Must fantasy include magic

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

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

Or perhaps "or by other persons or entities, save the writer" would be more appropriate to my meaning, yes.....

[Hilarious Joke]

I understand what you were saying now Teresa. Interesting definition!

[Teresa Edgerton]

Thank you, Hilarious Joke, but it's not really my own definition, you know. I'm going by the dictionary and by the historical use of the term.

* * * * *

And here is the point that I should have made earlier, and will make now in an attempt to drag this thread back on topic:

Within his or her invented world the writer can call anything he or she chooses "magic," and for that world it will be the proper term.

But for purposes of discussion, if we are ever to arrive at any understanding, we can't just invent our own definitions for words, or say what we think they mean, or would like them to mean, or what our favorite authors use them to mean. If we are going to have any sort of dialogue, and not bog ourselves down in endless confusion, we have to use definitions that are available to everyone: and so far as I know, no one has come up with a better way of doing this than opening up a dictionary and using what one finds there.

[j. d. worthington]

At risk of being redundant on that... this was exactly the point, I think. By the accepted definitions (and historical usages) of the term, no, fantasy does not have to have magic. (As pointed out with the Gormenghast books, it may not even have the supernatural, though that is indeed a very rare bird!)

[Teresa Edgerton]

As you probably know, I love the Gormenghast books. And I think what makes them fantasy is three-fold:

1) They describe a culture and a way of life so gloriously grotesque and improbable that they have only the most tenuous connection to reality.

2) Though there is nothing directly supernatural, there is little of the truly natural. Many of the characters are so very much larger than life (or, in a few cases, like Nannie Slagg and the wretched Bright Carvers, smaller), that they are ruled by unnatural obsessions and unnatural passions.

3) There is no other genre or classification into which they could possibly fit.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

As you probably know, I love the Gormenghast books. And I think what makes them fantasy is three-fold:

1) They describe a culture and a way of life so gloriously grotesque and improbable that they have only the most tenuous connection to reality.

2) Though there is nothing directly supernatural, there is little of the truly natural. Many of the characters are so very much larger than life (or, in a few cases, like Nannie Slagg and the wretched Bright Carvers, smaller), that they are ruled by unnatural obsessions and unnatural passions.

3) There is no other genre or classification into which they could possibly fit.

I'd tend to agree on this. The Gormenghast books -- and, for that matter, Peake himself, to a large degree -- are rather sui generis, but fantasy is the only classification I can think of where they would fit. Superb books, and one of the great examples of what fantasy can do at its best... to defy all preconceptions about the genre and become something wonderfully unique and special... and evoke that sense of wonder and the numinous while saying so very, very much about the human heart along the way. Like another favorite we share, Hope Mirrlees' Lud-in-the-Mist; or David Lindsay's A Voyage to Arcturus, or Cabell's wonderfully quirky, witty, satirically biting, provoking, and often moving, almost unclassifiable Biography of the Life of Manuel....

[Kissmequick]

While I agree with Theresa that magic, in the sense we know it, is a person or entity trying to control supernatural forces, I think that magic in fantasy is 90% your/the character's perception of the world. It is what they consider magic that is the key.

To a caveman, the use of electricity is magic. To a medieaval man the car is magic. Both our control of electricity ( a 'supernatural' force until science explained it) and the internal combustion engine are easily explainable to us, but not to them.

In say The Chronicles Of Morgaine, Morgaine has devices that she considers explicable and merely the result of science. Yet to everyone else in the world(s) they are magic, because they control forces which the people who live there cannot, and as such in that book, they are magic.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Yes, the Morgaine books -- which I love -- are like Andre Norton's Witch World books, in that they combine familiar fantasy tropes with an imaginary science so advanced that it appears magical. Somehow, the two blend seamlessly. Maybe because we aren't so far removed as we like to think we are from the time when the scientist and the magician could be the same person.

When Morgaine uses the sword Changeling, she's calling on the principles of an advanced science which the readers doesn't understand, but she does.

But when Vanye holds the sword, he believes he is dealing with something far different, and he wields it in the spirit of a magician's apprentice in awe and in terror.

I think both work, because to some extent readers can view the sword from both sides: we are comfortable with the idea that incredible things can be accomplished with science, but we don't know how Changeling (and the gates) works anymore than Vanye does.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Kissmequick

While I agree with Theresa that magic, in the sense we know it, is a person or entity trying to control supernatural forces, I think that magic in fantasy is 90% your/the character's perception of the world. It is what they consider magic that is the key.

This is exactly what I have been trying to say, except that I would say that it's 100% the character's perception.

But many books are told from more than one viewpoint, and the reader can experience more than one perception.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

Is this really so difficult a concept for you to grasp?

Yes. You got me. I'm amazingly stupid.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Delvo

You got me. I'm amazingly stupid.

I'm sorry to hear that. I just thought you were too stubborn to admit you were mistaken, but since you tell me otherwise I guess I'll have to trust you.

[Manarion]

Personally, I think this topic's finally ran offtrack. When the word "magic" was first used, I think he asked if it needed, for lack of a better term, internally-controlled energy manipulation. Not far-off technology or any such matters.

[nj1]

Originally Posted by Manarion

Personally, I think this topic's finally ran offtrack. When the word "magic" was first used, I think he asked if it needed, for lack of a better term, internally-controlled energy manipulation. Not far-off technology or any such matters.

Exactly!

[Teresa Edgerton]

But after we've all said, "No," (or yes) what then? Either we expand on what a fantasy might have instead, or the thread comes to a grinding halt.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

But after we've all said, "No," (or yes) what then? Either we expand on what a fantasy might have instead, or the thread comes to a grinding halt.

And, as Arthur C. Clarke pointed out many years ago, at some point, the difference between advanced technology and "magic" becomes negligible... something many fantasy writers have played on over the years, blurring the lines quite effectively (and adding a level of epistomological ambiguity to their work -- and the field -- thereby); Michael Moorcock with his Dancers at the End of Time being an especially notable example, considering the way he blends this in with his Elric series as well....