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

[Tale]

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.

Except a lot of Sci-Fi does not try to explain itself. Did 2001 try explaining HAL? Not really, but the concept of artificial intelligence isn't quite so fantastic. It's somewhat reasonably possible. There's scientific research to that end.

 

The difference isn't explaining how you got there. That's ultimately trivial. Loose technological explanations are not the difference between the impossible and the plausible.

 

For everything Neo did, it was fantasy. The rest of it was largely Sci-Fi, though.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Tale

[Volourn]

"Fantasy is an inherently restrictive genre, whereas contemporary or sci-fi have a very broad range of possibilities in comparison."

 

100% not true.

[Kaftan Barlast]

You people have to stop posting so much, I go away for a few hours and the thread has lept forward 10 posts. Volo, you're wrong as usual.

 

 

Random evidence that fantasy is crap: ID Software made DooM, it was a good game with lots of shooting. Then they made a fantasy version called Hexxen, that was just the same except you shot lightning bolts with different kinds of rods, it sucked. Hard, cold evidence that Fantasy is completely (here should be the word i cannot write).

 

 

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

 

The problem is that some people here seem to have a very, very, very broad definition of what classifies as Fantasy. So broad, in fact, that it could encompass any and all genres except perhaps documentaries... so yeah, I think you're right.

[Sand]

I define fantasy as any setting/story that uses and focuses magic as a major plot device that without it the setting/story simply could not exist and falls apart. That is why I consider Star Wars as fantasy. Without the Force, Star Wars' magic, the main plot and major aspects of the setting simply could not exist and the story would fall apart.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

True, that does make sense. The Force is never really explained, which basically makes it magic... Neither are lightsabers...

[Slowtrain]

Random evidence that fantasy is crap: ID Software made DooM, it was a good game with lots of shooting. Then they made a fantasy version called Hexxen, that was just the same except you shot lightning bolts with different kinds of rods, it sucked. Hard, cold evidence that Fantasy is completely (here should be the word i cannot write).

 

 

Actually Hexen was an awesome game. It used the Doom engine, but was made by Raven software. It was far superior single player gameplay wise to Doom and Doom2. Far superior. Like out of the world next galaxy thrice removed superior; it was also great in multiplayer coop since there were three characters to choose from: Warrior, wizard, cleric all of which had different weapons and attacks. The level design was fabulous. Raven Software also made Heretic which was another good game based off of id's engine. Hexen 2 and Heretic 2 came later and wern't nearly so great, though they were real 3d games using the quake or quake 2 engine.

 

But Hexen, jeez that was an awesome game.

[Slowtrain]

that was just the same except you shot lightning bolts with different kinds of rods

 

 

No. Each character class had three weapons. The first was was a base weapon that you started the game with: for the warrior it was fists, the cleric it was a mace, for the wizard a damage spell called Bone Shards. Each class would find a second weapon/spell over the course of the game the warrior got a hammer, the cleric a staff and the wizard a lightning spell. The third weapon was a multipart weapon that had to have each part found then assembled. The wiard and cleric both got staffs, which is probably what you are thinking of. The clerics staff would loose undead spirits though not lightning and the spirits woudl fly around and rip up your enemies. It was totally sweet. Theh mages satff did shoot some kind of energy blast

 

 

Additionally all the weapons coudl be powered up by different types of mana found in the game forming additional attack methods.

 

Really if anything the fantasy verison of doom was far superior to the sf version of doom, if that is the point you want to make. I remember it was a running joke back in those days that id would make the engine and leave it to Raven to make the game for the engine.

 

 

edit: I shoudl point out that all those details may niot be quite correct. So don't tale them to the bank.

 

ah, good times, good times..

Edited January 4, 2008 by CrashGirl

[Tigranes]

You know, I swear Kaftan is just enjoying a nice drink as he's having all of us on.

 

If not, I'm not sure what else to say, since the likes of Spider have covered the points superbly and Kaftan has yet to respond. As in, respond to the points, and not just reply. If I can condense:

 

1. Kaftan, your definition of fantasy is entirely too narrow, and bases itself on (q.Spider:) a heavily overused D&D system designed and built with combat in mind, and rife with horribly crap writers trying to make a buck. As a result, you have taken outside your definition of fantasy lots of fantasy works that might well make you chagne your mind (e.g. PS:T is still fantasy. The Dark Materials trilogy by Pullman is as much fantasy as it is scifi or steampunk.) Fantasy doesn't have to have elves, or dwarves; it doesnt' even need to have magic going off everywhere, magic can be a lot more rare or limited in its usage (as opposed to 'it can do anything' Faerun.) Elves and Dwarves are simply a very popular portion of a lot of mainstream western high fantasy. The races in Fantasy can be as varied as those crazy aliens people keep making up for Sci-Fi. (I mean, Twi'leks? What?)

 

2. Kaftan, your assertion that Fantasy has the fewest sets of usable patterns out of all the genres is a little bit of a logical back-to-front, because what you are doing is looking at the results of mediocre, crap writers within a very narrow subset of Fantasy, and then pronouncing the general principles of Fantasy at large based upon this. That would be like me picking out some random horrible sci-fi stories from the local library, then pronouncing that Sci-Fi is way too limited or crap or whatnot. I agree that the bloated industry mainstream western high fantasy is, should be broken down quite a bit, and laid to rest for a while, and that the current environment isn't conducive to creative fantasy output. But that's a failing of the situation not the genre.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Actually, it's tea and a biscuit

 

 

1) My definition of Fantasy is more or less identical with that of the general public. Fantasy is a genre which combines three key elements a)magic b)a pseudo-medieval setting c)races like orcs, elfs and dwarfs. It's really that simple. Id say you who suffer from this strange all-encompassing view of the genre, are probably to close to it to have any kind of perspective on the matter.

 

2) Ive always felt that it's much more refreshing to base arguments on pure opinion unsupported by facts or anything similar. Bit in this matter Ive done my homework, Im ashamed to say. Ive played all the games, Ive seen the LotR movies, Ive actually touched a D&D sourcebook and Ive read a warhammer comic. All that has only served to strengthen my resolve and give support to my negative opinions about the F-word.

 

 

Actually Hexen was an awesome game.

 

I think you might be suffering from severe delusions, you should seek help.

[Slowtrain]

I think you might be suffering from severe delusions, you should seek help.

 

 

Oh, poo. Delusions are what make life fun.

[Volourn]

To me, it's rather simple. Fantasy is anything impossible in real life. Period.

[Arkan]

To me, it's rather simple. Fantasy is anything impossible in real life. Period.

 

 

World Peace

[Dark_Raven]

To me, it's rather simple. Fantasy is anything impossible in real life. Period.

Like French Kanadians are awesome?

[Qwerty the Sir]

Like French Kanadians are awesome?

 

[Istima Loke]

...

 

1) My definition of Fantasy is more or less identical with that of the general public. Fantasy is a genre which combines three key elements a)magic b)a pseudo-medieval setting c)races like orcs, elfs and dwarfs. It's really that simple. Id say you who suffer from this strange all-encompassing view of the genre, are probably to close to it to have any kind of perspective on the matter.

 

...

 

So by your definition Harry Potter is not fantasy?

Now I am confused.

Edited January 4, 2008 by Istima Loke

[Humodour]

...

 

1) My definition of Fantasy is more or less identical with that of the general public. Fantasy is a genre which combines three key elements a)magic b)a pseudo-medieval setting c)races like orcs, elfs and dwarfs. It's really that simple. Id say you who suffer from this strange all-encompassing view of the genre, are probably to close to it to have any kind of perspective on the matter.

 

...

 

So by your definition Harry Potter is not fantasy?

Now I am confused.

 

Um. Harry Potter falls under all 3 criteria.

[Istima Loke]

Pseudo-medieval setting? Harry Potter is obviously modern. It takes place in modern earth. There are cars and trains and TV shows and newspapers. Where do you see the pseudo-medieval? Also I am not a fan of the series but the last time I saw some HP movie there were no elves or dwarves.

 

EDIT: And Harry Potter is just an example. Earthsea is doesn't have other races (like dwarves and elves), eastern settings are not pseudo-medieval and so on. The only common between them is magic, and in cases it is presented different from one to another.

Edited January 4, 2008 by Istima Loke

[jaguars4ever]

Kaftan's right about magic being the determinant of fantasy. I don't believe the other two (pseudo-medieval and tolkien-esqe races) criteria are necessary.

 

Any time you have an instrumentality that cannot currently exist in the world, it is either Fantasy or Sci-Fi. If the the instrumentality is a product of science, then it is sci-fi; if it cannot be explained by science, it's fantasy.

 

At least that's my take.

Edited January 4, 2008 by jaguars4ever

[Blarghagh]

You are right with the second part (and that is as a whole referred to as "speculative fiction"), but not the first. Magic is not the determinant of fantasy. Hypothetically, if I were to draw a Steampunk comic in a psuedo-victorian setting about orcs attacking cities with war machines made for them by enslaved gnomes, and then some technologically gifted youngster who comes along and stops them, then it would definately be fantasy. Yet it has no magic.

 

I find it interesting that some of the most popular fantasy series do not fit into Kaftan's 3 criteria that apparently all fantasy stories should have. His Dark Materials, Harry Potter, The Dark Tower, Star Wars.

 

Eh, whatever. This has gone on far longer than it merits.

Edited January 4, 2008 by TrueNeutral

[Tale]

Generally I consider fantasy to be something that is heavy with supernatural elements or intelligent races that conform to stereotypes. Especially when those supernatural elements are not used solely for horror or are used to empower characters. The race stereotype thing is because most of the time I see it, it's used in a party composition context that is so characteristic of fantasy. Farscape, for example. They've got their warriors (D'argo, Aeryn Sun), priest (Zhaan), thieves (Chiana, Rygel). It's a theme we see a bit in Stargate SG-1, though not quite as profound.

 

I tend to view Sci-Fi as technologically oriented. With technology themes being important (Hal was important to the theme of 2001, the Stargate in SG-1 isn't important to the themes). If the technology is reasonable, it's Sci-Fi. If the technology is unreasonable, I wouldn't mind calling it Science-Fantasy. What we wish we could do with science. Though with a name like Sci-Fi, I'm tempted to consider any speculation in regards to non-technical scientific fields. Futuristic science based speculation on Sociology? Geology? Metereology? Psychology? That sounds reasonable to be called Sci-Fi, if formed as a fictional narrative.

 

 

I think a lot of us (I know I do sometimes in my discussion) tend to not differentiate between setting and themes. I feel that themes are far more important to defining genre than setting is. Though setting can be important to themes, an author can easily use a setting as mere window dressing to the real themes.

Edited January 4, 2008 by Tale

[Kaftan Barlast]

To me, it's rather simple. Fantasy is anything impossible in real life. Period.

 

And everything you can eat is a sandwhich. Everything with wheels is a bicycle.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

To me, it's rather simple. Fantasy is anything impossible in real life. Period.

 

No, that's called fiction.

[Tale]

To me, it's rather simple. Fantasy is anything impossible in real life. Period.

 

No, that's called fiction.

There's a difference between "impossible", "hasn't happened yet, but could happen", and "could have happened already, but didn't." I believe he's using the quite literal definition of impossible. As in "no way, no how, will this ever happen or could it ever have happened."

 

That is not called fiction. Fiction's pretty broad. If I wrote a story about how I lived in Los Angeles and commuted through traffic to work, that would be fiction, but not fantasy. It's not true, but it could be. If I wrote a story about how I was married to Jennifer Connoly, that would be fiction, but it would also fantasy. Because there's no way in hell.

Edited January 4, 2008 by Tale

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

So fantasy is just a more "impossible" version of fiction? Isn't that a little broad for a definiton?

[Tale]

So fantasy is just a more "impossible" version of fiction? Isn't that a little broad for a definiton?

You can make some considerations of reasonability or common beliefs (some people believe in psychic powers) and benefit of the doubt (something that sounds impossible, but is limited in scope and may have been necessary for something else), but when people start flying around, throwing fireballs, sucking the life out of their enemies, and throwing imaginary metal shields that bounce off Nazis and return to their owner you just have to have drawn a line somewhere.

Edited January 4, 2008 by Tale