[Ntschotschi]

As in the last few weeks I had some leisure I started doing things. Like organizing my bookshelves, leaving through old photographs, writing a few more chapters of my novelette about my closest friends' lives and finally pondering about the nature of fantasy.
I stumbled over a puzzling question:
Fantasy as a genre is defined by formulas. The best of fantasy use this formulas in a refreshing innovative way and the very best reach through these formulas to archetypical patterns of human nature, metaphors for the eternal human struggle with the meaning of life. Pondered this a while ....
But on the other hand imho it's very difficult for fantasy as a genre to produce works of real "great" literature. Because imo writers of great literature are naturally opposed to formulas and will always try to break formulas.
So there's the question (finally http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif)
Where are the boundaries of fantasy? Which formula/topic can't be dropped?
For example:
Would you consider a book which contains no magic still regard as fantasy?
A book which took place in the realistic world of the contemporarian Berlin - would you still consider it fantasy?
Where would you draw the line?

[Qin]

To some degree, all literature is a work of fantasy - a fantasy of the writer's mind. But that's a different argument altogether, perhaps.

As most here well know, Guy Gavriel Kay is my personal hero of the fantasy genre - mainly because the Sarantium Mosaic is just so damn well written (I'm half-way through book 2). Fantasy, as long as it does not ask people to escape from reality, but rather, to confront it, is literature that I would encourage others to read. The Bible, for example, I would argue is a work of fantasy literature (albeit, one with many contradictions and competing points of view), as is Gilgamesh, The Odyssey and Beowulf. One would need only change a few names and locations around in The Canterbury Tales, and the book would suddenly become a fantasy novel.

Sadly, over the past decade, the genre has become populated with clones of Tolkien whose sole existence was to help people escape from the world in which they live. It is of no surprise that Tolkien himself wished Lord of the Rings to be just that (Although I argue there are elements which can be extrapolated from LotR and put to use in our own lives).

I argue that fantasy is a genre that exists to discuss the internal natures of mankind. Whereas science-fiction exists to explore the external world, fantasy is the opposite. The genre can be one of great ideas, and while there will always exist a place for the subgenre of adventurous fantasy (such as the works of Jordan, Martin, Weis and Hickman), there is a greater world of intellectual possibility waiting to be discovered.

What of magic? In it's relation to the world in which we all co-exist, magic is a fairly irrelevant word. It's well known to be an offspring of myths, and should be used, if at all, sparingly, metaphorically, and responsibly. One of my favorite novels, Beowulf, hardly uses it. I argue that there is a 'magical' connotation attached to the dragon he fights at the end of the novel, as well as Grendel, who (understanding that Beowulf was interpreted by a Christian) is more than a son of Cain. There is magic in that curiosity of his - arguably - mystical origin. But it exists only in the background, and it is hardly noticeable.

Could a "fantasy" story take place within the context of modern day Berlin? Certainly. What is the Polar Express if not fantasy? What is the idea of Santa Clause if not fantasy? To reference my current reading (in my philosophy class on Nietzsche): What is Thus Spake Zarathustra if not fantasy?

Fantasy can exist a metaphor, and as a tool to convey an idea. Ultimately, fantasy must have something of worth to say. It must attempt to be more than escapist fare.

[SusF]

Science fiction can also explore the inner world, and many SF novels have. Brave New World, I, Robot, Childhood's End, 1984, etc.

However, in refrence to fantasy, there have been works written already that have made us confront reality. Connecticutt Yankee in King Arthur's Court and Gulliver's Travels had a lot to say about current society in which those books were written. So did A Portrait of Dorian Grey, Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. Then there was Moby Dick. Orlando. For a bit more modern view, there's Animal Farm.

All works of literature and of fantasy, or have fantasy elements. None use a magic system of any kind. Even Alice was done with potions (science/medical metaphor) and mushrooms.

Yes I think a fantasy could take place in realistic modern Berlin. Matter of fact, I'd love to read such a book. Got any in mind?

Susan

[Corwwyn]

Well, it's not Berlin, but for a fantasy novel in a modern setting you could try Stalking the Unicorn by Mike Resnick.

[Bardos]

I think you got it all wrong about formulas. Fantasy is anything BUT formulas. Fantays is the genre which provides you with the freedom to write about ANYTHING.

<<Would you consider a book which contains no magic still regard as fantasy?>>

Yes

<<A book which took place in the realistic world of the contemporarian Berlin - would you still consider it fantasy?>>

Hm. Depends. If it told a love story in Berlin, it's a romance novel. If it talked about a possible Berlin, then it might be called alternate history and/or fantasy.

<<Where would you draw the line?>>

The more you exagerate, more the fantasy your story is.

[Ntschotschi]

SusF of course you are right http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif.
All the above mentioned books are great works of art.
But: You say they have no "magic" in them.
So what is the common feature they share?
Because they must have something in common which entitles you to call them "fantasy" books.

And I agree with Bardos on one point: If you write a story of modern-day Berlin without any "magical" elements how can it be fantasy?
But doesn't that show on the other hand, Bardos, that you cannot write everything in Fantasy e.g. a story in a modern world without magical elements?

And Qin I disagree: "Thus spoke Zarathustra" is not fantasy http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif.
You're free to read it as "Fantasy" but if you're seriuos about your philosophical studies you should reconsider this attitude.


[This message has been edited by Ntschotschi (edited February 24, 2002).]

[Bardos]

<<But doesn't that show on the other hand, Bardos, that you cannot write everything in Fantasy e.g. a story in a modern world without magical elements?>>

I agree on that. Perhaps I didn't make my point clear as I thought, though (usuall case http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/biggrin.gif).

In order for a story to be fantasy it must have some element that we consider impossible, or "magical" if you wish. It doesn't have to be magic, with the usuall sense of the word (e.g., wizard hurling fire from his hands). It just have to be something that we think it is impossible; e.g., a woman with three eyes, two and one on the forehead, the last used to read minds; or a fictious pseudo-medieval setting, only, with no "magic" at all --the setting itself is the "magical element", since it doesn't exist in our reality.

Now, within the genre of fantasy you can, ideed, write about anything. Lets take the example of the fictious pseudo-medieval setting (with customs and people truly original). There you can write any story, be it romance, military story, metaphysical, or whatever.

But, if a story is happening in our world with things we know that exist in it, then it is not fantasy. It's mainstream litterature.

My opinion is that mainstream has not something more to offer than fantasy. Indeed, in fantasy you can "play in a broader field", so always make your point (=what you want to tell through your story) clearer.

[Llama]

>>But on the other hand imho it's very difficult for fantasy as a genre to produce works of real "great" literature.

Huh???

Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Jose Saramago, Franz Kafka, Italo Calvino, Vladimir Nabokov, Orhan Pamuk, Thomas Pynchon, Lewis Carroll, Kobo Abe, Jorge Luis Borges, Robert Graves, Miroslav Pavic, Oscar Wilde, Toni Morrison, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Danilo Kis, Salman Rushdie

[ikonetic]

I believe that fantasy is nothing more than modern day mythology.I disagree with Qin when he says that fantasy must have something to say.Conan and most of the pulp fiction of the 30's and 40's is nothing more than escapist fantasy and yet is great reading.I also don't believe that magic has to be present in a story to make it a fantasy.Look at Tarzan,Robin Hood,the Three Muskateers,etc.I also believe that modern comic books are also nothing more than heroic fantasy and there has been some great writing in this area as well(Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns).Can you set a fantasy in modern day Berlin?I think you can set a fantasy anywhere and are only limited by the imagination of the writer and the reader.

[Qin]

Escapist fantasy has its place, of that there is no doubt. Unfortunately, most people perceive fantasy as being just that: escapist, and therefore, not worth any real literary consideration. I consider this to be unfortunate, since it has the potential to improve upon itself. While I argue that finer literature is that which helps us reflect upon our lives rather than escape it, there is always (some) room for that which helps us escape it. But the repercussion of such literature is that we wish to escape from every hardship rather than confront it, and we begin to view the real world improperly.

Ultimately, the finest fantasy should actually say something of value. Susan brought up Moby Dick and Gulliver's Travels as several novels that fulfill that function. I would hope there's still place in the modern day world for more serious 'fantastical' literature. I rue the day when the shelves are filled with nothing but Dungeons and Dragons novels.

And Thus Spoke Zarathustra can easily be seen as a fantastical (if not fantasy) novel Ntschotschi. It has mythological elements to it (Zarathustra walking up in the mountains with his animals, a village named the Motley Cow in an unknown part of the world (it's never made clear if Zarathustra is walking in Nietzsche's native Germany or not - I argue he uses an unknown locale to better address specific issues).

Keep in mind: Thus Spoke Zarathustra was written with the intent of being a new bible/replacement of the bible. And the bible is ultimately, a fantastical piece of literature, and therefore, in my mind, I consider it to be a fantasy novel, the same way I consider The Odyssey, Beowulf, and Gilgamesh to be fantasy novels. This doesn't stop me from taking my philosophical studies any less seriously, but thanks for the concern http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/wink.gif