Does fantasy speculate?

[Michael01]

I've been having this ongoing argument elsewhere and, I have to admit, I actually find it fascinating. It's helping me to further explore and focus my own ideas about fantasy fiction.

As I understand, fantasy is part of an "umbrella group" called "speculative fiction," which also includes genres like science fiction and horror. Apparently, not everyone agrees that fantasy is in any way speculative.

Here is something I said recently about this subject (in response to some interesting points), which I think is the closest I've come to expressing these ideas coherently:

***

First, I don't believe developing a categorical system in this way "completely disregards" the literal meaning. It actually takes it into account, just not in the way you think it should be applied. Even in taxonomy, although scientists take into account current evolutionary theory and choose to classify species according to their genetic relationships, the system is still arbitrary. Scientists choose this system, and develop it this way, to make it easier to discuss.

Second, why is "using a word in a way that completely disregards its literal meaning" idiotic? ALL language is arbitrary to begin with; languages are systems of signs arbitrarily designated to represent things; the "signs" are not the actual things they represent. So called "literal meanings" can and do evolve over time, and there is nothing "idiotic" (necessarily) about this process. It is simply the nature of language. That fluidity is one of the things I love about it. If language were a rigid system like mathematics, I don't think it would have the same appeal for me.

For some reason, you seem to think there is an "ultimate" category without arbitrary designation and anything that does not follow this category is "idiotic." There is no such thing, however. All categories are arbitrary designations humans have developed and agreed to use at a given time. I understand that not everyone necessarily agrees to these designations (something you are proving here), but this only reinforces the idea that they are arbitrary and further contributes to the fluidity of language.

Most of us here are writers. This is something we should understand to some degree, even if we don't necessarily have the same level of education, simply because we explore language and how to apply it more often than others do.

Agreed the "what if" question in some fantasy is weak, but it's still there in some fashion, making the arbitrary decision to include it in the industry's category of speculative fiction a logical, simple way to keep track of these things.

Otherwise, I will still disagree that fantasy doesn't speculate. If you want examples:

The Lord of the Rings

Tolkien went into great detail about how language works in the world of Middle Earth, since his expertise was in the field of linguistics. This is speculation about how language influences and shapes the world, and perhaps even considers an idea explored in the Gospel of John ("In the beginning was the Word.") The way I see it, Tolkien explored this idea as a function of the world of Middle Earth, making it speculative in nature.

The way he uses language in the story actually has a lot in common with the way scientific theory is used to develop settings and stories in science fiction.

The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever

The same idea is apparent in Donaldson's Covenant series, with the "Weird" - which actually has various spellings according to the group/race. It's still about language and its function in the world.

The Valdemar Books

While it's less apparent, because I think Mercedes Lackey was more focused on telling the story than describing her magical system, I still would argue that she speculates about a particular type of energy source derived from the natural world and used to generate magical effects. How this affects the world, the characters, and the story is important to developing the system.

In principle, the process isn't much different from writing science fiction. The biggest difference is that the author creates his/her own system for a fantasy story, as opposed to using an established scientific theory - although a fantasy author might explore philosophical ideas in order to create that system. In my mind, this kind of thing is just as "speculative" as anything in science fiction.

***

What do you guys think about fantasy as "speculative" fiction? Do some authors "speculate" in their fantasy stories, or do you think fantasy settings are just "pretty backdrop?"

 

[chrispenycate]

You have to speculate in order to accumulate, and we've accumulated quite a lot of fantasy…

Actually, Lackey gets very precise about her magic systems (there are at least two, the demon/stressed planes of reality style, most seen in the Tarma/Kethry books, and the lifeform/node magic specialised in by the hawkbrothers. Mind magic could be considered a separate subset, deities have yet another, and there are hints of yet a different source (or sink), the void (if I'm not muddling my Lackies)

And a Feist as an example, or even an Eddings, has absorbed a lot of SF philosophy into his fantasy works. It's hardly theft; SF has been absorbing fantasy themes practically since its inception.

With an audience who are raised in technology and causality, it's quite normal that fantasy become a bit more precise in its use of magical elements. Not that this needs to prevent some fairly major fireworks when high-power magic users come into conflict.

It would have been useful, in answering this thread, to have had the 'interesting points' it was responding to specified.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Any time that someone asks the question, "What if" they are speculating. Anyone who pretends otherwise is twisting definitions to suit themselves.

Fantasy often asks the question, "What if our society had developed in this specific different way?" Science Fiction often asks, "What if our society someday evolves in this specific way?"

It is really the same kind of question, and the most important reason for asking these questions, no matter how we frame them, is to explore who we are now by contrasting it with those "what ifs," and to get a little closer to an answer to the even bigger question, "Who are we, essentially?"

If a story doesn't do that, then it is all about the scenery and the props -- which is just as true for Science Fiction as for Fantasy. A room full of machines and the smell of chemicals is no less a backdrop, and no more relevant in itself, than a pastoral with a castle in the background.

The history of science and the history of magic are inextricably linked. So many of the same people who asked the "What ifs" that led to some of the great advances in science and medicine firmly believed in ideas that we now associate only with magic or religion or superstition. Why did they ask those questions? Because they could conceive of things that were not readily available to their ordinary perceptions and were willing to explore ideas their contemporaries considered patently illogical because they contradicted what was already "known."

The human imagination is an odd creature. How it grows and what it becomes does not always correlate to what we feed it, but it requires some sort of nourishment or it dies. Encouraging the appetite of somebody else's imagination requires allowing it to forage about and look for things that it finds tasty, not simply force-feeding it a diet of those things you would like it to like. Once it grows strong and hungry -- instead of weak and apathetic, picking at its food -- it might be willing to try those brussel sprouts.

 

[HareBrain]

Once it grows strong and hungry -- instead of weak and apathetic, picking at its food -- it might be willing to try those brussel sprouts.

What's the literary equivalent of brussels sprouts? I'm not normally in favour of book-burning, but ...

 

[Michael01]

Useful points, Teresa! The history was also a theme important to the plot of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, wasn't it?

Got me on Lackey's details, Chris. It's just been a long time since I read them, but I do recall some very interesting descriptions of magic.

It would have been useful, in answering this thread, to have had the 'interesting points' it was responding to specified.

That occurred to me, but I wasn't sure how appropriate it is to bring those over. Hmm. Would a summary be okay, you think?

 

[chrispenycate]

A summary would probably be fine. Many of the points are fairly obvious by the shape of the hole where they aren't, if you get my gist, but when a pedant (like myself) gets started refuting (or reinforcing) arguments he prefers to be confident in what has been said before.

And what is wrong with literary brussel sprouts? Apart from the wrong time of year. I'll read, mark, learn and inwardly digest yours, along with my bibliofied creamed spinach.

 

[Michael01]

The main point of the counter-argument, of course, is that most fantasy is not speculative. Even if some in the industry classify fantasy as speculative, it's a stupid way to use the word because it ignores the "literal meaning." Also, while language does change, that doesn't make the changes right, so we should probably stick to older definitions. Then the argument uses basically the same definition we do for speculative fiction (introduces a "what if" scenario and explores it), but contends that most fantasy does not actually do this. Most of the time, the magic in fantasy doesn't have a significant impact on the world.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Most of the time, the magic in fantasy doesn't have a significant impact on the world.

Almost invariably it has some impact on the social structure. But even when that impact isn't significant, other aspects of the secondary world may drive the story in deeply significant ways.

But it is typical of such arguments as your friend advances -- also, in my opinion, a sign of how weak their position truly is* -- to use the worst sort of fantasy to make their comparisons, instead of the best that the field has to offer.




*Alternatively, a sign that they don't read enough fantasy to have an intelligent and informed opinion on the subject and prefer to be ruled by a prejudice founded on ignorance. But let us be charitable. Undoubtedly it is a sign of the first thing I mentioned.

 

[Precise Calibre]

Counter-points for your adversary.

The magic in my fantasy world can cause catastrophic damage to the world and even the very fabric of reality. - Ok, not a counter-point since no one knows my world, but still!

The magic in "Chronicles of the Necromancer" by Gail Z. Martin has a very important link and effect on the world at large.

The effects of magic in "Chronicles of the Black Company" by Glenn Cook are quite widespread and very important.

"Name of the Wind" by Patrick Rothfuss is almost exclusively about magic.

"Discworld", Terry Pratchett, 'nuff said.

-----------

All that aside, fantasy doesn't have to have magic to be speculative. All you have to say is:

What if we lived in a world where dragons were real, if elves walked among us, if a dwarf ran the pub down the road, if undead walked the night, if gods walked the earth, if angels were real, if dungeons dotted the countryside, if demons were a normal, yet terrifying reality, if kings rode airships to war, if mermaids attacked our ships?.... if...... you get the point.

 

[The Procrastinator]

Its not just about magic. The "what if" Teresa mentioned is the core of fantasy. What if a world existed in which animals could speak? What if a world existed where there were tribes of very small people? What if trees had consciousness? What if, for reasons of pick your disaster, our society was destroyed but people survived, and strange mutated creatures roamed the earth, and the survivors had very little technology? What if dinosaurs did not die out but continued to evolve? What if the Ice that covered the world had a consciousness? What if "Gods" had some basis in something? What if there really were vampires?

This kind of speculation is not scientific, it is imaginative, and yet much science fiction begins with these kinds of elements. As does fantasy. They don't simply speculate on the development of society etc - some of the most interesting speculation is on "what if reality were different in some way"? You can't get much more speculative than that.

 

[Michael01]

This kind of speculation is not scientific, it is imaginative, and yet much science fiction begins with these kinds of elements. As does fantasy. They don't simply speculate on the development of society etc - some of the most interesting speculation is on "what if reality were different in some way"? You can't get much more speculative than that.

Exactly.

Oh, and to both of you: You're absolutely right. Magic is not the only speculative element in fantasy.

 

[HareBrain]

The "what if?" applies to all fiction, surely? It's just more limited in scope (to, say, a single family, rather than an entire world or society).

 

[Michael01]

Well, I wanted to wait a while, give someone else a chance to reply, so it didn't look like I responded every time someone else did. But, what the hey...

The "what if?" applies to all fiction, surely? It's just more limited in scope (to, say, a single family, rather than an entire world or society).

Can't argue with that. Of course, I wouldn't want to list all fiction in a category called "speculative." I'd prefer to lump only those with more extensive speculation there. Which is one of the points made by the counter-argument. I agree with this point, I just happen to think that fantasy falls into that category - and apparently some people don't.

I've had to admit defeat on the point that I don't really know how the publishing industry classifies genres and sub-genres, though. And I'm finally getting the impression that the counter-argument goes like this:

"Speculative fiction" is not an umbrella term. It's another sub-genre, a term that's "tagged" onto others. So a science fiction story might be speculative and another might not ("science fiction" as opposed to "speculative science fiction"), although most science fiction is. Since most fantasy does not explore the "what if" scenario to the same extent, there is very little speculative fantasy.

I think it has a lot to do with the clarity of the posts that made it difficult for me to discern this. Looked at this way, the argument makes good points. I've heard the term used as an umbrella term, but that doesn't mean everyone (or even anyone) in the industry uses it this way. They might actually use it as the tag-on described above. I try not to claim I know something I don't, and I might have done just that in developing my points.

And, in retrospect, I'm a little embarrassed by the way I phrased some of the above reply. I thought I was being clever when I wrote it; but, after rereading it later, I thought it sounded condescending and pretentious.

Regardless, I'd argue that plenty (not "very little") of fantasy is just as speculative as a lot of science fiction.

 

[HareBrain]

Oops, I've been a bit dense. I thought the argument was about whether SFF as a whole was speculative, not the difference between science fiction and fantasy.

But here are some hastily assembled thoughts. I believe that SFF can only be truly called speculative when the "what if?" question concerns, or can be applied to, our own universe or reality.

Having said that, I'm having trouble thinking of a "what if?" question that absolutely couldn't be applied to our own universe or reality, so I'll go away again.

 

[Precise Calibre]

Your opponent has switched to arguing semantics because his initial argument lacked merit.

 

[goldhawk]

Most of the time, the magic in fantasy doesn't have a significant impact on the world.

I have to disagree with that. Even the weakest form of magic will have an impact, though the impact may be subtle and long term. Consider that the reason there are two genders is because DNA is a double spiral. And consider the reason we have marriage is because we have no fur. Even the simplest of things can cause major changes.

 

[Michael01]

I have to disagree with that. Even the weakest form of magic will have an impact, though the impact may be subtle and long term. Consider that the reason there are two genders is because DNA is a double spiral. And consider the reason we have marriage is because we have no fur. Even the simplest of things can cause major changes.

I agree, of course. Exactly the point many of us make, which is why I see no reason not to include fantasy as "speculative fiction."

Well, I don't know if the few of us contributing to this discussion is a good indication of how "most" fantasy readers see it, but no one here seems to be saying it isn't speculative.

Anyone care to take up the opposite side of the argument? Just for fun?

 

[HareBrain]

OK, I'll have a go.

To speculate, according to my dictionary, is "to conjecture without knowing the complete facts", with conjecture meaning "to infer or arrive at a conclusion from incomplete evidence". The crucial point being that the writer is taking what is known about something and filling in the gaps.

That works fine when she's writing about our hidden past, or our hidden future, or something hidden about our present reality, but how does that apply to a story that takes place within an entirely made-up world? What, then, is the "gap" the writer is trying to fill in? There are no missing facts about which to speculate because that world isn't made up of facts in the first place.

I suggest that only if, in writing about that made-up world, the writer is seeking to fill in, by analogy, some gap in knowledge of our past, present or future nature, can it really be called speculative. And I suggest that most fantasy stories set in invented worlds don't do this.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

There are no missing facts about which to speculate because that world isn't made up of facts in the first place.

If it has realistic human(like) characters written in a sensitive and insightful manner, then it is crammed with psychological truth and facts about human nature. Some examples of missing facts on which it might speculate are, "How would humans behave if some individuals were born with truly extraordinary powers that set them apart from the rest?" (In SF, they would be mutants, in Fantasy they are magicians), or "What if a single individual was given the task of discovering the one vulnerability that would bring down the reign of a tyrant? Would he crumble under the pressure? Could he rise to the challenge?"

Or the eternal human question, "What if my parents weren't my parents and I found out I was really adopted and my real parents were really, really important?"

We may laugh at the idea, but this is a question that seems to come up consistently for children and adolescents and so dwells somewhere near the heart of matters of identity as children move toward adulthood. It is the stuff of ancient myth and legend. What could be a more vital speculation for young people than to ask themselves what it might actually be like -- the heartbreak as well as the empowerment -- instead of merely engaging in idle wish-fulfillment that obsesses only on how exciting it would be?

 

[HareBrain]

OK, well, I tried.

In a bid to come up with some counter-arguments, I looked up speculative fiction on Wikipedia. Here's a quote:

The term is often attributed to Robert A. Heinlein. In his first known use of the term, in editorial material at the front of the 2/8/1947 issue of The Saturday Evening Post, Heinlein used it specifically as a synonym for "science fiction"; in a later piece, he explicitly stated that his use of the term did not include fantasy

The article doesn't explain why Heinlein thought the term shouldn't include fantasy. Does anyone know? (And could Heinlein's opinion have been behind the argument Michael had elsewhere?)

Edit: just realised that it says RH used it only as a synonym for science fiction, so that answers my own question, I guess. You should probably all just ignore this.