Superficially, the distinction seems to revolve around magic vs science. Donaldson seems to agree:
However, he goes much deeper in his analysis:Donaldson wrote:Therefore the essential substance of fantasy worlds is composed of "that which transcends definition" rather than of, for example, electrons and J particles. And *therefore* the inhabitants of fantasy worlds think and act in magical rather than in technological or scientific terms.
Donaldson wrote:Unlike every other form of storytelling . . . fantasy is not *about* material reality, or even material plausibility. It does not describe or comment upon rational or tangible observations of the external world; the world of science and technology. Nor does it describe or comment upon verifiable observations of the human condition, in general or in particular, through research into the past or extrapolation into the future. Fantasy is *about* metaphysical reality, the intersection of the spiritual with the psychological. It describes and comments upon non-rational and (ideally) universal observations of the internal world; the world of the unverifiable; the world of imagination and nightmare, of hope and despair and faith; the world of magic.
So the technical differences between the genres are necessitated by the philosophical goals an author has in mind when choosing which genre will best facilitate his particular story and themes. “Rational possibilities of consensus reality” might in itself explain why he wrote the Gap cycle from so many different points of view, from so many different character perspectives. And it also suggests a reason for calling the first book, “The Real Story,” and the subsequent opening paragraphs about different perspectives revealing larger layers of the ‘real story.’ Reality, in science fiction, is determined by consensus—much as science itself. In the Chronicles, there isn’t an issue of discovering a consensus for the Land’s reality. It all comes down to the decisions of each individual, individually. Covenant doesn’t decide his final position according to what everyone else thinks. He doesn’t come to a final conclusion at all; he decides that his personal reaction is more important than the external truth. This certainly wouldn’t work for Morn or Warden. Their decisions depend on the ‘real story,’ the larger perspective which informs them of things like the Amnion’s intentions, and Holt’s plan. Their decisions depend on finding out what is really going on, and telling the rest of humanity this real story (hence broadcasting the formula for the anti-mutagen drug and informing others of this previously unknown reality).Donaldson wrote:Nevertheless the distinctions are important. In sf, the differences between our reality and the secondary creation are explained materially (rationally): x, y, or z has happened in science/technology, and therefore reality is changed. In fantasy, the differences are explained magically (arationally): x, y, or z powers (which can be imagined, but which defy any material explanation) exist, and therefore reality is changed. As I see it, such distinctions have profound implications. For example, fantasy is--sort of by definition--a journey into the non-rational possibilities of the human mind (a journey inward): sf is a journey into the rational possibilities of consensus reality (a journey outward).
Donaldson is certainly consistent with his distinction in these two works. But is his distinction merely his own personal formula for keeping these goals and genres separate? Can other writers find valid distinctions of their own—or even disregard such a distinction altogether?
What about Mordant's Need?
For those (like me) who need "lugubrious" to be defined: "Mournful, dismal, or gloomy, especially to an exaggerated or ludicrous degree." Even though Donaldson has ostensibly written a "hybrid" of fantasy and s.f., he implies that he still feels uncomfortable about such a notion of a hybrid genre. Or at least he feels uncomfortable about the label "science fantasy." Is this because he recognizes that he has violated his own philosophical distinctions of story-telling? Has he rendered such neat distinctions meaningless? Which philosophical goal was he trying to accomplish with MN? An exploration of inner, spiritual truths? Or consensus reality? Both?Donaldson wrote: But about "power" in "Mordant's Need": here's one way to look at it. Imagery and the use of mirrors occupy a sort of middle ground between the manifestations of power in more traditional fantasy ("magic and monsters") and those in science fiction (typically "weaponry"). The kingdom of Mordant is not *in itself* a magical place. In fact, it is a rather "mundane" quasi-medieval reality. Instead it has access to magic through the manipulation of devices; through a kind of technology. (Hence the otherwise rather strange fact that Imagery can tap into worlds which operate according to very different "rules" than Mordant does.) In that sense, "Mordant's Need" may deserve to bear the lugubrious label "science fantasy." The use of "magic" there bears a certain resemblence to our use of "science".
Does anyone else get the feeling that these distinctions are merely pragmatic, and not set in stone? That perhaps Donaldson has defined these distinctions after the fact in light of his already-published work? Should we ignore his distinctions and find our own? Or do his distinctions accurately describe the established, major works of either genre? Is there a "consensus reality" about the distinction itself, or are our distinctions manifestations of our own personal journeys made possible through story-telling?