Opinions - Fantasy without Magic

[Sibylline Oracle]

<p>


Over the past year or so, I've had the dubious honor of having an interest I've found exceptionally few people seem to share. So here's a thread to see what everyone <em>really</em> thinks! Low Fantasy is an inexact term for a type of Fantasy that doesn't revolve around magic or heroic feats. <a href="https://curiosityquills.com/limyaael/fantasy-without-magic/" rel="external nofollow">This article</a> makes a wonderful case for settings without magic. But <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LowFantasy" rel="external nofollow">Low Fantasy</a> can technically have magic in it; magic just doesn't act as a solution to most problems presented within the context of the story. However, this thread is focused on asking: How do you feel about Fantasy <em>without</em> magic? How much magic do you think should exist in your preferred setting? Why do you prefer magic over the lack thereof, or vice versa? I have a feeling I know the common answer to the last question, as it probably ties into the reason why people tend to RP. But I thought I'd add it for the sake of completion. ^^; <strong>EDIT</strong>: In the context of my question, I define "magic" as "anything supernatural, if not outright impossible, that goes unexplained in terms of its actual physics or mechanics and not simply how it's used or what its limitations are." If you see examples of magic that try and fully explain how it works, beyond just what it can and can't do and in ways that don't depend on murky concepts like the "heart" (as in Kingdom Hearts) or the "chi" to explain it, they're more or less exempt from this definition. Feel free to share what you think magic is if you vote based on your own definition instead! Also worth mentioning, the lack of magic doesn't preclude the existence of "supernatural" creatures like elves. The difference would be that these species specifically evolved that way, rather than be "born of magic" or entirely reliant on it. Just thought I'd add that in for additional clarity. ^^;


</p>

 

[Rawrasaur]

It is certainly an interesting topic.


I would much enjoy a roleplaying session without magic, and yet still be able to use elves, orcs and dwarves. The concept of races not human is the key thing I want out of a good fantasy without magic.


It would act similar to Sci-Fi a bit, except this would be in a medieval era. The times of Cesare Borgia, Charlemagne, and Leonardo Da Vinci would be lovely with some Elves and Dwarfs mixed in. Think of all the political disputes, wars, and quarrels there would be! Not to mention transient friendships, turbulent relations, and overall dynamic people!

 

[Idea]

I think two things are really , really lacking in the article, things from which I will present my opinion.


The most blatant one is the fact that the article forgot to define what magic is. If I strictly said magic is controlling the elements with your mind, then of course there would be fantasy without magic. But with just leaving it in the air, the article sets itself in a position to just redefine things that would contradict it as "oh, but that's not magic" according ONLY to what is more favorable.


In my personal opinion, magic is defined by whatever not just bends but outright breaks the rules of reality of our current awareness. It is not just being imprecise, which is what science fiction does (being that soft science fiction has great imprecision, whereas hard core science fiction has low imprecision), but outright ignoring physics, chemistry, biology, etc... At least in given conditions or circumstances.


But even so, we all have a vague idea of what magic can be, and we can choose to believe or not in what the article says. So, why does it matter if there is no definition of magic?


The second problem is that it's definition of fantasy implies that every single story in existence is fantasy. What they define as "fantasy" is as anything that happens in a universe different from our own, and all that has to be altered for it to be that way, could be some cultural aspects or a couple historical events (something like that). Not only does the author present no reason to state it as this, but this kind of definition is so broad that even "based on real fact" stories check on it! In those, there's are bound to be things that aren't accurate, and by the given definition , any change in our reality is enough to make it fantasy.


In the words of Edmund Blackadder:


"So, you're telling something you've never seen is slightly more blue , than something else you've seen?"


In basic logic, there is a rule that states you cannot draw a universal conclusion from a non-universal premises (the correct term is "particular" for those interested). So, saying:


This story set in a different reality from our own is a fantasy.


Therefore all stories in a reality different form our own are fantasies


Is nonesense. Defining something isn't pointing out characteristics it has it's about saying what sets it apart from other things.


And thus, my own conclusions. What sets fantasy apart from the other genres? What makes a story be a fantasy? What trait can we point out in a story that proves it as a fantasy?


One answer: magic.


But you may say: "wait idea, what about those stories with different races and dragons and stuff, but we don't see wizards or anything with MAGIC."


To you I say this. Unless you can show me an animal that can naturally sustain fire breathing and survive it , dragons are magic. Unless you can point me out a real human being who can defy the laws of physics with his sheer born athletics and outstanding looks, elves are magic.


Now, there are races that could exist without necessarily having to break the rules of reality, however, that is where science fiction comes in: if you can manipulate science to achieve a given result, that is science fiction.


So there you are it. In my opinion, magic is the fundamental component of fantasy and the only reason why the article's author can conclude otherwise is because he asks that question with two definitions that one so extremely flawed and the other nonexistent. The articles' question might as well be:


"Can there be a story that has not been written by Tolkien?"

 

[Grey]

I think once you excise magic - whether spellcasting, magical beasts, or magical peoples - you simply end up with historical or speculative fiction. Like, a setting where humans live alongside orcs and elves, but the orcs and elves are based on different evolutionary paths (orcs descended from ursines, elves from felines, for example) is really a potentially clever piece of sci-fi.


Personally I like hard low fantasy, where magic is internally consistent but characters can never see the full picture because magic is so rare, and potentially dangerous. Also having a concrete definition of normal within the setting allows magic to be extraordinary to either wondrous or horrific effect (no prizes for guessing which I like better).

 

[Sibylline Oracle]

However there are tons of examples (Star Wars and most of Star Trek, just to name two) that are ostensibly science fiction but make little attempt to reconcile many core enabling plot devices with scientific fact.
Editor and sage Damon Knight attacked this question as far back as the 1950s in his book In Search of Wonder (one of the first attempts at serious analysis and criticism of the genre) and wound up throwing up his hands with the answer "science fiction is what we point to when we say 'science fiction.'" This is still one of the most useful and true definitions we have, as authors and publishers often make the call as to what category to market or publish a particular work in, particularly for books and stories that skirt the boundaries of the genres.


This difficulty in distinction led to a brief movement during the late '60s and early '70s to recast science fiction and related genres as "SF", or "speculative fiction" -- a term that was able to encompass everything from "hard" SF (which is really the only type of fiction that really fits the Wikipedia definition) to swords-and-sorcerers fantasy to supernatural horror. The idea is that interesting and valuable writing can stem from various sorts of speculation, whether scientifically-grounded or not, and that this trait of speculation is what ties the whole macro-genre together. This re-definition didn't really stick, but nothing better has replaced it (although many fans and writers still insist on the abbreviation "SF" over "Sci-Fi").


In the early '70s writer Miriam Ellen DeFord came up with this in the introduction to her story collection Elsewhere, Elsewhen, Elsehow: "Science fiction deals with improbable possibilities, fantasy with plausible impossibilities". The difficulty with this, of course, is in the definition of "impossible" -- contrast DeFord's quote with Arthur C. Clarke's more famous claim that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" to understand how difficult it is to nail down a boundary between these two related genres.

Source


There's also the issue with defining "Science Fantasy" with this opinion. If the 'magic' is explained, is it no longer magic? Where does one draw the line between magic/technology and fantasy/science-fiction?


My only fear is that opinions are so divided on this, and passionately held, that there will always be a schism between players. So far, this thread is convincing me there are two sides to this argument that may not agree with one another. That wouldn't be such a problem if either side didn't hold a single definition of "Fantasy" or "Science Fiction" to be objectively correct at the expense of any other. But here, it sounds like if someone dares to have a definition of "Fantasy" that differs from yours, and there are many different definitions, it's suddenly "nonsense"?


Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to look at continuities individually and determine if they fit into your own honest, subjective definition of the genre first and foremost. If not, you could ignore them and move on. This thread is meant to gauge everyone's own, personal definition (hence 'opinion') of what they look for in Fantasy, not define the term for everyone. That said, I appreciate the contribution nonetheless! ^^

 

[Idea]

Source[/URL]
There's also the issue with defining "Science Fantasy" with this opinion. If the 'magic' is explained, is it no longer magic? Where does one draw the line between magic/technology and fantasy/science-fiction?


My only fear is that opinions are so divided on this, and passionately held, that there will always be a schism between players. So far, this thread is convincing me there are two sides to this argument that may not agree with one another. That wouldn't be such a problem if either side didn't hold a single definition of "Fantasy" or "Science Fiction" to be objectively correct at the expense of any other. But here, it sounds like if someone dares to have a definition of "Fantasy" that differs from yours, and there are many different definitions, it's suddenly "nonsense"?


Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to look at continuities individually and determine if they fit into your own honest, subjective definition of the genre first and foremost. If not, you could ignore them and move on. This thread is meant to gauge everyone's own, personal definition (hence 'opinion') of what they look for in Fantasy, not define the term for everyone. That said, I appreciate the contribution nonetheless! ^^

the problem with just going with the "oh, let´s just accept everyone has a different opinion", is that some opinions ARE, in fact, worse than others. Objectively speaking, you CAN be wrong or misconceived. Plus, fi someone holds a belief highly, they obviously think it is right, not that it is just another opinion in the crowd. Otherwise, they wouldn´t believe it. But more importantly, if someone receives criticism on their idea, and they believe in that idea, then they should, no, they have the obligation to either know how to answer that criticism (if it is proper criticism of course), and or to rethink what they believe in. Whether or not they end up reaching the same conclusion is irrelevant, PROVIDED, they can fix any legitimate problems that were pointed out or outweight the problems it has with the problems it fixes from the other perspectives.


This that I just described is called "rationality", a trait that is part of the healthy functioning of a human being. It´s opposite, "irrationality" is holding a belief when there is conclusive or conditioning evidence that it is false. Not all opinions are equal, and just because nobody has the perfect answer, doesn´t mean it is wrong to try to get to better ones and reject ones we can find to be worse.


In other words, trying to set what a definition is or should be for everyone isn´t wrong, provided you can show why you think your opinion or perspective is logically superior. You can also set one just for yourself and ask that others abide by it when discussing things with you, as long as your definition works as a definition, not a random guess, and only if it can resist proper criticism.

 

[Sibylline Oracle]

Please don't use this as a debate thread. I asked for opinions on everyone's definitions. I'm not saying there aren't points at which many would agree, or whether or not there's any objective definition, but the point of this thread is to figure out what people believe the term means, not define it for everybody. Yes, if everyone defined the term themselves before entering a discussion or debate about it, that would be ideal - and here's the place to define it in their own words! The debate on definitions, however, can take place on another thread. This, as I said, is meant to gauge what everyone thinks Fantasy is defined as, not to tell everyone what it must be.


You should eat a Snickers.

 

[Idea]

[QUOTE="Sibylline Oracle]Please don't use this as a debate thread. I asked for opinions on everyone's definitions. I'm not saying there aren't points at which many would agree, or whether or not there's any objective definition, but the point of this thread is to figure out what people believe the term means, not define it for everybody. Yes, if everyone defined the term themselves before entering a discussion or debate about it, that would be ideal - and here's the place to define it in their own words! The debate on definitions, however, can take place on another thread. This, as I said, is meant to gauge what everyone thinks Fantasy is defined as, not to tell everyone what it must be.
You should eat a Snickers.

[/QUOTE]
this is the discussion forums. And what´s wrong with wanting to help people? If people are misconceived proper debating only helps. As far as I am concerned and by any and all experience in my entire life, opinion threads are places to share AND discuss one´s opinions, not just to state them and leave them hanging. Plus I, reading over, I didn´t contest anyone´s opinion on magic, I contested the idea that everyone´s opinions should just be allowed to be.

 

[Dark Half]

The concept of fantasy without magic is possible, but you will need to go into the depths of how people live and other specimens as well without the need for magic. This is especially difficult for elves who are usually deemed as frail and rely on magical substances to survive, likewise with Fairies. It's not impossible though, and it can certainly work out to be a great idea when you look into how people lived during the Medieval Age.

 

[Idea]

[QUOTE="Dark Half]The concept of fantasy without magic is possible, but you will need to go into the depths of how people live and other specimens as well without the need for magic. This is especially difficult for elves who are usually deemed as frail and rely on magical substances to survive, likewise with Fairies. It's not impossible though, and it can certainly work out to be a great idea when you look into how people lived during the Medieval Age.

[/QUOTE]
wouldn´t that be...medieval, though? As in the "medieval" time period? It´s not a genre per se, but it fits into the "historical genre" if it is all realistic but set in the medieval ages, no?

 

[Dark Half]

wouldn´t that be...medieval, though? As in the "medieval" time period? It´s not a genre per se, but it fits into the "historical genre" if it is all realistic but set in the medieval ages, no?

Usually when fantasy is spoken of, it takes place during medieval time periods (Game of Thrones, Dungeons and Dragons, etc). If the concern is to avoid realistic genre, it's mainly to get an idea of the lifestyle you'd live in without magic. So things like orcs, elves, fairies, etc are still possible if you can explain their existence and lifestyle as well.

 

[Idea]

[QUOTE="Dark Half]Usually when fantasy is spoken of, it takes place during medieval time periods (Game of Thrones, Dungeons and Dragons, etc). If the concern is to avoid realistic genre, it's mainly to get an idea of the lifestyle you'd live in without magic. So things like orcs, elves, fairies, etc are still possible if you can explain their existence and lifestyle as well.

[/QUOTE]
and how exactly would you propose doing that?

 

[Sibylline Oracle]

Low Fantasy[/URL], a good number of them actually do include fantastic creatures - even elves, orcs, and the like - in non-magic or sparsely supernatural settings! It's ironic because the definition provided suggests this (including more species than humans) is actually uncommon. xD

 

[Saccharine Cyanide]

In answer to the original question, I personally like settings with just a little bit of magic. I've always sort of preferred settings that are more familiar opposed to high fantasy worlds with all their lore and only a vague resemblance to our world.


There's something interesting about adding just a touch of magic to an otherwise mundane world. I especially like it when that bit of magic is metaphorical and trying to touch on some real idea, like in, say, Kafka's Metamorphosis, rather than being a form of pure escapism and power fantasy. Just a personal preference!

 

[Muffinboi]

I'm neutral on it. I've been reading a book series called Redwall and it fits the premise of fantasy without magic. For those unfamiliar, Redwall is a book series about civilized animals, and except for maybe the prophecies, there is a definite lack of magic.

 

[Dark Half]

and how exactly would you propose doing that?

The same way you introduce other specimens to a story? The same way alternations are made in fan-made ideas? Doesn't take much to think of a RP fantasy without magic.

 

[Idea]

[QUOTE="Dark Half]The same way you introduce other specimens to a story? The same way alternations are made in fan-made ideas? Doesn't take much to think of a RP fantasy without magic.

[/QUOTE]
I only ask cause if, say, you had orcs based on them naturally evolving through natural selection somehow, I think that would make the genre not a fantasy, but scifi.


Anyway, I]ve kinda been forbideen from discussing things here, so I won´t take this any further, but either way...I rest my case.

 

[Grey]

So I was going to leave this alone, but I'd like to just chime in on the subjective definition of terms.


It is, frankly, kind of intellectually lazy in a way that borders on solipsism. Words mean things, and the point of universally or near-universally understood definitions is so that you don't need to write an essay detailing your interpretation of a genre every time you want to use it.


By insisting the subjective has primacy, you're essentially cutting off any opportunity for growth and declaring yourself a victor or authority by the same mechanism that has poisoned modern political discourse. The 'rules' don't exist to contain anyone, but to facilitate forward motion.


To digress a little from the point of thread, and with apologies to Oracle, let me just offer a more academic perspective on genre definitions.

Spoiler

You see, it's not merely the aesthetic trappings of a genre that compose it - revisionist medievalism for fantasy, lasers and space travel for sci-fi - but also the thematic content. Different genres excel at telling different kinds of story which turn have common themes.


Fantasy typically focuses on individuals in a traditionally heroic narrative; not only might you have magic and monsters, but you have a great quest or looming threat. Magic could be detailed to the point where its practice is functionally a science (an approach I quite enjoy), but it still means that science is predicated on an invented phenomenon. Idea is not wrong when he mentions the way magic breaks physics as we understand them, and often no attempt is made to reconcile that with our understanding. Low fantasy usually scales back the scope and rarefies the magic, but it's still there somewhere.


Sci-fi has historically been a socially, philosophically, and politically conscious genre. Fantasy features stories about heroes, friends, and adventure, but sci-fi, hard sci-fi especially, holds up a mirror to the time in which it is written. While it might introduce things which seem impossible, often there's an effort to anchor that in our present understanding of the universe and use them to reflect on current political or societal events. It's often less about a fantastic piece of technology, and more about how that technology affects us. The more concrete the underpinnings of that technology, the more interesting contact points it has with humanity.


Let's say it was the 70s and I wanted to write a sci-fi story about these tiny computers people carry around in their pockets. With some limited knowledge I wonder how such a thing could be made, and look at the materials that could be used. Then I write a story about how society changes as tiny computers, linked globally, seep into every day life and how, say, the inventor of these devices discovers the manufacturers are using child slaves to mine for the necessary components.


If I hadn't thought about how the technology could be possible, I might never have seen the obvious dramatic and malign ends to which corporate interests would go in pursuit of profit through creating them.


But then, I'd also be unusually cynical for sci-fi as well as prescient.


Sci-fantasy is almost more of an aesthetic, since you just reskin a fantasy story with lightsabers and spaceships. Or reskin a sci-fi story with wizards and dragons. Totally possible, rather specific in use.


I wrote an extended post on the topic here: Roleplay - So You Want To Write... Special Edition: Fantasy

With all that said, I'm not trying to tell anyone this is the One True Way, but it is a useful model through which to examine these genres and your understanding of them. When you know the established rules of the genre, you can find interesting ways to bend or break them.


Of course, I'm only really experienced with the Western Canon (into which the Russians dubiously fit) and a little Japanese. These genre conventions may be wholly different outside those lines.

 

[Dark Half]

I only ask cause if, say, you had orcs based on them naturally evolving through natural selection somehow, I think that would make the genre not a fantasy, but scifi.
Anyway, I]ve kinda been forbideen from discussing things here, so I won´t take this any further, but either way...I rest my case.

Well when it comes to sci-fi, the definition usually states that it is a genre that deals with imaginative concepts of futuristic settings (Example, Star Wars). While fantasy itself is still within the imaginative concepts, but far more vague and assumes the roles of characters before acting out on fantastical adventures.


So unless the fantasy based roleplay is taking place in the future where technology is at a all time high, it can't really be deemed as science fiction as it doesn't meet all the quota from such an evolutionary aspect of different species such as ogres, which doesn't have to be the explanation for their existence either if it's a bother.


Forbidden from discussing things here? Alright, take care then.

 

[Idea]

[QUOTE="Dark Half]Well when it comes to sci-fi, the definition usually states that it is a genre that deals with imaginative concepts of futuristic settings (Example, Star Wars). While fantasy itself is still within the imaginative concepts, but far more vague and assumes the roles of characters before acting out on fantastical adventures.

[/QUOTE]
I don´t consider star wars as scifi, and those definitions seem overly vague. But, as I said, I can´t really debate it here.

 

[Sibylline Oracle]

I almost ended up derailing this thread myself. Damn it guys. xD


If you want to debate the meaning of the term "Fantasy", I suppose that wouldn't be too far from the topic I started this thread with. If anyone doesn't want to debate, they're free to simply vote via the poll option at the top.


For the record, I believe genre terms should be left somewhat broad. I don't disagree that they need some amount of objective definition, but there should be room for the individual to include their own interests within it. If our responses to each other is any indication, there may have been some misunderstanding: I assumed Idea was asserting that all words need entirely concise definitions with no leg room for interpretation, and Grey might have assumed I thought all definitions require nothing but subjectivity. My sincerest apologies to both of you if I misunderstood anything.


Also, I like those definitions Grey used. They seem sufficiently broad enough to include a variety of details, such as either the lack or inclusion of aliens in Sci-Fi. There are many examples, in my opinion, of science fiction with or without aliens. Magic, or the impossible supernatural elements, is viewed, by my eyes, in the same vein as "aliens" or "space travel" in Sci-Fi.

 

[Idea]

[QUOTE="Sibylline Oracle]I almost ended up derailing this thread myself. Damn it guys. xD
If you want to debate the meaning of the term "Fantasy", I suppose that wouldn't be too far from the topic I started this thread with. If anyone doesn't want to debate, they're free to simply vote via the poll option at the top.


For the record, I believe genre terms should be left somewhat broad. I don't disagree that they need some amount of objective definition, but there should be room for the individual to include their own interests within it. If our responses to each other is any indication, there may have been some misunderstanding: I assumed Idea was asserting that all words need entirely concise definitions with no leg room for interpretation, and Grey might have assumed I thought all definitions require nothing but subjectivity. My sincerest apologies to both of you if I misunderstood anything.

[/QUOTE]
your own interests can be perfectly included, by defining things properly and concisely. I think people are forgetting here that there hasn´t to be just one genre: Any story, roleplay, etc... can have multiple genres. Thus, it is unnecessary to say "this thing can also fit into X genre" if it doesn´t, because it´s not like you can´t do it just because it doesn´t belong in a certain genre, as all it means is that it belongs to another genre.


yes, there can be some room for interpretation and creative freedom is something I hold in high regard. And while I obviously think I am right in my definitions, I am open to the possibility of being wrong. But one thing is having an opinion on a matter another is having "a hunch".

 

[Grey]

Conversation was always going to be a byproduct of the question, Oracle, and thankfully it's remained largely civil. Equally inevitable was some arguing from positions of false certainty. You kind of just have to roll with it; some people on the internet have big egos and faulty filters.


But yes, I did misunderstand. Sorry about that. I have a knee-jerk reaction to decisions to reject established patterns and definitions where a person may not understand why those patterns and definitions exist.


I agree that endlessly recursive subgenre definitions is pedantic and unhelpful, which is why I find broadly the ten or so fantasy subgenres I listed in SYWTW functional with plenty of room for surprises. You really can fit anything in under them, and I think by understanding what they are at core allows a person to make more interesting divergences.


It's all semiotics, you know? We all expect certain things when we think fantasy, which I'd argue thanks to media saturation have plenty of overlap - and when you understand what those things are, and how they fit together, you can subvert audience expectation.


I never talk about the academic stuff as a way to say 'this is how it is done, do not deviate', but as a way to make people aware of foundational stuff they can build upon. For example, I'd actually encourage people to write fantasy that has a little in common with Tolkien as possible. Throw out the rulebook and take the genre to weird new places.

 

[Sibylline Oracle]

Conversation was always going to be a byproduct of the question, Oracle, and thankfully it's remained largely civil. Equally inevitable was some arguing from positions of false certainty. You kind of just have to roll with it; some people on the internet have big egos and faulty filters.

Fair enough. I just know I started this thread as a way for people to share their definitions of Fantasy so I'd have an idea as to what to expect from them. I'd really like to know how many people demand "magic" in their Fantasy and how many would be willing to think of it more broadly than that and try something new! Arguments on semantics aren't exactly why I created this thread, but I'm not against a discussion that doesn't stray too far off-topic.


The topic mentioned "Fantasy", so discussing the definitions of that term could fit the bill!

your own interests can be perfectly included, by defining things properly and concisely. I think people are forgetting here that there hasn´t to be just one genre: Any story, roleplay, etc... can have multiple genres. Thus, it is unnecessary to say "this thing can also fit into X genre" if it doesn´t, because it´s not like you can´t do it just because it doesn´t belong in a certain genre, as all it means is that it belongs to another genre.
yes, there can be some room for interpretation and creative freedom is something I hold in high regard. And while I obviously think I am right in my definitions, I am open to the possibility of being wrong. But one thing is having an opinion on a matter another is having "a hunch".

The only problem, I feel, with having genres like Fantasy be "properly and concisely" defined is that attempting to take into account every possible element in a story and combine them together in different ways would lead to a huge variety of terms. In a sense, sub-genres already cover this to a degree - and sometimes, they're actually really helpful! But if the number of sub-genres that exist for any given work start to number in the hundreds, I think we've taken "concise definition" a bit too far. Besides, the way things are now, people frequently have to judge a work based on its own merits rather than what genre it fits under. The more of that, in my opinion, the better! ^^

 

[Grey]

Well, you know, live and learn. When you ask people for definitions, semantics are guaranteed to follow.


On rereading the first post, I get the feeling you wanted to know how people felt about Low Fantasy and the sliding scale from there to High - I'm going to say the tenor of the thread from there occluded your intention more than the post didn't quite communicate what you wanted, but I do feel like it wasn't as clear as could be.


I'm a big fan of Low Fantasy myself, like I said. But that's because I like horror, and Low Fantasy is great for that.