WI: Fantasy as "varied" as science fiction?

[dcharles]

Using that reasoning most of science fiction, even a lot supposedly hard science fiction, is fantasy,

Such as?

Science fiction is very much about "scientific noises".

Not in this sense. Saying that getting bitten by a radioactive spider, or getting bombarded by gamma rays, is going to turn someone into a living god, as it does to Spider Man or the Hulk, isn't science fiction. The only science is the author misusing a word that's derived from science. Instead, it's "science" giving someone magic powers.

I note that the currently best known version of Marvel's Thor, the MCU one, is explicitly an alien,

An alien with a magic hammer and magic powers. I note that the Stormlight Archive, probably the most popular fantasy series in the world right now, is also about people from different planets with magic weapons.

That arbitrarily removes a lot of things. Like non-horror urban fantasy.

Not removes, but moves; and not arbitrarily--I've already shared my reasoning here. Urban fantasy is is dealing with the present, but contains many fantastical elements, just as superhero media does. The difference between the two? Heroic orientation and format. Superhero stories usually come in the form of comics and movies. Urban fantasies are usually traditional novels.

 

[Fratsup]

In terms of comics I would say that Cape comics are fantasy but they tend to be very different that they are not considered fantasy by most.

 

[Lord High Executioner]

Well you could very easily and honestly argue that Star Wars is mot SciFi but is SciFantasy.

I think the argument tends to be more along the lines of whether science fantasy (or specifically Star Wars*)
is part of science fiction, part of fantasy or something of its own.

*I get the impression that at least some other this-should-be-called-Science-Fantasy stories and settings tend to
get a pass, but that might be because they're not discussed as much where I can see it.

Star Wars is 1000% fantasy. It is not an exploration of technology and it's effects, or a meditation on the future of humanity, or anything else sci-fi.

So, it is not sci-fi because it is not sci-fi?

Such as?

What do you consider hard science fiction?
I mean, Wikipedia's editors apparently consider Surface Tension, The Cold Equation, Jurassic Park and Ghost In The Shell hard science fiction,
and regardless of what their story says about the effects of technology and the future of humanity, I'm not sure genetically engineered microscopic humanoids
is more scientific and less magic than using a lens made of white dwarf star matter to shrink things.
(And this also ties back to how, for example, Amos Tutuola's The Palm-Wine Drinkard isn't fantasy but "could be read as a moral commentary on western consumerism".)

An alien with a magic hammer and magic powers. I note that the Stormlight Archive, probably the most popular fantasy series in the world right now, is also about people from different planets with magic weapons.

And towards the other end of the timeline - one of the then most popular science fiction series was about a man who astrally travelled
to the distant past of Mars and developed superpowers...
Of course, a lot of definitions of science fiction sounds designed to explicitly exclude things like that in favour of, if you pardon the expression,
The Real, Serious Stuff Like What The Definition-maker Likes/Writes. Not the Flash Gordon stuff.
On the other hand, planetary romance is a recognised science fiction genre.
(And now I'm thinking of how things like Aniara was defined as not-science fiction on account of being written by a Serious Author And Poet.)
And so we go round in circles.

Not removes, but moves; and not arbitrarily--I've already shared my reasoning here. Urban fantasy is is dealing with the present, but contains many fantastical elements, just as superhero media does. The difference between the two? Heroic orientation and format. Superhero stories usually come in the form of comics and movies. Urban fantasies are usually traditional novels.

Splitting something up between "takes place in historical-seeming setting" and "takes place in the present" is pretty arbitrary.
When does "the present" begin? Does the time of creation or publication matter?
The Canterville Ghost, The Circus of Dr. Lao and the adventures of John The Balladeer all took place in the present when they were
written and published, but are in historical settings now (and strictly speaking, none of them are urban).

It isn't until the Fifties that fantasy moves out of the children's section and grows into its own.

Miguel Cervantes says "Hola" and points at Thomas Malory.
While Messrs. Wagner, Mozart and others pointedly don't mention the pop cultural juggernaut known as opera...
Once more it comes down to definitions...

 

[Nivek]

Miguel Cervantes says "Hola" and points at Thomas Malory.
While Messrs. Wagner, Mozart and others pointedly don't mention the pop cultural juggernaut known as opera...
Once more it comes down to definitions...

excatly, you could argue the romance of gauches and all the crappy novels all come under fantasy umbrella, the reason is when we switched for a setting to our characters to shine, to the setting also be a character itself to

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I would read the excellent essay series by Adam Whitehead on the "History of Epic Fantasy" to get a feeling for why we tend to view the fantasy genre the way we do. As he says in the first essay, Tolkien specifically set out in the work of "subcreation" - similar to what Robert E. Howard did simultaneously with Conan in the 30s - where he created a secondary world, characters and myths to populate it. There's plenty of pre-20th century works that could look like what we consider fantasy, but it was the men like Conan and Tolkien who did unconsciously create what we would popularly consider the genre.

 

[Nivek]

I would read the excellent essay series by Adam Whitehead on the "History of Epic Fantasy" to get a feeling for why we tend to view the fantasy genre the way we do. As he says in the first essay, Tolkien specifically set out in the work of "subcreation" - similar to what Robert E. Howard did simultaneously with Conan in the 30s - where he created a secondary world, characters and myths to populate it. There's plenty of pre-20th century works that could look like what we consider fantasy, but it was the men like Conan and Tolkien who did unconsciously create what we would popularly consider the genre.

Excatly what I said,when the setting also become a character

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Fritz Lieber's Lankhmar is often overlooked, but provides an interesting mix of character, magic and realism [1] in what is clearly a fantasy setting, but one with occasional scifi elements.

[1] The fight scenes are often reasonably credible - Fafhrd and The Grey Mouser are heroes, rather than superheroe. They typically try to avoid fights, tip the odds in their favour when they can, and run when it's time to run. More numerous opponents will break and run rather than fight to the death.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Using that reasoning most of science fiction, even a lot supposedly hard science fiction, is fantasy,
which is arguably true but makes any discussion of what constitutes the fantasy genre pointless.
Science fiction is very much about "scientific noises".
(Obligatory-random Hark, A Vagrant strip with Verne and Wells.)

I note that the currently best known version of Marvel's Thor, the MCU one, is explicitly an alien,
although I am not sure what the current position of the main comics Marvel universe is on the issue.

Also "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."


That arbitrarily removes a lot of things. Like non-horror urban fantasy.


From what I've read, that was very much the intention.


One presumes there are reasons Chainmail has not become the standard system for historical wargaming...
Although, in fairness, the terribility of any wargaming system that does not make loud claims of realistic
simulationism (and even then) should be judged by what else is on the market.
Also, link? It's been a while since my youtube algorithm picked up Lindybeige.

I can't easily do links on my phone, but I googled lindybeige and 'early D & D is rubbish' and that worked yesterday.

 

[Lord High Executioner]

I can't easily do links on my phone, but I googled lindybeige and 'early D & D is rubbish' and that worked yesterday.

Thank you.
Although, once again "early D & D is rubbish" is less of a hot take and more "a truth generally acknowledged".
Is it the Holmes or the Moldvay edition that is described as "the first version you could actually play without
having it explained by someone who already knew it"?

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer is fantasy, and it's very different from medieval European fantasy, although it's definitely Anglosphere.

Arabic and Romance-speaking worlds did not come up with their own Lewis or Tolkien-sized epics, for example.

Sindbad the Sailor (though I think later versions of it borrowed bits from the Odyssey). Arabian Nights.

 

[jacob ningen]

Most if not all places have regional legends that could be turned into the basis for fantasy. It's just that they have been covered over.

And I'm sure there is preexisting literature that does forfill this, I just don't know them & they aren't as popular.

For a long time "fairy tales" etc. were seen as children's stuff, not worthy of serious works including in the pre-Tolkien Anglosphere (in the West anyway).

To avoid this in western nations I have two ideas, I'm not familiar enough with others to comment:

• Avoid the industrial(ish) era concept that everything that came before was worthless unscientific nonsense & "progress marches forward". These are so tied into what came afterwards though, that I'm not sure how to avoid it without completely changing everything.

on the plus side since reaction to this idea is core to the Romantic Horror story, we butterfly fifty shades of grey and modern ship wars.