The Sword and Laser discussion

I have a hard time putting this into the Fantasy (with a capital "F") genre. The only hint at anything fantastical is in one of the letters in the end.

What do you guys think?

It is about made up cultures on a made up world with a lower level of technology than our present, so I'd call it fantasy. What are alternative genres to call it?

Brendan wrote: "It is about made up cultures on a made up world with a lower level of technology than our present, so I'd call it fantasy. What are alternative genres to call it?"

Fiction?

I wouldn't consider it any less fantasy than other low fantasy works like Game of Thrones, particularly in the grimdark section. It's in a made up world with made up countries, governments, animals, technology levels, etc. I don't see any other genre it would fit in with.

I don't think anyone will disagree with it being fiction...

I think that "Fantasy" is the only standard speculative fiction category it sort of fits into. It is an "imaginary world" with some "fantastical elements" the acid bath, low tech medicine, low tech napalm and herbology that some how includes inoculations.

This was what George RR Martin asks, King Théoden was a good King, but why? His economic polices, agrarian reform? Can a writer go beyond Good Orc killer = Good King? My opinion, Seth Dickinson, has written a fantasy that used themes found in discussions on Colonialism. Would the book be more popular if Baru was visited by a wizard and the two embark on a quest to find the magic Sword/Ring/calculator to bring destruction to the evil empire?

Inoculations have a history going back about 500 years it looks like, so its definitely plausible. Napalm-like substances have been around for maybe 1300 years.

It's definitely secondary-world. There are some mentions of alchemy. But no definite hints of magic.

I'd call it (from what I've heard of it) Mundane Fantasy. That is, a story that doesn't have any/many actual fantastical elements such as magic, mysticism, or the like but it's not historical fiction or even alternate history fiction. So, fantasy in the sense of setting but not in terms of world elements perhaps?

Magic is overplayed. I'd rather read a book where the writer explores serious questions about how fantasy worlds are set up than yet another adolescent wank fantasy about having the biggest wand and a special destiny.

But is it a fantasy world without magic? Fantasy, to me, is't just 'made up stuff' but relates to fantastical, etc. Surely, not every book that makeup a world not our own is fantasy.

I've always thought other-world stories were fantasy or SF. I'm surprised to find this isn't a generally shared assumption.

Rick wrote: "But is it a fantasy world without magic? Fantasy, to me, is't just 'made up stuff' but relates to fantastical, etc. Surely, not every book that makeup a world not our own is fantasy."

Yeah, some are science fiction.

You might as well complain that 1984 and The Handmaid's Tale aren't sci-fi because there's no fictional science.

Rick wrote: "But is it a fantasy world without magic? Fantasy, to me, is't just 'made up stuff' but relates to fantastical, etc. Surely, not every book that makeup a world not our own is fantasy."

A made up world is fantastical. What else would you call it?

Sean wrote: "Rick wrote: "But is it a fantasy world without magic? Fantasy, to me, is't just 'made up stuff' but relates to fantastical, etc. Surely, not every book that makeup a world not our own is fantasy."
..."

I'd consider both those works "Alternative History" myself rather than science fiction

Kevin wrote: "Rick wrote: "But is it a fantasy world without magic? Fantasy, to me, is't just 'made up stuff' but relates to fantastical, etc. Surely, not every book that makeup a world not our own is fantasy."
..."

Kevin wrote: "Rick wrote: "But is it a fantasy world without magic? Fantasy, to me, is't just 'made up stuff' but relates to fantastical, etc. Surely, not every book that makeup a world not our own is fantasy."
..."

Bingo!

Fresno Bob wrote: "I'd consider both those works "Alternative History" myself rather than science fiction."

Alternate history is when an author examines how things might've gone if some event in the past had happened differently. It requires retrospection -- "We know things turned out this way, but there was this point where it could've gone another way. Based upon what we know about the people involved and the limitations they faced, we can speculate on what would've happened in the alternate case."

Both 1984 and The Handmaid's Tale are speculations on what the future might be like if trends the authors noticed around them continued. Even though those futures are now in the past, it doesn't turn them into alt histories.

Sean wrote: "Fresno Bob wrote: "I'd consider both those works "Alternative History" myself rather than science fiction."

Alternate history is when an author examines how things might've gone if some event in t..."

In the words of the Dude, "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

When Orwell wrote 1984 in 1948, what about it made it an alternate history?

Kevin wrote: "A made up world is fantastical. What else would you call it?
"
..."

Alternate world fiction. Or, as I suggested above (come on, people, please read the thread, it's not even a page) Mundane Fantasy.

If a world is indistinguishable from ours except that it has made up geography and perhaps made up species, it doesn't feel that fantastical to me, hence the Mundane tag which I'm borrowing from the Mundane SF folks (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundane...).

To be clear, I am not arguing this because I think it's a hugely vital point to define what is and isn't fantasy but merely because I think it's intellectually interesting to discuss stuff like this.

As for Stephen's point above, I don't think all fantasy is epic fantasy and not all epic fantasy need to be a hero's journey. My best example of this is The Curse of Chalion which has very real gods, definitely has magic but really is a story of political intrigue.

Absolutely. There's hints of magic or real gods having an influence. The ilyakri being able to tell if something is true or not was as close to magic as the magic that existed in The Goblin Emperor.

Rick wrote: "Kevin wrote: "A made up world is fantastical. What else would you call it?
"
..."

Alternate world fiction. Or, as I suggested above (come on, people, please read the thread, it's not even a page)..."

I read the thread. I just don't see the point in coming up with a whole lot of different terms for a genre that already has a name: fantasy. Having a setting that is a made up world is one of defining characteristics of the genre, just as magic or other supernatural elements are. Something doesn't need to check all the characteristics of a genre to fit into that genre. Urban fantasy lacks the secondary world aspect, but that doesn't make it any less fantasy than TTBC is for lacking the magic aspect. You can feel that's not right, but that doesn't change that is what is commonly accepted.

Kevin wrote: ".. I just don't see the point in coming up with a whole lot of different terms for a genre that already has a name: fantasy..."

Uh... ok. But we talk about epic fantasy vs urban fantasy etc. So why does it bother you so much that we might want to differentiate based on magic or not, etc? Hell you use urban fantasy as an example - so why is it useful to distinguish between urban fantasy and other fantasy yet it's somehow wrong to differentiate based on the presence of magic? Sub-genres are a perfectly valid concept and I don't really think you get to use one to make a point and then dismiss the concept in the same post.

PS: Nice selective quoting there.

I think you're adding a new distinction. The question is "Is it fantasy?" (which for me is "Absolutely!") and not "Which subgenre is it?" Unless I missed something.

Uh... My first comment above. https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

I'd call it (from what I've heard of it) Mundane Fantasy. That is, a story that doesn't have any/many actual fantastical elements such as magic, mysticism, or the like but it's not historical fiction or even alternate history fiction. So, fantasy in the sense of setting but not in terms of world elements perhaps?

It's not like everything in Fantasy is the same so discussion of where it fits under that rather broad categorization seems perfectly legitimate. Otherwise the second we decide that alternate world fiction = fantasy we come to a simple Yes and that's a very superficial level of discussion to me.

Got it!

here's a curveball. If we say "made-up world = fantasy" then what about a story where the world is utterly fictional but is, say, an alien world? I'm currently reading Embassytown - totally made-up. But it's SF not fantasy.

I won't concede that science fiction is a subset of fantasy, so to me it's too broad to say "if something is a made-up world it is, in all cases, fantasy." If we're not going to say that, then the question is what the distinction is that puts a work in the F camp vs the SF camp.

Is The Famished Road fantasy?
There's a whole lot of magic in it.

not according to the Library of Congress: http://lccn.loc.gov/92044168

Robert wrote: "I think that "Fantasy" is the only standard speculative fiction category it sort of fits into. It is an "imaginary world" with some "fantastical elements" the acid bath, low tech medicine, low tech..."

Brendan wrote: "Inoculations have a history going back about 500 years it looks like, so its definitely plausible. Napalm-like substances have been around for maybe 1300 years."

Those are spurious criteria for determining "fantasy". For decades, "fantasy" meant stories about characters with the ethics and philosophical outlook of a late 20th century middle-class Westerner, but as long as the setting's technology didn't have gunpowder or the steam engine it apparently counted as "fantasy". Now if you have characters with early 21st century outlooks paired with tech up to the mid 20th century it's not fantasy?

More fodder for my belief that genre boundaries are more like tall grass than stone walls.

Rick wrote: "not according to the Library of Congress: http://lccn.loc.gov/92044168"

There are dozens of journal articles going back decades debating whether librarians should even be in the business of defining genre. In the end, most public libraries end up using genre labels because the publishers market books that way, not because of any arguments from scholars or readers.

Joe - re the LoC comment... yeah, I know. I should have added a smiley there.

Ultimately, definitions don't have bright lines aside from ones we make up. I think this book is probably Fantasy but I was intrigued by how to classify utterly made-up worlds that, aside from being made up, have no other trappings of fantasy. Apparently, this bothered quite a few people, so... /shrug.

It doesn't fit my criteria for fantasy.

For me fantasy should have some element that is outside what we consider the "normal" world

It should have some paranormal, supernatural, fantastical element that doesn't fit with this universe's science and the Laws of Physics or at least mythical or non-human sentient beings. Something that is strange to us.

"The Traitor" could have happened in our universe without breaking any known scientific laws. It is fiction. political/cultural/economical etc

I don't really care what we call it, but for the sake of having a Fantasy/Sci-Fi book club we should read books that fit firmly in either (or both) genre(s).

I disagree. I'm quite happy reading books that are on the fringes of these genres. I mean, I want my magic and fantastical happenings more often than not, but this one still works for me too.

I can see your point, as this book has even less "fantastical" elements than even books like Daughter of the Forest and A Game of Thrones, two books which I found lacking in that department, but TTBC still has a lot of modern fantasy elements going for it. The way it was written made me think of it as a fantasy while reading it, if that makes any sense.

Seeing as this book is put out by Tor and marketed as fantasy, plus it's a new release, I don't think it's the mods' faults we happened to get such a low fantasy read. I still liked it a lot better than many mainstream fantasy books I've been reading lately, and even though I read it before it became book of the month it's nice other people got to experience it because of this group (whether they liked it or disliked it).

Other fantasy books with little or no magic: Swordspoint by Ellen Kushner. The Gormenghast Novels by Mervyn Peake. Just about everything I've read thus far by K.J. Parker. I suppose technically they're more like imaginary-world historical fiction, but for purposes of discussion, fantasy seems like a good enough term for me.

Ruth (tilltab) wrote: "I disagree. I'm quite happy reading books that are on the fringes of these genres. I mean, I want my magic and fantastical happenings more often than not, but this one still works for me too."

I want to raise my vote on this front, too. As long as we also read books for sword picks that are firmly within the conventional idea of fantasy, I am OK also reading and discussing books that are on the fringe. "Intersitital fiction" as I believe Ellen Kushner and Delia Sherman put it. But I think it's worth mentioning that something is low fantasy or magicless when we start it, if we know that it is.

Hair splitting about genre is part of the fun for me, really. As long as we're avoiding insults.

I definitely prefer books like this, or Jeff VanderMeer and Stanislaw Lem to David Eddings and Tad Williams.

Oh, and Angela Carter. We totally need to read The Infernal Desire Machines of Doctor Hoffman.

Sean wrote: "Oh, and Angela Carter. We totally need to read The Infernal Desire Machines of Doctor Hoffman."

I loved that book but it seems a bit extreme for S+L. If TTBC was too much for most people...

Tassie Dave wrote: "It doesn't fit my criteria for fantasy. [...]

I don't really care what we call it, but for the sake of having a Fantasy/Sci-Fi book club we should read books that fit firmly in either (or both) genre(s). "

Hmmm, I think the book was a fine pick, especially since it was voted on. I think these kinds of discussions are exactly what should be occuring in a Fantasy/Sci-Fi book club). Note that I say this even though I personally disliked the book.

That said, I wouldn't like to see all of our picks going to the "edge of the genre".

Let me ask again - are all secondary world fictions fantasy? I'm deeper into Embassytown and with the exception of some space travel by the narrator/protagonist, it all happens on a secondary world with humans and non-human races. Space aside, the entire book could be fantasy if we define all secondary world fictions as fantasy, yet that wouldn't feel right to me.

Sure, if we call this SF then we call the non-human races 'aliens' but that's the tail wagging the dog. After all, elves, dwarves, orcs and the like aren't human yet we don't refer to them as aliens. Is that solely because we have decided beforehand that Emabssytown is SF and LotR is fantasy?

Rick wrote: "Let me ask again - are all secondary world fictions fantasy?"

Depends on what tropes are used. Some are fantasy, some are science fiction, and some are both.

Embassytown has spaceships. It's science fiction. This isn't hard.

Sigh. This is why I'm kind of not bothering here anymore. I despair of getting any real discussion out of you people.

Sean - I'd love to hear your thoughts beyond that.

Brenda Saying "well it has spaceships..." is simplistic and I kind of wonder if you even read my comment where I clearly say "Space aside, the entire book could be fantasy..."

Neither of you actually bothered to engage with the core question - is all secondary world fiction fantasy? Or can it also be SF? Pretend that there are no obvious indicators, no spaceships, no dragons and magic. It's a secondary world with a totally made up geography and races (or there are humans as one race of several). Now... is that fantasy? If not, why not? If so, why?

I'm NOT trying to be pedantic - I'd like to discuss the boundaries, etc. Maybe others don't, though.

Sean just told you it could be SF...

Tropes and conventions are bigger players than setting to me. There certainly can be fantasy with spaceships, technology, and a futuristic setting. For me true scifi is actually scientific, if you get me, and Scifi novels read completely differently imo (Star Wars is fantasy to me, and Ray Bradbury, for instance, considered his own works fantasy). TTBC may not have any magic, dragons, elves, etc, but it follows conventions set out in certain modern fantasy subgenres. I guess it can't really be boxed into any one thing since, as someone mentioned before, it pushes the boundaries. Mundane is a nice word for it, like was suggested.

Brendan wrote: "Embassytown has spaceships. It's science fiction. This isn't hard."

Star Wars has spaceships. A lot of people, me included, put it firmly in the fantasy genre. The force is basically magic, therefore fantasy. I call it Space Fantasy. Yes, before anyone quibbles, it does have sci-fi elements and I don't mean f***ing midichlorians ;-)
The force is not controlled by bugs and "Han shot first" despite what George retroactively says. :-)

Boundaries are fuzzy and most genre fiction will fit in many genres.

I don't believe secondary world is either unless it has elements that "most" people agree define the genre.

"The Traitor" could be set on earth with known countries, cultures and time period and it would not affect the story much.

Rick wrote: "Neither of you actually bothered to engage with the core question - is all secondary world fiction fantasy? Or can it also be SF?

Secondary worlds are all inherently within the realm of speculative fiction. They can be fantasy, or sci-fi, or both depending upon what the author does with them.

I'm NOT trying to be pedantic - I'd like to discuss the boundaries, etc. Maybe others don't, though.

I've been through this discussion five million times on Usenet. It's a useless discussion. No matter what definition you offer, it'll lead to absurd results like Lord of the Rings falling under science fiction, or Foundation being fantasy. All you can do is look at the tropes invoked by the author and say whether, on the whole, they pile up on the fantasy or sci-fi side of the divide, and even then there will be cases that fall perfectly in the middle.

Not just tropes, but tone, IMO.

Rick wrote: "Sigh. This is why I'm kind of not bothering here anymore. I despair of getting any real discussion out of you people.

Sean - I'd love to hear your thoughts beyond that.

Brenda Saying "well it has..."

Frankly, I'd prefer a new term for a secondary world with no magic. Alternate historical fiction comes close, but that usually takes place in our world, just where something went differently. I like your mundane fantasy. So it can live near fantasy in terms of what sort of world to expect, but the magic-less-ness is captured. I still consider it under the fantasy umbrella moreso than the scifi umbrella.