John Peloquin: "It's Magic, You Know"

It’s Magic, You Know

By John Peloquin

            If there is one constant in the world, it’s that people love to argue; there’s actually a 60% chance the comment section of this page devolves into a shouting match, according to a statistic I made up.  In my opinion, there are few better examples of this love of argument than the debate between fans as to whether a story qualifies as a work of science fiction or as a work of fantasy.  So, dear readers, I ask you: what is the difference between the science fiction and fantasy genres?

            I’d like to propose the following theory: a work of speculative fiction becomes part of the fantasy genre when the reader (or more likely, moviegoer) is asked to believe part of the story on faith alone.  While both science fiction (SF) and fantasy most often make use of concepts outside of what is “real” to us; the difference is that in fantasy we the consumers are expected to take things at face value and not ask questions, but SF always tries to give an explanation for its creations, even if it is an extremely flimsy one.

Something like this.

                Just look at Poul Anderson’s short story “Kyrie”.  It deals with a massive cosmic being telepathically communicating with a human and trying to absorb the energies of a supernova before ultimately sacrificing itself to save the human and the rest her ship’s crew.  At this point, Anderson could easily have simply chalked these events up to “spaaace maaaagic”, but instead he tries to explain how the anatomy of the fictional space creature makes the story possible, and even finds a weak excuse for how humans can communicate with these alien life forms. 

 

Simon Asimov does the same thing with a slightly different approach in “Reason”.  Rather than asking the reader to simply believe that robots could exist in the future his story is set in (after all, the laptop I’m writing this on wouldn’t have seemed any more possible a few decades back), Asimov goes to the trouble of creating laws that govern the existence of his robots to make them seem more like something we may one day have.  He even uses (fake) science and terms to explain the function of the (also fake) “brains” of the robots.

Fantasy, on the other hand, doesn’t have time to explain it’s more…fantastical… elements to us because oh my god there’s a dragon we need some magic right now.  In actuality, the fact that something can’t be explained in a work of fantasy is often a plot point itself.  Looking at Neil Gaiman’s Neverwhere, you can see what I mean.  A “magical” character named Door with the astounding ability to…open doors is hunted because she is the sole person who can open a special (you guessed it) door.  No explanation is given as to why only Door has his power when many other characters seem to have some sort of special power of their own, but the entire plot revolves around this ability of hers.  If the reader doesn’t accept that this is the way things are in Gaiman’s world, the whole story falls apart.

            By now you’ve likely either completely rejected or accepted my theory, and may be wondering why the distinction between SF and fantasy even matters.  Both deal with concepts foreign to the modern world, the only difference seems to be in how they address them.  I think the value of making that distinction is as simple as making sure people get what they want out of story; after all, the main purpose of any story should be to interest consumers like us.

            And that brings me to my final point: people want different things.  Fantasy is great, but it doesn’t always have a point or a deeper meaning.  Some hunt for a hidden message in fantasy stories, like the idea that Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings is actually an allegory for WWII, but they are missing the purpose of fantasy.  I think the purpose of any work of fantasy is to provide an escape from mundane life, not to make someone contemplate deep thoughts.  

            SF, on the other hand, is a better option for those who want their story to have a message.  It can address serious issues more effectively because of the parallels to our own world.  Themes like civil rights can be addressed much easier with a population of robots made to do manual labor than with a wizard in a funny hat.  Both genres have value, but it’s important to know the difference, because not everyone wants the same thing.

Your thoughts? Ideas can go in the comments section, while complaints can be submitted below

Source: http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/outreach/trashnonjs.cfm