fiction or fantasy), but to distinguish them in a way that maintains their legitimacy _as science fiction or fantasy_ (and not _other_ narratives they might contain), which the imagery/setting approach does not do.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> But to return to our previous example, the original film _Star Wars_ is absolutely about individual power. It is about a young man who, powerless at the start of the film, comes to learn his own power and how to employ it. It is every bit as much a fantasy as is _The Lord Of The Rings_.



Absolutely? I don't think so. It's too easy to make everything about power. There are always forces in play, but the idea of power itself is already a metaphor for force or, better yet, one of force's hypostases. I could say Star Wars is about a number of things that you might try to reduce to power--it is this reduction I resist, the reduction of all events to narrative types, of all objects to symbols, of all forces to powers or even of all acts to forces. The weakness of this approach is one of the reasons myth criticism died under its own weight even while it was poised to be the next big thing in America c.1950. This is also why I resist the very idea of genre, and even while considering it here, resist reducing something like Star Wars definitively to one genre. It's sort of like calling Anakin a whiny brat: yes, he's that...sometimes. But that isn't the whole story.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 30, 2005)

Not to put too fine a point on it, A LOT of modern non- sci-fi, non-fantasy Japanese Fiction- the very kind with which Kurosawa (whose _Hidden Fortress_ was Lucas' starting line for Star Wars) would have been familiar- is about self-discovery, and going from power to powerlessness, and vice versa.  Yukio Mishima, Yasunari Kawabata, Shuaku Endo, Ryunosuke Akutagawa, Soseki Matsume, Junichiro Tanizaki all explore such themes as some in this thread would ascribe to fantasy or sci-fi.

Why?  Something about a warrior tradition that Japanese culture seeped in for 100's of years that evaporated in a couple of mushroom clouds.

Since then, those and other Japanese novelists have explored what it means to be powerless in contrast to former greatness, how the powerless claim or reclaim power, how one can gain or regain honor and status in a warrior culture suddenly reduced to a nation of merchants- figuratevely castrated by high-tech gaijin.

In 1970, Mishima took his obsession with Japan's warrior culture to the point of committing _seppuku_ on national TV (he and some of his "followers" had captured the station) at age 45, all because he so deeply felt the post-WW2 powerlessness of his country.

All this without being fantasy or sci-fi, just fiction.

In fact, many great novels explore issues of power, issues of self-discovery, and what it means to be truly human: _The Great Gatsby, Catcher in the Rye, Deliverance, Heart of Darkness, Grapes of Wrath, A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch, Crime and Punishment, All Quiet on the Western Front_.

Does this make them fantasy?  Does this make them sci-fi?  Clearly not.

Thus, since a story that addresses isssues of power isn't neccessarily fantasy, and a story that asks and answers "Who Am I?" or "What does it mean to be human?" is by no means neccessarly sci-fi, those criteria cannot be used in any meaningful sense to distinguish those genres from others.


----------



## barsoomcore (May 30, 2005)

Wayside, Dannyalcatraz: I assume you are not both deliberately ignoring the definitions I have put forward, but I'm at a loss to understand why you are attacking definitions I never put forward.

To be clear -- I have not said (nor do I think) that SF is about identity, nor that fantasy is about power. Please, if we are going to continue this discussion, it is necessary that you read the (I think) very explicit definitions I have given.

(taken from Celebrim's post, which I quoted and stated my agreement with) 

SF is about the question, "Who am I?", "Who are we?", "What does it mean to be human?", and the method it employs is to speculate who we would be if we weren't who we are or who we would be (and what we would do) if we were someplace completely outside our ordinary experience.

(from my post above)

Fantasy stories employ a metaphorical representation of power and demonstrate ideas about the individual's relationship to that power.

Please, I have no interest in defending arguments I haven't made. I apologize if I was unclear.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 30, 2005)

> SF is about the question, "Who am I?", "Who are we?", "What does it mean to be human?", and the method it employs is to speculate who we would be if we weren't who we are or who we would be (and what we would do) if we were someplace completely outside our ordinary experience.
> 
> Fantasy stories employ a metaphorical representation of power and demonstrate ideas about the individual's relationship to that power.




Perhaps I'm conflating your position with someone else's, perhaps I'm misunderstanding it...

But the quoted statement about SF IS about Identity, and the clause "is to speculate who we would be if we weren't who we are or who we would be if we were someplace completely outside our ordinary experience" is about...setting?  So ID + Future Setting =SF?  If so, then what distinguishes SF from other liturature that asks about identity is...setting.

And the quoted statement about fantasy is equally applicable to Japanese historical fiction set in the Feudal era.  It is equally applicable to the Sci-Fi Epic Chung Kuo series by David Wingrove.  Thus, it is not sufficient to distinguish fantasy from other literary forms.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
> BUT WAIT: Harry Turtledove's aforementioned Darkness books examine the very ground Ms. Frank lived upon in a fictionalized way. That's not the series' exclusive focus, but it is amply covered in the epic 6 book (3900+pgs) series.
> 
> And this is fantasy simply because it has magic, not even as a central story element? Shouldn't this be one of your exceptions, if you're approaching fantasy as a set of imagery?




No, Magic IS a central portion of the Darkness series.  Turtledove transforms the Nazi slaughter of the Jews into a nation's bid for necromantic energy.  The Manhattan Project becomes research on the deeper theories of magic within his world, and when understanding is realized, this fantasy world too sees cities destroyed from afar by the actions of but a few mages.  The air-forces of the nations here are foul-tempered dragons with riders.  The main weapon of choice is a "Stick"- essentially a magic ray gun, charged by mages, occasionally recharged by necromancy.

The series has 3900+ pages; events within it are relayed by a group of POV characters, one of whom is this world's equivalent of a Jew, and thus, hated, hunted and reviled by many.  Her struggles to remain hidden are gripping, and even there, magic is involved.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
> And De Sade would be very intrigued by Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel series.
> 
> How so? They don't really seem comparable to me, just from looking these Kushiel books up, reading a chapter and so on. I don't claim to know them well by any means, so is there something particuarly Sadistic (in the literary sense) about them?




FYI: The two main characters are an ascetic monk-warrior (D&D terms Ftr/Monk Dagger specialist), and the courtesan he first guards and then falls in love with.  She is much in demand because she is god-touched by the pain-loving fallen angel/diety Kushiel.  About 1/2 to 2/3rds of the books' intimate scenes revolve around the giving of pleasure through pain.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
> To try to answer your bigger question: I have not personally seen a type of fictional literature that either sci-fi or fantasy HAVEN'T ventured into.
> 
> Thomas Mann's Faust, Joyce's Ulysses, Julian Barnes' Flaubert's Parrot, Maurice Blanchot's Thomas the Obscure, Rilke's Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge? It seems a little naive to say there's nothing genre fiction hasn't done. I don't need to be a big fan of the stuff to know it hasn't done what these books and many others have done. Or if you really believe there is some genre fiction that accomplishes what any of these books accomplish, I would be intensely interested in hearing about it. The only comparable example I have experience with is Dune, which is still a major cut down from the parody of Messianism in Ulysses, or the tragic elements of Faust.




As I said- I haven't read everything.   Quoting myself (emphasis is new):


> To try to answer your bigger question: I have not personally seen* a type of *fictional literature that either sci-fi or fantasy HAVEN'T ventured into. I'm not saying I've personally read everything, but within the scope of my own personal library of books and visual media...




 I compared the body of sci-fi and fantasy of which I'm personally aware to the various GENRES I know of- not particular works, but genres of fiction.  I also didn't say that they had equaled the efforts of masterpieces of other genres.  But since you ask...

Certain books in Moorcock's Eternal Champion cycle includes a great deal of Joyceian stream of consciousness, at times more like *Finnegans Wake* than *Uylsses*.  There are messianic and religious themes all through the cycle.  In several arcs, the Eternal Champion dies to save others.  And then again, he toys with the question of the nature of the Eternal Companion, and the Eternal Object- in turns a demon-inhabited black sword (Stormbringer, Mournblade and 1M others), the Runestaff, a Needle Gun and the Holy Grail.  He toys with words and their meanings, sometimes radically.

I've not read Thomas Mann's Dr. Faustus.  From reading a few synopses, it seems 1 part retelling of Goethe's Faust (man sells soul to devil) and 1 part political analysis of post-WW2 Germany.  The Faust legend has been told and retold many times, and the form didn't even originate with Goethe.  The recasting of real world events for the partial purpose of dissecting them has been done in many specultative fiction writers.  Star Trek revisited the Cold War and Viet Nam.  Most notably, Harry Turtledove has written many thousands of pages on fantasy versions of real world events- WW2 in both fantasy and sci-fi settings, several retellings of the Civil War, and even the Revolutionary War.

Barnes' *Flaubert's Parrot*? Another I'm unfamiliar with.  The nearest I know of from my PERSONAL library is Barbara Hambly's 6+ book account of Benjamin January, a free man of color who is medical doctor, musician and part time detective, set in 1840's New Orleans.  I know its a poor comparison- Hambly is telling her story straight up, not delving into the meaning of words, or some such.  But, if that's what you're looking for, read Dick, Moorcock, Vonnegut, or Robert Anton Wilson.

Maurice Blanchot's *Thomas the Obscure* I compare to Stephen Baxter's Manifold series.  In each, the same characters go through a set of events revealing as much about their inner states as about the universe outside them.  The books are interrelated, but are also divergent and non-sequential.

Rilke?  See Phillip K. Dick or Kurt Vonnegut.

So... I reiterate: What GENRES (not individual books or authors) have been left untouched by sci-fi and fantasy mimics?


----------



## barsoomcore (May 30, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz: I'm having a very hard time understanding your point. Could you try summing up your position? I THINK you're suggesting that SF and fantasy are NOT genres at all, but categories that depend purely on textual details -- names and descriptions -- as opposed to any particular story qualities.

Assuming that by "genre" we mean a specific TYPE of story that can be distinguished from others without recourse to textual elements.

I'm not one hundred percent sure what I think about it. It seems to me that there ARE SF and fantasy types of stories that are different in their structure than other types of stories rather than just in their textual details. That is, that there are stories that CANNOT be told in any other form without losing something essential to their nature.

But clearly I'm having some trouble getting at exactly what that essential something is. I'll admit my ideas are not worked out very fully, and I appreciate your thoughts and challenges to them.

Let me offer a response to your question, however. The fact that a story with SF or fantasy trappings (text) appears to in fact conform to the story structure typical of some other genre is NOT evidence that there does not exist a story structure typical of the SF or fantasy genres. It simply means that the story in question may not be a SF or fantasy story. I don't see the point of this line of questioning, frankly.

Putting up example stories and demonstrating that they are not SF or fantasy stories according to the current working definitions doesn't really help the discussion much, either. That a given story is not a genre story doesn't invalidate the genre definition. The genre definition is invalidated once it becomes clear that it is not defining anything that can be meaningfully called by the title of the genre. Which is of course a circular process, but that's the nature of definitions, right?

For example, the fact that Harry Turtledove's books are very close parallels to real-world historical conflicts tells us NOTHING about whether or not they are SF or fantasy (or neither). That doesn't enter into the discussion at all. The issue at hand is what is the nature of the stories themselves, how they are told, not what they are "about" (at a textual level). One can use real-world historical events to tell any kind of story one desires. The question is, is Mr. Turtledove telling a story that fits our definition of a fantasy or a SF story? And if not, is that significant for the usability of our definition?

Remember, it's of little concern to me if my definition matches the way in which books are distributed in a bookstore to any great degree. I'm happy to change the names those definitions use if it turns out that while they DO define certain kinds of stories, maybe those story types don't meaningfully conform with the genres at hand.

I think they do, but it's far from certain, I'll grant you.


----------



## Wayside (May 31, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> To be clear -- I have not said (nor do I think) that SF is about identity, nor that fantasy is about power. Please, if we are going to continue this discussion, it is necessary that you read the (I think) very explicit definitions I have given.



I'm still not clear what you're saying then. Do you agree with Celebrim, while not taking his position--hence being in no place to defend it? Or do you think SF and F (I'm just going to go with the capitals from now on, typing them out is getting tiresome) _employ_ some procedure, whether speculation about identity or metaphorical representation of power or something else, without being _about_ this procedure? If the former, what is your actual position (or tendency--you may, like me, not have an actual position here, rather a goal)? If the latter, I would say that a particular SF or F story need not itself be _about_ the procedures it employs, but that SF and F in a general sense, if those procedures are their distinguishing characteristics, are most definitely _about_ them.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> No, Magic IS a central portion of the Darkness series.  Turtledove transforms the Nazi slaughter of the Jews into a nation's bid for necromantic energy.  The Manhattan Project becomes research on the deeper theories of magic within his world, and when understanding is realized, this fantasy world too sees cities destroyed from afar by the actions of but a few mages.  The air-forces of the nations here are foul-tempered dragons with riders.  The main weapon of choice is a "Stick"- essentially a magic ray gun, charged by mages, occasionally recharged by necromancy.
> 
> The series has 3900+ pages; events within it are relayed by a group of POV characters, one of whom is this world's equivalent of a Jew, and thus, hated, hunted and reviled by many.  Her struggles to remain hidden are gripping, and even there, magic is involved.



Call me crazy, but this doesn't sound like F to me. It has magic and all, but it honestly doesn't strike me as F, I suppose in the same way Star Wars doesn't strike barsoomcore as being SF despite its trappings.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> FYI: The two main characters are an ascetic monk-warrior (D&D terms Ftr/Monk Dagger specialist), and the courtesan he first guards and then falls in love with.  She is much in demand because she is god-touched by the pain-loving fallen angel/diety Kushiel.  About 1/2 to 2/3rds of the books' intimate scenes revolve around the giving of pleasure through pain.



That sounds rather cliche, certainly, but it doesn't sound comparable to Sadism as a genre. I'm thinking of de Sade's _The 120 Days of Sodom_, Octave Mirbeau's _The Torture Garden_, de Lautréamont's _Maldoror_. It sounds to me like there may be some similar imagery in the Kushiel books, but, first, I don't accept that imagery = genre, and second, even if it did, unless the Kushiel books involve sex with goats and more unutterable depravities, I don't think the imagery, whatever similarities it might have, would be comparable. In fact I would go so far as to say that genuine Sadist literature need not have anything to do with sex or the idea of pleasure as some kind of ego-satisfaction.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> As I said- I haven't read everything.



Nono, of course not, and naturally neither have I. In fact one of the things I've found most interesting about this discussion so far is hearing from you about these various series of SF and F books I'm unfamiliar with, all of which I've been checking out and reading bits from.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I compared the body of sci-fi and fantasy of which I'm personally aware to the various GENRES I know of- not particular works, but genres of fiction.  I also didn't say that they had equaled the efforts of masterpieces of other genres.  But since you ask...
> 
> Certain books in Moorcock's Eternal Champion cycle includes a great deal of Joyceian stream of consciousness, at times more like *Finnegans Wake* than *Uylsses*.



Now this is an odd thing to say. Have you read the _Wake_? (And if you haven't, let me just say, I don't think it's worth the trouble, personally, and if you ever do decide to read it, join a reading group: even Joyce all-stars like Fritz Senn read it in groups.)  I examined a few numbers of the series but wasn't able to find anything comparable. Stream of consciousness is hardly Joyce's invention, though because of parts of _Ulysses_, especially "Penelope," and of course the _Wake_, it's sometimes called "Joycean," like the technique of the central intelligence, free indirect discourse and so on. Let's call these Postmodern Fiction (Joyce is often called a modernist but I find it more accurate to say he's at the beginning of postmodernism). In terms of pure narrative I doubt any SF or F would "work" built around Joyce. Stylistically, I think it's possible, though, at least initially, the SF and F crowds wouldn't know what to do with it. As a genre, let's group _Ulysses_ with _Flaubert's Parrot_ (it isn't detective fiction, I don't know where that angle comes from; it's actually more about desire than anything else), and maybe Blanchot in a general sense, though I think any SF or F written like that wouldn't scan. Rilke, I don't know where the comparison with Vonnegut or Dick comes from, since I do have some experience with these guys. In terms of style there's nothing, in terms of plot there's nothing. I was thinking of the _Notebooks_ in a Seinfeld way I guess, since it's a book in which nothing happens.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I've not read Thomas Mann's Dr. Faustus.  From reading a few synopses, it seems 1 part retelling of Goethe's Faust (man sells soul to devil) and 1 part political analysis of post-WW2 Germany.  The Faust legend has been told and retold many times, and the form didn't even originate with Goethe.  The recasting of real world events for the partial purpose of dissecting them has been done in many specultative fiction writers.  Star Trek revisited the Cold War and Viet Nam.  Most notably, Harry Turtledove has written many thousands of pages on fantasy versions of real world events- WW2 in both fantasy and sci-fi settings, several retellings of the Civil War, and even the Revolutionary War.



I was thinking more of how Mann uses a famous German philosopher's descent into madness for Lewerkühn, and also his use of Schönberg's musical innovations as the sort of genius worth selling one's soul for. I didn't mean the actual Faustus narrative at all (I really should've been clear on what exactly I had in mind when typing these questions out, sorry about that). I have yet to see any SF or F touch the kunstlerroman genre.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> So... I reiterate: What GENRES (not individual books or authors) have been left untouched by sci-fi and fantasy mimics?



Let's also toss tragedy in here. _Dune_ relies heavily on tragic elements, to the point where, at least in the first few books, I don't even think of it as SF (with _God Emperor_ I'm not sure what I'd call it). The science there is more like a convenient plot device, and unlike Star Wars, the societal models and general layout of _Dune_ favor F over SF. But I don't think of it as F either, no more than I do the _Hipollytus_ (someone mentioned Racine's _Phedre_ as being in the F/power camp earlier).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 31, 2005)

Ok...here goes nothin'!

Another thought on the discussion of how defining the genres by their trappings invalidates them as literature:



> It doesn't invalidate them as literature. It invalidates them as genres that are meaningfully distinct from each other. *snip*
> 
> Yes, it invalidates science fiction and fantasy as literature if science fiction and fantasy are nothing more than an aesthetic.*snip*.




Its an argument that cuts both ways.  Assume that a particular sci-fi or fantasy novel can be considered to be a fully realized representative of another genre, distinguished only by its setting.  Assume also that you can find similar sci-fi or fantasy novels invading most other genres.  You assert that this invalidates sci-fi and fantasy as distinct genres because they aren't doing something unique.  However, by the mere existence of a novel that is both fully sci-fi and fully a romance (for example), then the genre of ROMANCE as well is no longer doing something unique.  To expand the argument- any prose that successfully bridges 2 or more genres destroys each genre's uniqueness _by its very existence_ by cross germination of features.

But we know that cannot be the case.  There are innumerable works that cross genres of all kinds, yet we still feel that those genres are extant.  Genres are not so neatly defined as species.

Re: Turtledoves's Darkness series:


> Call me crazy, but this doesn't sound like F to me. It has magic and all, but it honestly doesn't strike me as F, I suppose in the same way Star Wars doesn't strike barsoomcore as being SF despite its trappings





You've got dragons and necromancy, what more do you want?

How about the fact that in at least one region of the world, the Gods of a particular nation push back the necromantic spells powered by the slaughter of innocent Kaunians (the race analogous to Jews) upon its wielders, slaying them: Direct divine intervention in the form of immediate retribution.  That do anything for you?  The weapon that otherwise works has the rules of the game voided on it.  How about later magics that depend on "bargains with the powers below?"



> I have yet to see any SF or F touch the kunstlerroman genre.




Well, I can honestly say that I too, know of a SF/F story in which an *artist* grows from novice to master.  There are analogous plotlines, however

If you consider a mage to be fantasy's equivalent to an artist, there are MANY works that follow that theme.  Sci-Fi channel aired a piece of crap tracing Merlin from a youth to master of magic.  A similar path is trod in Ursula K. LeGuin's Earthsea books-NOT the Sci-Fi channel's butchery of it (youngster eventually becomes Archmage of the world).  Piers Anthony's early (1st three) Xanth books have a character who is on the verge of becoming an outcast when his true nature is uncovered as one of the most powerful mages ever to live...and it takes him some time to master and understand his ability.

In Sci Fi, one example of a story like this being told is Orson Scott Card's Ender series, where the genetically engineered child becomes one of the most dangerous military geniuses in the universe, and thereby saves humanity from the insect-like "Buggers".


Re: *Flaubert's Parrot*:


> it isn't detective fiction, I don't know where that angle comes from; it's actually more about desire than anything else




Blame a shoddy reviewer, then.  Tell me more about it.

Re: Kushiel:


> That sounds rather cliche, certainly, but it doesn't sound comparable to Sadism as a genre.




Its definitely not as graphic as the Marquis' own work, but even though handled with a lighter touch, I'm sure he would find the divinely masochistic courtesan to be an interesting woman- possibly even his unreachable ideal.

Re: Genres SF/F havent touched.


> Let's also toss tragedy in here




Not bad.  Lets see-a tragedy in the "everybody dies" sense: Moorcock's 6th Elric book, *Stormbringer*, has our anti-heroic hero destroying everything he loves to defeat his foe- friends, family, empire...and then is slain in the last few pages by the demon-sword he has borne throughout the series.  Asimov's Nightfall, (called by some the greatest Sci-Fi story ever written)

But lets go further and deeper- 


> Tragedy did not mean a play with an unhappy ending. It did mean a noble hero ran into obstacles to what we would think of as happiness. These obstacles could be based on personal excess (as of pride) or a conflict between one set of laws and another. Necessity (ananke) and mortality constrain all of mankind but, even more so, tragic heroes.- N.S. Gill;  bio




Many books in Moorcock's Eternal Champion series fit this description, especially the Elric arc.  He is never at rest, he and other "Champion Avatars" quest fruitlessly for "Eternal Tanelorn" (Moorcock's version of earthly paradise? heaven?).  Elric's use of mind-altering drugs prevent him from noticing the ebb and flow of events leading to his overthrow as Emperor of Melnibone when he could have done so easily.  The love of his life is his first cousin, Cymoril, and she is forever used as a pawn/wedge against him by another relative, Yrkoon the Usurper.  Elric surrounds himself with opportunists who use him, and his true friends are rare- usually since he winds up killing them to sate Stormbringer.  Like Achilles, Elric cannot see any other options before hm but the obvious path of conflict.  Elric, Corum and several other avatars die in their pursuit of happiness, usually betrayed by those closest to them.

In a more positive vein...I stumbled across a couple of definitions that might be of aid in this discussion.  However, since I found them at 5AM, I didn't remember to note their attributions.  Originators, I apologize.

*Science Fiction is the fiction of Ideas.  Fantasy is the fiction of morals.*

The originator felt that Sci-Fi was fiction that generated new ideas about science & technology and how they effect change upon society, in terms of general expectations, quality of life, the nature of consciousness/humanity.

Similarly, Fantasy follows forms like Greek Tragedies or religious fables in that it was about Good versus Evil.  Fantasy Heroes are often overthrowing a more powerful evil than has ever been seen (LOTR), conquering the evil within (Earthsea), or acting as the human tools used to enact the will of fate/the Gods to bring down people who have done evil to raise themselves up.

While useful, we have already seen exceptions to these formulations.  We have seen fantasy that explores the nature of humanity (Pinnochio), and Sci Fi that has heroes overthrowing incredibly powerful opposition (Ender series, Battlefield Earth series, a lot of sci-fi from the 50's).  I still think add some freshness to the debate.


----------



## Desdichado (May 31, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Dannyalcatraz: I'm having a very hard time understanding your point. Could you try summing up your position? I THINK you're suggesting that SF and fantasy are NOT genres at all, but categories that depend purely on textual details -- names and descriptions -- as opposed to any particular story qualities.



I certainly believe that, whether or not Dannyalcatraz does.  There are many cases in which fantasy and science fiction stories merely borrow narrative details from another source, not fantasy and not science fiction.  How are those about particular story qualities?

Oddly enough, given the forum on which this is being discussed, any definition that relies on particular story qualities also _excludes_ any roleplaying game.  Dungeons & Dragons cannot be a _fantasy_ roleplaying game, unless it had some method of enforcing a fantasy narrative on the game, which is naturally absurd.


----------



## Desdichado (May 31, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Its well documented that Star Wars is based in an Eastern storytelling tradition: The original story's main inspiration is Akira Kurosawa's "jidai-geki" samurai drama _Hidden Fortress_ ("The episodic story was, of course, eventually borrowed by George Lucas for both the initial plot of Star Wars and the revived Princess Amidala-centered narrative of The Phantom Menace."- [URL="http://www.criterionco.com/asp/release.asp?id=116&eid=125&section=essay]Click this link[/URL] ).  How does this become fantasy when the "jidai-geki" genre is, essentially, historical fiction set in Japan's feudal era, Samurai period-piece dramas.  The Force is an expansion on the concept of Chi- which I'm sure Japanese would defend as not magic, but a different and scientific (at least in the sense of being able to be systematically taught) understanding of humans' power over their bodies.  Yes, its taken over the top as far as reality goes, but its congruent with Shao-Lin legends, and could be considered poetic license, or even _as Lucas himself suggested_, an extrapolation of a deeper understanding of Chi.  Viewed Lucas' way, The Force is no more Fantasy than FTL.



Actually, I'd argue that that is not at all well-documented, nor is it very likely.  _The Hidden Fortress_ has only a few superficial similarities (to only the first _Star Wars_ movie, and certainly not to the arc as a whole), especially in terms of the two narrative characters, on whom C-3PO and R2-D2 are sorta based.  There's also the common element of a princess to be rescued, but that's _extremely_ common to the point of invalidating any real tie to _Hidden Fortress_, and the plot and characters, other than the two narrative characters, are completely unlike each other after a certain very early point.

There's no denying that Lucas was influenced by Kurosawa, but that's no call to go saying that Star Wars is nothing more than a samurai tale.  For one thing, it ignores the fact that Kurosawa wasn't doing much more than recasting Westerns (in the sense of cowboys and Indians) into historical samurai, Romantic Japan.  He was roundly criticised in Japan itself for being way too Western (in the sense of western civilization.)


----------



## Zander (May 31, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> You CAN define genres based on "trappings". Which is, broadly what JD is doing. It looks like SF, it sounds like SF, it's SF. Whether you describe the trappings as "mechanical" or "plausible" or "derived from a theoretical framework", you're deciding which texts fit into which genres according to the trappings of the text, as opposed to the themes or "meanings" (can we just pretend those terms aren't problematic, for a second?) of the STORY (and once more, thanks).
> 
> That's a perfectly valid way to divide books into groups.



I agree though, as I stated in the thread that informed this one, that's only part of it.


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> My question is, is there a TYPE OF STORY that all (or a reasonable subset of) fantasy stories make use of? Is there some quality to the stories that we generally call fantasy (as opposed to the settings, or the prose style or what have you) that distinguishes them from other stories? And if so, is that quality universally found in all stories we generally call fantasy, or only some subset thereof? And are stories that we generally DON'T call fantasy also demonstrating this quality?



Andor seems to have addressed these questions:


			
				Andor said:
			
		

> What is fantasy? I'd say it is something that has one, some or all of the following elements:
> 
> The supernatural. The distinction between the supernatural and technology being that the supernatural can never be fully understood or controlled....
> 
> ...



I would add that fantasy is triumphalist. In other words, the reader/gamer derives pleasure from vicariously succeeding in contrast to sci-fi where pleasure derives primarily from the exploration of ideas or horror which is vicarious fear. Triumphalism isn't found uniquely in fantasy but does characterise most works in the genre.


----------



## Desdichado (May 31, 2005)

Zander said:
			
		

> I would add that fantasy is triumphalist. In other words, the reader/gamer derives pleasure from vicariously succeeding in contrast to sci-fi where pleasure derives primarily from the exploration of ideas or horror which is vicarious fear. Triumphalism isn't found uniquely in fantasy but does characterise most works in the genre.



Huh?  Plenty of fantasy is dark and horror-driven, and plenty of sci-fi is utopian and bright in outlook, which has been pointed out many times in this thread.

I do realize that the definition I espouse isn't all that cerebral; it's a "working" definition rather than a "literary" one, as someone (I believe Wayside) said earlier.  And as Corey says, it's not necessarily all that interesting except in terms of where do you shelve the book in your hand.

But it's gotta be the baseline.  Any other definition, in order to work, must _*not*_

contradict the working definition,
be too inclusive and admit plenty of works that are not fantasy by the standards of the working definition, and
be too exclusive; fail to admit works that the working definition does consider fantasy.
Because much of the gray area around the working area is overlap or deliberate hybrids with science fiction, that's been the focus of much of the discussion here, but many of these alternate definitions, especially those you've proposed, Zander, are especially guilty of the second flaw mentioned above, and not even necessarily with just sci-fi leakage as the culprit.

Heck, I don't think any of the proposed solutions match the baseline "working definition", without tons of exceptions that are considered fantasy by baseline but not by the definition, or no clear-cut match between what is fantasy and what is simply some other type of fiction altogether.  Which is why, ultimately, I can't accept them.  They may be interesting; they may be more cerebral; they may really say something about _some_ works of fantasy, but they ultimately fail to pass any reasonable standard as a definition of the genre, and what separates it from other related genres.

Oh, and as a pet peeve to no one in particular, but since I've seen it a lot in this thread; the plural of genre is genres.  Genera is the plural of genus.  Since no one has proposed, to my knowledge, a Linnean classification system, or even a cladistic one, for that matter, for fiction, any discussion of genera has nothing to do with the topic at hand...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 31, 2005)

Re:Kurosawa/*Star Wars* connection:


> Actually, I'd argue that that is not at all well-documented, nor is it very likely.




Well, the best online source for this has evaporated- it went into the various sources Lucas used...but these still remain.
http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/showrevpdf.php3?ID=1221 
http://www.enlightenweb.net/s/st/star_wars.html 
http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=46636&inline=nyt_ttl 
http://www.movie-list.com/forum/printthread.php?t=5855

*Star Wars* is the only one in which I see any connection myself.

To clarify my own position:  I DO consider SF/F as genres distinct from other literary genres, though not neccessarily distinct from each other.  My insistence about "settings/trappings" stems from what was well stated here:



> Any other definition, in order to work, must not
> 
> 1. contradict the working definition,
> 2. be too inclusive and admit plenty of works that are not fantasy by the standards of the working definition, and
> ...




And we keep finding exceptions to each definition we propose...plot driven? concepts?  For example:



> *Andor, defining Fantasy, exerpt*
> ...A backward looking aesthetic. If the glories of the past can never be reached, but only dreamed of, if progress is only illusion, then the work is fantasy (And anti-thetical to the central trope of SF.)
> 
> ...Heros. Individuals can shape the course of events by sheer willpower/chutzpah/coolness.




Historical fiction and a branch of sci-fi called alternate history, can both be backwards looking.  As I mentioned before, a lot of Japanese non-Fantasy deals with the loss of their warrior culture and what it means for the modern Japanese.

A Hero can appear in any kind of fiction- Miles Flint of Kristine Kathryn Rusch's Retreival Artist books is a classic hero, right down to his name.  And you will find no supernatural events within those books.  They are Hard Sci-Fi.

None so far has proven more exclusive beyond the admittedly shallow "settings/trappings"- and even THAT has exceptions.  At the very least, Phillip K. Dick has written several fantasies set in futuristic settings.

The key may be that we are trying to be exclusive when exclusivity may not be possible.  Literary genres are not as exclusive as Linnean classification systems.  

Perhaps we should instead gravitate towards a definition that deals with shadings...The _Majoritiy_ of sci fi is _____________.  The Majority of Fantasy is _______________.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (May 31, 2005)

Now Josua, correct me if I'm missing something, but wasn't the working definition you were working with recognizing Sci-fi as a sub-genre of fantasy?

In that case are there really gray areas or just confusions as to the hierarchy of the genres in question?

Personally I'd say there's far more literariness to the working definition than people are willing to recognize, it's just that works on a very macro level of litariness.  The sort of level where plot is simply one consideration among many rather than even a privileged much less paramount consideration.


----------



## Wayside (Jun 1, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Its an argument that cuts both ways.  Assume that a particular sci-fi or fantasy novel can be considered to be a fully realized representative of another genre, distinguished only by its setting.  Assume also that you can find similar sci-fi or fantasy novels invading most other genres.  You assert that this invalidates sci-fi and fantasy as distinct genres because they aren't doing something unique.  However, by the mere existence of a novel that is both fully sci-fi and fully a romance (for example), then the genre of ROMANCE as well is no longer doing something unique.  To expand the argument- any prose that successfully bridges 2 or more genres destroys each genre's uniqueness _by its very existence_ by cross germination of features.



I assert it invalidates them because there's nothing left to talk about but scenery. Assuming SF can fully realize another genre, like tragedy, doesn't invalidate tragedy _unless you define SF as tragedy and not something distinct that can be added to it_. I don't think most narratives are exclusive of one another, so I'm not arguing they can't be mixed; indeed I've said that, on the contrary, I doubt anything like a pure narrative exists. SF should be perfectly capable of incorporating other sorts of narratives, but it should also have some kind of narrative of its own. If SF is nothing but a container for _other_ narratives then there is no point to it because SF, as such, does not exist; it's merely a backdrop, it has no content. It's a surface, a facade. (And that also means, among other things, that people who read SF because they like SF are a little confused.)

Joshua made a _very_ interesting point about the usefulness of this conversation in regards to roleplaying, although I would say it isn't totally absurd, as he suggests--I'm thinking here of the discussion about core stories in Mike Mearls' LJ. Core stories are probably something we should have been hammering out here from the beginning, though I continue to believe that a genre changes over time, and that the unity of the genre is constituted historically in the reasons it emerges and is transformed, and not by a single, transhistorical definition that will last for eternity.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> But we know that cannot be the case.  There are innumerable works that cross genres of all kinds, yet we still feel that those genres are extant.  Genres are not so neatly defined as species.



Of course this is true. But the genre crossing isn't like cross-dressing: you don't swap out a surface yet retain fundamentally the same content. When you mix tragedy and epic, you don't disguise one with the other.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> You've got dragons and necromancy, what more do you want?



Heh, if I could answer that, there would be no reason to continue the thread   .



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> How about the fact that in at least one region of the world, the Gods of a particular nation push back the necromantic spells powered by the slaughter of innocent Kaunians (the race analogous to Jews) upon its wielders, slaying them: Direct divine intervention in the form of immediate retribution.  That do anything for you?  The weapon that otherwise works has the rules of the game voided on it.  How about later magics that depend on "bargains with the powers below?"



Nope, none of that strikes me as unique to fantasy.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Well, I can honestly say that I too, know of a SF/F story in which an *artist* grows from novice to master.  There are analogous plotlines, however



I don't think analogous is enough. Part of the artist's growth is the creation of art, which in turn digs back into life. There's nothing comparable in a story about magic or strategy. Those are bildungsromans, certainly. (Depending on what sort of posthumanist literature is out there, SF may even get into all this stuff, unless we distinguish between SF and posthumanism.)



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Re: *Flaubert's Parrot*:
> 
> Blame a shoddy reviewer, then.  Tell me more about it.



Oh I was aware, I've seen such reviews before. The basic idea is that the narrator, Geoffrey Braithwaite, is a Francophile in search of the parrot Flaubert used as a model for his story "Un coeur simple." What actually goes on is amazingly complex so I won't try to sum it up, but it's a short book that you could easily read in an evening, with hardly a wasted sentence; one of the best books of the second half of the 20th century, actually. But it's also structurally odd: one chapter is a dictionary, one is a Ph.D. qualifying exam, one is a series of timelines and so on.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Re: Kushiel:
> 
> Its definitely not as graphic as the Marquis' own work, but even though handled with a lighter touch, I'm sure he would find the divinely masochistic courtesan to be an interesting woman- possibly even his unreachable ideal.



Graphic is not necessarily what I'm looking for, though it meets the imagery requirement and seems useful in this case. I suppose my problem is that I imagine books like the Kushiel series being filtered through a standard interpretation of Sadist literature, and having no real affinity with that literature itself--being a victim of, for example, psychoanalysis, which among other things wants to blunt or pacify Sadism by making it not only meaningful but straightforward, even natural. In order for something contemporary to be Sadist, I think, it has to escape the accepted interpretations of earlier Sadism, has to become crooked again, unnatural, beyond pop-psychology and all that. This is why I emphasized earlier that I think hard definitions of SF or F won't work, because we have to take their historicality into account.

I'll skip quoting your comments on tragedy and simply use that idea to illustrate what I mean here: there is no unity, in the sense of the quote you use, to tragic narrative. Sophokles and Seneca have little in common (and Shakespeare, rather than being a writer of tragedies in ye olde Greek fashion, was a Senecan). There is hardly any unity, in fact, between the tragedies of the three original greats, or between most groups of contemporaries, like Shakesepare and Kyd and Tourneur/Middleton. For Chaucer and other medieval authors yes, de casibus tragedy was it, but before and after them theory of tragedy has been considerably more nuanced. Episode III tries very hard to be a tragedy, to the point that Aristotle's name should almost be in the credits, and strictly, I should probably say that it missed out on tragedy precisely because it ignored contemporary tragedy, like Arthur Miller or Bryony Lavery; but at the same time, Star Wars doesn't have anything to do (in any purposeful way) with what's going in the arts _today_. That is, it's _supposed_ to be looking back to these old narratives, so for me it still works. What I like about _Dune_ though is that it isn't a simple repetition of archetypal garbage--in fact it nullifies the notion of the collective unconscious by giving the main characters unmediated access to _all of history_. Rather than preserving history by compressing it into a set number of built-in narratives and repetitions, the way we are trying to do with genres here, history is almost unmade, almost destroyed, because, at least for these characters, it has no past--it is presently experienced. And in _Dune_ this absolute unlocking of (a fantasy of) human potential itself constitutes the ultimate tragedy, which is now much more than the simple archetype of Tiresias, "to know the future is to be trapped by it." Instead, with Leto II, we get something like "to create the future is to be trapped by one's own creation and to sacrifice oneself to the possibility of what one may become." And the goal, which requires Leto's sacrifice, is the possibility of living free of either past _or future_.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 1, 2005)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Now Josua, correct me if I'm missing something, but wasn't the working definition you were working with recognizing Sci-fi as a sub-genre of fantasy?



I'm not sure that I've ever seen it so described.  If it were up to _me_ to decide, I'd say that science fiction and fantasy are both two sides of the same figurative coin; two closely related genres that both come under the heading of speculative fiction.  Of course, both also have numerous subgenres of their own, and it's largely in those subgenres that much of the overlap between them occurs.

But that's just me.  I don't know what anyone else says about that, per se.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 1, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> Joshua made a _very_ interesting point about the usefulness of this conversation in regards to roleplaying, although I would say it isn't totally absurd, as he suggests--I'm thinking here of the discussion about core stories in Mike Mearls' LJ. Core stories are probably something we should have been hammering out here from the beginning, though I continue to believe that a genre changes over time, and that the unity of the genre is constituted historically in the reasons it emerges and is transformed, and not by a single, transhistorical definition that will last for eternity.



No, absurd was probably too strong a word.  Still, difficult verging on impossible, though.  Core stories are well and good as an extremely speculative theory, but despite the core stories implicit in a setting, other fantasy settings may have completely different core stories, or GMs may ignore them and run some other type of story altogether anyway.

And I'm not entirely convinced that --even were I to accept the notion of a core story, which at this point I'm leaning against-- that the core stories of Greyhawk, or FR, or Talislanta, or Planescape, etc. are encapsulated by anything that I've seen in this thread as a narrative structure unique to fantasy.  I'll have to give that some more thought, though.  I'm sceptical for now, but there's at least an interesting discussion to be had in that direction, if nothing else.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 1, 2005)

> A story of the Great American Range War.
> 
> A young man, part of a family of frontier farmers, come into conflict with the thugs and bullies of a local, powerful rancher in yet another series of skirmishes.
> 
> ...




Sound familiar?

I did this to ask explicitly what I've been puzzling at for some time in this thread: If a storyteller takes a plotline from one genre into another, does that story remain irrevocably part of the original genre regardless of the storyteller's alteration?

I ask this because there seems to be a line of thought in this thread that would say _yes_. (Various persons who feel that because *they* see an archetypal fantasy storyline in _Star Wars_, _Star Wars_ must be fantasy, and as must be obvious by now, I beg to differ!  )

It is, I feel, an important question, considering how many writers retell the stories of others.  Niven retells _Beowulf_ in _Legacy of Heorot_ and_ Beowulf's Children_ while Crighton does it in _13th Warrior_, Rodenberry retells _Moby Dick_ in _Wrath of Kahn_ and retraces _Pinnochio_ in the character Data, Disney's _Lion King_ retells _Hamlet_.  (Shakespeare, as has been pointed out before, is a common target for retelling...)

So: Once a story has been told in a particular genre, can it ever be transformed into anything else?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
> How about the fact that in at least one region of the world, the Gods of a particular nation push back the necromantic spells powered by the slaughter of innocent Kaunians (the race analogous to Jews) upon its wielders, slaying them: Direct divine intervention in the form of immediate retribution.
> 
> Nope, none of that strikes me as unique to fantasy.




Please- show me another literary form outside of fantasy or its forbears in epic poetry, mythology and theology where GOD/S alter the way the universe works in order to save their followers and lay low the faithfull's attackers.



> From *Wayside*
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
> Well, I can honestly say that I too, know of a SF/F story in which an artist grows from novice to master. There are analogous plotlines, however
> ...




I would argue that Ged/Sparrowhawk from LeGuin's Earthsea series does just that.  The character who becomes the Archmage starts as utter novice.  He learns magery, first tutored by a local mage, then at the great school of Roke Island.  Along his path of increasing power, you see him alter from impatience, impetuousness and brash behavior (such as when he tries to go beyond the wall of death and summon a spirit from beyond because of a dare) to a wise and powerful man who understands that restraint is as much a part of life as action.  Eventually, he surrenders all of his power to become a farmer.

Not only does the man change, but the way he shapes power evolves as well.  His early uses of power are direct, cause-and-effect type spells.  Later, he uses magic without even seeming to.  Rather than using a bludgeon of raw power, he instead wields magic like a scalpel.  Rather than trading arcane blows with an ancient dragon, he converses with it as an equal...or a brother.  Where most storytellers would have an immense battle, LeGuin's Ged defuses the conflict.

In a crude sense, this guy goes from being "Tim" to being "Gandalf."


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 1, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I did this to ask explicitly what I've been puzzling at for some time in this thread: If a storyteller takes a plotline from one genre into another, does that story remain irrevocably part of the original genre regardless of the storyteller's alteration?
> 
> I ask this because there seems to be a line of thought in this thread that would say _yes_. (Various persons who feel that because *they* see an archetypal fantasy storyline in _Star Wars_, _Star Wars_ must be fantasy, and as must be obvious by now, I beg to differ!  )



And I've tried to come at this obliquely as well; I also disagree.  Plotlines are often easily transferrable from one genre to another _for certain types of genres_.  Granted, some genres _are_ defined by narrative structure: it's hard to imagine transferring the plotline of a Shakespearean tragedy into a sitcom without actually changing the narrative, but I firmly believe, and have stated so earlier, that science fiction and fantasy are largely defined by elements of the _settings_ in which they take place rather than by narrative structure.  This isn't unique to science fiction or fantasy either; Westerns, or any historical fiction, for that matter, are the same.  That's why I'm sceptical of the line of discussion that talks about persistent themes or narrative structures in fantasy.  They _may_ be present; they may even be extremely common.  But they are not strictly _required_ and with even a little scratching, it's not too hard to find works that don't fit the narrative paradigm, or don't focus on the same themes.  Therefore, we're not talking about anything that can be said definitively about fantasy.  We're only talking --again-- about a subset of fantasy.


			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> (Shakespeare, as has been pointed out before, is a common target for retelling...)



Not to mention a shameless borrower himself, for that matter.  Hamlet, which you use in your example, is a retelling of the story of Amleth, which is an old Danish story from the _Gesta Danorum_ of Saxo Grammaticus.  And likely, it was and old tale when old Saxo put it on paper for the first time as well.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 1, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Not to mention a shameless borrower himself, for that matter.  Hamlet, which you use in your example, is a retelling of the story of Amleth, which is an old Danish story from the _Gesta Danorum_ of Saxo Grammaticus.  And likely, it was and old tale when old Saxo put it on paper for the first time as well.



In Shakespeare's time plots were common property; it was the telling that mattered!  That is largely true today, as well.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 1, 2005)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> In Shakespeare's time plots were common property; it was the telling that mattered!  That is largely true today, as well.



Yep.  And as you say, that's hardly changed.  Which is part of my point; if plots are freely borrowed and recast into different genres, then plots can't really be a defining element of those genres.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 1, 2005)

In case you haven't guessed, count me in on Joshua's side!


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 2, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> In case you haven't guessed, count me in on Joshua's side!



A wonder if it'll take another seven pages before someone else agrees with me!


----------



## Psion (Jun 2, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> This is a silly argument against defining them.




No, it's a prefectly sensible argument that we should not pretend, despite knowing their definitions, that they are a dichotomy.

I can define "red" and "orange", but that doesn't let me ignore the fact that there are innumerable hues between the two, many of which would be so fuzzy in definition that many people would get a variety of different answers if you asked them if they were red or orange.


----------



## Wayside (Jun 2, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> No, it's a prefectly sensible argument that we should not pretend, despite knowing their definitions, that they are a dichotomy.
> 
> I can define "red" and "orange", but that doesn't let me ignore the fact that there are innumerable hues between the two, many of which would be so fuzzy in definition that many people would get a variety of different answers if you asked them if they were red or orange.



You probably want to reread the posts in question (there's more than the 1 line I quoted and responded to directly), as bifurcation is not an issue in my statement. "Who in the rainbow can draw the line where the violet tint ends and the orange tint begins?" asks Melville; "Distinctly we see the differences of the colors, but where exactly does the one first blendingly enter into the other?" I know that position by heart--sadly it has nothing to do with what I said. In fact Dannyalcatraz's argument _against_ definition relies more on dichotomizing, because he mistakes the idea that all writing is mixed for the idea that no writing is definable. In order for writing to be mixed, it has to be a mix of something. If the something it's a mix of is merely a mix of something else and so on, we might as well stop talking and just wave our fingers menacingly, since behind every word is another word and we can never get anywhere that way.

SF and F don't have to be opposed to one another for us to define them. It's a question of content, not polarity. We don't need the equivalent of a spectrum of colors to think about them, though that is precisely what an aesthetic approach, like imagery, wants to require in some formulations. No, defining SF and F in terms of imagery is no less problematic than defining it in any other way. We just aren't examining the imagery very closely here; that is to say, it's easier to handwave "I'll know it when I see it" arguments when we're talking about something as simple as whether or not there are spaceships. If you really sit down and try to hammer out an image-based definition, you're going to run into just as many problems as you would looking for a thematic or plot-based genre continuity--as if it were any easier to tell SF from F, at a certain middle point, than it is orange from red, as you say. You're actually making my point for me in a different way.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 3, 2005)

> *Wayside*
> In fact Dannyalcatraz's argument against definition relies more on dichotomizing, because he mistakes the idea that all writing is mixed for the idea that no writing is definable. In order for writing to be mixed, it has to be a mix of something. If the something it's a mix of is merely a mix of something else and so on, we might as well stop talking and just wave our fingers menacingly, since behind every word is another word and we can never get anywhere that way.




This is an aboslutely incorrect statement of my position:  I am not against definition!  I personally believer SF/F to be distinct from other genres, but I, like others, am struggling with the _best_ way to define them.

I am against the idea that a genre can only be defined by its storytelling styles or particular plot types (and that such is superior to "setting/trappings") BECAUSE various storytelling styles appear in all genres.

*ASSUMING the following is correct:*



> *Wayside*
> I assert it invalidates them because there's nothing left to talk about but scenery._*edit*_ SF should be perfectly capable of incorporating other sorts of narratives, but it should also have some kind of narrative of its own. If SF is nothing but a container for other narratives then there is no point to it because SF, as such, does not exist; it's merely a backdrop, it has no content. It's a surface, a facade. (And that also means, among other things, that people who read SF because they like SF are a little confused.)




We cannot define fantasy Zander and Andor do _in part_:



> _Edited_
> *Andor*:
> A backward looking aesthetic. If the glories of the past can never be reached, but only dreamed of, if progress is only illusion, then the work is fantasy (And anti-thetical to the central trope of SF.)
> 
> ...




...Since those 3 are clearly found in the majority of Westerns, Pulp adventures, Noir detective novels, etc.

Nor is this definition of Sci-Fi a true definition:


> *barsoomcore*
> SF is about the question, "Who am I?", "Who are we?", "What does it mean to be human?", and the method it employs is to speculate who we would be if we weren't who we are or who we would be (and what we would do) if we were someplace completely outside our ordinary experience.




...Since, but for setting, you can find the same questions answered in, as I pointed out, Japanese historical fiction (and other) genres.

What sets the Fantasy story apart from the Western or Pulp or Noir is "setting/trappings."  What sets Sci-Fi apart from Japanese Historical Fiction is "setting/trappings."

Every plot formulation noted on this thread either has been or can be approximated/told in SF/F.

We have YET to find a plot, narrative, storyline _or any other factor_ *unique* to either presumptive genre. 

For instance, the novelized short-story, Asimov's "Nightfall" (1941, novelization in 1990 with the assistance of Robert Silverberg) opens with:



> *Asimov & Silverburg*
> Kalgash is an alien world and it is not our intention to have you think that it is identical to Earth, even though we depict its people as speaking a language that you can understand and using terms that are familiar to you.  Those words should be understood as mere equivalents of alien terms- that is, a conventional set of equivalents of the same sort that a writer of novels uses when he has foreign characters speaking in their own language but nevertheless transcribes their words in the language of the reader. **edit** In other words, we could have told you that one of our characters pause to strap on his quonglishes before setting out on a walk of seven vorks along the main gleebish of his native znoob, and everything might have seemed ever so much more thouroughly alien.  But it would also have been ever so much more difficult to make sense out of what we were saying, and that did not seem useful.




They then set forth to tell a story about a 1000 year cycle of the rise and fall of civilization on their planet which is in a 6 star solar system (which, btw, matters).

While this story is considered by many to be *the quintessential* SF story, the story it tells is about people and how they deal with discovery under an oppressive regime, as well as what actually causes the collapse of Kalgashi society every 1000 years.  It could just as well be a fictionalization about one of the various lost civilizations of Earth...the Anasazi, for instance.  Or the Mound People.  Or the builders of Micronesia's Nan Madol (a grouping of ancient, artificially made basalt islands).  Or the builders of Stonehenge.  What distinguishes* Nightfall* is the complex solar system...its setting.  In fact, the setting is the _only_ thing that makes this particular story possible.

Although historical fiction _often_ falls under Sci Fi, a books like Edward B. Hanna's* The Whitechapel Horrors* (Sherlock Holmes vs Jack the Ripper) is generally NOT considered Sci-Fi or Fantasy- its a Mystery.  Nor would Margaret Mitchell's *Gone With the Wind* be called Sci-Fi by anyone's definition- its a Romance.  Fictionalization of history isn't inherently SF.

Either find me something unique to SF/F that will encapsulate all the works of the genre and yet eliminate those outside of them OR accept that they are genres worthy of being considered literature DESPITE their chimeric natures.

_Edited to correct a spelling error...a BAD one!_


----------



## Wayside (Jun 3, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> This is an aboslutely incorrect statement of my position:  I am not against definition!  I personally believer SF/F to be distinct from other genres, but I, like others, am struggling with the _best_ way to define them.



To be fair, I was less stating your position than performing a _reductio_ on Psion's reading of it, that is true.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I am against the idea that a genre can only be defined by its storytelling styles or particular plot types (and that such is superior to "setting/trappings") BECAUSE various storytelling styles appear in all genres.



There are certainly all kinds of ways to define genres (none of them being factually right or wrong, since there is no fact to be right or wrong about). My very plainly stated goal though was to define (or to think about what would be necessary to define) SF and F in such a way that they could end up on a syllabus at a respectable university, but for the right reason (you'll find Lewis Carroll's _Alice_ books being read in classes on language philosophy, but not as literature--but at the same time, that's often the sort of literature they are).



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> We cannot define fantasy Zander and Andor do _in part_



That isn't true at all. As I said in the post you're replying to here, you're mistaking the idea that all writing is mixed for the idea that no writing is definable (i.e. pure). However we define SF or F, this does not preclude the elements of our definition from being incorporated into non-SF or F works, just as however we define tragedy, this does not preclude elements of our definition of tragedy from being incorporated into non-tragedic works. Elements of SF or F should pop up in frontier literature and vice versa; that's not a problem. The idea that you can't define SF or F _as genres_ because _a given work_ of SF or F will always contain elements of _other_ genres is logically incoherent. This means your criticism of barsoomcore's definition fails as well (which is not to say I agree with it; I'm so far from having an answer here it's ridiculous. I wish I had the time to give serious thought to the question instead of just replying to other peoples' posts, le sigh).



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> ...Since, but for setting, you can find the same questions answered in, as I pointed out, Japanese historical fiction (and other) genres.



In addition to rejecting this argument for the above reasons, it is also inconsistent with the setting- or imagery-based approach. Are Geoffrey of Monmouth or other early Arthurians fantasy authors? Anyone who assents to this, I suspect, is doing so only to avoid contradicting themselves. No, as I've said before, definitions are inherently historical, not absolute--not even absolute in terms of setting or imagery--and at least part of this historical dimension has to do with the intentions of the author and the expectations of the audience. F makes use of a great deal of historical imagery, but none of that imagery, in itself, is F, as your example of Japanese historical also shows.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Every plot formulation noted on this thread either has been or can be approximated/told in SF/F.



I feel I must point out that plot is _far more_ than a mere series of events. Your western version of Star Wars is enormously lacking; it isn't at all "Star Wars, but in the wild wild west." 



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> We have YET to find a plot, narrative, storyline _or any other factor_ *unique* to either presumptive genre.



We have yet to find a set of imagery either   . There have been many statements to the effect that we should use imagery, but no arguments that weren't negative (we must use imagery because it produces the fewest number of exceptions, we must use imagery because there are no unique SF or F plots). Every argument for imagery that I've seen so far has failed to argue _for imagery_, rather they have argued _against everything else_, and I don't think, though I may have missed it, that there has been a single case where the argument _against X_ wasn't also an argument against imagery.

Re: Asimov. Their comment belies an amazing lack of insight into the nature of language, if nothing else. For that very reason it strikes more as F than SF.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Either find me something unique to SF/F that will encapsulate all the works of the genre and yet eliminate those outside of them OR accept that they are genres worthy of being considered literature DESPITE their chimeric natures.



I don't accept your either/or, both because you cannot define SF and F in terms of imagery, and because if the essences of SF and F are their imagery, then SF and F _as such_ aren't literary. Again, _do not mistake this for my saying that *particular* works of SF or F aren't literary_. That is _not_ what this statement means. It means, quite simply, that whatever is valuable in a *particular* work of SF or F will be the elements it borrows from _other_ genres. SF and F are invalidated as literature, but only at the level of a pure genre, not at the level of a mixed work. And as soon as you try to argue that SF or F _as such_ are literary in their own right, you've come over, so to speak, to the dark side, since you've tried to isolate them in some way from the genres they borrow from.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 3, 2005)

Wayside, you can't have it both ways, and I'm not confusing anything.  I'm not asking for a pure SF/F story without narrative elements of other genres.  I'm asking you (or anyone else) to find an SF/F story that has any narrative element _ABSENT_ from other genres, in order to satisfy your argument.

If, as *you* assert, "SF/F cannot be considered literature" if it has "no narrative of its own," then my critique of barsoomcore's working definition on the grounds that it is not a narrative unique to SF is valid.  Ditto Zander & Andor's partial deliniations.  By your own criterion- that any valid literary form requires a unique narrative- those working definitions cannot help to establish the unique nature of SF/F vis-a-vis other genres because they are not unique to SF/F.  They may be popular themes found in Sci-Fi, they may be common features of Fantasy, but they cannot be the _defining_ criteria because they are not SF/F's own narratives-they are shared.

If someone defined a dog as "furry and cute animals," then pointing out other furry, cute animals other than dogs destroys that as a working definition.  Dogs may still be furry and cute, but it doesn't define them as distinct from other furry cute animals.



> Your assertion has the form of "No "X" can be "Y" without "Z,""  where "X"= supposed genre, "Y"= literature, and "Z"= a unique narrative form.  Uniqueness is a neccessary property of "Z."  Anything proposed as a value for "Z" cannot exist anywhere else, or it is not truly "Z."  Anytime someone asserts a certain factor as a unique narrative, call it "Z1," any proof that "Z1" exists elsewhere destroys its uniqueness.  This holds true for all "Zn."
> 
> And that's what I'm doing- showing that "Zn" exists elsewhere.




I'm not conflating individual works with genres.  I'm using individual works to refute assertions by noting that they are exceptions to proposed working definitions.  In other words, an exception does not prove a rule, it is a refutation that something IS a rule.

If, on the other hand, we can/do find a unique narrative (_and ANY single one will do_) that nobody finds elsewhere, we will have found that core that distinguishes SF/F from other genres.  As yet, we have failed in that particular endeavor.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 3, 2005)

If I may humbly suggest, lets try a different path:  Like Master Miyagi said, "First learn walk, then learn run."

Lets define certain other genres, and work up to SF/F.  Perhaps that way we will find their unique narratives.

Examples:

*Romance* = Any story that revolves around a deep, personal relationship between two or more sentient beings.  The relationship can be constructive or destructive. The genre is setting neutral.

*Comedy* = Any story with the primary purpose of amusing the reader.  Plot is a vehicle to tell jokes or depict humerous situations, character relations may be arbitrary.  The genre is setting neutral.

*Mystery* = Any story that involves 1 or more persons trying to solve a crime (usually theft or murder) or uncovering a secret.  The genre is setting neutral.


----------



## Wayside (Jun 4, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Wayside, you can't have it both ways



Which two ways am I trying to have it?



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> and I'm not confusing anything.  I'm not asking for a pure SF/F story without narrative elements of other genres.  I'm asking you (or anyone else) to find an SF/F story that has any narrative element _ABSENT_ from other genres, in order to satisfy your argument.



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 _ABSENT_ 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.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> If, as *you* assert, "SF/F cannot be considered literature" if it has "no narrative of its own," then my critique of barsoomcore's working definition on the grounds that it is not a narrative unique to SF is valid.



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 _should_ have some kind of narrative of its own (and when I say narrative I mean real _content_, not arbitrary aesthetic; bare plot, in my opinion, _is_ 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 _everyone_ 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 _interpretation_ 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.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Ditto Zander & Andor's partial deliniations.  By your own criterion- that any valid literary form requires a unique narrative- those working definitions cannot help to establish the unique nature of SF/F vis-a-vis other genres because they are not unique to SF/F.  They may be popular themes found in Sci-Fi, they may be common features of Fantasy, but they cannot be the _defining_ criteria because they are not SF/F's own narratives-they are shared.



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.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I'm not conflating individual works with genres.  I'm using individual works to refute assertions by noting that they are exceptions to proposed working definitions.  In other words, an exception does not prove a rule, it is a refutation that something IS a rule.



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 _works_, on the other hand, as _mixed works_ 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.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> If, on the other hand, we can/do find a unique narrative (_and ANY single one will do_) that nobody finds elsewhere, we will have found that core that distinguishes SF/F from other genres.  As yet, we have failed in that particular endeavor.



Just as we have failed to find any image that is unique to SF and F and distinguishes them from other genres.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 4, 2005)

> I don't know whose posts you're referring to here, but they aren't mine




I'm referring to:


> Cut from Wayside's Post, #243 in this thread, _emphasis mine_:
> To my post:
> This is all a roundabout way of returning to a point I made earlier: The criteria for distinctions between sci-fi and fantasy with the fewest illustratable exceptions are the setting and the trappings.
> 
> ...






> Cut from Wayside's Post, #247 in this thread, _emphasis mine_:
> I responded:
> It doesn't invalidate them as literature. It invalidates them as genres that are meaningfully distinct from each other. They both do things that other genres don't do regularly or do well: sci-fi routinely explores the normative (what OUGHT to be) rather than actual world (what is), whereas fantasy routinely illustrate morality lessons and heroic archetypes, in the same way old fables and legends used to do. (And, look hard enough, and you'll find normative fantasy and sci-fi morality tales.)
> 
> ...






> Wayside
> We don't need a narrative element ABSENT 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.




If we don't need a narrative element absent from other genres to define SF/F, then to what are you referring in post #243 when you say "They need to be able to do something other literary types cannot do"?  Sounds like a narrative element to me.



> 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




_I myself said as much_.  I only claim that it has FEWER exceptions than other starting points as yet proposed, not that "settings/trappings" lacks exceptions.  I explicitly noted that authors like Phillip K. Dick, Kurt Vonnegut and Piers Anthony have written fantasies set in otherwise typical SF surroundings.  SF set in fantasy surroundings is a rarer bird- as of this writing, only David Drake's Northworld trilogy and Storm Constantine's Wraethu books spring to mind, and I'm not 100% on them.



> Wayside
> 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.




No, I don't miss that point- it is irrelevant to mine.  I personally feel that SF/F ARE valuable as genres, and do not feel that a lack of exclusivity robs them of merit.  Both Sir Isaac Newton and Gottried Wilhelm von Leibnitz invented calculus _independently_.  That Newton published first does not in any way diminish GWvL's impressive feat.

So SF/F don't have unique qualities (that we can uncover) but can mimic any other fictional genre?  SO WHAT?  Perhaps instead of destroying their literary value, *maybe that flexibility is what defines them as genres.*  SF/F- the Jack of All Trades of the literary world?  I'm not sure any other genre can make that claim.

That said...

Something else I have noticed in my ruminations on the nature of SF/F is this:  Like the Court Jester calling the King an idiot to his face, both SF/F can tell fictionalized stories about real events, even inflammatory ones, without causing a stir in the culture at large.  Unfortunately, I think that's more of a factor of the small pool of readership than any innate..."dogness"...of either genre.  They can tell the truth because nobody's listening, at least, nobody that the culture at large cares to listen to in turn.


----------



## Wayside (Jun 4, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I'm referring to
> ...
> "it invalidates science fiction and fantasy as literature. They need to be able to do something other literary types cannot do, otherwise there is no point."
> ...
> "it invalidates science fiction and fantasy as literature if science fiction and fantasy are nothing more than an aesthetic."



But what does this have to do with SF needing a narrative of its own? It seems to me that literature is about content, that is, about interpretation. At a basic level, even plot is nothing more than imagery, as is setting, or imagery in the sense of "technological" or "fantastic." It seems to me tautologically true that if SF and F are imagery, i.e. have no content, then they are not literature, i.e. have no content.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> If we don't need a narrative element absent from other genres to define SF/F, then to what are you referring in post #243 when you say "They need to be able to do something other literary types cannot do"?  Sounds like a narrative element to me.



Yes, the genre would need a narrative element absent from another genre. But as I've said, all writing is mixed, so the argument that narrative X is not inherent to SF because it is present in work Y fails; Y may simply incorporate elements of SF. That line of reasoning is rough terrain in that to define one genre, you have to define them all. And by narrative element, I never meant story. I hope that was clear when I disarticulated the idea of de casibus tragedy you posted a quote about. Plot, like imagery, is only a surface; both plot and imagery can also have actual content, which is narrative.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> _I myself said as much_.  I only claim that it has FEWER exceptions than other starting points as yet proposed, not that "settings/trappings" lacks exceptions.  I explicitly noted that authors like Phillip K. Dick, Kurt Vonnegut and Piers Anthony have written fantasies set in otherwise typical SF surroundings.  SF set in fantasy surroundings is a rarer bird- as of this writing, only David Drake's Northworld trilogy and Storm Constantine's Wraethu books spring to mind, and I'm not 100% on them.



I think the number of exceptions is identical, but also, as Celebrim noted much earlier, defining an exception is every bit as problematic as argument by exclusion based on particular works.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> No, I don't miss that point- it is irrelevant to mine.  I personally feel that SF/F ARE valuable as genres, and do not feel that a lack of exclusivity robs them of merit.



Err, in order to define them as genres, you have already defined them in their exclusivity. The question isn't one of whether or not there is something exclusive about them--everybody who's made an attempt to define them has made an attempt to define them in their exclusivity--but of the value of what _is_ exclusive about them. If the only exclusive thing is their imagery, how are they, in their exclusivity, valuable as literature? They can't be. On the contrary, _particular_ works become valuable as literature in their _in_clusivity. The _work_ of SF or F may be valuable inasmuch as it is _in_clusive of material beyond the scope of the genre.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> So SF/F don't have unique qualities (that we can uncover) but can mimic any other fictional genre?  SO WHAT?  Perhaps instead of destroying their literary value, *maybe that flexibility is what defines them as genres.*  SF/F- the Jack of All Trades of the literary world?  I'm not sure any other genre can make that claim.



If that flexibility is what defines them as genres, define them as genres in terms of that flexibility. Can any other genre make that claim though? Of course--_any_ genre can. I can make a Tragedy mimic any bare plot; what defines it as tragedy goes deeper.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Something else I have noticed in my ruminations on the nature of SF/F is this:  Like the Court Jester calling the King an idiot to his face, both SF/F can tell fictionalized stories about real events, even inflammatory ones, without causing a stir in the culture at large.  Unfortunately, I think that's more of a factor of the small pool of readership than any innate..."dogness"...of either genre.  They can tell the truth because nobody's listening, at least, nobody that the culture at large cares to listen to in turn.



You're definitely right about that. Look at the hubbub over the Star Wars prequels, everything from the accents of certain races to how Palpatine takes power.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 4, 2005)

> If that flexibility is what defines them as genres, define them as genres in terms of that flexibility. Can any other genre make that claim though? Of course--any genre can. I can make a Tragedy mimic any bare plot; what defines it as tragedy goes deeper.




No, I don't think so.  While I have seen dark comedies, I have yet to see a true Tragedy that falls equally into genre of Comedy.  They are, in some sense, polar opposites.



> But what does this have to do with SF needing a narrative of its own? It seems to me that literature is about content, that is, about interpretation. At a basic level, even plot is nothing more than imagery, as is setting, or imagery in the sense of "technological" or "fantastic." It seems to me tautologically true that if SF and F are imagery, i.e. have no content, then they are not literature, i.e. have no content.




and



> Yes, the genre would need a narrative element absent from another genre. But as I've said, all writing is mixed, so the argument that narrative X is not inherent to SF because it is present in work Y fails; Y may simply incorporate elements of SF. That line of reasoning is rough terrain in that to define one genre, you have to define them all. And by narrative element, I never meant story. I hope that was clear when I disarticulated the idea of de casibus tragedy you posted a quote about. Plot, like imagery, is only a surface; both plot and imagery can also have actual content, which is narrative.




I would have thought it obvious by now: I am NOT trying to define SF/F by narrative- I'm refuting those that DO!  When I restate the assertion that SF&F need unique narratives, it is that statment I'm trying to disprove.

On the one hand you say a lack of unique element destroys them as genres, then you critique me for pointing out that something is not unique to SF/F?

You also mis-state the argument form.  The argument form wasn't "X is not inherent to SF because it is present in work Y."  It was  "No "X" can be "Y" without "Z," or to reformulate for clarity: "Only X containing Z can be Y," where X is genre, Z is something unique, and Y is literature.  In other words, the only way a genre can be literature is if it has some unique element.  It has nothing to do with mixed writing styles.  I used "narrative element" because I thought that was what you meant by something unique.

I guess I'm puzzled by your distinction between narrative and content.  What content defines a genre for you?  What is "content?"  What is it that you're trying to assert that other genres have that SF/F don't?



> If the only exclusive thing is their imagery, how are they, in their exclusivity, valuable as literature? They can't be.




I beg to differ.  Asimov's *Nightfall* could not be told in any genre except SF, Fantasy, or one of its precursors like mythology.  Why?  The setting- a 6 star solar system- contains within it the very reason why civilization keeps collapsing on Kalgash.  Yes, you can tell the story of a natural disaster in another setting- but THIS one also requires a certain psychology, borne of 1000 years of evolutionary pressure.  The Kalgashians aren't just hurt by the "disaster" that befalls them- society actually collapses and rational thought virtually dissapears.  If an asteroid wiped out most of humanity (NOT what happens in *Nightfall*, BTW), a goodly number of the survivors would be trying to rebuild.  The majority of Kalgashians, in contrast, completely lose their ability to cope rationally.  Culture is gone, and the people have gone insane.  Gotterdamerung.  Ragnarok

I reiterate: If we don't need a narrative element absent from other genres to define SF/F, then to what are you referring in post #243 when you say "They need to be able to do something other literary types cannot do"? Sounds like a narrative element to me

+++

Another stab.  More of a refinement to part of barsoomcore's definintion.

*SF explores what it means to be a sentient being- it explores fundamental otherness.*

How is this different?  Because it assumes that one can be both sentient and also completely alien from humanity in thought process.  Cherryh's Atevi _look_ a little like us, but they don't think like us.  Stephen R. Donaldson's Amnion, Rusch's Disty, Gibson's AI's, Niven's Outsiders, Heinlein's "Bugs," Bear's Jart, Asimov's Kalgashi...they're all sentient beings, but their psychologies are entirely non-human.  Some of them don't even have self-preservation as a fundamental motivation.


----------



## Wayside (Jun 4, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> No, I don't think so.  While I have seen dark comedies, I have yet to see a true Tragedy that falls equally into genre of Comedy.  They are, in some sense, polar opposites.



You've never heard of tragicomedy?



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I would have thought it obvious by now: I am NOT trying to define SF/F by narrative- I'm refuting those that DO!  When I restate the assertion that SF&F need unique narratives, it is that statment I'm trying to disprove.



It is perfectly obvious. You've failed to prove the impossibility of SF and F having unique narratives. That's what I demonstrated.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> On the one hand you say a lack of unique element destroys them as genres, then you critique me for pointing out that something is not unique to SF/F?



I criticized your belief that you could demonstrate that something is not unique to SF or F. By the method you have used so far, you can't.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> You also mis-state the argument form.  The argument form wasn't "X is not inherent to SF because it is present in work Y."  It was  "No "X" can be "Y" without "Z," or to reformulate for clarity: "Only X containing Z can be Y," where X is genre, Z is something unique, and Y is literature.  In other words, the only way a genre can be literature is if it has some unique element.  It has nothing to do with mixed writing styles.  I used "narrative element" because I thought that was what you meant by something unique.



As you can see from the part of your post I quoted, I wasn't replying to this, so can't have mis-stated it. I was stating an altogether different argument of yours. To clarify the above, it's missing a piece. In order for X to exist at all, it needs Z. Your Z is imagery. It is a priori true that Z is the definition of X, so in your case imagery is the definition of SF. In order for X to have literary value in itself, Z must have literary value in itself. Imagery in itself has no literary value, so if Z is imagery then X has no literary value in itself.

A genre doesn't need a unique element to be literature; a genre _is_ a unique element. If the unique element that a genre is has no literary value, then the genre has no literary value because it is nothing more or less than this element. Of course this has nothing to do with mixed writing styles--mixed writing is the reason you can't _disprove_ the uniqueness of the element that a genre is, and thus cannot discredit the idea that, for example, narratives of power are unique to F, because non-F works also contain narratives of power. A perfectly legitimate response to this is that non-F works don't just contain narratives of power--they contain elements of fantasy!



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I guess I'm puzzled by your distinction between narrative and content.  What content defines a genre for you?  What is "content?"  What is it that you're trying to assert that other genres have that SF/F don't?



Content is the product of an interpretive process. A chair might be made of wood. That is its surface, but the wood does not define the chair. It is only a chair when I give it an end and a definition. Content is intepretive, can have functions, is directed and so on. If you try to define a chair by how it looks or its material, you'll fail. I can use all kinds of odd things for chairs, and your definition can't exhaust all my options. The content and narrative potential of the chair is deeper, and can even change over time. I'm distinguishing not between narrative and content but between plot and narrative. I used content to make the difference between the two more clear, since plot and narrative are easy to treat as synonyms.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I beg to differ.  Asimov's *Nightfall* could not be told in any genre except SF, Fantasy, or one of its precursors like mythology.  Why?  The setting- a 6 star solar system- contains within it the very reason why civilization keeps collapsing on Kalgash.  Yes, you can tell the story of a natural disaster in another setting- but THIS one also requires a certain psychology, borne of 1000 years of evolutionary pressure.  The Kalgashians aren't just hurt by the "disaster" that befalls them- society actually collapses and rational thought virtually dissapears.  If an asteroid wiped out most of humanity (NOT what happens in *Nightfall*, BTW), a goodly number of the survivors would be trying to rebuild.  The majority of Kalgashians, in contrast, completely lose their ability to cope rationally.  Culture is gone, and the people have gone insane.  Gotterdamerung.  Ragnarok



Although I disagree that this "Nightfall" story can only be told on an alien world with an alien race, I would rather pretend that it can. You say this story can only be told by SF (and its precursor mythology, which is the common precursor of all literature, so it's easy to assume most literature can already do much of what mythology can do--the fact that there's such a thing as Bloomsday bears this out), because of a number of narrative elements. So now SF can do anything other literature can do, in your opinion, and it can also do things no other literature can do? I find that a ridiculous thing to say, but we'll skip that and move on to the fact that you've just isolated narrative elements or themes unique to SF, in direct contrast to your belief that SF should be defined solely as imagery.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I reiterate: If we don't need a narrative element absent from other genres to define SF/F, then to what are you referring in post #243 when you say "They need to be able to do something other literary types cannot do"? Sounds like a narrative element to me



Again, all writing is mixed. The type is pure, if it is to be defined in the way most of this discussion has been aiming at (which is not my way; I am only defending the logic of the approach, I have nothing invested in it). All writing contains a multiplicity of types, so exclusion can never be _proved_ according to writing because writing is never exclusive. If I define SF in terms of some narrative element present since Sumeria, the fact that it exists outside SF is not an argument for its not being the definition of SF, because I can simply say that elements of SF were present in Sumeria without that threatening my definition of SF in the least. Which is why I said "they need to be able to do something other literary _types_ cannot do," which is a very different thing than if I had said "they need to be able to do something other literary _works do not_ do."



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> How is this different?  Because it assumes that one can be both sentient and also completely alien from humanity in thought process.  Cherryh's Atevi _look_ a little like us, but they don't think like us.  Stephen R. Donaldson's Amnion, Rusch's Disty, Gibson's AI's, Niven's Outsiders, Heinlein's "Bugs," Bear's Jart, Asimov's Kalgashi...they're all sentient beings, but their psychologies are entirely non-human.  Some of them don't even have self-preservation as a fundamental motivation.



Good luck defining human psychology. I know a number of "history of systems of thought" people who will effectively disagree with you no matter what position you take there. I will simply say that I can imagine otherness appearing plenty outside SF (not that that's an effective argument against it mind you, if you really want to stick to it), not that I have to, since the analysis of otherness is an enormously popular theme of contemporary literary theory, postcolonial studies, postmodern ethics and so on.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 4, 2005)

1) 







> You've never heard of tragicomedy?




Yes, I have heard of tragicomedy- I don't see that as fully tragedy- I see that as a synonym for dark comedy.

2) 







> I criticized your belief that you could demonstrate that something is not unique to SF or F. By the method you have used so far, you can't.




Anytime I prove that something exists outside of SF/F by a counterexample in another literary form, I de facto prove that it is not unique to SF/F.  Simple logic.  If SF/F and another form both contain a particular element, its NOT unique to SF/F.

I'm trying to work with you here, and you're making it difficult. :\ 

3) 







> A genre doesn't need a unique element to be literature; a genre is a unique element.




That is pure nonsense, logically speaking.  All you're doing here is making "genre" have 1:1 conceptual identity with "unique element."  By defining something as a genre, then, you are taking for granted that it is unique.  Since you've already claimed that for a genre to have literary significance, it must have a unique element, then by merely existing as a genre (which IS a unique element), the genre has literary significance.

Which contradicts your next sentence.

4) 







> If the unique element that a genre is has no literary value, then the genre has no literary value because it is nothing more or less than this element.




The XYZ formula works for ANY form of literature and for any ingredient.  The Z is whatever makes that literature unique, thus giving a genre its literary value, by your standard.

5) 







> ...mixed writing is the reason you can't disprove the uniqueness of the element that a genre is, and thus cannot discredit the idea that, for example, narratives of power are unique to F, because non-F works also contain narratives of power.




More logical nonsense.  If something exists in more than one space, it is not unique.   "Unigue" means sole, only...not rare.  The mere fact that another work outside of genre "X" posesses "Z" quality means by force of logic that "Z" quality is not a unique quality of ANY genre.  If it is not unique, then it fails to meet with your definition in quote #3), supra.  If a non-F work contains a narrative of power, then by definition, narratives of power are not unique to F.  "Mixed writing" _destroys_ uniqueness.

6) 







> I'm distinguishing not between narrative and content but between plot and narrative. I used content to make the difference between the two more clear, since plot and narrative are easy to treat as synonyms.




So, "Plot" being the particular sequence of events over which a story develops, "narrative" being the theme and message of the story..."content" being?

7) 







> So now SF can do anything other literature can do, in your opinion, and it can also do things no other literature can do? I find that a ridiculous thing to say, but we'll skip that and move on to the fact that you've just isolated narrative elements or themes unique to SF, in direct contrast to your belief that SF should be defined solely as imagery.




I don't think SF/F should be defined solely as imagery.  I just think that its as viable as any other definition we've found...which is to say not that viable...but it is also something that keeps cropping up.  Barsoomcore's definition explicitly included it by saying that it explores 3 questions "in an unusual setting."  When people assert that SF/F isn't just "setting/trappings" but then give me a definition that is different from another genre ONLY because of "setting/trappings," I have to point that out as a contradiction.

Simultaneously, like almost everyone on this thread, I am trying to find what it is that SF/F do that IS unique, so I occasionally take a stab at it.

8) 







> I know a number of "history of systems of thought" people who will effectively disagree with you no matter what position you take there. I will simply say that I can imagine otherness appearing plenty outside SF (not that that's an effective argument against it mind you, if you really want to stick to it), not that I have to, since the analysis of otherness is an enormously popular theme of contemporary literary theory, postcolonial studies, postmodern ethics and so on.




One crucial difference- those are all non-fiction disciplines.  A working definition of "SF/F is the fiction of otherness (sentient beings outside of humanity)" still stands.  They all deal with otherness within the confines of human psychology, wheras SF/F goes beyond.  SF/F deal explicitly with minds that are not our own.  A being that is effectively immortal, physically powerful, and blazingly intelligent (dragon, AI mechanical planet, demon, whatever) will act and react in ways that a puny mortal human being never would.  Being beyond pain, injury or damage means you think differently.  Existing in a time sequential reference frame opposite from all other beings (you live & travel backwards through time, ONLY) affects your actions- your cause is our effect.

BTW:  *Chair* = any physical construct designed with the primary purpose of being sat upon- it is a tool for sitting.  It may, like other tools, be pressed into service to perform other tasks.  See also subcategory *stool*.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Jun 4, 2005)

Cushion?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 4, 2005)

Perhaps this will help-

Lets look at another human endeavor for comparison: cooking.

What makes a cuisine unique isn't any one ingredient, but the combination of ingredients and the ways in which they are used.

If someone were to say of Japanese cuisine that it was unique because it used raw seafood, a person countering that French cuisine ALSO makes use of raw seafood, then that it not something unique to Japanese cuisine.

HOWEVER, if someone said it was the ingredients, the preparation/cooking methods, and presentation methods & styles_ in combination_ that made Japanese cuisine unique, then the only way to refute that would be to find a cuisine that substantially uses all of the above and was still demonstrably not Japanese in some way.

Sure, there are still fusion dishes, but they are not destroying the uniqueness of the fused cuisines because they are substituting something from one cuisine with something from another, without affecting the overall designation.

This, in effect, REDEEMS barsoomcore's working definition quite a bit.  SF can still be the combination of those 3 questions in a particular kind of setting (and possibly other factors), and the existence of an element of SF elsewhere doesn't destroy the _aggregate_ that is SF.  However, it still means that what distinguishes SF from another particular genre may simply be the setting...or one of the questions.

In other words, what* defines *genres is not a single unique atomizable element, but rather the combination of ingredients.  What* distinguishes *them, however, may in fact be certain small differences.

*Cushion *: name for 1 of 2 types of physical objects.  Either 1) a subcategory of chair that is soft or 2) the soft portion of the seating area of a chair.  The second likely resulted when someone recognized the merits of the first kind, and incorporated its desirable features (softness) into the design of a non-cushion style chair by placing a small cushion on a chair.  The name for the former remained the name of the latter.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Jun 4, 2005)

See.  That's the problem.  To define one thing...you have to define everything else...in context.  But, I'm just being a nuisance.  Please ignore me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 5, 2005)

Not at all, WG.

Humanity always defines _whatever_ as "this glob of attributes."

Look at the Linnean Taxinomic model of classifying flora and fauna and see how somthing is classifiied.  You have to get through (roughly) Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, and Genus before you get to Species.  Each step through the system you refine your definition.  So a dog is Animalia Chordata Mammalia Carnivora Canidae Canis Familiaris, whereas a Grey/Timber Wolf is Animalia Chordata Mammalia Carnivora Canidae Canis Lupis.  The differences between wolves and dogs are numerous and varied- skeletal/dental features, average size, etc.- but most are very subtle and not visible to the naked eye.  "Dogness" (as opposed to "Wolfness) isn't one thing- its a group of characteristics.

So once we define SF/F as a "glob of attributes," we just need to be sure that no single other genre has ALL of those attributes.


----------



## Wayside (Jun 6, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Anytime I prove that something exists outside of SF/F by a counterexample in another literary form, I de facto prove that it is not unique to SF/F.  Simple logic.  If SF/F and another form both contain a particular element, its NOT unique to SF/F.
> 
> I'm trying to work with you here, and you're making it difficult. :\



If you prove it exists in another literary _form_ then by that fact it is not unique to SF or F. What you've missed, again, is that _you cannot prove that an element exists in any form whatsoever_. You obviously aren't trying to work with me because this is very simple. You keep trying to show that an element exists in a specific _work_, which is very different from showing that it exists in a particular form because all works are a mix of forms.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> That is pure nonsense, logically speaking.  All you're doing here is making "genre" have 1:1 conceptual identity with "unique element."



First, it isn't logical nonsense, it's logic, period. Second, a genre or any class is logically dependent on its definition. For class α with definition β, α is β ( βα ). This is _not_ necessarily 1:1 identity, although ideally it ought to be, otherwise you've failed to fully define the class. We are speaking here of the definition of a genre in its totality, not of a single distinguishing element, as your discussion in your later posts seems to assume quite out of nowhere. If you want to take the recipe approach to uniqueness be my guest, it doesn't threaten anything I've said in the least. 



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> By defining something as a genre, then, you are taking for granted that it is unique.



Yes, I am, otherwise it's undefinable: for every class α1 and definition β, if α1 is β then α2 is not β ( (α1) [βα1 → ~βα2] ), otherwise α1 and α2 are the same thing, i.e. there is no α2.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Since you've already claimed that for a genre to have literary significance, it must have a unique element, then by merely existing as a genre (which IS a unique element), the genre has literary significance.



I _never_ made any such claim. I said that in order for SF and F to be literary, they must be able to do something (and that means something literary) in themselves that other literary types in themselves cannot do. I never said _anything_ unique would be enough, as unique imagery is _not_ enough. If you're going to insist on misrepresenting what I've said then just say so and I'll use the time I've spent here doing something more productive. I don't mind restating or clarifying if I've been unclear, but your entire post here is disingenuous.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Which contradicts your next sentence.
> 
> The XYZ formula works for ANY form of literature and for any ingredient.  The Z is whatever makes that literature unique, thus giving a genre its literary value, by your standard.



That's your straw man, not my standard. There isn’t any contradiction.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> If something exists in more than one space, it is not unique.   "Unigue" means sole, only...not rare.  The mere fact that another work outside of genre "X" posesses "Z" quality means by force of logic that "Z" quality is not a unique quality of ANY genre.



By force of what logic, the logic of winged cannibal pygmies? What part of "mixed" is unclear? The fact that SF can use elements of Tragedy now means that Tragedy is not Tragedy? I'm afraid not; the fact that SF can use elements of Tragedy means that writing is mixed and can use elements of both SF and Tragedy in a single work. It certainly doesn't mean Tragedy is not Tragedy or SF is not SF. To be absolutely clear, at the beginning of your post, you said "Anytime I prove that something exists outside of SF/F by a counterexample in another literary *form*, I de facto prove that it is not unique to SF/F." This is true, although you can never prove any such exclusion. But just now you said "The mere fact that another _*work*_ outside of genre "X" posesses "Z" quality means by force of logic that "Z" quality is not a unique quality of ANY genre." This is _not_ true. You keep treating work and form as synonyms. They aren’t.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 7, 2005)

> If you prove it exists in another literary form then by that fact it is not unique to SF or F. What you've missed, again, is that you cannot prove that an element exists in any form whatsoever. You obviously aren't trying to work with me because this is very simple. You keep trying to show that an element exists in a specific work, which is very different from showing that it exists in a particular form because all works are a mix of forms.




No, when I said that those questions of identity (that I believe barsoomcore proposed) were present in Japanese historical fiction, I wasn't pointing out one particular work, but actually a large theme within that genre, at least as popular as within Sci-Fi, which I then enumerated several authors with large bodies of work- essentially pointing out the Asimovs and Heinleins of the genre.

And as I pointed out in my original refutation of barsoomcore's definition, there are works within Sci-Fi that didn't deal with identity- so I'm quite aware of that as well.  In other words, it was dual attack upon his working defininition: Certain elements were not exclusive to the genre, other elements were not universal within the genre.



> Wayside
> A genre doesn't need a unique element to be literature; a genre is a unique element.






> Mirriam Webster: definition 2 of Element: a constituent part: as a plural : the simplest principles of a subject of study; synonyms- COMPONENT, CONSTITUENT, INGREDIENT




In other words, that statement could be rewritten as "A group does not require a unique part; that group is a unique part."

We have already shown that there are no _parts_ unique to any form of literature.  Thus, the statement is nonsense.



> I said that in order for SF and F to be literary, they must be able to do something (and that means something literary) in themselves that other literary types in themselves cannot do. I never said anything unique would be enough, as unique imagery is not enough... but your entire post here is disingenuous.




I'm not being anything less than completely honest with you.  In order to satisfy that first sentence, I am trying to find what it is that makes SF/F unique...what _element, component, ingredient, etc._ sets it apart from other literary types.



> Originally Posted by me
> If something exists in more than one space, it is not unique. "Unigue" means sole, only...not rare. The mere fact that another work outside of genre "X" posesses "Z" quality means by force of logic that "Z" quality is not a unique quality of ANY genre.






> Wayside responded
> By force of what logic, the logic of winged cannibal pygmies? What part of "mixed" is unclear? The fact that SF can use elements of Tragedy now means that Tragedy is not Tragedy?




Simple logic, actually. 2 locations ≠ 1 location.  What part of "unique" is unclear?

To define is to "to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of" whatever is being defined, to "to fix or mark the limits of" what is being discussed.  If a characteristic is shared between 2 genres, it cannot be used to define the difference between the 2 genres- it dosn't "mark the limits of" either genre; it may or may not be essential to one or both, but it distinguishes neither. 

Example: while possessing fur may be a point of definition between reptiles and mammals, it generally cannot be used to define the difference between 2 mammals (there are some rare, hairless mammals).  Also, having hair is not unique to mammals- there are arthropods and other critters that have evolved hairs.  Hair cannot be said to be universal nor unique to mammals, so it can't be used as the quintessential characteristic of mammals.  Nor can posessing teeth or a skeleton or a spinal cord.

What sets mammals apart (among other things) is having mammary glands.

*So, no-* Tragedy remains Tragedy even when an element is shared with SF- it just means that the shared element between SF and Tragedy is not unique to either genre, and thus is not the defining aspect of either genre relative to each other.  There is still something that makes Tragedy Tragedy and SF SF- but it isn't that shared element.

As for my sloppiness between "form" and "work" as interchangeable, you have a point.  However, since a work is by necessity either a subset of (specifically 1 unit of) or the sole representative of a form, its not a very strong one.  If a work within a form has a particular characteristic, then that form can be said to have units within it with that characteristics- that characteristic is within that form.  The characteristic doesn't even have to be universal within that form.

Example: Black people (like myself) are humans.  "Blackness" can be considered to be within the greater set of humanity, without all humans having to be black.

Similarly, a particular SF/F work with Tragic elements is still within the form of SF/F, and all SF/F need be Tragic, nor all Tragedy SF/F.  Simple Venn diagram stuff.


----------



## Wayside (Jun 7, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> No, when I said that those questions of identity (that I believe barsoomcore proposed) were present in Japanese historical fiction, I wasn't pointing out one particular work, but actually a large theme within that genre, at least as popular as within Sci-Fi, which I then enumerated several authors with large bodies of work- essentially pointing out the Asimovs and Heinleins of the genre.



I agree that the issue of identity isn't unique to SF or anything else. As a question, identity figures in all literature. Yet we still might, for example, discriminate genres based on the quality of their response to this question, rather than assume there are no distinct identity-based genres from the fact that questions of identity are everpresent. In this way the concept of "Japanese historical fiction" itself might turn out to be essentially worthless except as a hermeneutical fore-project, whereas specific works in that tradition might resonate with completely unrelated works from other cultures to form a more meaningful genre. To keep using Linnaean examples misses the mark.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> In other words, that statement could be rewritten as "A group does not require a unique part; that group is a unique part."



I think you're confusing yourself with "narrative element." You started using that phrase, I merely replied to you; there's no inconsistency in my posts where I have adopted your phrase. A component is made up of smaller components, and can be combined with other components to form larger ones. We can attempt to isolate and define genres at any or every point of combination, or none: we can defer definition fully to the point of the work and assert that every work is a genre in itself. In order for this to be true, at some point, in some element, from some component, we need to be able to say that _here_, this work is different from every other work.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> We have already shown that there are no _parts_ unique to any form of literature.  Thus, the statement is nonsense.



Have we? On the contrary, what I have shown is that the transcendental certainty of any literary form is impossible to demonstrate empirically. Even the ontological certainty of a literary form would be difficult to demonstrate empirically, among other reasons because the example already assumes a form as part of a hermeneutic circle you can't escape from.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Simple logic, actually. 2 locations ≠ 1 location.  What part of "unique" is unclear?



This is not the part of your post I was replying to. It has no logical connection with the part I did reply to. You're just repeating what I already covered with alphas 1 and 2. "*If a characteristic is shared between 2 genres, it cannot be used to define the difference between the 2 genres- it dosn't "mark the limits of" either genre; it may or may not be essential to one or both, but it distinguishes neither.*" You _cannot_ determine that a characteristic _is_ shared between 2 genres; you _only_ have access to works. This is my fifth and final time time pointing this out. There are plenty of ways to attack the argument from "narrative element," but this isn't one of them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 7, 2005)

> You cannot determine that a characteristic is shared between 2 genres; you only have access to works. This is my fifth and final time time pointing this out. There are plenty of ways to attack the argument from "narrative element," but this isn't one of them.




Point it out (or don't) all you want- *I disagree*.  A work is always part of a genre, even if it is the only representative of the genre to exist.  That is, a work is always a subset of a genre, even if it is unique.  (If it is truly unique, it forms a genre unto itself.)  A property held by a member of the subset is also held as a property of the group, even if is the only member of the group to have that property.

Example: 0 (Zero) belongs to the set of all numbers.  It is neither positive nor negative, and when divided by itself, does not equal 1.  The set of all numbers can be said to have at least one member that is neither positive nor negative.  It can also be said to have at least one member that can be divided by itself and not result in the number 1.  I can make those statements without fear of contradiction, even without awareness of any other member of the set.

Likewise, once I show a single SF work with a certain characteristic, that characteristic exists within the set of all SF.  It may be the only work within SF with that property, but that doesn't matter.  This holds true for any other literary form- once any work within the genre is identified to have a particular property, it is a property that exists within that set, though not neccessarily within each or even any other work in that genre.


----------



## mythusmage (Jun 7, 2005)

Do you get the feeling Wayside and Dannyalcatraz are trying to define a play by staging instead of script?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 7, 2005)

Funny! but not quite right.

Romeo and Juliet has been staged as everything from medieval tragic romance to western romance to gangland romance to...but its still the classic Bard's tale.

I'm open to finding ANYTHING that makes us able to define various genres, be it staging, a unique plot, an overarching theme, or even a combination of elements.

As things stand right now, since we keep finding particular irreduceable elements present across genres, I'm leaning towards the "unique combination of elements" formulation.

In other words: something like barsoomcore's original working definition for SF as being about 3 questions + setting is OK with me (though its still not quite right), as long as we realize that, while the combination of elements is unique, no particular element within that combination is unique or essential to SF.  (The 3 questions he mentioned are covered in other genres, and SF can be set in quite familiar settings).


----------



## mythusmage (Jun 8, 2005)

*Thank You Captain Oblivious*

Stuff the damn staging. I hear any more about staging from you I'm sending Emily Bronte-saurus to stay with you for a week. If you get obdurate It'll be two weeks.

What is *Romeo and Juliet* about? It's about two adolescents who act like typical teens. You can use any staging you want and the core story stays the same.

What is fantasy? That's a tad more involved. First thing to note is that a fantasy occurs in a setting where the supernatural occurs, and if not part of daily life it at least has a concrete impact on people and society. You have foo dogs guarding houses, brownies for house keepers, and music does indeed have charms to sooth the savage beast.

Fantasy has associated trappings, but such are not strictly necessary. If your starships require a magic spell to slip into hyperdrive, then you have a fantasy.

Look past the decorations and study the structure that holds them up.


----------



## Wayside (Jun 8, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Point it out (or don't) all you want- *I disagree*.  A work is always part of a genre, even if it is the only representative of the genre to exist.  That is, a work is always a subset of a genre, even if it is unique.  (If it is truly unique, it forms a genre unto itself.)



Nobody's even disputed this.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> A property held by a member of the subset is also held as a property of the group, even if is the only member of the group to have that property.



All you've done here is lay down a line of reasoning that can only end in the conclusion that there are no such things as genres (except on the individual level of the work) at all.

According to you, no work of SF can be anything but SF. Everything that's _part_ of a work of SF _is_ SF. If a SF story has a squirrel, then squirrels are part of the definition of SF. If a SF story contains a play, then plays are part of the definition of SF. Since a SF story can contain nearly anything whatsoever, everything is part of the definition of SF. SF, as such, is therefore meaningless. Pardon me if I think this is insane.

And at the same time, how is this supposed to help you define SF in the first place? You have to know what it is before you can determine a particular work is SF; yet in order to know what SF is, you need recourse to those particular works of SF. This line of reasoning is circular. At some point you have to make a break and establish something.

I think you need a better argument than "well this seems like SF to me, so everything that's in this is SF." What the appeals to taxonomies and math sets are supposed to illuminate, I have no idea. Those things aren't comparable to genre theory, and I think by continually bringing them up you've muddled the issue. I thought the point was to isolate SF in its SFness, not open up an infinitely broad space in which every part of every work that seems like SF to you fits, and then to call that space the "set" of SF.

You can describe every existing work that seems like SF, but I thought the point was to be able to say _why_ X is SF but Y is not, or to find a way to define all the works that have not yet been written, or to set up a method for reading SF that highlights what is essential, so that new or non-SF readers might use it to "get" the issues of SF works, the way readers of the Nouveau Roman need help to "get" what's going on in the works of Robbe-Grillet.

Maybe I should start with a modest assertion: a definition of SF contains only what is essential to all SF (and not everything that has ever been included in every remotely SF story ever but which is in no way obligated to be a component of any SF story at all).



			
				mythusmage said:
			
		

> Do you get the feeling Wayside and Dannyalcatraz are trying to define a play by staging instead of script?



That's what I've been arguing against, not for. Imagery, bare plot points, none of this stuff is satisfactory. We need a more dynamic definition of SF so that, as technology progresses and our world begins to look more and more like SF itself, we don't lose our bearings. My question about genre, in the words of Molly Bloom, has been: "Who's he when he's at home?"


----------



## Malic (Jun 8, 2005)

Hmm. I have to wonder, in an entirely non-snarky way, what is the point of attempting to define any 'genre'? Especially if, as Wayside says (if I understand it), all work is mixed, and there are therefore * no * examples of 'genre'?

Next to that, the question of whether a 'genre' (as distinct from a work) has 'literary worth' seems moot.

All that has been written so far makes me doubt whether any genre can really be 'defined'. Let alone something as variable as SF/F.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 8, 2005)

> According to you, no work of SF can be anything but SF.  Everything that's part of a work of SF is SF. If a SF story has a squirrel, then squirrels are part of the definition of SF.




Absolutely incorrect.

Go back to my first posts on this thread (#23, to be exact), and you'll see I used Venn diagrams to describe my initial overview of SF/F.  So you don't have to go looking:



> *Post #23, Dannyalcatraz*
> Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Horror, etc., are all subcategories of fiction (within the Venn Circle of Fiction, you'll find circles for Fantasy, Sci-Fi, & Horror)- ignoring all other subcategories of Fiction for purposes of this discussion.
> 
> The circles for each genre, Fantasy, Sci-Fi, and Horror, overlap the 2 others, but do not envelop the 2 others. There are portions of each circle that do not touch any other. In other words, you can have pure Fantasy, fantasy with horror elements or fantasy with Sci-Fi elements. Likewise, you can have pure Horror or with Fantasy or Sci Fi elements added, and pure ("Hard") Sci-Fi or add Horror or Fantasy tropes.
> ...




Something can be within SF but not be an essential quality of it.  If it is not essential, then it cannot be used to define the limits of the genre.  The fact that I can find (as you say) squirrels in SF just means that there are squirrels within SF- once I find squirrels in other, non-SF fiction, I know that squirrels are not an essential quality of SF.

Instead of squirrels (_is there something going on on the boards with all this talk of squirrels?_), a better example might be swords.  Swords show up in all kinds of fiction: SF, Fantasy, Civil War fiction, Japanese modern and imperial-period historical fiction.  Swords can thus be said to be part of any of those genres, but they don't even begin to _define_ any of them.  Including the presence of swords as part of the definition of Fantasy (or any other genre) doesn't help because it allows the inclusion of things that are not part of that genre- it is insufficiently exclusive.

THAT is the point of my discussion of taxonomy:  to illustrate that its the differences, not similarities, that define species as apart from other species.  We don't point at "fur" as a distinguishing characteristic between dogs and wolves, we look at things like reproductive cycles (Wolves reproduce only 1/year, dogs may do so up to 2/year), diet (Wolves can digest bones and other things that would make a dog throw up) and so forth.

Analogously, we can't say that "X" is a _defining characteristic_ of SF if "X" is not _unique_ SF.

We MAY, however, say that "the combination of A, Q, T, X and Z" defines a genre, much as we say that creatures with the same diet and reproductive cycle as wolves, but lacking the fur, the mammary glands, the "warm" blood, or  a non-cartilaginous skeletal structure, aren't wolves.


----------



## Wayside (Jun 9, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Absolutely incorrect.



No, it's absolutely correct. You said "once I show a single SF work with a certain characteristic, that characteristic exists within the set of all SF." That's utter nonsense if you're asserting it has anything to do with a definition of SF, which is the entire point of this thread. What _is_ F? What _is_ SF? The answer isn't 'well here's a diagram of every work of F or SF ever written, and F and SF _are_ everything included in these works.' Before you can even draw your diagram, you need a way of deciding what is and is not SF in the first place, which the all-in approach is decidedly incapable of giving you. So the question remains: how do you decide?

If you really believe what you said however many pages back ("There are portions of each circle that do not touch any other. In other words, you can have pure Fantasy"), then why are you talking about all-inclusive sets? The point of defining SF and F is to locate the portion of the circle that does not touch the others, so again, it seems to me you're muddying the issue by fore-deciding what SF is, then saying everything that is part of every work of SF is part of SF. What _is_ SF in the space where F and Horror and whatever else are not present? Which was my point when I said: a definition of SF contains only what is essential to all SF (and not everything that has ever been included in every remotely SF story ever but which is in no way obligated to be a component of any SF story at all).



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Something can be within SF but not be an essential quality of it.  If it is not essential, then it cannot be used to define the limits of the genre.  The fact that I can find (as you say) squirrels in SF just means that there are squirrels within SF- once I find squirrels in other, non-SF fiction, I know that squirrels are not an essential quality of SF.



I don't know whether you're quibbling over semantics or just dancing around the issue. I've already said that all writing is mixed, meaning SF can have elements of other genres. You're saying no, all writing is homogenous, and everything that is part of every SF work is part of SF, only inessential to it, so unusable as far as defining SF goes. So you agree that squirrels are inessential to defining SF, lovely--what the hell was the point of talking about sets and inessential qualities then? Just to say that, in your opinion, everything that's part of a SF work is SF, though not _essentially_, whereas in my opinion much of a particular work of SF may belong essentially to another genre, which is in that work mixed with SF, and the only thing that is SF is what is essentially SF?



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Instead of squirrels (_is there something going on on the boards with all this talk of squirrels?_), a better example might be swords.  Swords show up in all kinds of fiction: SF, Fantasy, Civil War fiction, Japanese modern and imperial-period historical fiction.  Swords can thus be said to be part of any of those genres, but they don't even begin to _define_ any of them.  Including the presence of swords as part of the definition of Fantasy (or any other genre) doesn't help because it allows the inclusion of things that are not part of that genre- it is insufficiently exclusive.



A sword is nothing whatever--it's a prop. A genre can make the sword its centerpiece and be definable in terms of the sword, but then we aren't even talking about the sword anymore: we're talking about its iconography, or its uses, what it does or could do, who it belongs to, what it represents. The sword in itself, as mythusmage was saying, is mere staging. It could just as well be a broom or a chainsaw. This is surface stuff.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> THAT is the point of my discussion of taxonomy:  to illustrate that its the differences, not similarities, that define species as apart from other species.



Why is this the point? Nobody's claimed, as far as I've seen anyway, that the difference between a dog and a wolf is what they have in common. I thought we covered this when you said "By defining something as a genre, then, you are taking for granted that it is unique," to which I responded "Yes, I am, otherwise it's undefinable: for every class α1 and definition β, if α1 is β then α2 is not β ( (α1) [βα1 → ~βα2] ), otherwise α1 and α2 are the same thing, i.e. there is no α2." In other words if chair and cushion have the same definition then there is no difference between a chair and a cushion; in order for there to be two different classes of object, chair and cushion, their definitions must _differ_ somewhere; as totalities their relation to one another is one of difference. At what level this uniqueness emerges is unimportant; it's simply a tautological fact that if there are two different classes, the two classes are different.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Analogously, we can't say that "X" is a _defining characteristic_ of SF if "X" is not _unique_ SF.



Are you just deferring the debate from "genre" to "characteristic?" Honestly, at the biological level we're all made from the same components, and our differences emerge farther up, that's a bit duh. Genre and biology aren't the same thing, unless you're sticking to imagery, in which case maybe the comparison highlights the ridiculousness of that approach. In terms of content, not all writing is made from the same stuff; meaning always emerges uniquely, and doesn't necessarily have anything in common with any other writing at any level, really. There've been a few movements that claimed otherwise, like structuralism, but those always died out rather quickly for a reason.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 9, 2005)

> No, it's absolutely correct. You said "once I show a single SF work with a certain characteristic, that characteristic exists within the set of all SF." That's utter nonsense if you're asserting it has anything to do with a definition of SF, which is the entire point of this thread.
> 
> and
> 
> Why is this the point? Nobody's claimed, as far as I've seen anyway, that the difference between a dog and a wolf is what they have in common.




You clearly misunderstand my position.

My position is this: "once I show a single SF work with a certain characteristic, that characteristic exists within the set of all SF." means that the characteristic exists within the set, not within each member of the set.  0 (Zero) exists within the set of real numbers, yet has properties (under any mathematical system of which I'm aware) which are unique, nor do those unique characteristics remove it from the set of real numbers.

So, a work of SF may have property "X," placing property "X" within the set of all SF- but unless its unique to SF and a nearly universal feature of SF in general, it is not an essential property of SF, and cannot be used to define SF as a genre.

Example: Travel between worlds is pretty common in SF, but it isn't unique (you can find the theme in F), and it isn't required (for every 3 SF stories of interplanetary travel, I can probably name 2 stories that don't include interplanetary travel).  While the theme of "interplanetary travel" is a part of the set of all SF- it is neither essential nor unique.  Thus, a definition of SF cannot be structured: "SF is a genre about interplanetary travel."



> If you really believe what you said however many pages back ("There are portions of each circle that do not touch any other. In other words, you can have pure Fantasy"), then why are you talking about all-inclusive sets? The point of defining SF and F is to locate the portion of the circle that does not touch the others, so again, it seems to me you're muddying the issue by fore-deciding what SF is, then saying everything that is part of every work of SF is part of SF.




Look at a Venn Diagram as I described it in Post#23 (quoted Post#300, supra).  Properly drawn, its 3 circles overlapping each other, forming a small, equilateral convexly-rounded triangle in the center with 3 other "triangles" (each with one concave side) formed on each side of the center triangle.

When a story is within that center area overlapped by SF, Horror and Fantasy,_ it is still within the circle constrained by SF_- thus, it is still within the set of all SF.  That same story can also be said to be a part of Horror and Fantasy as well, and the properties of the story can be said to be within the set of all Horror and the set of all Fantasy.  What cannot be said of that story is that its fantastic or horrific elements define its SF-ness.

Elements within the overlapping areas do not help us define the genres because they are not exclusive to any genre.  To define SF, Horror or Fantasy, we have to find those elements that exist outside of the overlaps, and when someone tries to use an element from an overlapping area to define one of those genres, it is perfectly valid to point out that problem.


----------



## Wayside (Jun 9, 2005)

I don't misunderstand your position in the least. You're saying there's a set of all works of SF, and everything that's a part of one of these works is a part of the set without being necessary to any member of the set. What I'm doing is drawing out some of the consequences of your position, which you don't seem to want to acknowledge. One assumes that all this talk about sets has _something_ to do with actually _defining_ SF, after all.

Your diagram demonstrates shared space between genres because it takes the shared space for granted by virtue of the kind of diagram it is, not by virtue of anything to do with the genres themselves. It's a methodology that produces, rather than deduces, its conclusions--bad theorizing, in other words. And it continues to rely on comparison of particular works of SF with other works in and outside SF, none of which can demonstrate necessarily what SF is in itself, if it is anything, since SF, if it exists, is more than a sum of these works.

Worst of all, you already need to have definitions of SF, F and H laid out for the diagram to succeed. Your argument against Celebrim and barsoomcore can thus be reduced to the mere fact that their definition disagrees with yours, and, at least for me, your definition isn't valid because you haven't given me any reason to agree with that definition in the first place. But you're going to say: no, it's the fact that a work of SF and a work of F can both contain their (barsoomcore's and Celebrim's) definitions of one or the other--to which I reiterate: you've already defined SF and F then, and your counterargument is based on the assumption that the work of SF is SF and not F, and that the work of F is F and not SF--but what if they're both _really_ SF, or both _really_ F, or the one we thought was SF is F, or the one we thought was F is SF?

And this all goes back to Celebrim's point about exceptions. You want to decide them in advance and forbid various definitions accordingly, when we don't even have to agree with you about what is or is not an exception in the first place. And if we don't, this simple disagreement deflates almost everything else you've said. Ideally I'd rather be charitable and not argue from that position, as I said to Celebrim earlier when he initially brought it up, but the amount of sidestepping going on here is astonishing, so maybe such a move is unavoidable.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 10, 2005)

> Your diagram demonstrates shared space between genres because it takes the shared space for granted by virtue of the kind of diagram it is, not by virtue of anything to do with the genres themselves. It's a methodology that produces, rather than deduces, its conclusions--bad theorizing, in other words.




Not at all.



> Now, one caveat:  There IS another way to draw the Venn diagram covering SF/F/Horror.  Since Horror, AFAIK, always seems to have elements of fantasy or SF, you would draw 2 large circles (representing SF & F) and a single, smaller circle, completely circumscribed by the 2 larger ones (the 2 points of intersection define Horror's diameter).  This diagram would mean that there is no such thing as pure horror.




The diagrams merely show that there are representatives within each genre that are purely of that genre (relative to each other).  It says NOTHING about the actual sizes of the pure areas.  In fact, the pure areas could have only 1 representative work within them.

There are SF works that have no F or Horror elements: so-called "Hard SF."  For example, Ben Bova's Planetary series of novels has nothing supernatural: Simply put, the series is about the early stages of Human civilization into the rest of the Solar System.  _I challenge you to find a fantasy or horror element of any kind within that series._  The tech used to move from one planet to the other is all within NASA's current grasp or current theory- pure Newtonian Physics and crafty telemetry: no hyperdrive, warp drive, tamed black holes as power sources, etc.  The only characters are human- no intelligent aliens or alien tech here.  There is no super-tech that bends the rules of physics.  The one tech used that doesn't currently exist is cryo-sleep, and even that is still a tech with problems: it usually results in brain damage of some kind- and it is only used for 1 character.  There are no horror elements either: no monsters, escaped psychos, etc.  The main conflict exists between a wealthy technocrat who wants to be the one who profits from the expansion and those who are more altruistic- expanding the horizons of human civiliaztion for ALL to live within and profit from.  There is industrial espionage, there are races to particular planets...but the storylines are entirely within the possible..

Similarly, it is easy enough to find representatives of pure Fantasy: LOTR and Earthsea spring immediately to mind.

Of course, I AM ignoring all other forms of fiction, since all I'm addressing is distinguishing between SF/F & Horror.  This I freely admit.

Were I to draw a Venn Diagram of _all_ fiction, there would be a single large circle drawn around numerous other circles...kind of like you'd get by going nuts with a Spirograph.  Assuming an infinite # of possible genres, it is likely there would be no area unique to any genre.


----------

