On the Edge of Fantasy

The magic and other fantasy elements of A Song of Ice and Fire are so widely dispersed that it was the first thing I thought of when reading your post. I would still call it fantasy I think...

I read in an interview that Jennifer Fallon has been asked, of one of her series, if she was aware that it contained no magic. She replied that of course she knew - what readers don't realise is that the series is actually a thinly disguised science fiction.

I have a story in planning stages that contains no magic, nothing supernatural, and technology far more advanced than what we presently have in certain respects. I still think of it as fantasy, because it feels like fantasy to me, and because it's set in a different world, (the plot is also fantasy-esque) but I'm aware that it technically might not be.

Ultimately, I think the genre a story gets labelled with isn't all that important. Fallon's disguised sci-fi is read and thoroughly enjoyed by many fantasy readers who never know the difference.

Addressing your specific question - I'm not sure what that kind of story would fall under. I tend to assume that other world = fantasy, but if it's thematically very different - if reading it is much more like reading typical historical fiction than like reading typical fantasy - maybe it'd be safer to say it's historical.

Also, just throwing a question out there - would it hurt the story terribly much to just set it on Earth? You could call it historical fiction or alternate history with a clear conscience, then.

Edit: Wanted to add, I think that one of the cool things about fantasy is that it's kind of undefined. There's certainly a whole load of conventions, but there's nothing to say that you have to include magic or anything else, as far as I know.

I've read plenty of fantasy such as you describe. No magic or any fantastical element except an alternate world.

I'd think if it's set somewhere other than Earth then it's fantasy or sci fi ( or at least Spec Fic) pretty much by default

There's no law that says fantasy has to have any particular thing in it - except at least one fantastical element ( ie another world) And yes, please elaborate why fantasy of manners ( ugh I hate that term) doesn't apply. I'd love to know why.

The base definition of Genre Fantasy is that there is an important element to the story which is fantastic--something that is not of our world. Magic is an easy and common element, but it is by no means the defining element of the genre.

I suggest you look at The Lions of al-Rassan by Guy Gabriel Kay. It takes place in a very very thinly disguised Moorish Spain (the occasional historical character even appears) yet is classified as Fantasy. I believe that's along the lines of what you're thinking about. It's not that uncommon a subgenre of Fantasy, though I haven't heard anyone give it a name yet.

Historical Fiction means that it must take place in a recorded period of time, not veiled or otherwise disguised at all. Odds are from what little you said, that story wouldn't be considered Historical.

DeleyanLee said:

The base definition of Genre Fantasy is that there is an important element to the story which is fantastic--something that is not of our world.

Click to expand...

Sorta. What makes fantasy fantastical is the application of whimsy. The whimsy maybe not of our world (e.g. elves), or of our world but out of place (e.g. a gingerbread house). But the important thing is that somehow, whimsy affects how consequences occur. That often looks like magic but it needn't be. In David Brin's The Practice Effect for instance, there's no magic but entropy runs backward in response to human behaviour -- a fantastical notion.

They concern time periods roughly equivalent to various historical periods on earth, deal with "normal" situations, and contain various cultures similar to historical earth cultures, but not quite the same.

Click to expand...

Strangeness is not whimsy; alternate-histories are not necessarily fantastical. Len Deighton's alternate history SS-GB is set in a time when Britain has lost WWII, but there's not an element of whimsy about it -- just a speculative premise. The consequences of actions look exactly the same as the consequences we'd see in our own milieu. It's really an alternate-history thriller.

Alternate histories are just a way of writing other genres in unusual settings. Some are SF under another guise (e.g. Neil Stephenson's Baroque Cycle); others are romances, thrillers or mysteries. Some are mainstream explorations of social issues under the guise of speculative history.

Usually the way I tell genre is to look at what the story itself is about, and how it's is delivered. Setting alone plays no great part in determining genre. You can write a romance or crime mystery anywhere, for instance.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

Before anyone asks, I did 18 searches, and found about three threads that approached answering my questions, but never really got there:

1. Why Magic?
2. Fantasy Without Magic
3. Can you write fantasy without magic?

So, though you've probably guessed already, here's my question:

How would you classify stories set in a secondary world but lacking the tropes, themes, and conventions that are generally associated with fantasy literature? For example, no magic, no non-human beings, and only a small focus on worldbuilding. I've heard the term "fantasy of manners", but from the research I've done, that doesn't really apply in this case. I'd be happy to elaborate on why if asked.

One of the most interesting labels I've seen bandied about is "secondary world historical fiction". I think that's pretty close. The stories I'm trying to describe are not set on earth, but they have a feel I've often associated with historical fiction. They concern time periods roughly equivalent to various historical periods on earth, deal with "normal" situations, and contain various cultures similar to historical earth cultures, but not quite the same.

As a secondary question, specific labels aside, would this type of story be more likely to fall under the umbrella of fantasy, or historical fiction?

Click to expand...

I'd still call it fantasy, probably. Like the Gormenghast trilogy, which has no magic at all, and yet takes place not in the real world (in a giant mouldering castle, but in a world that has things like cardboard boxes and cars).

It's totally not historical fiction. I believe historical fiction fans are sticklers for accuracy, so if your takes place in (say) Country That Is Like 1700s Ireland Sorta But Not Exactly, it's not historical fiction.

Paul J. Andrew said:

The magic and other fantasy elements of A Song of Ice and Fire are so widely dispersed that it was the first thing I thought of when reading your post. I would still call it fantasy I think...

Click to expand...

I think all the dragons and zombies put ASOIAF firmly in the fantasy genre.

IdiotsRUs said:

I've read plenty of fantasy such as you describe. No magic or any fantastical element except an alternate world.

I'd think if it's set somewhere other than Earth then it's fantasy or sci fi ( or at least Spec Fic) pretty much by default

There's no law that says fantasy has to have any particular thing in it - except at least one fantastical element ( ie another world) And yes, please elaborate why fantasy of manners ( ugh I hate that term) doesn't apply. I'd love to know why.

Click to expand...

What she said! Your setting doesn't exist IRL. And it's not like, say, a made-up Stephen King New England Town Which Is A Stand-In For Any Number Of Identical New England Towns or something, it's an actual alternative place with a culture that never existed IRL.

Also, yes, why isn't it fantasy of manners?

I think you can certainly have fantasy without magic. A lot of it has to do with the feel of the storytelling. Without worldbuilding? Depends on what you mean. If you mean a significantly different world from ours, that's one thing, and maybe you don't need it. But worldbuilding I think applies even to mainstream when it's used in the sense of "giving a feel of depth and sincerity to the setting."

I believe there's a subgenre called "alternate history" that this may fall into.

Kitty Pryde said:

I think all the dragons and zombies put ASOIAF firmly in the fantasy genre.

Click to expand...

Exactly, but my point was that they show up like once or twice a book and the rest reads very like an historical account; yet it is still fantasy.

Of course you can have fantasy without magic.

After the brief googling of 'fantasy of manners' to at least give myself a primer so I can talk without sounding like an eedjit, I can say this:

When I try to break down was makes fantasy, fantasy, I rarely bring it back to dragons, tropes, non-human races, etc. It all comes back to a fantastical element for me. Similar to what Ruv said about whimsy.

I would be forced to call what the OP's proposing fantasy because of the 'secondary world' idea, as that is a fantastical element. If that fact is downplayed in the novel and/or is only known by the author, then to the reader it may as well be straight fiction.

Liosse, are you building your plots using actual historical background from events on Earth? Or are you building unique plots that only after writing them can you see they have parallels with true Earth historical events? If your not even basing it on history through a parallel, retelling, what-have-you, that I don't think it even touches historical fiction.

Granted, I haven't researched the specifics of historical fiction and what makes it so, but it seems to also be a fine line.

I always considered Quest For Fire a fantasy (not Fantasy but fantasy with a small f) due to the giant question marks that archaeologists have yet to fill in about the era. It's well worth reading as a comparison to the better-known pre-history novels.

I would say that if it's not possible to set the story on Earth, then it's safe to call it fantasy.

And I'm sorry - I haven't read anything else quite like Second Sons. Fallon has other stuff, but what I've read of it is far more clearly fantasy, with magic and non-humans and all sorts. I believe she's working on an outright sci-fi at the moment, though? Could be wrong.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

I really loved that Jennifer Fallon series, which is Second Sons. I'd love it if you guys could recommend more like it.

On setting it on Earth: I hear that kind of thing a lot. The stories can not be set on Earth, because they would not fit within a historically accurate framework. Nor is it really possible to mould them into alternate history. They are just a tad too different.

On why it is not a fantasy of manners:

(I've seen links to wikipedia, but no one seems to actually have read them, so I'm going to post a quote from wiki as well.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannerpunk




Here's a simple way to look at it: If these worlds actually exsited, there would be no doubt the stories fell under historical fiction. The issue only comes up because the worlds portrayed don't exist. Yes, I know that is also said of mannerpunk in the wiki article.

Here's another link;

http://www.noreascon.org/weblogs/live/2004/09/panel_report_fa.html

Click to expand...

I think there is an old term that used to cover this aspect of fantasy and the term is "Romance"...A romance is (or was, the term seems to have shifted its meaning in general use) a story set in some exotic country and/or sometimes involving magic. It was a very popular form until the novel came along and people were supposed to be more interested in the intricacies of what was supposedly their own social world.
A S Byatt called Possession a romance with good reason since it features a 19th century slightly different from the one we had....for example.

That's the type of realm I write in - little to no magic, no extraordinary beasts, set in a secondary world with no relation to Earth as we know it.

I call it fantasy nonetheless. There are swords and knights and castles, and some political machinations - fantasy of manners doesn't feel right.

If it's weird shit it probably qualifies as 'fantasy'. If it is about a world that doesn't actually exist and doesn't involve the kind of scientific underpinning that suggests it is a world that could exist, then it is probably fantasy. There is no requirement for fantasy to include magic or non human beings.

I prefer the term 'Romance' to 'Adventure' when talking about Verne, Wells and co, but for anything post-1940(ish) I revert to Adventure. Not 100% sure about the why, but I think there was an article on correct usage of terms in an old issue of Book & Magazine Collector (or a similar magazine). It may just be that I'm a snob...

Most people will say no, you don't need magic.

I say that yeah, you do need "magic"--depending on what you mean when you say magic.

What fantasy needs is very similar to the whimsy Ruv suggests. If the rules of the setting are identical to the rules of our world, then that's not fantasy; more likely it's a form of science fiction or some other subgenre of specfic. Whether it appears to be "our" world or not is immaterial. In a fantasy, the world depicted must differ from ours in some fundamental way. That could be "magic" as in sorcery, or "magic" as in entropy working backwards, or "magic" as in being able to travel faster than light, or "magic" as in the dead rising from their graves, or something similar.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

I really loved that Jennifer Fallon series, which is Second Sons. I'd love it if you guys could recommend more like it.

On setting it on Earth: I hear that kind of thing a lot. The stories can not be set on Earth, because they would not fit within a historically accurate framework. Nor is it really possible to mould them into alternate history. They are just a tad too different.

On why it is not a fantasy of manners:

(I've seen links to wikipedia, but no one seems to actually have read them, so I'm going to post a quote from wiki as well.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannerpunk




Here's a simple way to look at it: If these worlds actually exsited, there would be no doubt the stories fell under historical fiction. The issue only comes up because the worlds portrayed don't exist. Yes, I know that is also said of mannerpunk in the wiki article.

Here's another link;

http://www.noreascon.org/weblogs/live/2004/09/panel_report_fa.html

Click to expand...

So, the old TV show Dallas is mannerpunk?

Liosse de Velishaf said:

3. Can you write fantasy without magic?

Click to expand...

Yes. One of the godfathers of fantasy fiction, Lord Dunsany, rarely if ever invoked magic. Regrettably, too many of our current fantasy writers derive all their concepts from Tolkien (who was very good, but perhaps over-influential).

I've written one story, kind of on a dare from Marion Zimmer Bradley, set in a non-pseudo-medieaval-European place, taking the form of a pseudo-fable from a primitive culture, that doesn't use magic or any of the other tropes most commonly associated with the S&S realm of Fantasy fiction. And have not been able to place it with any known market in the Milky Way galaxy.

Of course that could be the result of its miserable quality.

caw

Your "genre" kind of reminds me of Stephen King's The Dark Tower series as well as The Golden Compass.

Anyone else think so?

SPMiller said:

That could be "magic" as in sorcery, or "magic" as in entropy working backwards, or "magic" as in being able to travel faster than light, or "magic" as in the dead rising from their graves, or something similar.

Click to expand...

It's effect vs explanation: whimsy is the effect of making stuff surprising as cool; magic is just an explanation for how it works. Space opera uses no magic -- it has other explanations, but it's still full of whimsy as we can see with Star Wars: glowing swords, red lightnings, tossing people around, controlling their minds. Really, the explanation is secondary to the effect -- and that's pretty much what defines fantasy. In SF by contrast, the effect is secondary to the explanation.