Is magic necessary to write a fantasy story?

[Steerpike]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

^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

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-à-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]

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]

I'll add Tigana to my reading list.

 

[Steerpike]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.