# Is a magic fantasy too common nowadays?



## Cosmo (Jan 29, 2006)

I have been wondering weather plots for magical fantacy will eventually run out 
I was also wondering do any of you people out there have any ideas for "concepts of magic" eg how someone in a book would cast a spell, like flowing the runes into the desired object (from Mark Robsons Darkweaver quartet)


----------



## scalem X (Jan 29, 2006)

we appreciate your question, but this should be posted on another part of the forum.  
@mods: move this plz.


----------



## Cosmo (Jan 29, 2006)

sorry, i noticed once i had posted it (i'm new you see)
all the best
Cosmo


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jan 29, 2006)

In the meantime, while waiting for someone with the power to move the thread to come along, could you explain what you mean by "magical fantasy" -- since for most readers an element of magic or the supernatural is what makes a story fantasy in the first place.  Are you talking about books that concentrate very heavily on magic users and magic systems, or books in the fantasy genre in general?

In terms of stories that spend more time on the magic than on the characters, I think plots are being recycled already.  In terms of stories that focus on how individuals react with each other and with their environment in a fantastical world, I think the possibilities are just as wide as in any other kind of literature.


----------



## Cosmo (Jan 29, 2006)

by magical fantacy i am talking about fantasy that has magic as a main part of the story


----------



## scalem X (Jan 29, 2006)

magic is indeed not the same as fantasy:
In my fantasies, there is no magic. (nice sentence to remember)

The problem that I have with magic is often the fact that restrictions in a character's magical abilities seems to be at random and made only to fit the story. I'm talking about famous writer's books too. And because it's so extremely hard to determine what can or cannot be done by magic, more and more people seem to prefer small amounts of magic in their novels.
I think however that about 70% of fantasy still includes huge amount of magic.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jan 29, 2006)

scalem X said:
			
		

> In my fantasies, there is no magic. (nice sentence to remember)



OK, but before I commit this piece of information to memory, I think I would like to know exactly what you mean by it -- because I suspect that some of us have a broader definition of magic than you do.

What elements (aside from the presence of magic or the supernatural) should a story have in order to qualify as fantasy?


----------



## Prefx (Jan 29, 2006)

Hmm, well, I could see how fantasy wouldn't need magic. Right now, what I'm drawing out of the hat is Beowulf. If Martin didn't put magic in his books, I'd still classify ASoIaF fantasy for the fact it takes place in an alternative world.


However, is magic 'too common'? I don't think so. Are too many sci-fis space oprahs?


----------



## Cosmo (Jan 29, 2006)

thank you prefx
this will help with my writing


----------



## kyektulu (Jan 29, 2006)

*I really hope they dont take magic out of fantasy! 

 I love escaping to magical realms when I read, it is the main reason I got into the genre.*


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jan 29, 2006)

What about Grendel, his mother, and the dragon, Prefx?  Wouldn't you call them magical creatures? 

There doesn't have to be somebody casting magic _spells_ for magic to be an essential part of a story.


----------



## GOLLUM (Jan 30, 2006)

I haven't really thought that much about this on a conscious level but seem to have a certain instinctive defintion or idea of what is SF vs. Fantasy probably gained from my own experience of reading fairly widely within this Genre. In other words I may not always be able to pinpoint exactly why I may classify something as being fantasy but do know when it is not when I read it if that makes sense.

I guess in general terms I don't classify books containing elements created by technology or science as being fanatsy but then again as Asimov I think it is states a "sufficiently advanced civilization will have technologies that are imperceptable from magic" and as Kelpie alludes to the defintion of fantasy can be pretty broad.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jan 30, 2006)

GOLLUM said:
			
		

> I guess in general terms I don't classify books containing elements created by technology or science as being fanatsy but then again as Asimov I think it is states a "sufficiently advanced civilization will have technologies that are imperceptable from magic"


 
It was Arthur C. Clarke who said that, Gollum.  And the only reason I remember that is because it is one of my favorite sayings. I think it says loads of things about a bunch of different topics.  But that's just me.


----------



## scalem X (Jan 30, 2006)

Magic= Things that shouldn't have a certain effect in the first place, but seem to have that effect. If you can create water by drawing runes in the air=> magic.
If there are dragons in your story: it depends; are they scientifically explained=> different species no magic. Can they breath fire out of nowhere without explanation=> magical creatures.
You shouldn't base things on our own perceptions. There are animals that can fly, there are animals that look a lot like "dragons", maybe in another world these animals could live. We don't call spitting snakes magical. That's because we know how they work. If we knew perfectly how dragons worked, we could say that they are fascinating but not magical. 

Fantasy= for me: Happenings in a world imaginative or real, who has no connection with our present, past or future world. 
If you start your story with: In a world one hundred galaxies from here, in a time our place was just ... then to me it is not fantasy anymore.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jan 30, 2006)

GOLLUM said:
			
		

> I guess in general terms I don't classify books containing elements created by technology or science as being fanatsy but then again as Asimov I think it is states a "sufficiently advanced civilization will have technologies that are imperceptable from magic" and as Kelpie alludes to the defintion of fantasy can be pretty broad.


"Any sufficiently advanced technology is inditiguishable (not imperceptible, please) from magic" Clarkes first law 

Well' I'm allowed to be a pedant.


----------



## Priv8eye (Jan 30, 2006)

I think that these are really hard concepts to define.  They change so much in peoples perceptions, depending on how they view them.

For example, as a kid I remember going to the library asking for a book.  When they asked what genre it was, "Sci-Fi?",  I replied that was in fact Fantasy.  "Ah, Sci-Fi then."  To many people there is no differance, although that may be changing, especially following Jacksons LotR which has shown that these trappings are wider and more appealing than previously thought.

To me Fantasy normally involves sword and sorcery type stuff, as thats the fantasy that I read, but I am aware that the definition can refer to mondern day settings.  Some Fantasy novels explain a lot of their happenings by science, to justify their existance, does this make it Sci-Fi then?  Why do we feel the need to explain the magical aspects of the setting and make it justifiable through science, or by any other means.  Does it not exist as its own right?  we don't look for the explanations of how much in our own lives work sometimes, we just accept then for what they are.  Tolkien did not explain his magic in any way or form, it was he crafted and showed it working that it made it come alive.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jan 30, 2006)

scalem X said:
			
		

> If there are dragons in your story: it depends; are they scientifically explained=> different species no magic. Can they breath fire out of nowhere without explanation=> magical creatures.
> You shouldn't base things on our own perceptions.
> 
> Fantasy= for me: Happenings in a world imaginative or real, who has no connection with our present, past or future world.



But the dragon under discussion -- the one in Beowulf -- was not scientifically explained.  Nor is the idea that the creatures in Beowulf are magical based on my "own perceptions"; it's based on the perceptions of the people in the time and place when it was written.

But that's beside the point. Mythical creatures like dragons owe their genesis to the magical world view that was present through most of human history.  If someone comes along in the twenty-first century and tries to rationalize a dragon by a pseudo-scientific explanation, that's just sleight-of-hand.  The meaning and the symbolism of the dragon remain the same.

My own definition of fantasy does not depend on magic being actively present in a story, it does require that aspects of the setting or the story arise from the magical world view instead of the modern scientific one.  Notice that I say "modern scientific," because for most of history ideas about magic and science were often one and the same.  Magicians believed that they were exploiting natural laws, and scientists (or "Natural Philosophers") based their explanations of how the world works on some of those same laws.

And since this viewpoint was so very much a part of our own history, I don't see how anything that comes out of it could be entirely lacking in connection with our past, present, or future world.

Unfortunately, a lot of readers get their ideas about magic from fantasy role playing games, and that does give them a very narrow definition of the fantasy genre.


----------



## scalem X (Jan 30, 2006)

It's all just weird, actually this defining discussion can never end. 
since with new books come more cases. Actually if it gives you the fantasy feeling when you read it, then to you it's fantasy. It's really hard to say when people can speak of a change in genre. There are always cases of doubt and it's stupid to limit yourself before writing (according to me) since it decreases your path. The goal is to write a good book, not a fantasy novel no matter what.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jan 30, 2006)

Yes, but Cosmo asked if writers of "magical fantasy" were likely to run out of ideas -- and how can we begin to answer that question without definitions of "magic" and "fantasy" _for the purpose of the discussion_?


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jan 30, 2006)

Which is pretty much what my psychology of religion professor said to the class when some people complained that we were taking two whole weeks at the beginning of the semester to define "religion" and "psychology", or at least to figure out if either concept can really be defined adequately. Also, why one of the assignments in a contemporary theologies class I took about the same time was to compile a glossary of definitions of theological words and concepts. Definition is _very_ important.

And I'll go away now, because I don't read enough magical fantasy to be able to actually contribute to the discussion in an intelligent way. Except to say that when you consider that neither mystery writers nor romance writers have yet run out of ideas (or at least they haven't run out of new ways to play with the usual ideas ), it is difficult to conceive that magical fantasy writers would run out of ideas anytime soon. I mean, they aren't even bounded by "reality" as writers in more down-to-earth genres are. But, like I say, that's just my completely ignorant assessment of the situation.


----------



## Foxtale (Jan 30, 2006)

As far as I know, fantasy novels, specifically magic fantasy, follows set themes, just different characters. Therefore it's already run out but people don't care because it's an all new character. Geez... I've gone all Jungian on you.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jan 30, 2006)

Now you see, that is exactly what I mean.  Foxtale here seems to have a very narrow definition for magical fantasy, as limited to stories with certain themes, and (I am assuming, due to the reference to Jung) probably employing certain archetypes.  It's a definition that many readers share. 

And if the question is:  are writers of magical fantasy _according to that particular definition _ likely to run out of ideas, I would say that there is a certain amount of evidence that they are already running out of ideas.

But if the question were:  are writers of magical fantasy _according to my personal definition_ likely to run out of ideas, my answer would be, not in the next few thousand years, and probably not even then.

With a third definition, I might have a third answer.


----------



## scalem X (Jan 31, 2006)

yes, you seem to capture it all kelpie.
Dedective stories with sophisticated english detectives might run out after some time, but that doesn't mean detective stories (or variants like the da vinci code) are likely to run out.


----------



## Snagas Tender Blades (Feb 1, 2006)

But some novels scientifically explain the magic, like in Dragonlance each wizard has a spellbook and has to relearn the spell after each casting. I can't go into much more detail than this because I have not read many Dragonlance books because I don't like them. But anyway...

Other novels, like LOTR, for instance don't bother explaining how the wizard has his magic or uses it apart from the odd incantation or two.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Feb 1, 2006)

Snagas Tender Blades said:
			
		

> But some novels scientifically explain the magic, like in Dragonlance each wizard has a spellbook and has to relearn the spell after each casting.



I think you mean rationalize the magic, rather than explaining it scientifically, because that's a long way from a scientific explanation.  

I don't like those books either.  They rob magic of its art and mystery, gain nothing in realism, and produce an effect that I can only describe as mechanical.

They are very popular, though, so they're catching somebody's imagination.


----------



## cornelius (Feb 1, 2006)

I try to succeed in painting the image I have of " the craft" with words, it's pretty though


----------



## scalem X (Feb 1, 2006)

I liked that movie (sry of topic I know).


----------



## topspin (Feb 1, 2006)

I agree with Kelpie, too much description does take away the mystical side of magic. if its inner workings are described, it isn't magic anymore, its science really.


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 1, 2006)

Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistiguishable from technology?


----------



## Cosmo (Feb 1, 2006)

would you call spiderman fantasy?????????


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 1, 2006)

Cosmo said:
			
		

> would you call spiderman fantasy?????????



Umm - yes?

I'd prefer not to class it as science fiction.


----------



## scalem X (Feb 1, 2006)

That's why I hold on to my 'connection with this world definition' 
spiderman: golden gate bridge/cars/sky scrapers/newspapers;...
 connection= no fantasy.


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 1, 2006)

scalem X said:
			
		

> That's why I hold on to my 'connection with this world definition'
> spiderman: golden gate bridge/cars/sky scrapers/newspapers;...
> connection= no fantasy.


"Summoned to tourney" (Mercedes Lackey/Ellen Guen) Elves, Bardic magic, elvensteeds, motorbikes, underground research centers, Golden Gate bridge… Fantasy. Urban fantasy, not epic, but unquestionably fantasy. (All right, I wasn't being serious about Spiderman)


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Feb 1, 2006)

But then, Scalem, you're dismissing most Urban Fantasy, a very large segment of YA Fantasy, probably every Science Fantasy that was ever written, all Fairy Tales, not to mention writers like Tolkien and C. S. Lewis and Charles Williams and E. R. Eddison ... in fact, you've just narrowed the genre to a fraction of what it was before.  

Don't you think you're being a little ruthless here?


----------



## scalem X (Feb 1, 2006)

maybe, but consider it a base to start with.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Feb 1, 2006)

"_ It's stupid to limit yourself before writing (according to me) since it decreases your path._"

The above is a very wise statement recently made by one of our members.  Am I to take it you don't agree with him, Scalem?


----------



## scalem X (Feb 2, 2006)

As a base I meant that, you might classify the ones beyond that line as definitely fantasy. The other might or might not be.
Thanks for calling my statements whise. I also must add; that I feel sorry to discuss this on a forum. It makes me realise it's limits to a talk with someone or even an open debate in a parliament.


----------



## GOLLUM (Feb 2, 2006)

chrispenycate said:
			
		

> Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistiguishable from technology?


Hey stop stealing my quotes.... 

I agree with Kelpie, fantasy is very much mutli-faceted not one-dimensional.


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 2, 2006)

GOLLUM said:
			
		

> Hey stop stealing my quotes....
> 
> I agree with Kelpie, fantasy is very much mutli-faceted not one-dimensional.


_I_ consider Arthur C. Clarke to be one of mine. 

Remembering my youth (he creaks) and the discussions whether we should remove the labels "Sci-fi" and "Fantasy" as misdirection, and settle down with "speculative fiction" where everyone is happy and finds his place. And if we cut sci-fi down to "things with spaceships in" and fantasy to "things that have no referent in the "real" world" (as if fantasy readers were equipped to understand definitions) you then have 80% of speculative fiction free to distribute amoung other sub genres : cyberpunk (of course) historical fantasy, pseudo historical fantasy, science horror, eco alien invasion, comic strip: just what we neened, divide and conquer. And then we can all argue about which side of which frontier a particular book (or worse, a particular author) belongs. 
I think that "feel" thing is critical. Larry Nivens "the magic went away" series is fantasy, written so much like sci-fi I doubt a dedicated fantasy fan would recognise it, and several supposed sci-fi novels which show no more respect for scientific rigor than Tolkien. I personally think that any author using magic should know the limits, strengths and power sources, laws and operating systems, though telling the readership is probably excessive. The reader feels this structure, and is generally happy to know it exists, and even happier not to have to try and understand it. But all that's me. If everybody agreed with my opinion on everything, the world would be a very strange place, and literature a lot more limited. (I had been planning a comparison with modern music, but came to the conclusion that, compared to music fans, we readers are in total agreement about *everything*!)


----------



## Thunderchild (Feb 2, 2006)

Well think of the dragonriders of Pern Books as much as you can say its a sci - fi background with the whole colony, and genetically enerneered dragons , but their still dragons.

I think fantisy isnt defined buy its back ground but what happens. If you see something thats a fantasy motif (spell???) no amount of of reasoning can change that.


----------



## scalem X (Feb 2, 2006)

I'm still trying to decode that last sentence. I know that spelling mistakes can occur and even grammar can be though, but what is this?


> Well think of the dragonriders of Pern Books as much as you can say its a sci - fi background with the whole colony, and genetically enerneered dragons , but their still dragons.


Did you perhaps mean something like this: Well, think of the books of 'the dragonriders of Pern', as much as you can say they have a scifi background with the whole colony thing and the genetically engineered dragons; they still contain dragons. 



> I think fantisy isnt defined buy its back ground but what happens. If you see something thats a fantasy motif (spell???) no amount of of reasoning can change that.


did you perhaps mean something like: I think fantasy isn't defined by its background, but by what happens. If something, which refers to fantasy (like a magic spell) is contained in the book, you'll have to classify it as fantasy novel, that's the right reasoning.
The last part is really hard to understand.
of of reasoning= of off-reasoning or just of reasoning.
...

I know your english can only improve if you use it, that's why you should see this correction more as a help than as an attack.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Feb 2, 2006)

The dragons in Pern are hard to classify.  Yes, they are more or less scientifically explained -- bred up by the colonists from their smaller cousins, they chew fire stones in order to produce flames, etc. etc. -- but at the same time, McCaffrey points out that they aren't really dragons, the settlers just named them that because they _resembled_ dragons.  These things do place them on the Science Fiction side of the line -- if you're not too particular about your science.

But then there is the telepathy and the ability to go _between_ and that mystical bonding between the dragon and his/her rider ... and then we're back in the realm of Fantasy again.

Fortunately, the term Science Fantasy was coined many years ago, back in _my_ antediluvian youth, to cover cases like this one.


----------



## scalem X (Feb 2, 2006)

oh no "science fantasy" it exists, even worse I'm among the people who read it.Still getting worser and worser since I liked it. 
'The horror, The horror!!!' runs off ...
 , yes I have trouble staying serious. If I were rich, a shrink could live and leech on me.


----------



## Thunderchild (Feb 3, 2006)

scalem X said:
			
		

> I know your english can only improve if you use it, that's why you should see this correction more as a help than as an attack.


Unfortunatly I speak english as a first language - but it was about 3 in the mourning when I did that , so it was more a case of it sounded right at the time.

p.s. it was meant to be 'if you see something that is a fantasy motif(spelling??) no amount of reasoning can change it'


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Feb 3, 2006)

scalem X said:
			
		

> yes I have trouble staying serious. If I were rich, a shrink could live and leech on me.



No, no, no.  The real money these days is in treating people with clinical depression.


----------



## scalem X (Feb 3, 2006)

Seems that I found the cure then and unfortunately sprayed it onto myself and then forgot all about the formula (that could make me rich) and well we all can notice the consequences.


----------

