What is Fantasy, Exactly?

This content has been archived. It may no longer be accurate or relevant.

From Writer Unboxed:

‘So what do you do?’

‘I’m a writer.’

‘Oh, really? What do you write?’

‘Historical fantasy.’

Blank stare. This person has never heard of your genre. Perhaps this person does not even read fiction. They have heard the word fantasy before, though, so what they probably say next is, ‘Oh, children’s books?’

You then attempt to define fantasy in layperson’s terms, often by saying what your own work isn’t. It’s not like Harry Potter. It’s not like Lord of the Rings. It’s not like Game of Thrones. There are no elves, dwarves, dragons …

. . . .

When this happens to me, I explain that my novels are like historical fiction, but with an uncanny element based on the likely beliefs of that time and culture. I say they appeal to readers of historical fiction and historical romance as well as fantasy readers. I mention a couple of other fantasy authors whom my own readers enjoy.

Fantasy is one of the most challenging genres to classify. In the Encyclopedia of Fantasy, the definition reads in part:

“Fantasy” – certainly when conceived as being in contrast to realism – is a most extraordinarily porous term, and has been used to mop up vast deposits of story which this culture or that – and this era or that – deems unrealistic. (from the 1997 edition: article by John Clute.)

Each of the three sub-genres of speculative fiction (fantasy, science fiction, and horror) has its own characteristics. Broadly, fantasy contains elements that are considered impossible in the world as we know it, though they work in the world of the story, which has its own internal consistency. Science fiction contains elements that are not currently proven by science, but that might be possible, perhaps in a world to come. In the body of work publishers label and promote as fantasy, you’ll find many stories that are a blend of these sub-genres, steampunk being a prominent example with its blend of history, magic and technology.

Link to the rest at Writer Unboxed

24 thoughts on “What is Fantasy, Exactly?”

  1. Not a bad definition of fantasy.

    I would’ve been a bit broader and said: “fantasy is any story that doesn’t deal solely with things known to be real.”

    Yes, it makes pretty much all fiction to be fantasy. 😀

    Makes things simple, though. And opens the door to explaining how the different classic genres both differ and relate to each other.

  2. “Science fiction contains elements that are not currently proven by science, but that might be possible, perhaps in a world to come” is not exactly true. SF uses tropes that are currently considered scientifically impossible – in principle and not just in practice – as a matter of course, and is all the better for it.

    I’ve never seen a definition of SF which is both meaningful and valid and don’t ever expect to do so. This is probably why SF awards don’t feel it is necessary to give a definition of what fiction qualifies for an award (at least by content; length and publication date matter but the rest depends on people knowing SF when they see it.)

    • To me, the key to SF is in the tone and focus.

      Good SF is rationalistic and focuses of science. Some might be extrapolated or hypothetical but if some form of science (whether physical, biological, or psychological) isn’t at its heart it’s just not SF. The trappings and scendry do not suffice.

      • Agree about the tone – however we might define that – but not about the focus. I think that if you insist on a focus on the science a lot of what most people (including me) consider to be SF would be excluded. Of course the science has to be there, whether extrapolated possibility or impossible fantasy presented as if scientific (and so as technology not magic) or we are really just dealing with the mundane. However, the science/technology can just be part of the background against which the story takes place, as long of course as its existence does impact on the events.

        I’m actually a little ambivalent about this and if pushed I’ll agree that the trappings and scenery “do not suffice” because they must be more than just background, but as a reader the background is hugely important to me. C S Lewis wrote in an essay about a discussion with a student about Fenimore Cooper. He found that the student was only interested in the action/tension/excitement whilst to Lewis what he called – in those non PC days – the redskinnery was more important. Now I’ve no desire to re-read “The Last of the Mohicans”, not because I think Fenimore Cooper a bad writer (though I do) but because the trappings and scenery (the redskinnery) simply don’t appeal to me. However, they are a great part of what does appeal to me in SF because, as a reader, I’m more like Lewis than his student.

        • I just think that good SF is about ideas first and foremost. Even space opera and Adventure SF.

          Without the ideas, you just have a romance or a thriller in drag. And while I have no quarrel with romances or tough guy thrillers in SF settings, without an idea at the heart they fail the entry exam.

          Conversely, a fair amount of technothrillers are actually SF in disguise.

          The borders are porous, which is why I think firm guidelines are necessary to avoid disappointing readers/viewers.

  3. The boggled layman who doesn’t read fantasy is an all too familiar figure to me.

    What kills me is when you describe a portal to an otherworld, like a passage to Faerie, and they treat it as time travel instead.

  4. What is Fantasy, Exactly?

    Concisely stated, fantasy is that which I do not read.

    Nobody who writes fantasy has ever thought it through. What happens to a society when magic is possible? What happens to science? To engineering? To education? To agriculture? To economics? What value is there to your labor when the village wizards waves his wand and gold appears? Or bushels of barley? Or barrels of beer?

    How does a dragon breathe fire? What gas is the dragon expelling? How does he ignite it? If the gas is hydrogen, its buoyancy could help the dragon fly, but his flight would be slow, like a blimp. And the exhalation would prevent a risky accumulation of the gas. Igniting it would prevent an accumulation in the dragon’s habitat. But hydrogen would make the dragon extremely vulnerable and easy to defeat.

    Fantasy is a lazy literature. It does not interest me.

    (For the same reason, I dismiss much of the Star Trek universe. “Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.” The power required to produce that one cup of tea would power a starship across the galaxy and back. Why bother with phasers and photon torpedoes when you can simply transport part of the enemy vessel away? Just lock on and transport away the shields from his warp engines and poof! Game over, man.)

    • In the world of _Of Merchant and Magic_, magic is considered a useful tool and is valued for practical applications like preserving meat better than salting alone, or making shipping barrels more water-resistant, or repelling vermin. All things can also be done without magic, and mages are limited to what they are permitted to do by guilds (see late medieval guild systems in France and the German-speaking lands). So when, in the story, magic workers are killed off, people survive, but everyone has to work harder and the prices for some things jump (which the protagonist is in a position to take advantage, since he’s a long-distance merchant).

      No dragons, sorry. I was more interested in medieval trade than in the usual dragons, unicorns, elves, and the like.

    • “Nobody who writes fantasy has ever thought it through. What happens to a society when magic is possible? What happens to science? To engineering? To education? To agriculture? To economics? What value is there to your labor when the village wizards waves his wand and gold appears? Or bushels of barley? Or barrels of beer?”

      Do not speak of that which you do not know anything about, lest you reveal yourself to be ignorant.
      For example, Gregory Keyes’ Age of Unreason, in which magic suddenly appears in the late 17th century, essentially has what we know of as “scientific” progress brought to a grinding halt, and this is brought up as a major problem.
      Most good fantasy authors limit what magic can do, usually by making it available only to a select few, rather costly, having it play by a specific set of rules, etc. And they usually make it apparent how magic has affected the rules of the society around it.
      Seriously, try actually reading some fantasy sometime.

      • Seriously, try actually reading some fantasy sometime.

        Not gonna do it. Fantasy sucks.

        You bring up some interesting counterexamples, but I ain’t gonna dig through that stinking pigsty to find one pearl.

        And just how do you think I came by my opinion? By reading fantasy. It sucks. I read Lord of the Rings as long as I could stand it. Two-thirds of the way through The Return of the King I could not stand it anymore, so I threw it in the gutter.

        On fantasy, keep your advice to yourself. I neither thank you for it nor do I appreciate it. It smacks of arrogance and ignorance. Yeah, I am not a nice guy.

        I wish Michael Bey (no, not the movie guy) had published the Patchwork Kingdom series. It had fantastic creatures — orcs, elves, dwarves, and such — but no magic. I thought it was interesting, funny, and well-thought out. But no buyers.

        You read what you choose. I will read what I choose.

        • Insulting every fan and writer of fantasy as purveyors of “lazy literature” doesn’t just smack of arrogance and ignorance — it reeks of it! Calling an entire major genre of fiction a “stinking pigsty” is not appreciated, nor does anyone thank you for your opinion.

          You do not have to read it, or enjoy it. But if you express that opinion in insulting ways, expect some blowback.

        • Of course you’ll read what you choose, as you should.

          But seeing as you yourself conceded that your mind won’t be changed by new information…

        • Not liking fantasy or science fiction is the norm, not rare.

          The fact that you think no fantasy authors ever discussed any of those topics though is hilarious. It doesn’t make you a mean person, just ignorant of thousands of people’s works.

          Funnily enough the Lord of the Rings is arguably one of the least ‘magical’ books in fantasy.

          • Not much sense debating to a wall.
            Especially over a false premise like fantasy = magic.
            (Because there’s no such thing as anthropomorphic animal stories, or superhero fantasies, or folk legends. Paul Bunyan is not fantasy.)

            Or that fantasy authors don’t do world-building or sweat detail and consequences.

            Best to just move along, move along…
            Nothing to see.

    • “Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.”

      Replicators are used for the same reason they didn’t fill the ship’s library with physical books – not enough space and you’ll never know who will want what next.

      As for transporting away bits of the other gal’s ship? If you can keep in step with their shield frequencies, are in transporter range and have enough power to spare from your own shields while they shoot at you.

      (and removing the containment fields from their antimatter containment or their warp core will let their ship ‘eat’ itself. Unless the warp engines are in use they aren’t that major a target – unless you’re trying to keep them from running away! 😉 )

    • I don’t care much for fantasy either, but by heaping belligerent abuse on a substantial segment of the reading and writing population, you legitimate those who would choose to abuse you. You might flinch if the folks who have replied to you were half as abusive as you.

    • Your statements about the problems with fantasy only show that you really do know nothing about the genre. Which is fine, but maybe be a little less condescending and insulting about something you don’t bother to educate yourself about, hmm? You’re the one who comes off looking stupid when you do.

  5. Fantasy is one of the most challenging genres to classify.

    Perhaps it doesn’t describe a well-defined subset. Forget about it.

    • It actually describes a whole range of subsets that share a common narrative discipline but nothing else.

      Anything that encompasses LIEBER’s CONJURE WIFE, ANTHONY’s XANTH, and MARTIN’s SONG OF ICE AND FIRE is bound to be hard to bound. 😀

      But there’s a lot of good, thoughtful writing to be found in those fields. CONJURE WIFE, for one, has a lot to say about pre-sexual revolution mores. And not necessarily good things.

      • It’s nearly 40 years since I read Conjure Wife so you are really dredging up memories, ones which are none to clear at that. I do seem to recall that it is a bad idea to disbelieve your wife or tell her to stop doing things as all hell then breaks loose (and not because she’s annoyed with you but because you’ve no real idea how the world works). Another one for the re-read list.

        • It was urban fantasy before urban fantasy became a marketing tag. Also a hidden society fantasy before those became routine post Harry Potter.

  6. I’ve never gotten that reaction to “I write fantasy.” Is it really that common for people to be confused or assume all fantasy is children’s stories? I feel like that’s a several-decades-outdated problem.

    Seems like a good way to describe historical fantasy would be, “It’s basically just historical fiction, but with, like, dragons or whatever.” Because the person obviously doesn’t care that much about the specifics of your book if they don’t even understand what historical fantasy is.

Comments are closed.