BTW how is Rose more like Superman than Conan, she probably has a similar level of strength/speed to comic Conan... it's only her damage soak that's wildly superhuman.
You answered your own question. Conan is not superhuman.
BTW how is Rose more like Superman than Conan, she probably has a similar level of strength/speed to comic Conan... it's only her damage soak that's wildly superhuman.
As Richard Garfinkle pointed out very well, this statement makes no sense. Different "laws" of biology really means different laws of physics, which would affect a hell of a lot more than just a few people. The whole universe would have to be built differently. I repeat: Your examples aren't specific enough to move the discussion forward.The explanation I've given is that the universe it happens in has different laws of biology than ours.
But she's probably closer to Wolverine than Superman.
As Richard Garfinkle pointed out very well, this statement makes no sense. Different "laws" of biology really means different laws of physics, which would affect a hell of a lot more than just a few people. The whole universe would have to be built differently. I repeat: Your examples aren't specific enough to move the discussion forward.
I think you meant your super-humans' biology is different than in humans, i.e. they're a slightly different species.
And if that's true, then your story is science fiction, not fantasy.
However, it would probably fail as science fiction too, because you clearly have only a vague understanding of the science you're relying on to act as an explanation for this phenomenon.
Better to call it superhero fiction. Your heroes seem to be some kind of ill-defined mutants, like the X-Men.
'Superhuman' isn't an on-off switch. There's a spectrum. Wolverine is superhuman. Professor X is superhuman. Spiderman, Daredevil, the Fantastic 4, Captain America, all superhuman one way or another. Even Aquaman, though he's superhuman in a pretty useless fashion by most superhuman standards. The Silver Surfer, Galactacus and Superman all get a bye because they never were human, but they're still superhuman in several ways.
The Punisher is not superhuman. He's just a human, and that's why he's one of my favourite characters in the Marvel universe. He doesn't even have huge amounts of wealth and a whole company dedicated to making nifty new toys to give him a superhuman edge, unlike that other human superhero, Batman. The Punisher could very easily exist in our world (and the character he was based on did).
Superhuman means extraordinary in some sense by definition, but extraordinary needn't be superhuman. In the same way, swords-and-sorcery means fantasy by definition, but fantasy is a very broad word that happens to include swords-and-sorcery along with everything else that is not reality.
Let's say a story was set in an alternate universe where humans all resurrect one time after they die and grow wings upon their rebirth (as young but fully formed adults)... that would likely be classified as fantasy, right?
It could be, sure. It could also be religious/spiritual fiction, or sci-fi. It would depend on how it was justified and presented.
I also imagine the storytelling style I implied about the bear-ripping girl/jeep-throwing US soldier examples (ie. mythic hero/tall tale) would push its presentation towards being fantasy.
So would you throw a modern book written like Beowulf across the room, with no hint of an explanation of this great warrior's fantastic strength and prowess beyond the occasional mention of God? I wouldn't. I would revel in it... or get angry at having competition (jk).
I'm finding this thread frustrating because the point of the discussion seems to be a moving target.Okay sure it could be presented as religious fiction or sci-fi, but given the stipulations I put forth - secondary world, not set on a version of Earth or some named 'planet' - I daresay it would most likely be labeled fantasy. And in all these examples I'm assuming no specific explanation would be given in-story, since this would be as natural to these people as us having feet... we don't usually think about God or evolution causing us to have feet on a day to day basis, so it'd be perfectly justified not to have a reason for these phenomenon mentioned in a first or third person story (granted if they have a religion they might say (insert god) made us the way we are, but that alone without the god showing up or something is hardly a specifically fantasy element).
I also imagine the storytelling style I implied about the bear-ripping girl/jeep-throwing US soldier examples (ie. mythic hero/tall tale) would push its presentation towards being fantasy.
So would you throw a modern book written like Beowulf across the room, with no hint of an explanation of this great warrior's fantastic strength and prowess beyond the occasional mention of God? I wouldn't. I would revel in it... or get angry at having competition (jk).
There's a critical difference between these examples. The completely different world is completely different. The US soldier connects to our world in that you are using a place (the US) and tech (jeep) that anchors firmly to our world.
One can, of course, write clear fantasy set in our world (I'm doing one right now), but the fantastic elements there usually need to be emphasized as fantastic (or be clearly and obviously fantastic). The reason one needs to do this is the existence of two genres (pulp and superhero) that have people with extraordinary abilities in worlds with a strong resemblance to our world.
Doesn't the jeep example go well beyond pulp conventions though? I'm not sure 'superhero' is considered a separate genre than fantasy or sci-fi, I thought it fell into one of those, or both.
I'm finding this thread frustrating because the point of the discussion seems to be a moving target.
Are we discussing your book? No, just books in general, and yet somehow also this specific character from your book.
Are we discussing genre? No, just how people classify fantasy, especially this one vaguely-defined character from your book.
Are you merely interested where people draw the dividing line between fantasy and other genres? Yes, except "I daresay it would most likely be labeled fantasy" implies you already know where that line is.
Are we trying to define what makes a book fantasy? Yes, except the rule of cool apparently trumps logic and pre-existing genre conventions.
What is this thread about? What do you want here?
It seems like you keep changing the topic every time someone tries to pin you down to more closely discuss something you've said.
Doesn't the jeep example go well beyond pulp conventions though? I'm not sure 'superhero' is considered a separate genre than fantasy or sci-fi, I thought it fell into one of those, or both.
My statement about rule of cool has nothing to do with the defining genre argument, I have no idea how you can mix the two up. I was just saying that I don't feel everything needs to have a specifically 'pin down-able' explanation when being written in the style of tall tales or epic myth.
Maybe another basic question relating to this topic is this: If things that are blatantly impossible in our world happen in a story with no specific explanation given for them, what genre does the story default to? One might be able to say 'speculative fiction' since that would fit whether or not the presentation was more fantasy-like or sci-fi-like. But would it at least be considered speculative fiction in that case, with the presentation (given not that many books are labeled as plain 'speculative fiction') pushing it towards being fantasy or sci-fi?
Pick a goal and let us help you reach it.
Tall tales and epic myth have their own explanations built in. Demigods or artifacts or training or talent or nanotech or being the very epitome of X in that culture, whatever, there's always something.
There is no 'default' genre for stuff that's blatantly impossible in our world. The default genre for stuff that's blatantly impossible in our world with no specific explanation even thought about is 'crap writing' - not all of what comes out is crap, but the majority is. If you the writer haven't thought for at least three seconds to come up with a justification for why it happens, then you don't know what the implications are or what the limitations might be. Congratulations, you've just created God in your own image.
The basic question of this thread has always been 'does a certain level of unrealism turn a story into speculative fiction at some point?'
You got the answer to that question, early on.
The answer is: "Maybe. It depends."
You just didn't seem to like that answer.
This is not a question that has a yes/no answer or a quantifiable answer.
The answer is a subjective one, because stories aren't widgets. They're all different.
Read above. And you're getting angry again.
Also if there was an explanation 'thought of' but none spelled out explicitly in the story, what then? Would you judge the story to be some form of speculation fiction at least, and then have the presentation sway you towards a more specific genre?
It... would depend on what you did with the story. Some people write the Onset of Life on Earth as fantasy, some write it as sci-fi, some as history, some as myth, some as urban legend and some as a complete accident that happened when a time-travelling Wizzard took a bite out of a sandwich and dropped the rest at the edge of the ocean.
And for all that, still it's all wishy washy answers? I'm probably just as 'frustrated' as jjdebenedictis. 'Yes' and 'no' are both valid answers but gosh, can no one judge if there is some point when they personally would feel something has to be speculative fiction of some kind?
It depends on the piece.