Opinions - Fantasy without Magic

[Idea]

[QUOTE="Sibylline Oracle]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! ^^

[/QUOTE]
defining something isn´t attempting to control anything. For example, there was a time when all the categories for living things were "edible and non-edible". We have since changed it into much more complex categories. Kingdoms alone (Animalia, plantae, monera, fungi, etc...) have more of those. Altering those defintions and categories had to impact on what the things actually were, it just made it so that if I was looking for a lion without saying " a lion" I would run a much lower risk of finding a zebra or a pumpkin. Or if I was looking for a multicelular animal that eats meat has a spinal cord and lives in the sea, I have a way of asking someone for that without mentioning all those traits.


Likewise, when asking for a concise definition all I´m doing is assuring I´m not getting the wrong food on my plate, metaphorically speaking. And it´s not like every aspect of something is dictated by it´s definition. A definition is only stating which core elements have to be in something to make it that, and once being there are enough to make it that. For example, I stated that fantasy is defined by the presence of magic. That means that for it to be a fantasy, it needs to have magic, and that as long as you have magic, it´s a fantasy. This has no implications over what kind of magic it is, no implications on what you do with magic, in fact, magical could have little impact in the story at all. Maybe it´s just a background thing, and the actual story is about the political warfare of two kingdoms or something.


Any definition is acceptable, though, as long as the person can defend it effectively and it is a definition. If there are hundreds of subgenres, that is not taking things too far, that is people giving some thought to the variety of ideas that they can come up with.


And on that note, where did "judging a work" come up at all? yes, things should be judged by their own merits, but that has nothing at all to do with what genre they belong to: being a fantasy, scifi, or whatever has nothing to do with quality.

 

[Sibylline Oracle]

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.

Although I admit I might have been more clear, I asked three main questions in my opening post and even included a poll in this thread. "How do you feel about Fantasy without magic? Like, or don't like?" = give your opinion on stories that seem to match the Fantasy genre without magic. If you feel Fantasy must have magic, "why do you prefer magic over the lack thereof?" To be fair, I didn't explicitly ask for anyone's definitions of Fantasy, but as I mentioned, it doesn't stray too far off-topic, since it's basically important to determining if someone wants magic in their settings or not.


At best, I could've defined magic better. In the context of this thread, assume it means anything supernatural that cannot or is not fully explained. If a Fantasy setting explains its "magic" in such a way that it describes its actual physics and makes a case for its mechanics that go beyond the circular "it must be this way because it must" descriptions often given for magic in some Fantasy settings. Then again, I'd also like to hear anyone else's definition of "magic".


I'll edit in the appropriate definition for the term in the opening post, if I can. ^^;


As for your defense, @Idea, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I'd prefer our language not be mired by hundreds of new words people would have to study, especially if it discourages judging each piece of work on its own merits. You view magic as a requirement in Fantasy, but I - and quite a few others - will continue to disagree with you on that for the reasons I mentioned in the analogy with Sci-Fi. It is a single possible element, but not a defining one. Ricardo Pento wrote The Stone Dance of the Chameleon, a story with absolutely no magic, and claimed it as Fantasy (Low Fantasy to be more concise). It is most certainly possible, just as a Sci-Fi without aliens (Inception is often included in lists of Post-Cyberpunk settings). But your argument to the contrary shows that not everyone agrees with the exact definition of these genres, and the authors of these other works would certainly disagree with yours.


It's a genre. Fantasy should have no more concise a definition than the word "Fish". You have a general idea of what you're getting into, but nothing more exact than that. Personally, I suppose I wouldn't mind some people, like yourself, using more precise sub-genre terms to describe your interests as simply as possible, but I prefer to get to know the person, experiment, and learn from them exactly what they expect and desire, one at a time.

 

[Idea]

@Idea[/URL], I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I'd prefer our language not be mired by hundreds of new words people would have to study

as I explained, nobody would have to anything. I am not trying to impose my view of things. But a vague definition is like a lost made giving directions to another: It gets both nowhere, or it does, odds are it´s a worst place than the one you started in.

[QUOTE="Sibylline Oracle]especially if it discourages judging each piece of work on its own merits

[/QUOTE]
please pay attention to what I bloody said:

And on that note, where did "judging a work" come up at all? yes, things should be judged by their own merits, but that has nothing at all to do with what genre they belong to: being a fantasy, scifi, or whatever has nothing to do with quality.

Each piece of work has it´s own merits, and i´m not taking anyone merits away. Good work is good work, bad work is bad work, and genre has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what is good and what is bad. And if you´re saying that a work can change what a genre is, no it can´t. A new story can add to it´s genre, but not change it´s essence from within: after all, being different from what a genre IS would make it so you don´t belong in that genre.

[QUOTE="Sibylline Oracle]You view magic as a requirement in Fantasy, but I - and quite a few others - will continue to disagree with you on that for the reasons I mentioned in the analogy with Sci-Fi. It is a single possible element, but not a defining one. Ricardo Pento wrote The Stone Dance of the Chameleon, a story with absolutely no magic, and claimed it as Fantasy (Low Fantasy to be more concise). It is most certainly possible, just as a Sci-Fi without aliens (Inception is often included in lists of Post-Cyberpunk settings). But your argument to the contrary shows that not everyone agrees with the exact definition of these genres, and the authors of these other works would certainly disagree with yours.

[/QUOTE]
There was a time when people believed the Earth was flat. That didn´t make it any flatter. People believing in something is not enough to justify it, much less make it true. As I mentioned several times, I have no problem with people having a different opinion from me. I have a problem when they refuse to correct the flaws in their thinking, or try to at least. You can claim this or that is fantasy or scifi, but if your best justification for why they are which is "it feels like it is", that is not reasonable.

[QUOTE="Sibylline Oracle]It's a genre. Fantasy should have no more concise a definition than the word "Fish".

[/QUOTE]
Yes, I completely agree. But you know what? The definition of fish IS concise. What people think a "fish" is, is different from what the definition of fish is. You have core things that determine whether something is or not a fish- and the impression it gives is not one of them.

[QUOTE="Sibylline Oracle]You have a general idea of what you're getting into, but nothing more exact than that.

[/QUOTE]
If I ask for pepper, and am given charcoal, because "it´s black dust" that is not a good thing.


If I think of birds as anything that can fly, I am bound to make some silly mistakes.


A general grasp of things is ok. It´s not good, but it´s ok. The problem lies when your definition of fantasy is not an element that is exclusive to fantasy (thus not even a definition in the first place), or when it is so broad that what is or not fantasy is suddenly open for opinion, not just interpretation, even within the definition you gave- THAT is a problem.

 

[call me rae]

To me fantasy is simply a genre using a made up world with some supernatural elements. Typically this includes magic - but that's because I tend to gravitate toward urban fantasy or paranormal romance when defining the genre.


So for me it's like either something with a supernatural creature - dragon, elf, whatever. Or some kind of magical human - shaman, medium, the ever popular witch or wizard, etc.


That to me is a fantasy.


But I'm willing to accept a more just strictly made up or medieval setting too. Just that wouldn't be where my mind went when it came to the genre.