Is Fantasy Without Magic Still Fantasy?

[The Iceman of the North]

By the way, is there an example of arborisapient SF?

Nobody have mentioned the Triffids yet?

[Galactus]

By the way, is there an example of arborisapient SF?

"I AM GROOT!"

[Shryke]

Or fewer. I'm more than happy to just bundle them all together into one big lump called SFF, and not worry to much about which particular part of that acronym is most applicable. Shame you can't organise libraries using Venn diagrams really.

Yeah, I think this discussion mostly highlights the uselessness of trying to apply these labels as a description of setting. Sci-fi, fantasy, alternate history, whatever. Shit, your standard fiction-section-in-the-bookstore novel is just as much fantasy as anything else, it's just got differing degrees of made-up shit.

I think the better labels are those that talk about the type of story it is, rather then focusing solely on the setting itself, since that tends to align more with what people are actually looking for.

[Nerdanel]

I think it should be recognized that there are semi-orthogonal genre groups.

For example we might classify LotR as follows:

Natural Laws: Fantasy

Setting: Secondary World

Plot: Quest

Emotion: Epic

This kind of thing tends to be called Epic Fantasy for short.

Another example: Twilight (which I haven't read, but which gets talked about a lot)

Natural Laws: Fantasy

Setting: Contemporary

Plot: Romance

Emotion: Romance/Horror

In short, Paranormal Romance.

Yet another example: Rendezvous with Rama

Natural Laws: Hard Science Fiction

Setting: Future

Plot: Exploration (Object)

Emotion: Sense of Wonder

Hard Science Fiction of the Big Dumb Object variety.

Still another example: The Shining

Natural Laws: Fantasy

Setting: Contemporary

Plot: Survival

Emotion: Horror

Supernatural Horror.

One last example: Swordspoint by Ellen Kushner

Natural Laws: Science Fiction (Normal)

Setting: Secondary World

Plot: Intrigue

Emotion: Romance

Definitely not Fantasy of any sort. I think this kind of thing should be classified as a subgenre of Science Fiction related to Alternate History.

[Galactus]

I think lumping it all under SFF is both true and... Kind of useless. It's too wide a description to be very helpful even if it is technically accurate.

I'd rather have to narow subgenrés ("roman alternate history stories involving time-travelling navy SEALs") than too wide ones.

[Ran]

"Otherness" is, for me, a key. A place that doesn't and never existed, but whose existence does not require rationalization with reference to our reality, is a work of fantasy. Internal justification can include "Oh, it's another world in our universe", e.g., the stuff that separates science fiction from fantasy.

Hence, Swordspoint is fantasy because this "non-magical" fairy land doesn't need or attempt any justification for existing (similarly: Lloyd Alexander's Westmark trilogy, Kay's The Lions of Al-Rassan), whereas "Nightfall" -- with its explicit reference to the Earth towards the end -- is clearly established as taking place on a planet somewhere in our universe. Valente's Palimpsest, though taking place in part in our world, is fantasy because you can't rationalize the existence of Palimpsest (unless one considers magical thinking rational).

Or if there's no "otherness" -- if it's ostensibly set in our own reality, past, present, or future -- you can have magic or some other, supernatural force or entity.

(Of course, I realize this would turn some works embraced as science fiction into fantasy, like Blish's A Case of Conscience, so I may have to refine that a little...)

[Nerdanel]

If anything with "otherness" counts as fantasy, that will add far more things to fantasy than just science fiction. Let's say we have a meticulously researched and vividly described story about life in contemporary rural Laos with no supernatural elements. That would have plenty of "otherness" as far as most people here would be concerned, more, even, than the amount of "otherness" found in a run-of-the-mill low-magic Medieval European fantasy. A hard science fiction novel that adheres tightly to real science but really gets in the mindset of a starfish alien easily has far more "otherness" than most fantasy ever written.

Basically, I think "otherness" by itself is far too wide a marker to be used to determine what is fantasy. I'd say it's necessary, not sufficient. I think only the violation of natural laws (a.k.a. magic) is enough of a "super-otherness" to set fantasy apart and define it.

[Ran]

You're choosing to define otherness in a way that I didn't define it: "a place that doesn't and never existed, but whose existence does not require rationalization with reference to our reality, is a work of fantasy." I should perhaps amend it to be "not require nor invite".

Barry Hughart's Bridge of Birds is a fine example, set in a "China that never was", and eventually allowing of supernatural elements. Doesn't exist, never existed, and its existence in the story is not rationally justified in relation to our world -- explaining why it's not our China is not on the agenda.

Every science fiction story I can think of set on other worlds or what have you tends to make some sop to explaining where this world fits in our cosmology, however radical and science-breaking the stipulations may be.

[Datepalm]

I think lumping it all under SFF is both true and... Kind of useless. It's too wide a description to be very helpful even if it is technically accurate.

I'd rather have to narow subgenrés ("roman alternate history stories involving time-travelling navy SEALs") than too wide ones.

I'm pretty sure it was Vikings. These things are important!

While never averse to some recreational taxonomy, i'm more curious what function magic does (or did) serve in fantasy, if it can be done away with pretty easily and apparently almost no one ever liked it in the first place anyway.

You're choosing to define otherness in a way that I didn't define it: "a place that doesn't and never existed, but whose existence does not require rationalization with reference to our reality, is a work of fantasy." I should perhaps amend it to be "not require nor invite".

... 

Every science fiction story I can think of set on other worlds or what have you tends to make some sop to explaining where this world fits in our cosmology, however radical and science-breaking the stipulations may be.

But whats the function of creating an 'otherness' that deliberately strives to be...mundane?

I wonder where that puts something like Reynolds "Terminal World". I read it as SF, but honestly I don't think theres a mention of earth, at all (and it features very slightly in anything else he's ever written too, IIRC) and theres no actual reason to assume its not a technologically advanced and then somehow collapsed secondary world with multiple races rather than a technologically advanced and then collapsed distant future with varieties of genetically engineered humans. 

[Spring Bass]

But whats the function of creating an 'otherness' that deliberately strives to be...mundane?

What if the author has an idea for a possible town, country, world and wants to show what it would look like when realized in print? It's sort of like "alternate history" fiction.

[Nerdanel]

You're choosing to define otherness in a way that I didn't define it: "a place that doesn't and never existed, but whose existence does not require rationalization with reference to our reality, is a work of fantasy." I should perhaps amend it to be "not require nor invite".

Barry Hughart's Bridge of Birds is a fine example, set in a "China that never was", and eventually allowing of supernatural elements. Doesn't exist, never existed, and its existence in the story is not rationally justified in relation to our world -- explaining why it's not our China is not on the agenda.

The problem with this definition is books like Harry Potter. The world of Harry Potter is meant to be our world, with us the common people just not being aware that we live in a magical world because the magical stuff is in hiding. There are a lot of books like this. I wouldn't exclude them from fantasy.

Every science fiction story I can think of set on other worlds or what have you tends to make some sop to explaining where this world fits in our cosmology, however radical and science-breaking the stipulations may be.

I think the only connection to Earth in Nightfall the short story was a brief mention by the omniscient narrator. As far as Nightfall the novel by Asimov and Silverberg, I'm not sure that that one has any mentions of Earth outside of that little preface thing that explained that even though, say, things are called computers in this book that doesn't mean they're IBM compatible. It's been a long while since I've read either of them, though.

And anyway, even if science fiction writers very often like to put some context to Earth, very often doesn't mean always. I'm able to think of a few rather obscure short stories that might fit the bill, but I'm not at all sure if they managed to avoid omniscient interjections.

Also, here is the first sentence of The Demon of the Flower by Clark Ashton Smith:

Not as the plants and flowers of Earth, growing peacefully beneath a simple sun, were the blossoms of the planet Lophai.

I'd classify that story as fantasy due to the demon, even if the omniscient narrator does mention Earth. I'd also classify the story as very good, but that's getting off-topic.

[Ran]

Datepalm,

Bass raises one argument for it. I think you can have a "fairie land" without anything "fairie" -- the fantasy lies in it being a place where the rules are as the author wishes them, without needing to justify themselves in terms of reality. Kushner's Riverside has duelling swordsman entertainers, the City once had kings but no longer for no clear reason, etc., and that's just as she wanted it -- she doesn't have to explain how this could have been.

Not really familiar with Reynolds, but I see that the Wikipedia article seems to take it as a given that it deals with a far-future humanity. In particular, it seems the main action is explicitly said to take place on Mars.

Nerdanel,

The world of Harry Potter is meant to be our world, with us the common people just not being aware that we live in a magical world because the magical stuff is in hiding. There are a lot of books like this. I wouldn't exclude them from fantasy.

I don't, either. I said that "otherness" is a key -- otherness in setting (a made up land that never existed, that isn't supposed to fit into our world, and whose existence is not rationalized in relation to our reality), otherness in reality-defying, unrationalizable activity (magic).

As far as Nightfall the novel by Asimov and Silverberg, I'm not sure that that one has any mentions of Earth outside of that little preface thing that explained that even though, say, things are called computers in this book that doesn't mean they're IBM compatible. It's been a long while since I've read either of them, though.

Same for me, but I could swear some brief mentions are made of the appearances of the characters suggesting some physiological differences from humans. They're aliens, not humans, even if they are mostly exactly alike. Whereas with Swordspoint or A Game of Thrones, they're humans who ride horses and have dogs, and there's no attempt or care to explain this away -- it just is, it defies any sound basis, and it does not invite any attempt to rationalize it.

I'd classify that story as fantasy due to the demon, even if the omniscient narrator does mention Earth. I'd also classify the story as very good, but that's getting off-topic.

Ashton Smith was a fine writer. I agree, it's a fantasy just because of the supernatural element. Whether it's supposed to take place in our own universe or if that's besides the point, it doesn't really matter because of this.

Basically, I don't see magic as necessary, and I don't see the otherness of setting as necessary. You just need one or the other.

[Galactus]

I'd argue that magic is in itself a kind of "otherness", since our world doesen't have it.

[dangoodman]

Well really, I don't think magic should always be a cling-on to the term fantasy. And please, no more sub-genres.....

[Ran]

Galactus,

Yeah. I allude to that in my post, but I'm focused on the setting aspect of it, since "fantasy without magic" is the question at hand. For me, the setting alone can be sufficient for me to consider something a fantasy, but certainly, "otherness" is a quality that is probably unified by a disinterest or an active unwillingness to rationalize or admit rationalization with reference to our reality.

[Nerdanel]

Nerdanel,

I don't, either. I said that "otherness" is a key -- otherness in setting (a made up land that never existed, that isn't supposed to fit into our world, and whose existence is not rationalized in relation to our reality), otherness in reality-defying, unrationalizable activity (magic).

Well, I think the magic of Harry Potter is reality-defying in the way I see it...

So if I get this right, "magicians in hiding" are out for you, no matter how weird and unnatural the magic and the magical creatures are. This means that you don't count much of contemporary fantasy as fantasy. The natural extension of that is that alternate presents in which the supernaturals came out of hiding some time in the (recent) past. That's pretty much it for the entire subgenre of contemporary fantasy.

Looking at the issue from the other side, it appears to me that you think this process would produce fantasy from non-fantasy:

1. Start with a no-magic mainstream novel that involves a famous major location (such as London) at a highly recognizable time in the recent past.

2. Change all the occurrences of the location in the text into something bizarre, like Voorzgh'pp. Make sure that the renamed location is still recognizable to the audience as the famous location and none other. ("We took a taxi from the Heathrow Airport. England! We were finally in England! Soon the great city of Voorzgh'pp, the capital of the United Kingdom, enfolded us. In my mind, I was already enumerating places to see: Big Ben, Tower Bridge and the Thames, Westminster Cathedral, Queen Elizabeth II's Buckingham palace with its fur-hatted guards, Tussaud's Wax Cabinet... The world seemed such a nice place then, full of promise, as I was unaware that at that very moment the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York were falling into rubble, with nearly three thousand dead, among them my fianceé. But while this was happening I had thoughts only for Voorzgh'pp.")

3. There is no step 3.

That kind of thing would be definitely unexplainable, but I still wouldn't call it fantasy.

Same for me, but I could swear some brief mentions are made of the appearances of the characters suggesting some physiological differences from humans. They're aliens, not humans, even if they are mostly exactly alike. Whereas with Swordspoint or A Game of Thrones, they're humans who ride horses and have dogs, and there's no attempt or care to explain this away -- it just is, it defies any sound basis, and it does not invite any attempt to rationalize it.

Q: I just rolled a million sided die and got 106508. What is the chance I will get the exact same number on my very next roll?

A: One in a million. The probabilities are independent.

(Although, if the die is weighted, the probability of getting the same number will be above one in a million.)

Aliens that are indistinguishable from humans are bound to occur infinite times in an infinite universe. Such aliens also have the advantage in plausibility over alternatives in that we know that evolution can produce that sort of beings and have a very good handle on the resulting biological constrains. I mean, we don't even know if, say, life floating in the atmosphere of a Jupiter-like planet is theoretically possible, let alone that we could calculate which sort of bodies would be selected for in various scenarios and what their mindset would be.

Ashton Smith was a fine writer. I agree, it's a fantasy just because of the supernatural element. Whether it's supposed to take place in our own universe or if that's besides the point, it doesn't really matter because of this.

Basically, I don't see magic as necessary, and I don't see the otherness of setting as necessary. You just need one or the other.

But... Harry Potter has plenty of magic, so it should satisfy the "one or the other" condition.

[Ran]

Nerdanel,

No... you're completely misunderstanding me. When I said that "I don't, either," I was agreeing with you -- I don't exclude the HP books from being fantasy.

Harry Potter is fantasy. Magic=fantasy. Setting that is not, and is not intended to be, rationalized with reference to our reality=fantasy.

[Nerdanel]

Nerdanel,

No... you're completely misunderstanding me. When I said that "I don't, either," I was agreeing with you -- I don't exclude the HP books from being fantasy.

Harry Potter is fantasy. Magic=fantasy. Setting that is not, and is not intended to be, rationalized with reference to our reality=fantasy.

Oh, now I get you.

Anyway, since I'm an old reader of science fiction I'm used to things being very unfamiliar indeed within the bounds of our universe. For example, I didn't feel much of a feeling of otherness (on my scale) from reading Swordspoint. The setting was basically an imaginary country in something very much like Renaissance Europe! (I don't remember if gunpowder was mentioned though, and I'm sure there were discrepancies that would be hard to explain...) Imaginary countries and cities are common in non-SFF literature, including historical fiction, so the only thing allowing Swordspoint to be marketed as fantasy was the lack of specific references to anchoring it to the real world. That is a relative lack of non-fantasy rather than actual fantasy and that doesn't make the fantasy rating of Swordspoint positive.

[Ran]

imaginary countries and cities are common in non-SFF literature, including historical fiction

Indeed, but that's rationalized with reference to our reality, then. Like The Prisoner of Zenda and so on, these works assume our world, just with the borders a bit different, and so with a slightly different history.

Whereas for me, Riverside has something of Faerie in it, without any magic at all, because it's not our world; it's like it, but ... it's not. It's somewhere else. Or something. There's no explanation, there's no desire to say, "Ahh, this is an alternate history where such and such happened differently in the remote past." The fact that it doesn't desire or require rationalization with what we know of our world and history is, in itself, magical. It's not science fiction, which generally needs to square things away with some sort of rationalization,.

[Nerdanel]

I think the "desire" of the book is subjective. In my mind I was slotting Riverside into Alternate Renaissance Europe. Or maybe the book didn't desire that (if a book can be said to desire anything), but I did because I like to sort out things in my mind. I certainly didn't get a feeling of the Faerie even though we didn't learn which direction Riverside is from Switzerland. Smith of Wootton Major by Tolkien is a prime example of what feels like Faerie to me, and Swordspoint is nothing like that. It felt just plain mundane to me.