# Is magic necessary to write a fantasy story?



## BloodyHellSausage (Aug 23, 2017)

Most fantasy seems to involve some sort of magic, so I was wondering if you consider it necessary for a fantasy story.


----------



## Orc Knight (Aug 23, 2017)

I don't think so. Fantasy is exactly that. Fantasy. Fantastical. Magic isn't necessarily needed for it. Perhaps a good use of not using magic in fantasy is Planetary Romance, like John Carter of Mars. Though you can have a completely fantastical world, if you can explain it in a way to suspend belief, you don't need magic. It's all in the story and making sense in the world. Magic can be as much flair as it is the entire lifeblood of the 'verse. Fantasy isn't all magic, elves and dwarves and dark lords in awesome spiked armor with spiky blunt weapons. To me, it's simply something that's fantastical to think about how they might work. The impossible (or very improbable) made possible in a kind of very entertaining thought exercise. Most the time.

And if you want to write with magic, do so. Or don't. Sure, we divide a bit into certain categories with the Fantasy media, but it is still under the umbrella, magic or not. So, my more then two cents on it. Maybe it's a half pence thought.


----------



## Devor (Aug 23, 2017)

I think there needs to be _something_ about your world and your story which can only be told with all the worldbuilding and background that goes into the setting.  That's usually the magic, or some "magical" physics-breaking aspect of your world, but it doesn't always have to be.

The thing is, all that worldbuilding has a cost.  It creates a distance that you have to work to overcome with your reader.  If a story can be told in a modern or historical setting, it would probably be stronger if you told it that way.


----------



## Peat (Aug 23, 2017)

I don't think so. Non-human races and scientifically provable and interventionist gods would be two things I'd think of as making a story fantasy that do not require magic.


----------



## skip.knox (Aug 24, 2017)

I cannot think of a fantasy story that I enjoyed that did not include magic.


----------



## CupofJoe (Aug 24, 2017)

First define what is Magic? 
There is that Arthur C Clarke quote "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
In my hubris I'd tweak the wording to be "Any technology sufficiently not understood is indistinguishable from magic"
I don't think there has to be magic as in fireball spells but there has to be something that isn't of-this-world.


----------



## Ruru (Aug 24, 2017)

It really does come to story I think (technical definitions of fantasy categories aside I guess). A fantasy world based on beasts and incarnate gods as an example. Like others have said here, it just needs to be _fantastical_, other-worldly. 

Then comes your definition of 'magic', like cupofJoe said. What about stretching the realms of chemistry? Is that magic? Is magic only spells or do you refer to all forms of 'power'? By that point, what about politics? (heh). 

For me, magic doesn't make it fantasy, the world does, at least to an extent.


----------



## SMAndy85 (Aug 24, 2017)

Even if you do put magic in, it doesn't have to be the arcane spellcaster trope of a wizened old man reading from a spellbook and making things burst into flame.

In my world, I have fragments of a shattered moon, imbued with the power of the gods being implanted into people's skin. This gives them access to a fragment of divine power, controlled by their will. Mostly it allows a low level of elemental control, but with the emotional associations of those elements too. It's not magic in the traditional sense, but it is fantastical. I won't be calling it "magic" in the story though!


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 24, 2017)

No, of course it isn't. Just take a look at the body of existing fantasy literature.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Aug 24, 2017)

Magic is very often seen and explained in Fantasy stories.

Even then, it's not necessary for all Fantasy stories to feature some type of Magic. I think that what really defines Fantasy is that we tell stories about other worlds, and especially about worlds were wonderful and unrealistic things exist.

Our stories are Fantasy with or without a Magic system.


----------



## claramcalister (Aug 30, 2017)

Personally I really, really enjoy Fantasy with magic. But that's a personal preference; I've read- and really enjoyed- several fantasy books that don't have any magic at all. So I don't think it's necessary for a good one. Just that it's popular in those settings.


----------



## Corwynn (Aug 30, 2017)

I think to qualify as fantasy, a story needs to either involve supernatural elements or a constructed world, but not necessarily both. If you want to tell stories in an invented universe that does not have magic, then by all means do so. You don't have to shoehorn in elements that you aren't particularly interested in just because "it's the thing to do".


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 30, 2017)

Corwynn said:


> I think to qualify as fantasy, a story needs to either involve supernatural elements or a constructed world, but not necessarily both. If you want to tell stories in an invented universe that does not have magic, then by all means do so. You don't have to shoehorn in elements that you aren't particularly interested in just because "it's the thing to do".



I agree, I think--depending on what you mean by constructed world. If I use the real world, but make it so that native Americans had steam technology when Columbus arrived, I think that's still fantasy. The question is how much you have to change the real world for it to be fantasy.


----------



## Corwynn (Aug 30, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> I agree, I think--depending on what you mean by constructed world. If I use the real world, but make it so that native Americans had steam technology when Columbus arrived, I think that's still fantasy. The question is how much you have to change the real world for it to be fantasy.



I would classify a story like that as alternate history, or maybe sci-fi. But now that I think about it, the divisions between genres can be pretty arbitrary. I guess the distinction is more a matter of convention than a hard rule. My point is that you don't need magic in fantasy any more than you need space travel in science-fiction.


----------



## Mythopoet (Aug 31, 2017)

This is just my personal opinion, but I think the only thing necessary for fantasy is something, anything that is distinctly "other" to our world. Magic is only an example of something that could be "other", but then again sometimes magic doesn't even feel "other", it depends on how the writer uses it. Sometimes the "magical" or "supernatural" elements are kept in the background and described so vaguely that I can't even tell whether or not I think they feel "other". But it's that "otherness" that I personally am looking for in fantasy. Something that makes me feel like I am being taken out of the world I know and transported to some other place where dreams are possible.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Aug 31, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> This is just my personal opinion, but I think the only thing necessary for fantasy is something, anything that is distinctly "other" to our world. Magic is only an example of something that could be "other", but then again sometimes magic doesn't even feel "other", it depends on how the writer uses it. Sometimes the "magical" or "supernatural" elements are kept in the background and described so vaguely that I can't even tell whether or not I think they feel "other". But it's that "otherness" that I personally am looking for in fantasy. Something that makes me feel like I am being taken out of the world I know and transported to some other place where dreams are possible.



^I think this is closest to my definition.

I think there has to be something fantastical or impossible by our world's standards, or unlike what's in our reality, even if it doesn't take the form of a "magic system" necessarily.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 31, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> ^I think this is closest to my definition.
> 
> I think there has to be something fantastical or impossible by our world's standards, or unlike what's in our reality, even if it doesn't take the form of a "magic system" necessarily.



That knocks out some very good fantasy on the shelves under "Fantasy" at the local bookstore


----------



## Mythopoet (Aug 31, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> That knocks out some very good fantasy on the shelves under "Fantasy" at the local bookstore



As I said, this is my personal definition. Books that do not fit this definition do not satisfy _my_ desire for fantasy. And yes, there are many popular books that do not satisfy me as fantasy. And yes, Gormenghast is one of them.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 31, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> As I said, this is my personal definition. Books that do not fit this definition do not satisfy _my_ desire for fantasy. And yes, there are many popular books that do not satisfy me as fantasy. And yes, Gormenghast is one of them.



Gormenghast may still fit in the definition. I'm thinking of something like Guy Gavriel Kay's "The Lions of Al-Rassan." You may like that one. It's a great book. Also included would be books like The Company, by KJ Parker. Or maybe just about anything by Parker--I haven't read all his work.


----------



## Mythopoet (Aug 31, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Gormenghast may still fit in the definition. I'm thinking of something like Guy Gavriel Kay's "The Lions of Al-Rassan." You may like that one. It's a great book. Also included would be books like The Company, by KJ Parker. Or maybe just about anything by Parker--I haven't read all his work.



Well, I can say with certainty that Gormenghst didn't satisfy me as a fantasy novel. And I don't view any element of it as "distinctly other". Odd, yes. Disturbing, yes. "Other", no. 

I have read The Lions of Al-Rassan. It was an ok book. Also did not satisfy me as fantasy. Tigana, on the other hand, did satisfy me as fantasy. There were distinctly "other" elements in it.

I am not familiar with KJ Parker or any of his books. So I don't know.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 31, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> Well, I can say with certainty that Gormenghst didn't satisfy me as a fantasy novel. And I don't view any element of it as "distinctly other". Odd, yes. Disturbing, yes. "Other", no.
> 
> I have read The Lions of Al-Rassan. It was an ok book. Also did not satisfy me as fantasy. Tigana, on the other hand, did satisfy me as fantasy. There were distinctly "other" elements in it.
> 
> I am not familiar with KJ Parker or any of his books. So I don't know.



I quite like Tigana. I like all of Kay's work, though. Parker is best known for his Engineer trilogy, I suppose, or for the works he writes as Tom Holt. I like his books as well. The publisher's description of The Company is:


"Hoping for a better life, five war veterans colonize an abandoned island. They take with them everything they could possibly need - food, clothes, tools, weapons, even wives. 

But an unanticipated discovery shatters their dream and replaces it with a very different one. The colonists feel sure that their friendship will keep them together. Only then do they begin to realize that they've brought with them rather more than they bargained for.

For one of them, it seems, has been hiding a terrible secret from the rest of the company. And when the truth begins to emerge, it soon becomes clear that the war is far from over. "


It's basically a story of looted war gold and the human nature that comes to the fore amongst this group. Nothing supernatural. It is Fantasy only in that it takes place in a made up world. Such a story could easily have played out in real history. I liked it, personally.


----------



## Mythopoet (Aug 31, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> I quite like Tigana. I like all of Kay's work, though. Parker is best known for his Engineer trilogy, I suppose, or for the works he writes as Tom Holt. I like his books as well.
> 
> [/FONT][/COLOR]



I've like some of Kay's books and not others. I strongly disliked Under Heaven so I haven't tried to read anything of his since. 

Personally, I don't think it's enough for a book to be set in a "made up world" (especially when said "made up world" is basically somewhere in our world but with the names changed) to count as fantasy. For a secondary world to qualify as fantasy, in my opinion, it needs to have that "otherness" about it that makes it distinctly different from our own world in its essence, not just in the details.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 31, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> I've like some of Kay's books and not others. I strongly disliked Under Heaven so I haven't tried to read anything of his since.
> 
> Personally, I don't think it's enough for a book to be set in a "made up world" (especially when said "made up world" is basically somewhere in our world but with the names changed) to count as fantasy. For a secondary world to qualify as fantasy, in my opinion, it needs to have that "otherness" about it that makes it distinctly different from our own world in its essence, not just in the details.



You may like his first trilogy--The Fionavar Tapestry. Starts with The Summer Tree.  It's a good trilogy, a portal fantasy with a lot of high fantasy elements. Remains a favorite of his fans, including me though it has been years since I read it. 

One thing about books like Lions of Al-Rassan, which read like historical fiction but are set in a made up world--I don't know where else they fit apart from fantasy. They can't be historical fiction, because the world they're in doesn't exist. I don't know if they're categorized by publishers as fantasy by default, or because the authors that write them are typically fantasy authors who have written other works that do have the otherworldly aspects.


----------



## Mythopoet (Aug 31, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> You may like his first trilogy--The Fionavar Tapestry. Starts with The Summer Tree.  It's a good trilogy, a portal fantasy with a lot of high fantasy elements. Remains a favorite of his fans, including me though it has been years since I read it.
> 
> One thing about books like Lions of Al-Rassan, which read like historical fiction but are set in a made up world--I don't know where else they fit apart from fantasy. They can't be historical fiction, because the world they're in doesn't exist. I don't know if they're categorized by publishers as fantasy by default, or because the authors that write them are typically fantasy authors who have written other works that do have the otherworldly aspects.



I've read the Fionavar Tapestry. Personally, I think books like that "historical fiction except not fantasy except not so that I neither have to be imaginative or do actual research" are lazy. Either buckle down and write a real historical novel or make it an actual fantasy. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 31, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> I've read the Fionavar Tapestry. Personally, I think books like that "historical fiction except not fantasy except not so that I neither have to be imaginative or do actual research" are lazy. Either buckle down and write a real historical novel or make it an actual fantasy. But that's just my opinion.



I don't agree. Kay actually did a lot of period research for Lions of Al-Rassan. It's basically an analog of al-Andalus, which is medieval Islamic Spain. He gave a really good speech once on the advantages of examining real history from the context of a fantasy world (yes, I believe he views Al-Rassan and similar works as fantasy). You still have to do all the research on the time period and context, but in the writing of the actual story you can break away from that narrow context and shape events to provide the focus and commentary you want. It's a tool for examining history that is different, and sometimes more powerful, than straight historical fantasy.


----------



## Mythopoet (Aug 31, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> I don't agree. Kay actually did a lot of period research for Lions of Al-Rassan. It's basically an analog of al-Andalus, which is medieval Islamic Spain. He gave a really good speech once on the advantages of examining real history from the context of a fantasy world (yes, I believe he views Al-Rassan and similar works as fantasy). You still have to do all the research on the time period and context, but in the writing of the actual story you can break away from that narrow context and shape events to provide the focus and commentary you want. It's a tool for examining history that is different, and sometimes more powerful, than straight historical fantasy.



I'm not sure I agree with that. I'd have to think about it. But I think I'd rather examine history from the perspective of history. I'd need to hear a specific detailed instance in which the fantasy version he created was better in a specific way at examining the history he diverged from.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 31, 2017)

And, found the speech (or A speech on the subject)  . Another reason he gives is implications of dealing fictionally with real people: Home and Away ? BrightWeavings

Excerpt:

"If someone is famous can we do whatever we want with their life? If they are utterly obscure – like Almasy – can we do it? If they are dead, like Jackie Gleason? Long dead, like Richard III? Living, but so famous their lives and names might be considered public property – like Queen Elizabeth or Elizabeth Taylor? These are issues I find worth wrestling with, as more and more works today seems to be incorporating the existence of real people, with too little thoughtful discussion ensuing about the implications.

How does fantasy address any of this? Well, I think the gist of my answer is likely to be obvious by now, but let me illustrate it with another reference to The Lions of Al-Rassan. This is a book based on the the broad sweep of events in medieval Spain. One of the major characters is modeled on Rodrigo Diaz, El Cid: the single most mythic and potent figure in Spanish history. No one in English-language culture, not even King Arthur, comes close. El Cid was a real person who became – for good or ill – the symbol of a society and its self-definition.


It seemed to me, over and above the strengths fantasy would offer in telling the story I wanted to tell, that by inventing the setting and inventing a man based on Rodrigo Diaz but clearly not him, I might also be demonstrating a measure of appropriate distance. I would be declaring, without pretense, that I did not know what the real man was like nine hundred years ago, how he related to his wife, his children, his friends, his enemies. When we work with distant history, to a very great degree, we are all guessing. And this, as Henry James knew, is as true of those who claim to be factual historians as it is of novelists.


By placing the story in a fantasy setting – even if it is clearly drawn from history – we are acknowledging that this educated guesswork, invention, fantasy underlies our treatments of the past and its peoples – and for me, that is an honest and a liberating thing for any writer to do."


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 31, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> I'm not sure I agree with that. I'd have to think about it. But I think I'd rather examine history from the perspective of history. I'd need to hear a specific detailed instance in which the fantasy version he created was better in a specific way at examining the history he diverged from.



The rationale is debatable, but in any event I think it is pretty clear that Kay does his research and isn't using fantasy as a justification for lazy writing.


----------



## Devor (Aug 31, 2017)

I've only read Under Heaven by Kay.  There was a lot of good stuff in there, but in my opinion the "worldbuilding" wasn't part of it. I found that I just didn't care about the setting, like at all.  What would be the point?  The story was good enough despite that, for me, mostly because of the way he was able to build certain characters.  But I can't say the non-fantasy (well, low fantasy), pseudo-historical setting was in any way a plus that I could figure out.

I'm sure there are stories that have relatively non-magical worlds that are totally worth it.  But IMO, there's got to be a reason for it.


----------



## Devor (Aug 31, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> By placing the story in a fantasy setting – even if it is clearly drawn from history – we are acknowledging that this educated guesswork, invention, fantasy underlies our treatments of the past and its peoples – and for me, that is an honest and a liberating thing for any writer to do."



I kind of agree with the rationale when it comes to the people / characters used in historical fiction.  But I don't think the rationale holds as much for the setting.  I mean, you can give Spain or China fictitious rulers.  That to me would be a lot more powerful.


----------



## FifthView (Aug 31, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> ^I think this is closest to my definition.
> 
> I think there has to be something fantastical or impossible by our world's standards, or unlike what's in our reality, even if it doesn't take the form of a "magic system" necessarily.





Steerpike said:


> That knocks out some very good fantasy on the shelves under "Fantasy" at the local bookstore





Corwynn said:


> I would classify a story like that as alternate history, or maybe sci-fi.



Combined...and using DotA's definition...these comments make me think that an alternative history (like Native Americans having steam power when Columbus arrives) is indeed fantasy, insofar as that history was indeed impossible vis-Ã -vis the world we know. This presumes that many vague principles of science and human development, mixed in a blender of determinism, led to, and only to, the history that we've actually had. Whatever factors led to the development of steam power in our world did not exist in pre-Columbian America. That alternative history was by default impossible.

Not impossible for our _minds_ to imagine, but impossible in the world that actually existed.

I haven't read historical fiction much in the last couple decades, if any (I don't remember!), but I did go through a period of reading lots of it. A couple novels by Mary Renault, Pressfield's _Gates of Fire_, Ann Rice's _Cry to Heaven_...and a slew of others I don't remember off hand. I seem to remember someone, maybe it was Orson Card, who put forth the idea that historical fiction was actually a major precursor of the fantasy genre.

For me personally, the experience I had reading historical fiction, and the enjoyment, was _precisely the same_ as the feeling I get when reading fantasy. These were strange, exotic worlds and characters involved in activities as far removed from my daily life as any fantasy novel and many science fiction novels. Historical fiction requires an imagining of characters, whether characters who existed in history or a slew of side characters, who probably did not exist–at least, not _as portrayed_, not exactly.

But here we are drawn to a distinction between _fiction_ and _fantasy_....if any distinction exists.

I'm not actually going to try to draw that distinction, at least not at the moment, heh. I'll leave that to others. I'm just musing.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 31, 2017)

Devor said:


> I've only read Under Heaven by Kay.  There was a lot of good stuff in there, but in my opinion the "worldbuilding" wasn't part of it. I found that I just didn't care about the setting, like at all.  What would be the point?  The story was good enough despite that, for me, mostly because of the way he was able to build certain characters.  But I can't say the non-fantasy (well, low fantasy), pseudo-historical setting was in any way a plus that I could figure out.



If a fantasy reader is going to read one of his works, I recommend Tigana, then the Fionavar Tapestry. 

When it comes to books like Under Heaven, Al-Rassan, etc., the worldbuilding is supposed to be mundane, I suppose, as compared to traditional fantasy, because these are all analogs of historical settings. People who like historical fiction may be more apt to like them than people who are coming from a traditional fantasy background.


----------



## Devor (Aug 31, 2017)

I'll add Tigana to my reading list.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 31, 2017)

FifthView said:


> For me personally, the experience I had reading historical fiction, and the enjoyment, was _precisely the same_ as the feeling I get when reading fantasy. These were strange, exotic worlds and characters involved in activities as far removed from my daily life as any fantasy novel and many science fiction novels. Historical fiction requires an imagining of characters, whether characters who existed in history or a slew of side characters, who probably did not exist—at least, not _as portrayed_, not exactly.



Yes, I like historical fiction for, in part, these same reasons. I'm curious what genres everyone here likes to read, so I'm going to start a thread on it.


----------



## claramcalister (Aug 31, 2017)

I personally tend to distinguish between "Supernatural" and "Fantasy".

When I hear "Supernatural" I think Ghosts, Vampires, Werewolves, Banshees, and the like; I think Carrie Ryan's _The Forest of Hands and Teeth_, Tamara Rose Blodgett's _Death Whispers_, or Anne Rice's _Vampire Chronicles_. And while that's still undeniably _*fantasy*_... It's just not the same; it doesn't have the same themes or elements as a group, and the setting is usually modern (Victorian period and up with vague references to anything prior to that).

Fantasy, on the other hand, tends to be set earlier than the Victorian period (usually Medieval or earlier) and often deals more with creatures of a _different _type of myth (Phoenix vs Zombies, so to speak). There might not always be magic, but it's definitely understood that there's something "other" there that doesn't exist here- and which doesn't inherently exist in Supernatural Fantasy either.

I think the best way to describe what I perceive as the difference is likely "Realism" vs "Mysticism": You can pretty easily imagine that Witches and Zombies and Vampires are roaming the world... But you can't always imagine a Wizard or a Dragon or a God doing the same; it's far easier to see Holly Black's _A Tale of Modern Fae_ than it is to see something like Tamora Pierce's _Song of the Lioness _occurring in our time, in our world. 

Modern urban fantasies feel like they require a bigger suspension of disbelief than modern urban supernatural. And I'm not quite sure why exactly that is, but it (at least to me) is kind of a big distinction in what makes Fantasy _fantasy_ and distinguishes it from the mere supernatural.


----------



## Mythopoet (Aug 31, 2017)

FifthView said:


> For me personally, the experience I had reading historical fiction, and the enjoyment, was _precisely the same_ as the feeling I get when reading fantasy. These were strange, exotic worlds and characters involved in activities as far removed from my daily life as any fantasy novel and many science fiction novels. Historical fiction requires an imagining of characters, whether characters who existed in history or a slew of side characters, who probably did not exist—at least, not _as portrayed_, not exactly.



ALL fiction requires an imagining of characters. So I'm not sure how that makes historical fiction more like SFF than it is like literary or mystery fiction. 

To me, the experience of historical fiction is far removed from the experience of fantasy. Historical fiction reveals the real world, helps me understand how real people lived and thought (ideally, anyway). Fantasy transports to a place unlike the real world. Where I don't know what's going to happen next, or what _could_ happen next. The sense of wonder is on a completely different level. 

Perhaps this is because I favor "high fantasy" over low fantasy or fantasy that closely mimics our world. But that's the point. I don't favor those things, including most historical fantasy or pseudo-historical fantasy, because they don't give me the other worldly experience I want.


----------



## FifthView (Aug 31, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Yes, I like historical fiction for, in part, these same reasons. I'm curious what genres everyone here likes to read, so I'm going to start a thread on it.



I said I wasn't going to draw a distinction between fiction, which can often be technically "unreal," and fantasy, but from a marketing standpoint I'd wonder whether readers who read mostly historical fiction would be put off if in Chapter Four magic or some unreal creature suddenly appeared.

I don't know if such considerations might help us better distinguish what qualifies as fantasy.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 31, 2017)

FifthView said:


> I said I wasn't going to draw a distinction between fiction, which can often be technically "unreal," and fantasy, but from a marketing standpoint I'd wonder whether readers who read mostly historical fiction would be put off if in Chapter Four magic or some unreal creature suddenly appeared.
> 
> I don't know if such considerations might help us better distinguish what qualifies as fantasy.



They might if the author had established no foundation for it. I think the type of work we are talking about here, like Lions of Al-Rassan, could appeal to both, but suspect that readers of mostly historical fiction would be less likely to find it appealing than readers of mostly Fantasy.


----------



## FifthView (Aug 31, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> Perhaps this is because I favor "high fantasy" over low fantasy or fantasy that closely mimics our world. But that's the point. I don't favor those things, including most historical fantasy or pseudo-historical fantasy, because they don't give me the other worldly experience I want.



Different types certainly make a difference. For something like Mary Renault's Alexandrian historical fiction, or Pressfield's Gates of Fire...well, these were set in the classical world. So it's farther removed from our own. Plus, I tend to like fantasy worlds with the same type of battles, social structures, etc., as those historical novels. Reading a fantasy that revolves around a lot of medieval court intrigue wouldn't be so much different than a historical novel set in a historical court.


----------



## claramcalister (Aug 31, 2017)

FifthView said:


> I said I wasn't going to draw a distinction between fiction, which can often be technically "unreal," and fantasy, but from a marketing standpoint I'd wonder whether readers who read mostly historical fiction would be put off if in Chapter Four magic or some unreal creature suddenly appeared.
> 
> I don't know if such considerations might help us better distinguish what qualifies as fantasy.



Personally I prefer distinguishing between the different types of Fantasy- and i really love it when authors do it to.

Sometimes I'm not in the mood to read supernatural fantasy. Sometimes I'm not in the mood for high fantasy. Sometimes I don't want Sci-Fi or historical, and I want something else. So yeah, personally if I was in the mood for straight historical fiction a la the war of the roses, and then suddenly a dragon appeared out of nowhere in the book... I'd be off put by it. Probably not enough to think it's a horrible book, but enough that I'd definitely put the book down and search for something else that would satisfy the specific craving I had at the time.

That being said, Fantasy's a really hard subject to pin down or define- mostly because technically all fiction _is_ fantasy.. So with that in mind, any sort of consensus agreement as to the divisions is going to be a point of contention at least in part.


----------



## pmmg (Aug 31, 2017)

I think I could write a fantasy story without magic. Wouldn't a story about someone off to slay a dragon, but without the benefit of anything more than wits and common weapons be a non-magical fantasy story? I suppose I could argue the dragon is magic, but suppose its just a big lizard with wings? I think that would still be under the umbrella of fantasy.

So, I suppose I have to answer that I think it can happen. But I am not aware of any fantasy stories I've read that did not contain some level of Magic.


----------



## Devor (Aug 31, 2017)

pmmg said:


> I think I could write a fantasy story without magic. Wouldn't a story about someone off to slay a dragon, but without the benefit of anything more than wits and common weapons be a non-magical fantasy story? I suppose I could argue the dragon is magic, but suppose its just a big lizard with wings? I think that would still be under the umbrella of fantasy.



My wife and I have been watching a lot of anime recently, and to help decide what to watch I stumbled on a site called Ranker, which lets people vote on the best in a category.

One of the "best" anime is usually listed as _Attack on Titan_, which is about a huge walled castle under attack by zombie giants.  They fight by flinging through the trees with their crazy grappling hook gear and then stabbing the titans in the neck with swords.  Otherwise, they have horses, and wagons, and cannons.  There's nothing sci-fi or magical aside from the Titans and the mythology supporting their existence.

So is it fantasy?

Again, ranker has it listed as about the number 1 all-time anime..... but for _fantasy _anime? It's number 30.

The number 1 fantasy anime is actually Sword Art Online, and it's 100% science fiction.  The characters live in the future, and use high tech sciencey equipment to..... get trapped in a fantasy video game where dying in-game causes their sci-fi gear to kill them in real life.

I mean, what the heck?


----------



## glutton (Aug 31, 2017)

Of course you could have a non-magical fantasy. For example a story about a 26 year old, 5'1 160 lb duchess who wields a hammer with a head the size of her torso and uses it to beat up Godzilla sized monsters... and she has been doing this since she was much younger and skinnier, so the 16 yo 120 lb version of her could already beat up Godzilla sized monsters with a nonmagical hammer. 

...I have actually written something like this, except the monsters and other characters have magic so it was not actually a non-magical fantasy. Our heroine stands SHORT and proud on sheer nonmagical Girl Pride though! And I'd imagine that level of exaggerated superhuman prowess should qualify as fantasy without explicitly being magical (she also does stuff like tanking and then deflecting volleys of automatic gunfire from building sized mechas, surviving multiple impalements, shrugging off being smashed through a city wall and knocked across a city, has a mecha's damaged giant energy cannon blow up in her face when she picks it up and tries to fire it, etc).


----------



## Mythopoet (Aug 31, 2017)

Devor said:


> My wife and I have been watching a lot of anime recently, and to help decide what to watch I stumbled on a site called Ranker, which lets people vote on the best in a category.
> 
> One of the "best" anime is usually listed as _Attack on Titan_, which is about a huge walled castle under attack by zombie giants.  They fight by flinging through the trees with their crazy grappling hook gear and then stabbing the titans in the neck with swords.  Otherwise, they have horses, and wagons, and cannons.  There's nothing sci-fi or magical aside from the Titans and the mythology supporting their existence.
> 
> ...



Attack on Titan is a fantasy. But it was hard to tell until the recent arcs of the manga. A lot of fans were hoping it would go more of a sci fi route. SAO spends most of its story time in a fantasy environment. So I can see the argument that it is fantasy. However, since these are both Japanese media, they are generally only classified by their format (manga to anime for AoT and Light Novel to anime for SAO) and target audience (in this case Shounen for both). So no one really tries to make them fit into a genre. Which is why there's a lot of wacky and awesome cross genre stuff from Japan.


----------



## ScipioBarca (Sep 2, 2017)

It's like having a night out without alcohol. Yes, you can do it but it misses the point and is nowhere near as fun P)


----------

