Sci-fi and Heroic Fantasy discussion

I'm wondering if I'm alone in being a reader of fantasy novels who prefers non-magic.

Does a fantasy novel for you have to have magic? Mythic beasts? Or non-human race?

Could you embrace a fantasy novel/series that didn't have these qualities?

Ellen Kushner once observed that she would like to be in the audience while a SF con panel debated whether Swordspoint was fantasy, since it lacked all fantasy traits except being in an imaginary land.

As for embracing such a series/novel, that's the wrong question. The right one is whether we would call it fantasy. Why would we call it fantasy if it had no fantasy tropes at all?

I'm not sure how a novel could be considered fantasy without magic/mythic beasts/non-humans. There surely has to be one of those to then be considered fantasy, unless there's a book out there that is otherwise and labeled such.

What do you consider fantasy & magic? Porn novels are fantasies & it's pretty magical how often folks get it on, but I wouldn't shelve them as either, just as porn. I have Barry Sadler's Casca series filed under fantasy because Casca was cursed by Christ to remain as he is until the 2d coming. Otherwise, the novels are mostly historical action/war but, Casca is magically kept alive by a mythical figure so meets my definition of fantasy.

Some definitions via the web:
Fantasy = the faculty or activity of imagining things, esp. things that are impossible or improbable.

Magic = the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

Clarke's Law = Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

A person made a good case for FTL being magic thus any SF novel using it becomes a subset of fantasy. I can see their point, but don't use the definition myself. It's too broad, IMO. Almost any fiction book could be considered a fantasy.

Jim wrote: "Fantasy = the faculty or activity of imagining things, esp. things that are impossible or improbable."

Words admit of many meanings. That's not the definition of fantasy used in the taxonomy of genres.

No? SF is often classed as a subset of the fantasy genre, although I don't agree with it. To me, fantasy novels have a supernatural or magical element, unexplainable phenomena. SF is based on science, even when it's pretty magical like the old space operas.

A lot of the problem does stem from our broad use of the word 'fantasy'. This taxonomy shows the confusion in the terms well:
http://curriculum.austinisd.org/la/re...

Porn is sexual fantasy, SF is science fantasy, action novels are adventure/thriller fantasies - if you want to use the word that way. If we say 'magical fantasy', what I believe you mean as the taxonomy of the genre, there are still some pretty blurred lines. Take Lord Of Thunder by Andre Norton, a book we've both read, is shelved by 31 people as SF & 10 as fantasy. I tend to agree with the SF designation, but given that psi powers & animal communication is involved, I can understand those who consider it a fantasy. While Norton handles them as advanced science, she adds a dash of mysticism & psi powers will always be magical to some.

Jim wrote: "No? SF is often classed as a subset of the fantasy genre, although I don't agree with it."

Not often. Occasionally. Generally by people who are clinging to a definition of their own devising past reason.

I don't think that Fantasy has to be at all magical in nature in order to be considered fantasy.

I consider Richard Adams books to be along the lines of Fantasy rather than General Fiction. We all know that there are no talking rabbits/dogs/bears and the society that they live in within these novels is totally imagined however there is no magic involved what-so-ever.

I'm of the school that says that Fantasy doesn't have to be magical.
This is when being an author means I have to sit on my hands.
But I think one thing that fantasy lets you do is introduce the fey, the 'out of place', hints that something is perhaps going on that might be magical.
Admittedly I do think that fantasy benefits from a little magic but it might be unexplained science or it might be magical

Brings to mind McCaffrey's Dragonriders books. No magic and, technically, sci-fi. But they sure read like fantasy to me!

Mary wrote: "Not often. Occasionally. Generally by people who are clinging to a definition of their own..."

My online library has fantasy as the main genre & lists SF books under it. So does a local second hand book store which qualifies as often enough to me & I don't see as either has an ax to grind. They seem to think their customers will look there for them & we do.

I've heard & read enough confusing definitions of genres that I pretty much gave up years ago. I shelve them all together as fiction on my physical shelves by author. Even there I don't discriminate too much. I have some of the better fictional histories shelved with factual ones since I think they give as good or even a better look at the times.

It's always a tough call whether to put a factual book by an author with other factual books or with their fiction books, if that's what they usually write. I put Asimov's factual books on the fact shelves, but L'Amour's in with his fiction books rather than the rest of the biographies. Works for me.

While I prefer magic in the fantasy books that I read , I have also enjoyed those with little or no magic in them. I guess I am fine with either way.

It's been 10 years or more since I read McKillip's MOON-FLASH, but I think it, like SWORDPOINT, has no fantasy tropes except for its location in an imaginary land.

I do consider that to be a "fantasy-trope," though, as long as some sense of the otherworldly is maintained. For example, William Faulkner created an imaginary county in several of his works, but "Yoknapatawpha County" is just the real-life Lafayette County under another name, and not otherworldly in the least.

You mean Lafayette County is real!



;-)

I think that the important question with any book is not what genre to put it in but rather "Is this any Good?".

In this years Nebula shortlist there are two books that are not really SF/ fantasy. There is Hild which is historical fiction with some fantasy tropes in it and We Are All Completely Beside Ourselves which is contemporary fiction with a slight SFnal feel and scientific themes. All this I see as healthy for the genre. There are always people who try to say a book should be x, y and z to be in the genre but this is needless and unnecessary stifling of the genre.

Gene wrote: "It's been 10 years or more since I read McKillip's MOON-FLASH, but I think it, like SWORDPOINT, has no fantasy tropes except for its location in an imaginary land.

IIRC the flash is caused by the launching of a spaceship which would make it SF.

Aleah wrote: "Brings to mind McCaffrey's Dragonriders books. No magic and, technically, sci-fi. But they sure read like fantasy to me!"

Aleah, I agree. There is a lot of science involved in Mccaffrey's Pern series, especially in the later books. But they mostly are great fantasy. I think that both genres are closely related as they are stories the author has imagined or fantasized. No matter which is your favorite, as long as the story is well done and you can escape into those worlds and "believe" then read, read, and read some more.

Mary wrote: "Gene wrote: "It's been 10 years or more since I read McKillip's MOON-FLASH, but I think it, like SWORDPOINT, has no fantasy tropes except for its location in an imaginary land.

IIRC the flash is c..."
I don't know that a spaceship automatically throws a book into the sci-fi genre. There are a lot of people who think space fantasy should be its own category. If you've elements of fantasy in space, genre is gonna get bent one way or another. A lot of readers call for more genre categories, but I really don't think it's necessary. In the end, who cares? You can almost always tell from the blurb or the sample what you're getting.

Nah, the only thing that can make a story fantasy when it has spaceships is the Holy Grail.

Mary wrote: "Nah, the only thing that can make a story fantasy when it has spaceships is the Holy Grail."

Let's say we put Merlin and some elves on the ship, and it's battling magic dragons. Doesn't sound like sci-fi to me.

It's funny, I notice that avid fantasy or avid sci-fi readers don't want those hybrid genre books in grouped with "their" genre. Like it's pulloting the strain. Funny stuff.

Mary wrote: "Nah, the only thing that can make a story fantasy when it has spaceships is the Holy Grail."

Not a bad rule of thumb, but I've always enjoyed the exceptions or those that defy easy categorization. Many books by Roger Zelazny can be argued either way. While it's an alien world colonized by man via space ship, Lord of Light reads like a fantasy with its blend of psi powers & high tech. Isle of the Dead & To Die in Italbar are pure SF, if you don't count channeling 'gods' as fantasy. Kind of hard not to, but they read as SF save for that.

The Einstein Intersection by Samuel R. Delany is a post apocalyptic earth inhabited by aliens playing at being human set to Greek mythology, sort of. It's really SF, but reads like a fantasy.

Split Infinity by Piers Anthony has a man in a world of high science part time, but he steps through a dimensional portal to become a magician in another part.

It's books like these that make me appreciate putting the label of fantasy a bit higher up the chart to cover SF & other genres sometimes. Let the subgenre (PNR, UF, S&S, SF, etc.) define it, if need be. It really makes me appreciate the ability to shelve books under more than one label on virtual bookshelves. Physical ones are just too limiting for the English word 'fantasy', IMO. Its definition is contextual & too subtle.

If you start arguing that it "reads like a fantasy" you have murdered all possible use of the genre terms, because you have made it impossible to classify works.

Lord of Light entirely operate on suspending disbelief on appeal to the authority of Science. Remember that psi power is Science.

Mary wrote: "Remember that psi power is Science...."

Uh, not in my universe. Psi, telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, and other such "mind powers" are paranormal fantasy to me.(*)

This is why I consider Dune to be part fantasy ("folding space" in drug-induced trace, Bene Gesserit powers and Fremen prophecy.)

Likewise, Anne McCaffrey's Pern keeps fantasy elements, despite later novels about space colonization, simply because I don't believe in a "science" of teleporting, time-traveling bio-engineered critters.

(*) edit Unless we live in The Matrix, in which case there is no spoon.

That is because you are projecting your own beliefs onto them. There were considerable scientific research into the subject of ESP and the like.

And it doesn't matter whether you can believe a given scientific element. What matters is that McCaffrey -- from the first book -- was invoking Science to explain them.

Otherwise the term "science fiction" has no use. Your usage would make Hal Clement fantasy in the eyes of those who disbelieve FTL travel and universal communicators. If the defining master of hard science fiction can be thrown out of the genre by a definition, you are defining it wrong.

The Gormenghast Novels are a good example of magic free fantasy.

Much science fiction contains science that is either impossible or incredible. Even much SF that is labelled "hard". Its not something that bothers me very much but there is enough "realistic" stuff out there for those whose tastes lean that way.

The problem I have with teleporting, Psi,telepathy, precognition, chosen ones etc is that these elements are very overused and stale. Dont mind them being used if it feels fresh but too often they are go-to solutions that I just wish were not there.

G33z3r wrote: "Mary wrote: "Remember that psi power is Science...."

Uh, not in my universe. Psi, telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, and other such "mind powers" are paranormal fantasy to me.(..."

Yep. Even if they have a "pseudo scientific" explenation for it like Star Wars or Asimov's mule.

Some stuff is almost impossible to comfortably categorize. Lovecraft's stuff could be just about anything. On the one hand you have alien deities, on the other you have cthulu. Doesn't really matter as long as it's a good story. I don't wake up in a cold sweat screaming because I can't fit something I read in a genre.

Oh, I have one for you. TOOTH AND CLAW, by Jo Walton. Not a scrap of magic in it anywhere from beginning to end. But boy howdy is it fantasy.

Mary wrote: "If you start arguing that it "reads like a fantasy" you have murdered all possible use of the genre terms, because you have made it impossible to classify works...."

I think that's a bit much. Genres exist to give readers, the consumer, a rough classification. If they're often too confining, they should change. Originally they were limited by physical shelf space that allowed a book to exist in only one place. That's no longer true, so why not expand into the new virtual spaces gratefully?

Zelazny hated being pigeon-holed by genre & constantly fought against the boundaries. He said he wrote Lord of Light to be read either or both as fantasy or SF, so I file it under both. If you insist on reading it only as science (Which your last 2 sentences seem to indicate, although I didn't understand them well.) then you're limiting the possibilities of the story. Your choice &, IMO, loss, though.

This Immortal is basically a post apocalyptic journey around the Earth complete with aliens, but contains so much mythology & classical allusions that it is very much a fantasy. Zelazny says he meant to leave the reader wondering if the unreliable narrator, Conrad, could actually be the Greek god Pan. Donnerjack is about virtual computer worlds yet has a ghost in the real one. Jack of Shadows & Creatures of Light and Darkness both read like fantasy, have a strong SF component or even basis, yet have elements that can't be explained purely by the science of the novel, so often fall into the fantasy genre.

Zelazny strove to & succeeded in straddling genres well & that is why so many of his books are so re-readable. His use of allusions was masterful, which also adds to their range. They can be interpreted in various ways depending on the reader's mood, age, & knowledge. Why should any reader leave the call up to some OCD librarian or publisher when neither he nor the author feel it is appropriate?

I read a short story last night, "A Struggle Between Rivals Ends Surprisingly", from this month's Fantasy & Science Fiction. It concerned a human translator facilitating contract negotiations with a nonhuman race. After I finished it, I realized the author hadn't tipped his hand as to whether it was fantasy or science fiction. (The story had zero world building, concentrating on the odd culture of the nonhuman race and the relationship between competing humans.) There was no mention of either magic or technology, so I could either frame the nonhuman race as aliens from another planet or just another species in an alternate fantasy world. Had the author said the humans had arrived on horseback, I would have quickly pigeonholed the story as fantasy; and have they mentioned the humans had landed a spaceship, I'd have slotted it into science fiction.

G33z3r wrote: "I read a short story last night, "A Struggle Between Rivals Ends Surprisingly", from this month's Fantasy & Science Fiction. It concerned a human translator facilitating contract ne..."

Albion upon the Rock was great.

Personally I don't think a fantasy novel NEEDS magic. Just like a sci-fi novel doesn't need aliens. You could write a book where a hero slays a dragon but there was no magic and 99% of people would call it fantasy.

Also conceivably you could have a tale with magic that wasn't really fantasy (say a detective novel where someone had minor powers alone).

What 1% would consider a dragon's presence something other than fantasy? The 1% who believe in dragons?

And you're right, fantasy doesn't need the application of magic to be considered such–it's just a frequent entity. But for the work to be labeled fantasy, it has to have some element of the fantastical; something that could not/does not exist in our reality.

Nicholas wrote: "What 1% would consider a dragon's presence something other than fantasy? The 1% who believe in dragons?
..."

Or the genetic engineers? ;-)

Nicholas wrote: "What 1% would consider a dragon's presence something other than fantasy? The 1% who believe in dragons?"
lmao

Jim wrote: "Nicholas wrote: "What 1% would consider a dragon's presence something other than fantasy? The 1% who believe in dragons?
..."

Or the genetic engineers? ;-)"

Wow, THAT would be a cool premise. I'd read that.

Michael wrote: "Jim wrote: "Or the genetic engineers? ;-)"

Wow, THAT would be a cool premise. I'd read that...."


That is in essence the expanded premise of Anne McCaffrey's Pern novels. She really didn't get into it until the 9th book in the series, Dragonsdawn, which is why despite the author's protests, most of us still think of it as fantasy. :) (view spoiler)[In Dragonsdawn, McCaffrey describes how the space-faring colonizers of planet Pern needed to provide the settlers with a defense against a periodic parasitic infestation from the passage of a smaller planet with a highly eccentric orbit. Not thinking the colony large enough to support the advanced technology of the spacecraft, they genetically engineered firebreathing, flying dragons to burn the falling parasites out of the sky before they can burrow into the earth. (hide spoiler)]

I think of Sharon Shinn's Archangel series as a fantasy without magic. Although about half way through the 3rd one it does become more of a science fiction.

All the people I've known who've read Archangel have had no trouble seeing that the miracles are advanced tech.

I think of the fantasy more in the a way that Dragons were mentioned earlier. The "angels" have appear to the "humans" to have magical powers. They are not magical but the book gives them that feel. The world also has the sort of Medieval setting that is used in fantasy so often. Of course, that is a personal reaction to the books.

Nicholas wrote: What 1% would consider a dragon's presence something other than fantasy? The 1% who believe in dragons?

Every time someone says 'I don't believe in dragons', a dragon eats somebody.

Good question Mika. I wasn't saying that Dragons were normal above....just that they aren't inherently magical. The Loch Ness Monster might be a sea dragon..but I am not sure anyone would say it was magical...

I am sure there must be but I don't know any!

Ah, but if you just made it a sea dragon, would anyone think it fantasy? More like a cryptozoology specimen

Yes, there's one by Peter Dickinson. EMMA TUPPER'S DIARY.