Is it finally here? The death of the fantasy genre?

[Blarghagh]

Isn't this discussion useless? Half of modern Sci-Fi is inherently just masked fantasy anyway, and there are thousands of fantasy stories masquarading as sci-fi (Star Wars, Dune, Stargate, H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos, Steampunk or anything "-punk" for that matter, even Star Trek, and almost all supposed sci-fi video games such as StarCraft, Mass Effect, Doom, etc.).

 

Fantasy isn't inherently restrictive. It's just that most fantasy writers are idiots. They have this disturbing notion that all fantasy should be medieval, or "high" fantasy, and it's this odd need to seperate Sci-Fi and Fantasy that you people are now displaying that caused that particular rift to begin with (which means by even having this conversation, we are basically making this problem worse).

 

In the end, they're both just speculative fiction, and there is nothing to gain but a lot to lose by seperating the two. You may prefer the letter A over the letter B, but they're still in the same alphabet, and often used in the same words.

[Tigranes]

The Fantasy genre is heavily formalized and adheres strictly to a certain model of "storytelling" or whatever you might call it. You have a finite set of design/story patterns that you use over and over again with slight variation. Like for example the magic object that must be reassembled from pieces spread over the land, or the big ominous naughty person whose armies threaten all that is good and true, or the cursed hero who must find a cure for his curse.

 

I agree much of the fantasy genre is way too formalised for its own good, and that is the cause of a lot of tedious crap we see. But that's not an inherent failure of the fantasy genre, it's just a fault with the way we have made fantasy. I don't see why we can't get more creative with fantasy (though it might not necessarily sit well with marketing departments). One of the clear ways to do this is to borrow from the history and mythology of different cultures, which is why there was so much potential for Jade Empire. Leaving aside any discussions about whether that game was any good or not, though, what JE did was take some aspects of East Asian mythologies then lay them on top of a High Fantasy core, which is why you don't see the game being particularly creative adn breaking outside the formalities of fantasy storytelling. But that's not to say it can't be done - do you see?

 

TrueNeutral: Yes, but Kaftan seemed to like ME, so I talked about it.

[Wombat]

IOne of the clear ways to do this is to borrow from the history and mythology of different cultures, which is why there was so much potential for Jade Empire.

Yin-yang is not about good and evil but light and shadow. I haven't played JE but the philosophical presentation seems to have gone wrong.

[Gambler]

odd need to seperate Sci-Fi and Fantasy that you people are now displaying that caused that particular rift to begin with

Real science fiction has very little to do with real fantasy, hence the need to "separate" them. Neither of them is merely a product of the setting used in the books - this criteria is an invention of the people who like to create meaningless classifications of everything. What defines book's genre is its overall theme, not the setting.

[Spider]

The Fantasy genre is heavily formalized and adheres strictly to a certain model of "storytelling" or whatever you might call it. You have a finite set of design/story patterns that you use over and over again with slight variation. Like for example the magic object that must be reassembled from pieces spread over the land, or the big ominous naughty person whose armies threaten all that is good and true, or the cursed hero who must find a cure for his curse.

 

If I was allowed to point out fantasy writers that clearly fall outside of those boundaries, such as Michael Moorcok (stupid spelling filter) or Terry Pratchett, I would. But since they don't fall strictly within your definition, I can't. Although Pratchett is fairly close. Moorcok on the other hand hasn't had an elf in any of his books ever (although I suppose one could argue that the Melnibon

[Slowtrain]

(I myself read preciously little fantasy because I think most of it is really bad. I might be convinced to give "Song of Fire and Ice" a try somewhere down the line when I've caught up on all other books on my reading list)

 

 

Have you read The Coldfire Trilogy by CS Friedman? Its fantasy but more interesting than usual. I first read it many years ago, but at the time I didn't really like it because it was so different from the Terry Brooks/Ray Feist etc tripe I was used to. I went back and read it again some years later and appeciated the story a lot more.

[Spider]

I haven't. Will consider it in the future when I work some more of my list off.

 

(just checked the synopsis out on Wikipedia and it does seem interesting. I just have a feeeling I might be very turned off by the main character)

Edited January 3, 2008 by Spider

[Wombat]

As long as the interesting themes are presented, whether a work belong to Sci-Fi or fantasy is just a matter of "cosmetic" issue. Personally, I'd like to see historical and/or real world RPG but as long as themes are intruding, I don't care about "cosmetics." Dedicated art direction won't hurt, though.

[Tale]

The Fantasy genre is heavily formalized and adheres strictly to a certain model of "storytelling" or whatever you might call it. You have a finite set of design/story patterns that you use over and over again with slight variation. Like for example the magic object that must be reassembled from pieces spread over the land, or the big ominous naughty person whose armies threaten all that is good and true, or the cursed hero who must find a cure for his curse.

 

I'm not a big fan of fantasy. Anyone who's read a quarter of my posts relating to KOTOR will have seen at least one instance of me insulting it in some way for being too much high fantasy. However, you have to either be absolutely dense or intentionally trolling to try to make this argument.

 

The Sci-Fi genre is heavily formalized and adheres strictly to a certain model of "storytelling" or whatever you might call it. You have a finite set of design/story patterns that you use over and over again with slight variation. Like for example the world is doomed to be destroyed by natural disaster, ancient beings/machines/artifacts come to wipe out man, or man's ambition for exploration/creation/acting god have threatened to destroy the universe/world/man. hurr hurr

Edited January 3, 2008 by Tale

[Slowtrain]

I haven't. Will consider it in the future when I work some more of my list off.

 

(just checked the synopsis out on Wikipedia and it does seem interesting. I just have a feeeling I might be very turned off by the main character)

 

 

I just read through that Wikipedia entry. The description of Vryce is a little misleading. It makes him sound like a sword-swinging ass-kicker/sorceror zealot who learns tolerance of things as the story goes along. He is actually a pretty useless fighter and a crappy sorceror and right from the start of the story shows a enormous level of tolerance and compassion for things that his church won't tolerate. The conflict for him is more around trying to come to terms with his own internal conflicts between his Church, which he believes is in error about many things, and the oaths he took to serve that church.

 

One of the reasons I disliked the story when I was younger is that in some ways Vryce is not a very heroic or powerful figure in a traditonal fantasy sense that one expects from protagonists.

[Spider]

Well, the non-heroic part is definitely a plus. It was the zealot part that had me worried, but if that is misleading it sounds much better. So I will definitely check it out.

 

Are the books fairly standalone or do you need to read all three to get any sense of closure?

[Slowtrain]

Well, the non-heroic part is definitely a plus. It was the zealot part that had me worried, but if that is misleading it sounds much better. So I will definitely check it out.

 

Are the books fairly standalone or do you need to read all three to get any sense of closure?

 

 

Each book has a semi-closure at the end. So you could read the first one and still have a sense of "ending", but the character's development arcs do continue through all three books before they reach an ending.

 

As far as heroic goes: Vryce is not heroic in the sense of say an Aragorn, but he definitely is "good" (ie not a Snake Plissken anti-hero type) and is constantly trying to do the right thing, he is just deeply conflicted over what the right thing is.

[Kaftan Barlast]

The Fantasy genre is heavily formalized and adheres strictly to a certain model of "storytelling" or whatever you might call it. You have a finite set of design/story patterns that you use over and over again with slight variation. Like for example the magic object that must be reassembled from pieces spread over the land, or the big ominous naughty person whose armies threaten all that is good and true, or the cursed hero who must find a cure for his curse.

 

I'm not a big fan of fantasy. Anyone who's read a quarter of my posts relating to KOTOR will have seen at least one instance of me insulting it in some way for being too much high fantasy. However, you have to either be absolutely dense or intentionally trolling to try to make this argument.

 

The Sci-Fi genre is heavily formalized and adheres strictly to a certain model of "storytelling" or whatever you might call it. You have a finite set of design/story patterns that you use over and over again with slight variation. Like for example the world is doomed to be destroyed by natural disaster, ancient beings/machines/artifacts come to wipe out man, or man's ambition for exploration/creation/acting god have threatened to destroy the universe/world/man. hurr hurr

 

 

My argument, although not backed by evidence, is that Fantasy is the most formalised genre with the least amount of patterns. Kind of like how you dont have as much freedom if you write a Punkrock song, as you would if you wrote a Symphonic Rock song. You dont have the same amount of chords, you can only use 4/4 tempo, you cant have a flute player etc. because then it wouldnt sound like a punkrock song anymore, and thus wouldnt be a punkrock song.

 

Does that make it clearer? Im saying that Fantasy hass a smaller amount of useable patters (we could call them schticks too) than other genres, and thus leaves less room to be creative and/or original

[Tale]

The Fantasy genre is heavily formalized and adheres strictly to a certain model of "storytelling" or whatever you might call it. You have a finite set of design/story patterns that you use over and over again with slight variation. Like for example the magic object that must be reassembled from pieces spread over the land, or the big ominous naughty person whose armies threaten all that is good and true, or the cursed hero who must find a cure for his curse.

 

I'm not a big fan of fantasy. Anyone who's read a quarter of my posts relating to KOTOR will have seen at least one instance of me insulting it in some way for being too much high fantasy. However, you have to either be absolutely dense or intentionally trolling to try to make this argument.

 

The Sci-Fi genre is heavily formalized and adheres strictly to a certain model of "storytelling" or whatever you might call it. You have a finite set of design/story patterns that you use over and over again with slight variation. Like for example the world is doomed to be destroyed by natural disaster, ancient beings/machines/artifacts come to wipe out man, or man's ambition for exploration/creation/acting god have threatened to destroy the universe/world/man. hurr hurr

 

 

My argument, although not backed by evidence, is that Fantasy is the most formalised genre with the least amount of patterns. Kind of like how you dont have as much freedom if you write a Punkrock song, as you would if you wrote a Symphonic Rock song. You dont have the same amount of chords, you can only use 4/4 tempo, you cant have a flute player etc. because then it wouldnt sound like a punkrock song anymore, and thus wouldnt be a punkrock song.

 

Does that make it clearer? Im saying that Fantasy hass a smaller amount of useable patters (we could call them schticks too) than other genres, and thus leaves less room to be creative and/or original

It makes it just as dense. I'm not saying your argument isn't clear, it's ignorant. Magic, practically by definition, leaves the room for more creativity than simply expanding upon theorized science. Because magic can do quite literally anything the author wants. To stay true to Sci-Fi, an author must stay within reasonable limits.

 

One of the key differentiations between the two is that Sci-Fi has to at least be reasonable. Fantasy has no such limitation. Fantasy can have magic news cameras. Take a look at the Harry Potter series and their newspapers with moving photographs.

 

Both Sci-Fi and Fantasy are speculative fiction. Sci-Fi speculates on what could reasonably happen. Fantasy speculates on what we wish could happen. And the variety of what we wish for is a lot more than what is reasonable.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Tale

[Atreides]

It makes it just as dense. I'm not saying your argument isn't clear, it's ignorant. Magic, practically by definition, leaves the room for more creativity than simply expanding upon theorized science. Because magic can do quite literally anything the author wants. To stay true to Sci-Fi, an author must stay within reasonable limits.

 

One of the key differentiations between the two is that Sci-Fi has to at least be reasonable. Fantasy has no such limitation. Fantasy can have magic news cameras. Take a look at the Harry Potter series and their newspapers with moving photographs.

Well said.

[Kaftan Barlast]

It makes it just as dense. I'm not saying your argument isn't clear, it's ignorant. Magic, practically by definition, leaves the room for more creativity than simply expanding upon theorized science. Because magic can do quite literally anything the author wants. To stay true to Sci-Fi, an author must stay within reasonable limits.

 

 

You're dense too, since you assume magic will lead to more opportunities to create something intereseting and new. Magic can create situations that perhaps technology cant, like the classic love potions and whatnot, but it can also be a limiting factor. My classic example of how "raise dead" will ruin the possibility to make a "whodunnit" in D&D. It can slo create fun plotholes if youre not careful, like why they dont simple just take all the big eagles in LotR and drop the ring into mount doom, instead of going on a quest. I mean, they could easily kick the crap out of those lizard things which there are only nine of while the eagles are like 150 and gandolph could ride one and shoot fireballs at the witchking and all..

 

 

Also, magic is silly.

 

 

..and uou can create wonderful stories and gameplay and everything without magic aswell.

 

 

p.s

 

fantasy nerds are all poopie-heads.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Kaftan Barlast

[Tale]

It makes it just as dense. I'm not saying your argument isn't clear, it's ignorant. Magic, practically by definition, leaves the room for more creativity than simply expanding upon theorized science. Because magic can do quite literally anything the author wants. To stay true to Sci-Fi, an author must stay within reasonable limits.

 

 

You're dense too, since you assume magic will lead to more opportunities to create something intereseting and new. Magic can create situations that perhaps technology cant, like the classic love potions and whatnot, but it can also be a limiting factor. My classic example of how "raise dead" will ruin the possibility to make a "whodunnit" in D&D. It can slo create fun plotholes if youre not careful, like why they dont simple just take all the big eagles in LotR and drop the ring into mount doom, instead of going on a quest. I mean, they could easily kick the crap out of those lizard things which there are only nine of while the eagles are like 150 and gandolph could ride one and shoot fireballs at the witchking and all..

 

The limitations of one setting do not apply to all of the genre. You want a whodunnit? Have limitations on raise dead, counters to it or the divination, or simply not have them in the first place. Voila. Heck, D&D already does some of that. You want a reason not to take giant eagles into Mount Doom? You can make one. Easily. Just because there's a few plotholes in LOTR or D&D isn't suited to some specific scenario doesn't mean it's necessarilly true of all Fantasy. Nor does it mean Science Fiction does not suffer from the same flaw. Or horror. Or action. Or... well quite frankly the plot hole is a flaw of narratives and literature featured in every single genre in existence.

 

Magic is oft quite silly. But that's wholly beside the point.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Tale

[Gromnir]

"Magic, practically by definition, leaves the room for more creativity than simply expanding upon theorized science. Because magic can do quite literally anything the author wants. To stay true to Sci-Fi, an author must stay within reasonable limits."

 

stay "true" to sci-fi? am not sure what that is, but Creativity is why there is 0 functional difference 'tween sci-fi and fantasy. star trek, a show which actually had technical advisers to help with the science, has more magic than george r.r. martin's recent works... by a large margin. sci-fi explanations not have to be reasonable... simply have to get audience to embrace as plausible w/i context o' the setting (which is pretty much same standard for magic btw.) replicators, transporters and psychic powers and time travel, as applied in star trek universe, has very little reason involved. hell, the only reason you got star trek transporters in first place were 'cause shuttle shots were deemed too expensive for low-budget star trek. so creative persons come up with the notion o' The Transporter.

 

*shrug*

 

sci-fi is no different than magic.

 

now, is there some hardcore sci-fi that works real hard to be reasonable? sure there is. kim stanley robinson is an example o' an author who tries to keep it real, but for anybody who is willing to place star wars in the sci-fi category, the notion that there is a genuine difference 'tween sci-fi and fantasy goes right out the window.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Spider]

My classic example of how "raise dead" will ruin the possibility to make a "whodunnit" in D&D.

 

You can if the target was killed by Disintegrate or some other means that prevent resurrection. But using D&D as your example of crappy fantasy is kinda where your arguments are falling apart. Because D&D is the epitome of crappy fantasy. I once read a book by Ed Greenwood (Spellfire, a friend made me read it, thinking I would like it). How I managed to finish that still puzzles me. It was easily the worst drivel I've ever read. It almost made me want to stop reading altogether.

 

So using a setting (or settings) that is created to fit snugly around a rules system that is designed to first and foremost handle combat as an example just doesn't work. Not to show how crappy the genre as a whole is. I can easily do the same thing using the real rotten sci fi stuff that is out there.

 

In fact, in my experience, resurrection the way it's handled in D&D (everyone and their grandmother can do it) is quite rare in other fantasy literature. Summoning the spirit of the deceased would be a more common solution. But if you want to write a murder mystery in a fantasy setting, just don't allow that kind of magic (or make the spirits talk in such a cryptic manner that no sense can be made out of it until more evidence is gathered).

 

It can slo create fun plotholes if youre not careful, like why they dont simple just take all the big eagles in LotR and drop the ring into mount doom, instead of going on a quest. I mean, they could easily kick the crap out of those lizard things which there are only nine of while the eagles are like 150 and gandolph could ride one and shoot fireballs at the witchking and all..

 

Or it's just that Tolkien wasn't a very good storyteller, not covering his bases so to speak.

 

(which I agree is a problem with many fantasy writers, but again that's the writer's limits coming in to play, not the genre)

 

 

..and uou can create wonderful stories and gameplay and everything without magic aswell.

 

Agreed, you can. And I do also agree that CRPGs could do without fantasy for a while. And when they do use fantasy, a bit more creativity would be appreciated (although that is true for other settings as well, more creativity is always welcome)

 

Edit: Also, the charming TV show Pushing Daisies shows that with a little creativity not even resurrecting the murder victim will necessarily prove all that helpful. The whole premise of the show is that they're doing just that - waking up dead people to ask them who killed them (although they only get a minute). And yet, they manage to make a story of it each week.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Spider

[Tale]

"Magic, practically by definition, leaves the room for more creativity than simply expanding upon theorized science. Because magic can do quite literally anything the author wants. To stay true to Sci-Fi, an author must stay within reasonable limits."

 

stay "true" to sci-fi? am not sure what that is, but Creativity is why there is 0 functional difference 'tween sci-fi and fantasy. star trek, a show which actually had technical advisers to help with the science, has more magic than george r.r. martin's recent works... by a large margin. sci-fi explanations not have to be reasonable... simply have to get audience to embrace as plausible w/i context o' the setting (which is pretty much same standard for magic btw.) replicators, transporters and psychic powers and time travel, as applied in star trek universe, has very little reason involved. hell, the only reason you got star trek transporters in first place were 'cause shuttle shots were deemed too expensive for low-budget star trek. so creative persons come up with the notion o' The Transporter.

 

*shrug*

 

sci-fi is no different than magic.

 

now, is there some hardcore sci-fi that works real hard to be reasonable? sure there is. kim stanley robinson is an example o' an author who tries to keep it real, but for anybody who is willing to place star wars in the sci-fi category, the notion that there is a genuine difference 'tween sci-fi and fantasy goes right out the window.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

1) I have a hard time supporting the notion of Star Trek as strictly Sci-Fi (and not as a heavy mixture) when I consider just how much of an analog to Orcs the Klingons are. Being plausible within the context of the setting is a false discriminator. That's a quality of being a competent writer, not a genre. By that notion Harry Potter is Sci-Fi because anything is seen as plausible within that setting.

 

2) Anyone that puts Star Wars as Sci-Fi (it's futuristic fantasy) doesn't even know what they're talking about.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Tale

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Is it me or is everyone suddenly confusing fantasy with fiction?

[Blarghagh]

My argument, although not backed by evidence, is that Fantasy is the most formalised genre with the least amount of patterns. Kind of like how you dont have as much freedom if you write a Punkrock song, as you would if you wrote a Symphonic Rock song. You dont have the same amount of chords, you can only use 4/4 tempo, you cant have a flute player etc. because then it wouldnt sound like a punkrock song anymore, and thus wouldnt be a punkrock song.

 

Does that make it clearer? Im saying that Fantasy hass a smaller amount of useable patters (we could call them schticks too) than other genres, and thus leaves less room to be creative and/or original

 

This isn't really true, because obviously fantasy doesn't have to adhere to patterns at all. The problem is that most fantasy writers do. When they write a fantasy story, they want to make it grand and epic. Yet, we've seen that so many times in fantasy stories that it ceases to interest us. We need them to find different ways to make it interesting.

 

The punk and fantasy comparison is interesting; because both of them are filled with people who play by established rules in a genre that was basically meant to allow them to go outside the rules. This is not the genre's fault. This is the fault what perception they have of the genre (a perception which you evidently share).

 

But honestly, I am confused by the claim that sci-fi is different. Because you can do exactly the same things with fantasy as you can do with sci-fi. After all, what is magic? To a tribe that has never seen a gun, won't that seem like magic? What about force-fields? Doesn't that come down to magic shields?

 

As for your "classic example" of raise dead ruining a whodunnit, that's a problem particular to that universe. That universe does not encompass fantasy as a whole. Not even close (I'm not really that fond of D&D at all myself).

 

Is it me or is everyone suddenly confusing fantasy with fiction?

 

It's you.

Edited January 3, 2008 by TrueNeutral

[Gromnir]

heya tale, better be careful on that slippery slope. you got some fuzzy gut-level method for dividing sci-fi from fanatsy, and we guarantees that Gromnir and others can points to many examples that would play havoc with your method.

 

*shrug*

 

again, is not as if the sci-fi v. fantasy definitions were result o' the scientific method, or even careful scholarly consideration... peddlers o' pulp magazines in post war era wanted simple advertising jargon to lets potential buyers know if their stories were 'bout futuristic space opera stuff, or if it were having swords and sorcery.

 

bah. continue to argue the fine points o' some sloppy magazine seller's knee-jerk definitions is ridiculous.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Istima Loke]

...like why they dont simple just take all the big eagles in LotR and drop the ring into mount doom, instead of going on a quest. I mean, they could easily kick the crap out of those lizard things which there are only nine of while the eagles are like 150 and gandolph could ride one and shoot fireballs at the witchking and all....

 

Not that I want to show off my LotR nerdiness but the eagles fly after the ring has fallen into the pits of mount doom. Sauron is no more, the nine rings lose all their power and so on.

 

If you search for "inconsistencies" like this one, you will find in every work of fiction. It has little to do with fantasy but rather with fact that humans make mistake. And most times in works of sci-fi that kind of inconsistencies are more obvious and more annoying since the writer presents the world in a realistic way. Magic is as Tale said. You choose what it can and it can't do the way you want to.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Istima Loke

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Is it me or is everyone suddenly confusing fantasy with fiction?

 

It's you.

 

At the very base, Fantasy is fiction that isn't explained scientifically while Sci-fi is fiction that tries to explain it's fictional part with science. The end result is of course impossible, but it has an explaination that is believable.

 

With all the arguments about fantasy I've heard here, it sounds like sci-fi is fantasy itself. It makes it sound like something like "the matrix" is actually fantasy.