From: quirk@pioneer.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.fantasy
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 05:56:17 GMT
Organization: Nit-Pickers for a Better Tomorow Afternoon

In article <92326.14375832BSFJC@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> TERRY D. BARKLEY <32BSFJC@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> writes:
>Brenda (roder@cobalt.caltech.edu) says:
>> So, a writer who uses FTL ... travel should be considered fantasy?  OTOH,
>>should psi abilities fall under science fiction or fantasy? (Etc., etc.)
>
>     Until proven otherwise (beyond doubt), FTL travel and psi abilites are
>still within the realm of possibility.  Just because the technology is
>currently beyond our capabilities does not make something "Fantasy."  Once
>again, it is the intent of the author that helps to point out the differences
>between Sci-Fi and Fantasy.  If the author writes something with a sense of
>maybe someday this could happen, that is Science Fiction.  There is always a
>rational air about Science Fiction, whether what the author suggests is
>possible tomorrow or centuries in the future.  Fantasy, on the other hand,
>always has a mystical air about it, and never tries to look to the future.  The
>author never tries to suggest that any of this is possible, in fact, some
>fantasists go out of their way to create more and more fantasical places and
>artifacts and events (the more irrational the better).  Donaldson knew what he
>was doing when he suggested throughout the six Covenent novels that this could
>all be just a dream.  There is no attempt to rationalize what is happening in
>fantasy.

I'll refrain from quoting Clarke's 2nd law...

However, lets drag out the archetype of modern 'Science Fantasy':

Star Wars.

Little, if any, attempt is made to justify the 'technology', and the
Force provides the proper 'mystical air'.

Yet _Star Wars_ contains many staples of other 'Science Fiction':
Spacecraft, robots, other worlds, strange creatures, etc.

Will 'Science Fantasy' have a place in this group?  How about the
closely related 'Space Opera' where the action/adventure elements take
precedence over the 'rational air'?

>     Science Fiction is aptly named for it is founded in science and rational-
>ity.  Fantasy, as is put forward by psychologists and literary critics,
>operates on a far more visceral level.  There can never be, in true acceptance
>of the terms we use to describe genre fiction, a pure mixing of the two genres.
>If a Science Fiction story suddenly used  irrational images, such as magic, it
>would be simply a Fantasy set in the future, just as the transformation of
>humans into rhinoceroses in Ionesco's"Rhinoceros"makes it a Fantasy despite its
>setting in a modern day city.

So any book which postulates 'magic' with knowable laws and
principles - laws and principles which can be repeated and verified
under 'scientific' procedures - now falls under 'Science Fiction'
despite the cultural/atmosphereic trappings?  (e.g. Rick Cook's
_Wizard's Bane_ and, particularly, _Wizardry Compiled_)

This is all well and good from the academic viewpoint, but it ignores
the reality of net.readership.  People have an idea of what they think
of as the 'Fantasy genre' and will use the newsgroup they feel is
appropriate.

However, given the anal-retentive and voiciferous nature of the net,
points of disagreement on the definition will create considerable
heated conflict (i.e. flames)

>     Because Fantasy is used for specific purposes and has its own conventions
>and vast amounts of texts, dating from the beginning of the written word, it
>must be considered as its own entity.  In college we study Elizabethan drama,
>the Nineteenth Century romance novel, Old English poetry, and many other sub-
>sections of literature because their impact on the written word was and is
>significant.  Fantasy also has been significant and therefore deserves seperate
>study.  There is a reason Camus used Fantasy ("The Myth of Sisyphus") and not
>Science Fiction to descibe Existentialism. Rec.arts.fantasy would be a good
>forum for those who wish to speak as acamedians about both modern and past
>Fantasy, both for meaning and quality.  And for those afraid it would lower
>into a fanzine, what keeps other groups from falling into such a trap?
>Pressure from serious contributers shall help keep the area relatively clear of
>such tripe.  Look at NETNEWS ETIQUETTE for rules of conduct.

Ah...so now we can look forward to even more accusations of 'snobbery'
and 'elitism'.  Oh joy.

Given the already large amounts of fantasy-genre postings in
rec.arts.sf.written, I don't see anybody saying that you cannot
discuss literary/thematic/what have you elements of the genre
(except, perhaps, those who cannot understand it).

Finally...

Judging by these 'dry dissertations', I get the impression that you
look upon us 'mere fen' with something akin to contempt.  I hope that
I am wrong in this.

-- 
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk  (Known to some as Taki Kogoma)  quirk@pioneer.unm.edu
 I'll get a life when someone demonstrates that it would be superior to
                          what I have now...
Newsgroups: news.groups