What exactly makes fantasy just that? Is there a set formula that I don't know about, or is it wide open? Is it required to have sorcery, magic, and a horrible evil villain? What of dragons and valiant knights in shining armor? Is Robin Hood fantasy or 'just plain fiction'? Or must it more closely resemble D&D?

It seems that a bit of work that I am particularly fond of has come into question, and since I can't finish writing it until I know what heading I can put it under I have a bit of writer's cramp.

Modern fantasy is meant to be taken as explicitly impossible. Both the reader and the writer agree beforehand that nothing in the story can happen, so there is no point in worrying about it. It is fundamentally different from speculative fiction in this sense, and is historically a result of the age of skepticism, when it was believed that some things were impossible. Believing that nothing in the story can happen anyway, we are relieved from the imperitive to take it seriously. We only read it because we want to. We enjoy it, and that is all.

In a fantasy we are looking to be insulated from the suffering that the protagonists endure, while enjoying the happiness that they win. In speculative fiction we are looking for warnings, strategies, and courage to deal with the potentials that we fear.

An interesting effect of this denial that fantasy is real is that it can affect readers, yet they are not able to admit that it affects them. As we all know, denial is one of the most powerful infuences on a persons behavior. Basically, it works like so. I read a book in which squirrels are portrayed as demonic shills for the evil Jade princess. I stop liking squirrels. When asked why I no longer like squirrels, I don't admit, even to myself, that it's because of some silly book, so I make up a better reason. Perhaps a great many. No matter how many of my reasons you argue me out of, you can never get at the real reason, because I would never tell you. I won't even admit it to myself. I just have a powerful dislike of squirrels.

Nifty, eh?

A man walking into a cafe is neither impossible nor improbable, but I just read about it in a fantasy novel. There has to be something that says - this is fantasy, and it has to be enough to distinguish it from any other given type of literature.

So, if you have a completely normal story in all other respects, with a single fantastic element that signals that the reader is to understand that this is a fantasy, then it's a fantasy.

Take... oh, what was the name? "LA Story", the Steve Martin film about that guy and he gets guidance from a traffic sign that used to be a bagpipe. It was a fantasy, but that was the only 'impossible' element.

It is the convention itself, not anything about whether the story is inherently believable, that makes it fantasy. There are a lot of times that I'm reading a non fantasy novel or story and I just go, Plegh, impossible. That doesn't make it a fantasy. It just makes it bad.

There is a flip side to this all as well. In fantasy we want primarially to relate to the characters. That is the sole function that it can have, because we already accept prima facie that there is nothing else that we are learning from the story, because we label it as impossible. So the characters have to have a lot of human quality.

I looked in on this item when you first posted it, but I knew you and Survivor would volley it around. You are both very articulate and fast thinking (or so it seems to me), and more educated in the English Literature, grammar end of knowledge than I am. So, I figured I wouldn't be able to add much to the conversation. But here I am again. I was curious to see what was said.

Just FYI, the MW Collegiate Dictionary gives a long group of definitions for fantasy. Such as: "1: HALLUCINATION, 2: FANCY; esp.: the free play of creative imagination..." - and so on until we get to 3d "imaginative fiction featuring esp. strange settings and grotesque characters - called also fantasy fiction."

Below that, fantasy as a verb states: "to portray in the mind; to indulge in a fantasy or reverie: DAYDREAM."

I think the last discussion of this general subject concerned the difference between science fiction and fantasy. Orson Scott Card said something like - Science Fiction is Fantasy with science as the magic. (I didn't put that in quotes, because I didn't search it out for accuracy.)

I know that doesn’t help with your current quest, but I doubt you’ll get a satisfactory answer.

I don’t like the idea of categorizing things to such a degree that an author wastes valuable time trying to figure out in what category his/her story is written. However, like Survivor, I don’t mind stating my own opinion on the subject.

When I hear the word “fantasy” in relationship to books, I first think of fairies, witches, dragons, anything medieval or Gothic in feeling (by the way, grotesque is in the MS Word Thesaurus under medieval or Gothic), with heroes, villains, Royalty and peasants. However, my second thought is one that carries these things over into modern times in some way or another (for example: THE NEVER ENDING STORY).
My third though is that fantasy is anything that draws you away from your own reality, an escape from your stressed or demanding or pitiful or boring life. (That’s like the DAYDREAM definition.)

Fiction is and invented story, with an assumption of a possibility as a fact, irrespective of the question of its truth. Fantasy fiction does imply less of a possibility of reality as we know it, and yet, it must seem possible enough the way it is presented, to make us hate rabbits if we know them to be villainous.

If you are talking about the story I have read a chapter on, weren’t you also worried about whether it was to be considered “historical fiction”, because it was set in a real place and time? Why don’t you just write it the way you want to write it? Then let your editor or publisher categorize it. You’re a good writer and don’t need to bog yourself down with all this nonsense. Forget about it and just write the story.

The hard science background is just for my sake, because I'm really rotten at imagining things that I think are impossible. But the story I want to tell, one of unrequited love and devotion to honor in the face of overwhelming odds, is well suited to the fantasy genre. I suppose that it could work in a science fiction setting as well, in fact, I know that it can, but the narrative elements are fantasylike, and so that is how the story is going to be recieved, if at all.

It begins with a young princess fleeing for her life because a legitimate heir to the throne has been born. Continues in the thread of: what must be done to save the young innocent from being raised by a tyrant to be a tyrant. That of course is the bare basics.

The time is medieval-ish, the setting primitive (thatched huts, horses, swords, etc.). The heros are knights and ladies, and the background is a rumor of war between monarchist kingdoms. Sounds pretty
'fantasy' to me. Right?

Yet a recent critic told me that I should add something to "show" that it was a fantasy, or "just plain fiction". I think she might have been expecting sorcerers, magicians, and mythological creatures. But here is a problem:

There is no place here for creatures (although a dragon or two might just show up if the urge strikes me), and I despise sorcery and the like. The odd alchemist I can handle, they do make rather interesting characters. But magic for the sake of magic is out. (I think its a cheaters way out of problems the heros aren't good enought to figure out!)

So where does this line of thinking leave me? Do I still qualify - since one critic doesn't seem to think so?

And for the rest, I do have to say, that if you are using a plausible setting, one that most of your audience will not dismiss out of hand as being impossible, then it is not fantasy in a literary sense, and you should avoid a couple of pitfalls which I will describe momentarily. If it does contain elements that signify that the story is impossible, then it is fantasy, and there are other pitfalls that you must avoid.

A fantasy often glosses over the degree of suffering a protaganist or other character suffers. This is not allowable unless the reader has already distanced themselves from the possibility of the story. Yes, much literature that you read nowadays is full of lightly passed over suffering, but that doesn't make it acceptable. When the reader has not been clearly signaled that they are reading a fantasy, they are not ready to tolerate having the characters suffer with the same detachment that is allowed a reader of a fantasy.

Fantasy also is free to make shift with extraordinary characters, such as a medival scientist that invents a flying machine. I know, there actually were several instances of such scientists, but that is besides the point. Non-fantasy characters have non-fantastic abilities, live in the grit and grime of the real world like your readers, and have to solve things the way that the average or just slightly above average person of that milieu would.

Now for some fantasy conventions. Fantasies have happy endings. This is not an optional rule. In a fantasy, your reader already knows that you have the power of Deus ex Machina, the license to make things come out all right. If you do not do well by the characters that they like and justly by the characters they hate, then they will properly and justly blame you. If your story doesn't have a happy ending, then you must persuade the readers that it was a natural result of the way the world works, that it just happened that way, that you don't have godlike powers to make everything come out all right in the end. Break this rule at the peril of gaining the undying emnity of your audience.

Fantasy is funny. It is lighthearted, and the dangers, as terrifying as they would probably be in real life, are not to touch your readers in the same way. This is to some extent a principle derived from the first rule, but it is a separate principle. Many a writer has broken this one, and hewn to the other. The thing is, in a non-fantasy setting, the audience can be kept in suspense, on the edge of their seats, what have you, because after all, the unhappy ending might happen. In fantasy, they already know that you aren't going to have the unhappy ending. It's against the rules. Your tension has to derive from complications that force the reader to turn the page to find out how things end up. Romantic complications are a favorite. Tangled intrigues, complicated battles, brilliant solutions to flummoxing puzzles, are all good ways to introduce tension. These are good in non fantasy as well, but in fantasy they are critical. Because the tension cannot be over whether things work out for the best, it has to be a question of how things work out for the best.

To some extent, you have to look at your story and decide whether it works better as a fantasy or a realistic piece of fiction, rather than trying to look and see which you think it is. Then place a few elements that set the mood. If magic isn't your thing, go with history. Alternate history is a good marker to use, showing that wherever your story happens, it isn't in the real world. Or there are other ways. Dragons are a good one

And for non fantasy, just make sure that the audience doesn't dismiss it as fantasy. Miracles are accepted as valid phenomena in the beliefs of most people, and if you go ahead and go light on it, you can get away with them in realistic literature. You know, everyone that was there turns out to have a different story, there was no proof, there are a dozen rational (if exceedingly implausible) explanations offered by the investigators, whatever. Same for magic. You can have magic as long as you show why it isn't part of the everyday experience of your audience. Show, not tell. If you explicate your explanations, then you are thinking like a fantasy writer, and not a good one. The reader has to believe on their own. You can't force that, and apology is the weakest position to start from.

No, this isn't the same person that gave the other advice. The first was my sister, and if you recall, you agreed with her.

I used the term, suspension of disbelief on purpose. In fact, when we suspend our disbelief in a story, that is the result of the writer making an appeal to us as readers, that we should do so. Fantasy is free from this convention, because it goes without saying in fantasy that we don't believe one word of it. That's why we call it a fantasy, the least believible form of story.

You signal to the reader which kind of story it is going to be, and then you maintain that distinction. Of course, there are ways to get around this. Many a narrative begins with a fairy tale like premise, then makes the story more real, until we are convinced that it is not a fairy tale after all. I'm not sure that I know any examples of the converse, however. It would seem to me, that once you draw a reader in to caring about the characters and believing in them, it's too late to backtrack. At least, I can't think of any good examples...

You may have called me a narrow-minded nitpicker, but you were seriously making my point better than I had.

My concern about WPs story (for which I am not-to-patiently awaiting the next chapter)was that if set in a recognizable setting she better be aware of what was in the direction she was setting her main character to travel. You cannot start out from Paris, travel west and end up in Moscow for instance.

I'm still not entirely sure that I agree that belief should be suspended for a fantasy story. If no one is going to care one way or the other about my characters, then why am I bothering to write at all. I think that I prefer to think (Is that redundant, or what?) that I'd rather keep my readers guessing. Could it have happened?

Hmm, well, see my above post for the explination of that. As for Knights on white chargers, sure, there was plenty of that. And as long as you don't get real specific about the actual time or place (which is totally okay when dealing with medeival times, since most of those people had really inaccurate ideas about the world anyway) you aren't as constrained by questions of historical accuracy. You can even have your characters think they can get to Moscow by walking west from Paris, but if they try it then they're going to die.

I'm making a statement about what the reader is willing to accept in a fantasy as opposed to a nonfantasy work. There are rules in fantasy. I take it that you would rather not deal with those. There are other rules for speculative or historical fiction. You don't get away from the rules, you just switch from one set to the other.

If you are going to write non-fantasy, then you must have suspension of disbelief. This is not a negotiable point. The reader must believe that the story is possible, and that means that your reality is limited to what a reader can believe. This is not a heavy burden. With a little hand waving, you can persuade people that almost anything is possible. But you have to do the hand waving, or else you must let the reader know that you have foregone the handwaving because you are writing a fantasy.

So like, maybe Lunar magic is cast by summoning the spirits of moonlight, but they can't come into the presence of dried bones, because they're pale like the moon, but still belong to the dead. And like, that means that soaking them wouldn't work.

Why only dry bones? Maybe because the dead are consigned to wander for a year after they die, before they can return to rest in their bones again. And that means that an exorcism might work, although that seems a little cruel.

quote:

---

"This place is full of dried bones, I can't do anything."

Ducky thought quickly, then frantically began to splash water on the piles of bones.

"What are you doing?"

"I'm getting the bones wet so you can..."

"In the name of the Queen, that's not going to work! It's the spirits of the dead, not because there's no water. Give me that bucket!" The Mage snatched the pail of water and dumped it on Ducky's head .

---

That's ok, I'll get even someday!