Must fantasy include magic

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Manarion

Which is why I recommend Piers Anthony's Incarnation of Immortality series to any reader who wants something fairly new and refreshing in fantasy.

And I understand that super-technology has been around a while in fantasy, but I still don't like it. As David Eddings said, fantasy and sci-fi shouldn't even look at each other. Fantasy deals with the past, while sci-fi deals with the future. That's why I tend to read his material more than anyone else, really.

The problem is, while such a division can produce some good work, such a rigid approach quickly stultifies creativity in any branch of literature... very much what we've seen in fantasy (and are now, apparently, gradually getting away from). And, as has been pointed out time and again, both fantasy and sf come from the same origins, such a separatist ideal is less than truthful to the facts.

Nor has much of the best fantasy been oriented toward the past; S&S, yes (largely). But most branches of the field run the gamut. Dunsany (certainly one of the most important names in the history of the field) went from the past-oriented to present-world to future. Harlan Ellison's fantasy is almost exclusively centered on the contemporary world, and is immensely strong work. Andre Norton blended technology, the contemporary world (and, occasionally, politics), and the "traditional" semi-mediaeval milieu in her Witch World tales, quite often to great effect... and certainly she was long a mainstay of fantasy, very important to the field. The examples contrary to such an assertion are well-nigh endless.....

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Manarion

And this woman, ladies and gentlemen, has hit the nail on the head of what a true fantasy is.

Fantasy deals with the outer realms of impossibility. Enough said, I think...

Except that I'd phrase it as the outer realms of imaginative possibility... whether possible in the real world or not.....

[Manarion]

So you say, but eventually with such mixing, fantasy will lose its basic face. Already, it's not even considered its own genre anymore; rather, it's considered a SUB-genre of SF. The only reason why the two are ever closely linked is the fact that things that have never happened in any situation in this world is a staple of both genres. Other than that, I really don't find any similiarity.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Manarion

So you say, but eventually with such mixing, fantasy will lose its basic face. Already, it's not even considered its own genre anymore; rather, it's considered a SUB-genre of SF. The only reason why the two are ever closely linked is the fact that things that have never happened in any situation in this world is a staple of both genres. Other than that, I really don't find any similiarity.

No... what I'm referring to is that they are linked historically... they come from the same basic roots literarily, which began to diverge in the late 18th century, had a great deal of intermingling of various sorts throughout the 19th and early 20th, and became rather stultified into (as you call it) its "basic face" following the surge in popularity for Tolkien's work ca. the 1970s. Before that point, the similarities were much more evident if you had much of a knowledge of the field.

And, as Teresa noted, there is no one classic type, no "basic face", as you put it. What you're referring to is one very limited facet of fantasy, by no means the whole....

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Manarion

Fantasy deals with the outer realms of impossibility. Enough said, I think...

Which includes "outrageous technology", the combination of science and magic, and many other things that people who say things like that David Eddings quote have apparently never dreamed of in their philosophy.

It certainly doesn't mean rehashing forever the same sort of plot and characters and setting.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Manarion

Already, it's not even considered its own genre anymore; rather, it's considered a SUB-genre of SF.

People have been saying that since the early 1970's, simply because SF was already a viable genre -- in terms of a marketing category -- and in that sense fantasy was the new kid on the block. Nevertheless, fantasy has not, at any point during the almost forty years since, been in any danger of being absorbed by SF.

If it's any comfort to you, Manarion, your fears have no basis in the history of the genre, and you have nothing to worry about. Those writers who are exploring the outer boundaries of the genre, and those readers who enjoy what they are doing, are not endangering it in any way, shape, or form. All the evidence suggests otherwise.

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by nj1

Most fantasy books i've read include a fair amount of magic. Do you think a fantasy movel must include magic to fire the imagination?

One of the greatest works of fantasy - the Gormenghast trilogy by Mervyn Peake - has none. So the answer is no.

[Alurny]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

Anything that allows me to step out of the real world for a few hours reading is Fantasy as far as I'm concerned.

Agree! I don't mind too much as it doesn't really matter. A new world, new cultures and new rules make a book for me.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Manarion

The only reason why the two are ever closely linked is the fact that things that have never happened in any situation in this world is a staple of both genres. Other than that, I really don't find any similiarity.

That seems like plenty to me. How much more similarity do you expect between any two separate but related genres?

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Save for one rather loose mingling of the two (definition 4 for "magic"), they're quite different

Umm... no, not at all. "Magic"'s third and fourth noun definitions are things I hadn't thought of: the fourth is just a metaphor for the other definitions, and the third is also separate from "real magic" (as it's described in fantasy books where "real magic" is really real ), as either a metaphorical reference, homage, commercial exaggeration, or fraud pretending to really be "magic". So even though I didn't think of those, they only stem from and refer back to the "real thing" anyway.

And other than those two, every definition you just quoted for "magic" has the word "supernatural" built in, or "unaccountable" in the last case (which describes the same thing: can't be accounted for by the laws of nature).

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

a great number of ghost tales have the spirits anything but in control of their actions.

Not that it would make any difference, especially if someone ELSE is in control, but describe some examples.

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

And, as is evident from Teresa's entire statement, the emphasis is on "uncontrolled or uncontrollable by those within the tale".

That's a bad way to categorize something as magical or not. It means the very same thing becomes magical or unmagical just based on which of the people involved are and aren't in the story. It's like saying a story in which the characters' lives are strongly affected by politics still doesn't have politics in it if the politicians who made things that way aren't shown doing it.

[Teresa Edgerton]

You seem intent on missing the point, Delvo. Magic is part of the supernatural, but not everything that is supernatural is magic. The part is not synonymous with the whole. A drop of water is not the Pacific Ocean, a grain of sand is not the Sahara desert.

Magic is the attempt (in fantasy, often the successful attempt) to control supernatural forces from the outside. The magician works magic to call on forces beyond himself; those forces do not need magic to express themselves.
Is this really so difficult a concept for you to grasp?

[Hilarious Joke]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

Magic is the attempt (in fantasy, often the successful attempt) to control supernatural forces from the outside. The magician works magic to call on forces beyond himself; those forces do not need magic to express themselves.

Magic can not simply be an attempt to control supernatural forces. I just made an attempt to will the rain away. That attempt isn't magic, its an attempt at magic. The rain remains. Damn rain.

I always thought that magic was an entity in its own right. In the Discworld, magic is a colour and perhaps an element. In Cecelia Dart-Thornton's Bitterbynde, magic is infused in seelie and unseelie wights. In Hobbs' assassin books, magic seems to be a heriditary trait (I'm talking about the Skill) passed through generations.

I think I may have misintepreted Teresa's statement in its context; but I find the subject fascinating and couldn't help throwing my own tuppence out there.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Hilarious Joke

Magic can not simply be an attempt to control supernatural forces. I just made an attempt to will the rain away. That attempt isn't magic, its an attempt at magic. The rain remains. Damn rain.

But the rain is a natural force, Hilarious Joke, so simply attempting to will it to stop is not magic. It's only when you try to bring in supernatural forces to aid you in stopping the rain that you start using magic.

Whether you succeed or fail is quite beside the point. A child brushes paint on a piece of paper. Whether or not he actually produces the picture that he is trying to transfer from his mind to the paper, he's still painting. It's the same with magic, because it's the act itself, not the result. What distinguishes fantasy from real life is that the accomplishment almost always follows the act -- when even among the people throughout history who have believed in magic and who have practiced magic, they never imagined it was that dependable.

But, be honest, you weren't really trying to make the rain go away, were you? I suspect that what you were really doing was trying to prove that it couldn't be done that way. Remember, I said it's the attempt to call on supernatural forces -- not just pretending to try, when you actually want to do something else, but really making the effort.

I always thought that magic was an entity in its own right. In Cecelia Dart-Thornton's Bitterbynde, magic is infused in seelie and unseelie wights. In Hobbs' assassin books, magic seems to be a heriditary trait (I'm talking about the Skill) passed through generations.

In all these examples you are describing some element of the supernatural that the characters are using or calling forth through magic.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Delvo

Umm... no, not at all. "Magic"'s third and fourth noun definitions are things I hadn't thought of: the fourth is just a metaphor for the other definitions, and the third is also separate from "real magic" (as it's described in fantasy books where "real magic" is really real ), as either a metaphorical reference, homage, commercial exaggeration, or fraud pretending to really be "magic". So even though I didn't think of those, they only stem from and refer back to the "real thing" anyway.

And other than those two, every definition you just quoted for "magic" has the word "supernatural" built in, or "unaccountable" in the last case (which describes the same thing: can't be accounted for by the laws of nature).

First, the fourth definition is not "just a metaphor for the other definitions"... it refers to the numinous, that sense of wonder and a feeling of something sublime, supernal, something transcending our understanding (but not necessarily nature) that excites a feeling of awe, mystery, and/or reverence. It may or may not be supernatural in origin or effect. And, as Teresa has (once again) restated, the supernatural itself is not necessarily magic, save by the very loosest use of the term magic. Once again, "magic" is a systematized thing; the supernatural may be chaotic, systematic, or simply hinted or adumbrated without necessarily being explained. It may be as subtle as a sense of something, a delicate apprehension or feeling, an air of, etc.

This difference is evident from their very etymology: magic deriving from "magi" and supernatural simply being a compound of words that together mean "above nature [kind, disposition; part of the physical world]". Just going from the definitions given above, the difference should be evident, as definition 1 of "magic" specifically says "the art that purports to control ... by invoking the supernatural" (emphasis added). In other words, magic is the art, the supernatural is the means by which it effects its purported results. It is, if you prefer, the "field" which magic "taps into" -- much greater than the very tiny realm of magic just as the electromagnetic spectrum is much greater than our ability to manipulate (portions of) it through technology. To confuse the two would be like confusing the entire realm of art with the technique used to evoke a certain response.

Not that it would make any difference, especially if someone ELSE is in control, but describe some examples.

"How Love Came to Professor Guildea", by Robert S. Hichens
"The Ghosts", "The Highwayman", "The Doom of La Traviata", by Lord Dunsany
Jurgen, by James Branch Cabell
"Silence, A Fable", "Shadow, A Parable", by Edgar Allan Poe

(Most of these also involve the supernatural but not magic; all are examples of ghosts, gods, or supernatural forces not acting under their own volition -- in most cases they aren't under anyone's volition.)

That's a bad way to categorize something as magical or not. It means the very same thing becomes magical or unmagical just based on which of the people involved are and aren't in the story. It's like saying a story in which the characters' lives are strongly affected by politics still doesn't have politics in it if the politicians who made things that way aren't shown doing it.

All right... though I would have thought it would have been evident from the post, I'll clarify: by those within the world (or universe) of the story.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

All right... though I would have thought it would have been evident from the post, I'll clarify: by those within the world (or universe) of the story.

I think it would be clearer, JD, if you added, "and not by the supernatural agencies themselves, but by other persons or entities."