Building a SciFi/Fantasy Library discussion

So, The Book of Life by Deborah Harkness won Best Fantasy of 2014. Since when did stories about vampires and witches become filed under fantasy? It seems the runner up, Words of Radiance fits (my notion of) the genre much better to my mind. Maybe Paranormal should become its own genre, with its own thriller and romance sub-genres. What's your take?

I feel much the same. I'd like to see a separate genre category for paranormal books like the All Souls Trilogy.

It would appear to fit the canonical definition of fantasy, namely it contains non-mundane elements that are not justified by appeal to the authority of science. There has always been an element of stories set in the contemporary world with such tropes as witches and vampires, even when it seemed like The Lord of the Rings rip-offs were fantasy.

Mind you, an urban fantasy/high fantasy split would seem prudent given the wide difference in the genres.

It barely fits into Urban Fantasy. Those books are Romance.

Since the defining characteristics of Romance and Fantasy do not overlap in the slightest -- one having plot and character requirements, the other one setting ones -- that a work is Romance proves nothing about whether it's Fantasy.

I disagree. The point to those Harkless books is not to "explore" the fantastical elements. They are merely a backdrop to the romance.

They're there, that's what makes a work fantasy.

How would Fantasy be distinguished from Horror then? The definition provided seems to try to differentiate Fantasy from Science Fiction.

There's some overlap between Horror and Fantasy, too.

Which seems (to me) where the Harkness books should fit - though more on the horror (of from what Meatmen said above, romance) side of the fence.

Actually, Mary, I would say your definition of Fantasy is what's wrong here. Fantasy isn't a setting it's a belief in concepts or ideas that cannot AND SHOULD NOT be proven. A Fantasy can happen 1000 years in the past, right now, or 1000 years into the future. The Lord of the Rings is not a Fantasy because it takes place in Middle Earth. It is a Fantasy because we are asked to believe that Sauron existed and was able to pour his spirit into a ring. Then the fact that his spirit was in that ring was the crux of the story.

I actually thought the Harkness books were OK (in my opinion 'Words of Radiance' was the best Fantasy book of the year) but the books feel to me like they are about the relationship between Diana and Matthew.

And not that it really means anything, but Goodreads itself doesn't even classify Harkness as a Sci-Fi/Fantasy author.

On the contrary, that is EXACTLY the setting. The story takes place in a world where marvels CAN occur, without appeal to authority of science.

The secondary belief is the belief that in this setting, such things really can happen. What are the laws of nature for that world except part of the setting?

It has to be more than the setting. It has to be integral to resolving the conflict in the story. In the end I feel the central conflict is the relationship between Diana and Matthew. As long as those two resolve their issues the rest is just gravy. If a story was a romance between two aliens, and the core of the story was their relationship, its not science fiction. Its just a romance set in space.

Meatmen wrote: "It has to be more than the setting. It has to be integral to resolving the conflict in the story."

Just because certain characteristics of the setting are integral to the resolution of the conflict doesn't mean they aren't characteristics of the setting.

And, on top of that, that definition of fantasy would dump large chunks of the genre out the door, which is a problem.

I wouldn't call it dumping, just moving to the right place. To me, and I would guess to the original poster, in Fantasy the world is a character the other characters interact with. In Urban Fantasy/Paranormal Romance the world is just the setting where the personal relationships takes place. The Stormlight Archives or The King-Killer Chronicles feel like they have to take place exactly where they do. If you move them you actually change a character in the story. But Anita Blake could be having her story take place anywhere and the core of the story really wouldn't change.

A couple of questions:

From which canon does that definition come?

Would that definition allow books such as the Star Wars series and Dracula be called Fantasy? Marvels would seem to occur in both without appeal to the authority of science. Star Wars has the use of The Force and the conflicting philosophies of its proponents as a key story element, which I would think be analagous to white/black magic in a traditional fantasy setting. And that the Empire/Rebels are the political manifestations of that philosophy.

And Dracula would seem to be a unique (and marvelous?) creature in his own right.

Dracula's fantasy. Star Wars, OTOH, is SF because we have all this machinery, which we all know means technology and therefore Science.

Meatmen wrote: "I wouldn't call it dumping, just moving to the right place."

Right in what sense? In what non-circular sense is the standard English usage wrong?

Star Wars is absolutely 100% Fantasy. It is not Science Fiction it is the opposite of Science Fiction. Remember, Darth Vader specifically says "Don't be too proud of this technical monstrosity you've created. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of The Force." He is telling us if you want to win in this story world you have to have faith in the FANTASY power of The Force.

And "machinery" doesn't make a story SF. Think about the movie"Alien", is it a SF just because it is set in space and has a space ship? Or is it Horror? I would say it is Horror. Or maybe "The Worm Ourboros". Is it SF because it starts by having the narrators whisked away across space to another planet? Or is it Fantasy because the whole rest of the book is like The Lord of the Rings?

If the canon question was for me - I'm not an expert, and I'm not saying I am. I'm just giving my own interpretation. From reading essays on Fantasy and Science Fiction by people like Tolkien or Larry Niven. Jim Butcher, already super popular from "The Dresden Files" said he wanted to do "The Codex Alera" because he wanted to get back to Fantasy.

Star Wars, and Alien are SF. Because, yes, spaceships.

All right, futuristic space ships.

The Worm Ourboros is using the old-fashioned pretext that magic can help where we don't know things. The reason it left our universe was we came to know too much.

@Meatmen: My question about canon was meant for Mary - I just wanted to know where the definition she provided came from.

@Mary: Sorry, I don't see spaceships, even futuristic ones as an appeal to the authority of science.

If you had to pick one and only one category for Alien you would chose SF over Horror? That seems very odd to me, I would say Alien is more like The Thing than 2001.

Somewhere "intent" of the story has to come into play. If Harkness's work is considered Fantasy I don't see why Anne Rice's, Stephen King's or Larry Correia's aren't considered Fantasy. As Tom asked, does Horror even exist if all that is required for Fantasy is one non-mundane element? It seems like you would be down to either Fantasy or Thriller only.

Meatmen wrote: "If you had to pick one and only one category for Alien you would chose SF over Horror?"

False dilemma. You don't have to pick one and only one category.

If you don't have to only pick one category...

'Landline', the book that was selected best fiction, has elements of time travel. By your definition it is Fantasy, because it has a non-mundane element.

Since all Fantasy must be Fiction, and since 'Landline' is a Fantasy - by your own definition - then either 'Landline' must be both the best Fiction and the best Fantasy or 'The Book of Life' must be.

In your own statement you admit that all Fantasy must be Fiction. Therefore by your own question, you admit that they can be in two categories.

That answer means absolutely nothing. I can only assume you are only disagreeing with the other posts in this thread for fun. I believe Tom was right. I believe there should be a genre called Paranormal. I believe the Harkness book should be there. I believe Brandon Sanderson is doing the best work in Fantasy that has been done in at least the last 20 years.

Merry wrote: The only thing I didn't love were the multiple alien races (except for Chewie!). Maybe that could lead to a leaning towards Fantasy, since the existence of these beings is, although very imaginative, not realistically possible."

Eh. At the current moment, our sample size for intelligent races is one. You can't work any statistics for what is normal with such a sample size.

Given how far the civilization has spread, it's even conceivable that they are all formerly human that were genetically engineered into new species.

Typically Science Fiction requires and appeal to scientific authority. That never happens in Star Wars. It asks you to believe in The Force, a magical quantity that you can't see or feel.

I agree that Foundation would be the archetype of SF. I think most people would call Lord of the Rings the archetype of Fantasy. Where I think these separate from what I would call Paranormal is that they required an entire world-building exercise. Paranormal says this is the world you know I don't have to build it, here are just a couple added details.

Meatmen wrote: "Typically Science Fiction requires and appeal to scientific authority. That never happens in Star Wars. "

Of course it happens. We have all sorts of machinery, which, as we all know, means Science. Plus of course the hyperdrive.

Also, Vader's clash with his own armed forces loses its punch if it's not Science vs the Force.

Try to tell the story of Star Wars without either hyperdrive or the The Force. Without hyperdrive its still Star Wars. Without The Force its another story entirely.

Mary wrote: "Meatmen wrote: "Typically Science Fiction requires and appeal to scientific authority. That never happens in Star Wars. "

Of course it happens. We have all sorts of machinery, which, as we all k..."

When I read this post, I immediately thought of a giant space trebuchet hurling ships into the stars.

If I recall correctly, Lucas attempts a kind of explanation of the Force when he talks about midichloreans in the prequels. That is, sufficient numbers of them in a person allow him/her to tap into the Force. Does that constitute an appeal to science? I'm not sure, but I'd venture a guess that a lot of fans thought the explanation lame and/or irrelevant. Though if you had asked me is Star Wars science fiction before this discussion, I would have unhesitantingly said yes. But now? I could conceive of it as a fantasy in a technological setting.

I originally raised the issue about the Harkness book because it seemed like (in my mind) a true fantasy book like the Sanderson should not have lost to something not as clearly fantasy (on my own mental compass). Also, I've been getting tired of seeing paranormal books popping up when I'm trying to find bargains for what I consider true fantasy books. First world problems? Absolutely. But a fun discussion.

Meatmen wrote: "Try to tell the story of Star Wars without either hyperdrive or the The Force. Without hyperdrive its still Star Wars. Without The Force its another story entirely."

Exactly. Star Wars is basically a classic fantasy story using SF tropes, but those tropes don't make the story SF. Alien is a horror story that also uses SF tropes. Aliens, the sequel to Alien, is a classic SF story.

Of course using SF tropes makes a story SF. That's what SF stories are.

So is "Spaceballs" SciFi? What about "Somewhere in Time", "Kate and Leopold" or "The Lake House"? Time Travel is a SF trope.

Take Star Wars and put it in Le Guin's "Earthsea". Han could easily be a sea ship captain taking Luke across the ocean instead of space and it's still the story of Star Wars - just now its Sea Wars. Take out The Force and its not SciFi or Fantasy its "The Hidden Fortress" the samurai movie Lukas based the original movie on - just set in space.

Mary wrote: "Of course using SF tropes makes a story SF. That's what SF stories are."

Incorrect. Stories are not made by tropes, tropes are made by stories. Tropes take their meaning from the story they're in.
It is possible to have an entire story made up of nothing but tropes, but the one time I saw this done I was the only one to see the underlying pattern of possible interpretations buried in those tropes, that made the story work. Most people just saw a bunch of meaningless, disconnected possibilities.

Meatmen wrote: "So is "Spaceballs" SciFi? What about "Somewhere in Time", "Kate and Leopold" or "The Lake House"? Time Travel is a SF trope.

Take Star Wars and put it in Le Guin's "Earthsea". Han could easily ..."

Lake House is a paranormal romance, and probably the others as well, but I haven't seen them. Time Travel is a paranormal trope, unless there's a specific machine or process involved. The Time Machine is clearly SF. Spaceballs is comic SF.

I agree with everything you said, Marc.

Fantasy and Paranormal aren't the same thing. I'm not against Paranormal, I enjoy some of them. I just think its ridiculous that Goodreads asked readers to say which is the better Fantasy, 'Book of Life' or 'Words of Radiance'. They might as well have asked what is a better SF movie 'Lake House' or 'The Time Machine'.

Meatmen wrote: "They might as well have asked what is a better SF movie 'Lake House' or 'The Time Machine'. "

Obviously Time Machine, since Lake House isn't SF. Which is I guess your point, but I don't know the books you're talking about so I don't know the genres.

Marc - The original question was why is 'Book of Life' in the Fantasy category. Let alone being chosen the best one. If just adding a vampire to a story makes it a fantasy then why aren't Anne Rice and Bram Stoker Fantasy authors?

Most people seem to think there should be a category of Paranormal. Mary, however, is arguing that all that is needed for a Fantasy is "non-mundane events" and all that is needed for SF is "futuristic spaceships".

Meatmen wrote: "Marc - The original question was why is 'Book of Life' in the Fantasy category. Let alone being chosen the best one. If just adding a vampire to a story makes it a fantasy then why aren't Anne Ri..."

Looking at the description, I see witches involved. That would be enough for a fantasy label, I think. I'd have to read the story to know for sure.

That was the question. Is a character being a witch or a vampire enough to make it a Fantasy?

I would prefer a separate Paranormal category because I don't think that it makes sense to compare Twilight to Game of Thrones. I wouldn't discourage anyone from reading either, read what you want, but if they are in the same classification then the classification seems too broad.

Meatmen wrote: "That was the question. Is a character being a witch or a vampire enough to make it a Fantasy?"

It would depend on the function of the witch and the vampire in the story. If the witch doesn't use her powers but the vampire is always doing his thing, then it's a paranormal. If the vampire is inert and the witch is casting spell after spell, then it's a fantasy. The labels depend on the story.

Paranormal/Urban Fantasy does require a new category. I have seen it separated at many book stores now because it deserves a genre spotlight and should not be confused with traditional fantasy.

This beating out Brandon Sanderson is.. ugh. It's not Words of Radiance being better, it is them being two different stories told in two very different ways that are fairly typical to their respective genre but too dissimilar to compete in a meaningful way.

It just doesn't feel right - aw well - hopefully this will change. I feel it will.

Meatmen wrote: "Marc - The original question was why is 'Book of Life' in the Fantasy category. Let alone being chosen the best one. If just adding a vampire to a story makes it a fantasy then why aren't Anne Rice and Bram Stoker Fantasy authors?"


They are.

They just are Horror writers, too, and billing them as such increases their sales.

Marc wrote: "Mary wrote: "Of course using SF tropes makes a story SF. That's what SF stories are."

Incorrect. Stories are not made by tropes, tropes are made by stories. Tropes take their meaning from the sto..."

And what is the abstract story, distinct from all the tropes used in it, that could possibly give meaning to anything?

There is no story apart from the tropes.