• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Fantasy or not?

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I don't want to derail the high v. low fantasy thread, so I'm creating a new thread for my thoughts on this topic. It is interesting to me, as both a reader and writer, to understand how other people view the boundaries of the genre.

In the other thread, I mentioned works like Gormenghast, Swordspoint, works like KJ Parker's Engineer Trilogy (as well as the other works of his I've read), some Guy Gavriel Kay, and the like. Someone has told me that The Goblin Emperor doesn't have any magic, although I'm not sure that's true--maybe just so little they didn't really notice it, maybe there really is none.

The first thing that comes to mind about the above is that I see these works labeled as "Fantasy" on the spine, at least in editions that bother labeling them. And they get shelved in fantasy. Those are important things to know as a writer because it tells you where the publishers draw the line of the genre, and how readers are going to see these books out in the wild, so to speak. Gormenghast I sometimes see shelved with general fiction/literature, but usually these are all in fantasy. Most bookstores I've been to shelve fantasy and science fiction together, so except for the case where there is a genre label on the spine of the book the shelving won't make much difference in most stores. The few I've seen where F and SF are separated would have these in fantasy. What a publisher calls these works can impact, at least to some degree, who is going to read them, because I know some F readers who won't read SF, and vice-versa.

When it comes to the more academic of whether they're fantasy, I think if they're in a made-up world they have to be fantasy. That seems to fall squarely within the plain meaning of the word "fantasy." That also puts a lot of what we think of as SF into a category, and things get a little hazy. I do think a lot of so-called SF is really just fantasy in space (e.g. Star Wars). Sometimes, I think it makes sense to view most SF as a subset of fantasy.

Could the works I've been citing be set in the real world?

I don't think most of them can, unless you're really stretching the boundaries of what you think remains the "real world." No castle like Gormenghast has ever existed or is likely to exist in the real world. There's no real place and time you can set that story.

With the Engineer trilogy, I don't think you can set it in the real world either. You'd have to find a society of advanced engineering skill, ruled by large, administrative, engineering guild, and then put them together with more or less medieval-level populations just across the sea. I don't see where you can find that in earth's history.

The ones that work best in the real world are those of Guy Gavriel Kay's works that don't have magic, because many of them are actually based on real world historical events, and read often like historical fiction. They're not historical because Kay is inventing the people and places to an extent, to give more latitude in the writing (and renames the places, people, etc.) and the ability to change events to suit him, without being bound by history (some call it historical fantasy). Even here, I'm more comfortable just calling it fantasy. To me, that's what it is.

This is of quite a bit of interest to me now, because my WiP, a children's story, takes place around a distant star and centers around mechanical technology (with some elements that are "magic-like" in the sense that they're simply hand waved as more advanced tech). I consider it a straight fantasy story--at least that is how it has been in my mind while writing it. But there is no real magic of any kind.
 

glutton

Inkling
Another example which I mentioned in the other thread would be if people clearly have different limits than ones in real life, it can be a fantasy element without being explicitly supernatural/magic. Ie:

"So if the world has 500' monsters and human girl warriors who can beat those monsters in melee along with killing hundreds of men in a single day, tanking the equivalent of .50 calibur bullets to the head and city-shaking explosions, swimming from their world's south pole to another continent and other ridiculous feats like that, it would not be fantasy just because their abilities aren't attributed to magic?"
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
@glutton

I think that falls squarely into the realm of fantasy. To take another example--is there magic in Beowulf? I can't remember any but it has been a long time since I read the entire thing. I think that is certainly a fantasy story, even if it has no magic (and ostensibly takes place in our world).
 

Demesnedenoir

Myth Weaver
Huge fuzzy area, which is why it's great to have F and SF together, LOL. It marries reader expectations when browsing. I don't have an issue with no magic books being called fantasy in a broad sense (lots of horror could also be fantasy), because in a greater since, all fiction is "fantasy" but publishers necessarily narrow this down. Anything not existing on Earth as we know it could be fantasy, alt-history, alt-earth. But, I would prefer to parse them into sub-genre. A no-magic fantasy probably belongs in a particular sub-genre of fantasy, alt-earth, alt-history, sci-fantasy, or steam-punk or who knows what. Calling something "fantasy" once at a marketing level will tend to generate more generic reader/editor/publisher expectations, including magic at least to some minor level... even if it isn't real, but the characters believe it is, might qualify.

On a similar level, I wouldn't want to see a modern world werewolf book labeled as generic "fantasy". Yes, it's fantasy, but there are more precise designators.

Your WIP sounds like it falls into the informal sci-fantasy camp, part of the big fuzzy.

One of my favorite SF & F mashups is Dark Sun Rising.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Is it Black Sun Rising? Or are we thinking of two different books with a similar name. If it is, I agree. That's an excellent book, and straddles the line between SF and F.

I suppose I consider horror to be a subgenre of Fantasy, but at some point if I make everything a subgenre of fantasy that's not as helpful as it could be :D

From a practical standpoint, if you're going with a traditional publisher they'll categorize it as they like for marketing reasons. If you're self-publishing, you'll have to decide which of the available categories best suits the work.
 

glutton

Inkling
A no-magic fantasy probably belongs in a particular sub-genre of fantasy, alt-earth, alt-history, sci-fantasy, or steam-punk or who knows what.

Those are more specific than just no-magic, none would generally fit a fictional medieval-style world just with superhuman humans. :D
 

Demesnedenoir

Myth Weaver
Beowulf is fantasy, but it's like any Greek story, it's mythological fantasy. Being set in what is ostensibly the real world does not make it not a fantasy. All super hero junk is fantasy at a generic level, but it has a more refined genre designation. It is better to accept that buttloads of things are technically "fantasy" in the broad sense but to also accept that if you say "fantasy" to someone they are unlikely to include all possible definitions of fantasy and reduce it to works with some magical element, and yet, they won't consider Star Wars or Avatar "fantasy"... which they are.

@glutton

I think that falls squarely into the realm of fantasy. To take another example--is there magic in Beowulf? I can't remember any but it has been a long time since I read the entire thing. I think that is certainly a fantasy story, even if it has no magic (and ostensibly takes place in our world).
 

Heliotrope

Staff
Article Team
For me, anything that contains "fantastical elements" is fantasy. This includes urban fantasy, magical realism, fairy tales, fables, myths, etc.

Most Disney movies fall into this catagory, including Hook, Moana, Jumanji, Mary Poppins, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, etc.

Now, for me the difference between high and low fantasy is the same as the difference between hard and soft sci-fi.

To me high fantasy is the stuff that rely's heavily on magic and the laws of magic (going into very intricate magic systems) in order to operate and serve the plot, the same as how hard sci-fi goes heavily into science and technology in order to explore the plot.

Low fantasy may have magical elements, but they are not explained in depth, and don't need to be in order for the plot to work.

Game of Thrones is often considered low fantasy.
 

Demesnedenoir

Myth Weaver
Which simply falls intot he who knows what continuation. Super hero (of any time period setting) is still super hero, which is a version or branch of alt-Earth. Super Man is Alt-Earth. Bat Man's Gotham... Alt-Earth. Except there is the more excepted designation of super hero.

Those are more specific than just no-magic, none would generally fit a fictional medieval-style world just with superhuman humans. :D
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
For me, anything that contains "fantastical elements" is fantasy. This includes urban fantasy, magical realism, fairy tales, fables, myths, etc.


I suppose the next question is how you define fantastical elements. Is the sprawling, creaking castle of Gormenghast, within which generations live out their lives a "fantastic element?" How about a fictional world largely ruled by an empire controlled by an engineering guild that has technological superiority over others?
 

Demesnedenoir

Myth Weaver
Different people certainly define low and high a little different. GoT is best to simply call Epic, because high and low are up for debate, LOL. High and low magic could be separated from high and low fantasy too, LOL. Hello, this is the rabbit hole calling.

Okay, crawling into the rabbit's hole for a moment!

GoT is High Epic Fantasy (a fully fictitious world with a magic system) with low(ish) magic. It's magic expands over the series, and there is a wide assed range between low magic and high magic with too many levels to define, LOL.

For me, anything that contains "fantastical elements" is fantasy. This includes urban fantasy, magical realism, fairy tales, fables, myths, etc.

Most Disney movies fall into this catagory, including Hook, Moana, Jumanji, Mary Poppins, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, etc.

Now, for me the difference between high and low fantasy is the same as the difference between hard and soft sci-fi.

To me high fantasy is the stuff that rely's heavily on magic and the laws of magic (going into very intricate magic systems) in order to operate and serve the plot, the same as how hard sci-fi goes heavily into science and technology in order to explore the plot.

Low fantasy may have magical elements, but they are not explained in depth, and don't need to be in order for the plot to work.

Game of Thrones is often considered low fantasy.
 
Last edited:
I think I'm going to go with what I wrote in that other thread. Distinguishing between fantasy and SF may not always be easy, there may be some overlap–they are both speculative fiction, heh–but science fiction will require at least some recognizably scientific explanation for the fantastic elements.

Absent such an explanation, it's fantasy.

BUT.

There are some gray areas.

Someone in the other thread brought up the idea of explicit magic. This naturally raises the issue of implicit magic. And, there is explicit science and implicit science to confuse matters.

IF fantastic elements exist without an explicit magic being mentioned, a reader might assume some kind of implicit magic in the world. The magic might not be referenced as magic by characters or narrator, they might not even know of the existence of magic, but the reader might or might not assume a magical basis for what happens and what exists in that world. "Might or might not" – the problem with dealing with the implicit, heh.

Same thing happens with science fiction. Explicit explanations (however hard or soft) vs implicit science. This one's interesting for me, because you could have a straight-up action-adventure or thriller in our world where the hero protag is able to do all kinds of amazing things. Like John Wick. He's fantastic. Is it realistic or fantasy or .... Heh. But there's an implicit scientific explanation behind it: bullets, fist punches, explosions, fast cars....Heh. And it's not considered science fiction or fantasy.

NOW, further confusion will arise because of the existence of genre-defining tropes and expectations....
 

glutton

Inkling
Which simply falls intot he who knows what continuation. Super hero (of any time period setting) is still super hero, which is a version or branch of alt-Earth. Super Man is Alt-Earth. Bat Man's Gotham... Alt-Earth. Except there is the more excepted designation of super hero.

Alt-Earth would only apply if the world is highly similar to Earth, like with the same continents at least I'd think...
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
@FifthView -- that's fairly close to my view, I think. I have this discussion with respect to SF quite often, because I feel if something in a work contradicts known science, and isn't bolstered by a plausible (even if theoretical) scientific explanation for doing so, you're outside of science fiction and more in the realm of fantasy.
 

Demesnedenoir

Myth Weaver
Lots of superhuman also goes into sci-fantasy. Actually, it's easiest to classify most all super hero as sci-fantasy.

Alt-Earth would only apply if the world is highly similar to Earth, like with the same continents at least I'd think...
 
Last edited:

glutton

Inkling
Lots of superhuman also goes into sci-fantasy.

I suppose, but usually sci-fantasy is associated with well, science-y trappings like technology, I doubt many publishers would market a story about superhuman medieval-style warriors as sci-fantasy unless they fight aliens or something.

Personally I think what I describe would just be classified as heroic fantasy or low fantasy that has even less magic than usual most likely.
 

Demesnedenoir

Myth Weaver
it could be, depends on how you use the term superhuman. Heroic fantasy could also work, it all depends.

I suppose, but usually sci-fantasy is associated with well, science-y trappings like technology, I doubt many publishers would market a story about superhuman medieval-style warriors as sci-fantasy unless they fight aliens or something.

Personally I think what I describe would just be classified as heroic fantasy or low fantasy that has even less magic than usual most likely.
 

Heliotrope

Staff
Article Team
@FifthView -- that's fairly close to my view, I think. I have this discussion with respect to SF quite often, because I feel if something in a work contradicts known science, and isn't bolstered by a plausible (even if theoretical) scientific explanation for doing so, you're outside of science fiction and more in the realm of fantasy.

This is my view as well. Anything that is "fantastical" but can't be explained by science (even theoretical) would be considered fantasy to me. This includes alt-histories, alt-earths, etc.

As far as super hero, I'd say it fits best in sci-fi, only because most super heroes had an element of science behind explaining their 'super hero-ness'.... Spider Man with his spider bite, Superman with his alien origin, all the X-Men because of genetic modification... etc.

^^ This is the genre my husband loves best... one I call "soft science-fiction." He also loves sci-fi horror, like Alien, Predator, Jurassic Park etc.
 

Demesnedenoir

Myth Weaver
This is fun to chat about, but rather pointless really, heh heh. But...

Further down another rabbit hole, I would go with this:

Sci-fantasy (maybe fantastic science would work too): Science gets the credit, but no way in hell it's actually real... Spiderman. Although it's better just called super hero. All mutant super hero powers are magic powers dressed up as "science". Batman and some others could head for soft-SF.

Soft-sci-fi: Science gets the credit, and if you stretch science far enough, yeah okay, maybe it's possible... and this is real fuzzy, telekenetics, fast-than-light travel, light-saber, will touch off some people's sensibilities more than others, LOL. FTL is sometimes the "magic" in otherwise hard sci-fi, and is often given a pass.

Hard-sci-fi: Needs at least strong theoretical grounding, but there still seems to be some "fudges" that crop up here from what I understand. I'm not a big hard sci-fi guy.
 
Last edited:

Heliotrope

Staff
Article Team
lol, according to my husband (who is NOT a writer)

High fantasy - super feminine too skinny women in flow-y dresses

Low fantasy - skinny young street girls. Not interesting.

Hard sci-fi - Nerdy women who know a lot of sciency stuff but are still hot. Usually they wear their hair up.

Soft sci-fi - Really muscular women with short hair holding machine guns.

There you have it folks.
 
Top