Is magic mandatory?

[SLTE]

As with pretty much everybody else in the thread, I agree that magic is far from compulsory in fantasy. In some stories it's just not gonna fit, so why risk messing up a perfectly good story just to fit with expectations?

 

[Lamar]

I don't think authors really need to worry about the categorization of their work, at least not while they're writing them.

Take, for example, Margaret Atwood. Her novel "The Handmaid's Tale" takes place in the future. For that reason, it is sometimes classified as "science fiction," something the author has opposed. Other than the fact that it takes place in the future, there is little or nothing that deals with issues of science in the book; it's a political story, not a story about science or technology's affects on society. That being said, the debate over whether "Handmaid's Tale" should be classified as SF or not sometimes overshadows the author's intent and the work itself.

My point is that I don't think how the book would be classified -- its marketing category -- ever really occurred to Atwood as she was writing it. The setting was simply a means of creating a setting in which she could tell the story she had in mind.

Likewise, you're interested in telling a story that shares some elements with other works that get lumped into the marketing category "fantasy." You can't really worry about that. You need to tell the story you want to tell. At least, that's true as a writer.

Something you may need to keep in mind is that publishers really like works that fit neatly into their preconceived marketing categories. They know what to do with those. If you write a book that very clearly fits into the Tolkienesque fantasy category, publishers interested in that sort of thing will know how to market it and to whom. The more your work strays outside the various niches defined by publishers and booksellers, the more difficult it will be to get an agent, if you don' t have one already, or a publisher.

While you have to recognize these sorts of things, you shouldn't let it force you into a direction you don't want to go in. Write your story. Don't worry about the business details until they become an issue.

 

[Thalian]

It is just so much easier to relate to a fighter, for myself anyways. If you are a reader of RA Salvatore's novels it is apparent that he hates spellcasters just as much as anybody judging by the amount of powerful mages and whatnot he has killed off over the years.

 

[SeverinR]

I don't think a parrellel universe with nothing different but setting would be very interesting, I think it would fall better into plain fiction rather then fantasy.
There has to be some kind of fantastic element to be fantasy. Authors/(more important) readers definition of fantastic element.

Magic is not manditory, you can have fantasy type creatures and easily fit in fantasy genre.
A unicorn in Eastern or Western Medievil times would still be fantasy.

 

[Phoenix]

Magic is defiantly not mandatory. That is one great thing about fantasy...it can be almost about anything! History writers (for example) have to write things according to history, with fantasy you can write anything you want/ Although it is very rare to find an Epic Fantasy without magic. Even A Song of Ice and Fire has some magic, it doesn't constantly use it and isn't necessary (for the most part) to the plot (well not yet). They do like dragons though...

 

[mirrorrorrim]

I don't think authors really need to worry about the categorization of their work, at least not while they're writing them.

Take, for example, Margaret Atwood. Her novel "The Handmaid's Tale" takes place in the future. For that reason, it is sometimes classified as "science fiction," something the author has opposed. Other than the fact that it takes place in the future, there is little or nothing that deals with issues of science in the book; it's a political story, not a story about science or technology's affects on society. That being said, the debate over whether "Handmaid's Tale" should be classified as SF or not sometimes overshadows the author's intent and the work itself.

My point is that I don't think how the book would be classified -- its marketing category -- ever really occurred to Atwood as she was writing it. The setting was simply a means of creating a setting in which she could tell the story she had in mind.

Likewise, you're interested in telling a story that shares some elements with other works that get lumped into the marketing category "fantasy." You can't really worry about that. You need to tell the story you want to tell. At least, that's true as a writer.

Something you may need to keep in mind is that publishers really like works that fit neatly into their preconceived marketing categories. They know what to do with those. If you write a book that very clearly fits into the Tolkienesque fantasy category, publishers interested in that sort of thing will know how to market it and to whom. The more your work strays outside the various niches defined by publishers and booksellers, the more difficult it will be to get an agent, if you don' t have one already, or a publisher.

While you have to recognize these sorts of things, you shouldn't let it force you into a direction you don't want to go in. Write your story. Don't worry about the business details until they become an issue.

Very well said; I agree completely. I remember reading an interview with either Terry Brooks or R. A. Salvatore (I can't remember which) right after he wrote his novelization of one of the Star Wars movies. The interviewer asked him how it was to write science fiction, since most everything he'd written prior to that was fantasy. In effect, his response was, "I don't know. I still haven't written any science fiction." He explained that, while it has spaceships, aliens, different planets, and laser guns, Star Wars is very much a fantasy universe.

For me, the distinction between the two genres isn't the setting, but the part of a person it appeals to. Most science fiction I've read appeals to the readers' brains, while fantasy appeals to their hearts. Science fiction will have an interesting idea, while fantasy will have a touching one.

To use recent movies as an example, I feel that Inception is very much science fiction. Its main message seems to be intended to get the audience thinking.

Avatar, on the other hand, is pure fantasy. It is all about getting the audience to feel something.

Because of this, I feel fantasy usually has a much stronger moral message with clear "good guys" and "bad guys," and when written poorly (or even well), it can come across as very heavy-handed. With science fiction, everything's usually a lot greyer, and you're often not sure when you finished it what happened in the story was a good thing or a bad thing.

These are my own definitions, though. I'm not sure how many other people would agree with them.

 

[Steerpike]

Mirrorrorrim:

I don't know if I necessarily agree with the feelings/intellect distinction, but I do agree that both Star Wars and Avatar are Fantasy. For me, science fiction utilizes established principles of science (thus, the presence of that word in the name of the genre), and then extrapolates from them. When it departs from them it does so with an explanation that has some degree of plausibility (though the level of explanation and plausibility can vary quite a bit). If something happens in your story that violates the laws of thermodynamics, for example, and there is never an explanation as to how, or an attempt to render it plausible, you've moved into Fantasy territory. Likewise, if you have space ships flying around in space, but behaving exactly as though they are in an atmosphere (Star Wars), then you are also in Fantasy territory.

 

[ThinkerX]

I remember reading some commentary by George RR Martin on his 'Song of Ice and Fire' series a few years ago.

He says he spent a great deal of time trying to decide whether to go with a 'no magic' world or a 'low magic' world when doing the initial prep work for the series. In the end, the 'low magic' version won...but just barely. Consider: the vast bulk of the action in this series is political and personal. While there are a few characters who have magic of one sort or another, almost none of the POV ones actually think of themselves as being 'magicians' - and these characters are usually at the fringes of the real action. Bran, for example, basically disappears into the wilderness, Arya really doesn't know what she is doing, and Dany is plagued with petty magicians - but get right down to it, they are pathetic as magicians go. A couple of characters are present during some fairly spectular sorcerery (like Renly's assassination), but this is the exception, not the rule.

 

[Matthew Bishop]

This is something I've been struggling with also. I have a lot books that I've written and am now beginning to market, and there is not any magic in any of them whatsoever. I simply don't write magic. There are elements that are mythological, and mythological beings may use certain powers, but they are in the background and not even present in five of the books, except for one book which is entirely mythological. Dragons are used as peripheral elements that can make a difference in the timing of events or a battle, but they are not a huge part of the story. There is no mind-reading, shape-shifting, etc. And, furthermore, humans are the only race-- at least, the only race that the reader is aware of without reading the stand alone "Beginnings". I've just been calling the books "Realist Fantasy", but is that right? It is set in anther world, but aside from that there are no fantastical elements central to the story, other than the sense the reader feels from the few mythological elements or allusions. What else could this genre be called?

 

[Matthew Bishop]

It did seem to me that magic was a bit out-of-place in those stories. It seems to distract from the real issues, and it makes certain obstacles far too easy to overcome.

 

[Reaver]

Not that my opinion is worth a wooden nickel---I believe that magic is far from mandatory in fantasy---that's the beauty of it.

 

[Darwin]

If there is no magic and nothing supernatural, is it still fantasy? Can you have an imaginary world with imaginary creatures and leave out the magic?

Absolutely. The fact that you've created your world with it's own inhabitants that differs from our own makes it a fantasy right off the bat.

 

[Darwin]

Not that my opinion is worth a wooden nickel---I believe that magic is far from mandatory in fantasy---that's the beauty of it.

That's the magic of fantasy. Sorry I couldn't resist.

 

[Anders Ämting]

No narrative devices are mandatory, regardless of genre. They're tools, not rules.

Fantasy doesn't have to be magical; it just needs to be fantastical.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I wrote a story that is non-magical. It is set in a world much like ours (I never really even go into world details other than the city name and surrounding areas). I love how it is. I guess it's a drama-fantasy.