Distinction between s.f. and fantasy?

[Avatar]

...But even before there were midichlorians, we were told that the Force is an energy field created by all living things. That's a natural explanation, not supernatural.

Exactly how I always saw it too, which is why they didn't bother me as much as they did some.

(Edit: And since this has kicked over the page, everybody make sure you go back and read Taras' post at the bottom of the last page, which is considerably more relevant than mine. )

--A

[matrixman]

Yes, there is a distinction. And I see we're winning in the poll. Yay!

[wayfriend]

I don't buy into the idea that what makes something magic is whether or not it is natural or explicable to someone. I think magic is magic in a way that is not reletive to any particular context. Magic is absolutely magic.

Yeah, there have been lots of stories where the author has attempted to systemize magic - to give it laws, make it more science-like. And maybe that comforts some people. But real magic isn't like that, and not all fantasy stories are like that. When you turn magic into science, it isn't magic any more.

Real magic is always inexplicable. That's what makes it magic. It is the result of occult forces, whether it be the wizards will or the Prophecy (with a capital P) or capricious gods or something inside the Amulet of Power.

[Zarathustra]

In a place like the Land, where what we would call "magic" is so ingrained in the landscape that it is intrinsically tied to what we would call "natural," there is no discernible difference for a Lander between natural and magical processes.

Isn't the Illearth Stone magical? Are things done with the Illearth stone natural? Also, how can there be no discernible difference for a Lander between using magic to call up fire out of stone, and using flint and steel to create fire? Surely the people of the Land can see a difference between mundane processes which occur via physical mechanisms and magical processes which require "spiritual" input from the user. After all, the Masters have banned the use of Earthpower in Runes. They didn't ban the use of simple tools. They, at least, make a huge distinction between the two.

But I would argue that in a fantasy narrative, there is no ontological difference between the two, any more than there is between a skateboard and a Mercedez, because both can and do exist in a fundamentally natural way in that reality.

That's a bad analogy. Of course skateboards and Mercedez exist in our world in a similar way. But what about love and a Mercedez? Surely these exist in different ways. Similarly, in the Land, an emotion like despair can be enough to perform a Ritual of Desecration. In a world like the Land, its inhabitants are still able to recognize a difference between spiritual and physical. In the Land, the Dead can come back and be commanded to battle Lord Foul. Surely there is nothing physical about such an occurrence. Surely dead Lord Kevin battling Lord Foul happens on a different ontological plane than rocks and trees.

But not only is there an ontological difference, there's also a methodological difference. Magic works differently than the mundane.

[Lord Mhoram]

Malik,

They, at least, make a huge distinction between the two.

Correct. Which is why I said that they recognize the power and potency of the Staff of Law in comparison to a twig. But that's not the same distinction you are making, which is that the Staff is supernatural. It's not supernatural to an inhabitant of the Land. It's naturally more powerful than other stuff.

But what about love and a Mercedez?

Talk about bad analogies. There's no similarity between love and a Mercedez at all. I used skateboard because both are means of transportation. One is just more powerful than another.

Surely there is nothing physical about such an occurrence.

I don't know about physical, but within the confines of Andelain, it's apparently natural, because it has the ability to occur.

[Zarathustra]

Talk about bad analogies. There's no similarity between love and a Mercedez at all.

Yeah, that's the whole point. There's no similarity between the Ritual of Desecration and burning down a building. Emotional (or spiritual) has nothing whatsoever to do with building a mundane fire to destroy something. Yet, magic is based on emotion or spirit in the Land.

Mhoram, you're just playing with semantics. Sure, the meaning of the word "supernatural" changes according to the world you're in. What's supernatural in our world isn't supernatural in the Land. But that's the whole point. Fantasy is a genre where things which are supernatural in our world are natural in their world. But that's just another way of saying magical events occur in fantasy worlds; they are real in fantasy worlds. In no way has this occurrence changed the essence of a magical event. Even in a fantasy world, it is still something which happens on a distinctly different ontological plane, and via a distinctly different methodological process.

You didn't answer the question about the Illearth Stone. Is the magic of the Stone natural just because it occurs in the Land? Even in a fantasy world, there are still meaningful uses of the word "unnatural." Just because something happens there doesn't mean it is natural. The Illearth Stone violates Law. Its effects don't happen via natural processes inherent to the Land's world. Those effects happen in direct contradiction to the very foundational Laws of that world.

But even magic which happens according to Law (like Lawful uses of Earthpower), there is still a distinction between physical and "spiritual." It's not merely a difference of degree as you suggest--not merely a difference in the level of power. Magic is a different kind of power altogether than physical force. The Power of Command, for instance, is more than merely "persuasive speech taken to the 1000th degree." I don't care how long someone in the Land practices their debating techniques--they wouldn't be able to persuade Dead Lord Kevin to battle Lord Foul unless they drank some Earthblood. And there is nothing about Earthblood which connects it rationally or materially to one's ability to persuade or command. The Power of Command doesn't derive from a rational or material connection from Earthblood to one's vocal cords. You could never devise a scientific theory to account for this occurrence.

In the Land, people still distinguish magic from mundane. There is an ontological difference, and a methodological one. Sure, magic is "natural" in a fantasy world in the sense that it does actually occur. But it still represents an occurrence of something fundamentally distinct from physical, mundane processes.

If you don't believe me, let's see what Donaldson himself has to say about his own creation:

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).

[Lord Mhoram]

Malik,

Anything that occurs in the Land or any other reality is thereby "natural," given that it has the ability to occur, even if it violates certain principles such as the Illearth Stone. But I would hesitate to call the Illearth Stone "unnatural" - we are unaware of the exact manner by which natural principles can be broken in the Land. Evidently the physical laws are different there to a sufficient degree that we cannot make such a judgment. The fact is, the Illearth Stone exists ontologically - in some fundamental way - in the Land. It cannot be unnatural. It exists and exerts a concrete force.

Magic is a different kind of power altogether than physical force. The Power of Command, for instance, is more than merely "persuasive speech taken to the 1000th degree." I don't care how long someone in the Land practices their debating techniques--they wouldn't be able to persuade Dead Lord Kevin to battle Lord Foul unless they drank some Earthblood. And there is nothing about Earthblood which connects it rationally or materially to one's ability to persuade or command.

True, but you are applying "our" methodology of examining natural phenomena to these processes. You're right that the Ritual of Desecration is not a "normal" chemical reaction. But what does that prove? Evidently it is governed by its own set of underlying principles.

But it still represents an occurrence of something fundamentally distinct from physical, mundane processes.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I just hesitate at applying the term "magical" to something that is naturally occurring. Given that magic = supernatural (you wouldn't disagree with that I don't think), and the processes we are describing are natural in the Land, none of them can be magical in our sense of the word.

[wayfriend]

Malik and Mhoram, it looks like you're using one word "natural" in two different ways. There is natural(1), "found in this universe", and natural(2), wholesome and good. E.g. The Illearth Stone is natural(1) but not natural(2).

[Zarathustra]

Are caesures natural in the Land? Is white gold? These are things which only occur because something from outside that world intruded upon it. And they are violations of its fundamental Law. Even the Illearth Stone was a bane which Lord Foul placed there from "outside" the Land's world. So even if we restrict ourselves to the definition of "found in this universe," as Wayfriend mentioned, I think a case could be made that these are unnatural, aside from the fact that they are nonphysical in their essence or effects.

In our world, anything which occurs here is, by definition, natural. But that's because we live in a natural universe where everything in it is a manifestation of physical mechanisms. Nothing can exist here which isn't a product of physical mechanisms. That's why the term has become synonymous with, "found in this universe."

But a fantasy world operates by different rules. And that is the point: a fantasy world is one in which unnatural (i.e. immaterial, inexplicable, irrational, "spiritual," etc.) things can exist. It is also a place where things from another universe can exist (white gold, Thomas Covenant, Illearth Stone, etc.).

[Lord Mhoram]

Good point, Wayfriend. Very true.

Malik, caesures are not natural (as far as we know anyway) in your sense of the word, but they are in mine. Evidently some natural law in the Land allows for their existence. I don't remember the Illearth Stone being from outside the Land, but if this is true, a case can be made for its "unnaturalness" - but consider this. There is nothing "magical" about its transfer to the Land. And evidently it harnesses a power that may run contrary to certain laws of the Land, but it can function with its own principles. Similarly so with white gold. No, a white gold ring is not itself natural, but wild magic must be.

But a fantasy world operates by different rules.

Exactly. But it does operate by rules, and those rules allow for what we call magic.

[Loredoctor]

I have to agree with Lord Mhoram. It reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend some years back. He stated that the paranormal exists. By if ghosts and psychic powers exist in this universe, they cannot be paranormal - they operate within established (although unknown) laws. Thererfore there is only 'normal'.

It's also like kind of saying, technology is anti-nature, yet we all know technology is the product of nature (i.e. human intelligence). Therefore, technology is natural (it operates within natural processes, in this case the evolution of the human brain).

Good posts, everyone.

[balon!]

That is a cool quote. But it was Arther C. Clarke. And "technology" rather than "science."

Crap. Well there goes my "smart" factor.

[Zarathustra]

Loremaster, you're talking about our world. I agree that if "paranormal" phenomena exist in our world, they must be natural and they must operate by physical laws.

However, I disagree with LM about caesures. There is not some law which allows them to exist. They are violations of the Law of Time. That's what they are. And they exist due to "perverted" use of white gold. In fact, they started to occur when Joan was still in "our" world. So they literally were otherworldly.

And that's the point of saying fantasy worlds operate differently. Sure, it would be paradoxical and nonsensical to say that something which exists in our world was otherworldly or unnatural. But a fantasy world is a "place" where such a paradox can happen. You don't have to cling to these purely logical or semantic conclusions. It's an invented world. It doesn't have to have a rule which explains or allows every single thing inside it. Things get to that world because Donaldson imagines them there, for Christsakes! To say that anything which exists inside MUST be there because some rule of that world allows it to be there is just pure, simple, nonsense. That is treating it as if it were a real place. Do you think Donaldson wrote a big list of rules which allows all this stuff to occur? Does he check those rules before writing something to make sure that the rules allow it?

You might get me to agree that in any possible world, everything which exists in it must be natural and must be there due to the rules of that world. But we're not talking about possible worlds. We're talking about impossible worlds. Fantasy worlds. Imaginary places. I can imagine a place where contradictions and absurdities are a daily occurrence because it's not real.

Let's look at more of what Donaldson says on the issue:

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. . . 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.


Therefore the essential substance of fantasy worlds is composed of "that which transcends definition" rather than of, for example, electrons and J particles.

If it doesn't have to be materially plausible, rational, and it transcends definition, then there certainly doesn't have to be a rule which explains the existence of things in it.

Q.E.D., folks.

[emotional leper]

Apology for bumping, but this thread touched on an issue that is near and somewhat dear to me.

I'm currently in the process of writing a book. It will, of course, be horrible, emo, and many other shades of unreadable which should demand that I should be hung by the neck until dead, or alteast reasonably dead-ish. However, I must pose a question.

If no one has ever read 'the Chariots of the Gods,' or seen Battlestar Gallactica or Babylon Five, the basic premise of the story I'm working on, which probably wouldn't be discovered in the first book (I like to dash peoples' hopes once they'd had a chance to grow emotionally attached to the thing) is as follows:

Humanity did not begin on Earth. Earth is a created thing. Humanity was a vastly older race that, towards the 'end' of its life, grew rather eccentric. Earth was created as a plaything by Humans whose technology had progressed to the level that it was, literally, magic. (Almost) every god that enters into human history was one of the members of this original human stock, manipulating humans as children might manipulate a dolls in a doll house. Eventually, sometime around 700 AD, the Gods, like children playing Sim City on the SNES, get bored, and leave the game running while they turn their attention elsewhere. Islam would have been the last of the 'divinely inspired' religions until recent times.

Basically, and I know I've said that already, the Gods have decided to leave the world alone for a bit, to let it grow on its own, curious to see what would happen and who would get the greatest number of followers

Spoiler

a la Job: A Comedy of Justice by Heinlein

They returned in the early 20th century, and, while not supposed to meddle, some of them did. (Eris, And the Jewish God, whom for my purposes is seperate from the Christian God, among others.)

The plot of the story would revolve around the 'return' of the Gods: 'Magic' and Miracles start to reappear in the world, centered around different people whom the Gods choose, those few who are still interested in the experiment, followers to be their champions in a sudden death game of religion. The basis for all sorts of magic and miracles revealed would be technology, like the Technomages in Babylon 5. A technology sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from Magic. Nanites that infect the body that can be mentally controlled to create elaborate effects, creating energy from direct conversion of matter to energy, for an example, among other things. Technology that essentially would make a person a God.

The climax, would, of course, be a 'Second Coming,' where the world is at war, and the Chosen of their Gods are heading for a showdown, and suddenly it's revealed to them, and the world, not the truth of the matter, but that _ALL_ religions/gods predating around 700 AD or so are real and correct in that they are true, and can offer a path to salvation, and then that would be where it ends, with the world dumbfounded, faith in many shattere,d and the general chaos ensuing.

And I apologise for all that preamble, but I felt it was the shortest way of asking the following question and getting an answer:

Given that for atleast the first book (if I ever manage to write it), and probably one or two more, the characters (and the readers) would not know that the work was Sci-Fi, that everything was not caused by magic in the normal sense but by 'magical' technology, would that count as Sci-Fi or Fantasy? Or Fantasy up until it was discovered, and then following that, works be classified as Sci-Fi?

Or does it even matter? Dune is pretty much both at the same time.

[I'm Murrin]

(No need to apologise for "bumping" a topic that's only been dead four hours. )

If it was left to me, I'd say that it didn't matter which you put it into. There are a lot of stories that mix things up in the sort of way; it's why there are growing numbers of people who, while acknowledging that there are things clearly identifiable as sci-fi or fantasy, in general prefer to look at it all as "SF"--whatever you mean by that term (I like the widely used "Speculative Fiction" label, personally).


As I think it might interest the people taking part in the discussion here, I thought I'd link to some of my favourite writings of the subject of SF. It's not quite what this topic is about--or at least not approached in the direction that this discussion has--but I think it's relevant. It's Hal Duncan's series of blog posts on "Strange Fictions", and there are a lot of them, though reading only the first couple can give you a very good idea of what he's on about.
SF as a subset of SF - First off, this one is good, because it looks at all the ways speculative elements in fiction can be approached, and applies a series of different SF labels to these approaches.
And the full series:
Strange Fictions part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

[Loredoctor]

Haha, no you have me doubting myself, Malik! Not a bad post, and I can where you are coming from.

Anyway, I don't believe Star Wars is science-fiction. I also think Star Trek is on the border with fantasy; no amount of techno babble that the writers don't understand, psychic powers, and routine abuses of science makes that show sci-fi.

[Zarathustra]

Emotional Leper, thanks for bringing us back on topic. Your idea for a book sounds very interesting, and more importantly, it is exactly these kinds of considerations which drove me to conclude that there is no difference between s.f. and fantasy . . . before I changed my mind and thought there is a difference (natural world vs supernatural worlds). Now I'm tempted to change my mind again.

Here's my problem. Sure, nanites are technology. Sure, the effects of a nanite-mind connection would look like magic, though it's technology. But here's the kicker: the mind-body connection itself looks a lot like magic. It doesn't matter if the mind (consciousness, will, intentionality) interacts with nanites or one's own brain; such an interaction cannot be explained with science. The idea of mental properties and mental events causing physical properties and physical events is the very heart of what we mean by "magical." Think of Thomas Covenant calling up wild magic with his passions. Or the Ritual of Desecration being possible through opening oneself to one's despair. Magic arises through one's spirit or passion, not through physical mechanisms.

I don't believe in a spirit or the supernatural. But the mind/body problem is inexplicable. Both conceptually and scientifically, it cannot be explained. The fact that thought or volition can cause bits of the physical universe to move around is about as "magical" as it gets. Emotional Leper's example of nanites merely exacerbates the mystery. It appears to give a purely scientific explanation for apparently "magical" events. But it magnifies the essential mystery at the core of mind/body interactions.

Sure, we assume the brain produces the mind. Thus, we say the body causes the mind. So the mind is an effect of physical processes. But if that's the case, then mind/will/consciousness is just as illusory as Arthur C. Clarke's "magic." We'd have to admit that there really aren't immaterial minds with immaterial properties. And as such, there would be no sense in which we could say that mind causes anything. Me willing my arm to move would be an illusion. In reality, chemical or electrical processes in my brain causes my arm to move, and not my will. Immaterial entities can't affect material reality. That's magic.

So either reality isn't entirely material (or we don't entirely understand what we mean by "material") or our mind is just like Arthur C. Clarke's "magic." In other words, just an illusion. I'm certainly not willing to accept that my very being is an illusion. But if I'm justified in this conviction, there can be no distinction between magical worlds and natural, mundane worlds. And certainly no distinction between fantasy and science fiction.

[emotional leper]

Once again, this proves that every conversation in anything eventually devolves to a point where it is indistinguishable from a Buddhist arguement about the nature of reality.

But quite honestly, I don't think the 'mind' as a seperate entity exists. I believe that my 'conciousness' is the direct by-product of chemical reactions in my brain. I think it does exist, in that I can think, and I think that one day we will be able to identify the chemical and electrical interactions that constitute thought. But I don't think the mind is something seperate. I also believe that the easiest way to create and 'artifical' intelligence would be to create a computer capable of simulating with extremely high accuracy the functionings of the human brain (specifically, able to simulate an ungodly large number of neurons,) and, using the brain of a, say, condemned criminal, or a young person who is willing their body to science, quick-freeze the brain, and slice it up into a bunch of thin wafers to map the physical connections, and reproduce that inside the machine. If your emulation is perfect, the person being emulated would not be able to tell that their mind was being emulated, nor would an observer engaged in a turing test.

[lucimay]

Once again, this proves that every conversation in anything eventually devolves to a point where it is indistinguishable from a Buddhist arguement about the nature of reality.

undoubtedly!!!


i was going to insert my structuralist views into this argument (i.e. no distinction between sci-fi story and fantasy story when both have the same "hero journey" structure) but well...hahhaha...i guess i just did.

[emotional leper]

Once again, this proves that every conversation in anything eventually devolves to a point where it is indistinguishable from a Buddhist arguement about the nature of reality.

undoubtedly!!!


i was going to insert my structuralist views into this argument (i.e. no distinction between sci-fi story and fantasy story when both have the same "hero journey" structure) but well...hahhaha...i guess i just did.

My favourite thing to bring up in this sort of discussion, which suprises me that I didn't yet, is Trigun.

Trigun is Steampunk (steam power is the state of the art after the loss of technology). Trigun is a Western (Desert planet. People with guns. Cowboy hats). Trigun is Scifi (Vash. Knives. The Plants. The extreme level of technology evinced in ruins and required to get to Planet Gunsmoke.) Trigun is Fantasy. (Vash. Knives. The Plants. Strange abilities.) And Trigun is religious (Redeeming overtones. Wolfwood. And exactly what Vash, Knives and the Plants are.)

Trigun crosses into so many different kinds of thing sometimes it's not even worth trying to explain it to someone. It would take less time for them to just watch the Anime or read the Manga.