Genre generalizations: is all fantasy power fantasy?

Genre is very hard to pin down. If we call fantasy anything with fantasy elements in it (Borges or Marquez, for example) the genre becomes so diluted as to being meaningless.

Also, genres shift over time. A genre is the body of works most people put under that label. I would argue that although Star Wars has a heroic fantasy structure, it is a science fiction work (albeit a middling one by genre standards) because arguing otherwise would be silly. At most we can propose the science fantasy genre and hope it sticks.

For genre definitions my favorite first stop is TVtropes, specially because they walk a fine line between academic coherence and common sense.

Of the fantasy description in there what most readily jumps to me when thinking about fantasy as popularly perceived is the appeal to the pastoral (I also like how the flatly push related but not similar literary genres out).

So, science fiction a genre to mostly speculate about what will or could come and fantasy a genre to speculate about what has been there or could have been there. Looking to the past, so to speak.

Even urban fantasy falls into this. Vampires and werewolves are creatures of myth. Maybe there are/were vampires after all. Fantasy draws from the legends/powers of the past (old prophecies, myths, etc) to create its world building. See that urban fantasy where the monster is a product of science and not tied to myth is either science fiction (androids) or horror (if that’s the structure of the work).

Now whether this reliance on myth or the exceptional normally implies some sort of power fantasy or not is a much harder question, though, but one could argue basing yourself on myth and folklore does bring upon the possibility of the exceptional individual/the creation of a new myth.

So does that make all past Sci Fi that is no longer the future fantasy? Is Jules Verne or Frankenstein’s Monster Sci Fi or Fantasy?

How about 2001 Space Odyssey or Lost in Space?

Also, if Star Wars is Sci Fi make the argument. It’s set long ago, and there is little or no science behind it.

Eh, no, Jules Verne’s non-realistic elements do not appeal to the past as written, nor does Frankestein’s. It’s not about past myths, but about things changing from a current (at the time of writing) realistic position though technical innovation (and not mythical lost knowledge/magic or any such other device).

However, a contemporay work using Verne’s or Shelley’s elements would be indeed appealing to the past(oral) since those elements are now contemporary myths. It’s actually a pretty solid measuring bar, I think. One of the best I’ve read that points to one of the fundamentals of the genre that normally goes by ignored (I just read about it, but it hits my buttons, so to speak).

And I agree with you on Star Wars being fantasy if using that definition. It helps expose it as fantasy better than the “magic with laser swords” argument, or the hero’s journey structure (which is common in sci-fi as well, so that’s a moot point). It actually helps explain why it feels like fantasy while Star Trek, for example, feels like sci-fi.

It does align quite closely with David Brin’s famous genre distinctions. Sadly his original article is no longer online and is now part of a book, so that will have to suffice. I always though Brin was overly hard towards fantasy’s potential (that the pastoral is a theme of the works doesn’t mean the theme can’t be used to subvert it), but I’m now tending to agree the appeal (or subversion of) of the pastoral/past/myth is probably a core element of the genre.

Edit: thinking about it, it’s a great way to also make a sort of genre-specific distinction between “purer” science-fiction and the science fantasy subgenre. When science fiction has “technology indistinguishable from magic” and an appeal to the mythical within the fictional world (Star Wars, Dune, Book of the New Sun) they verge into fantasy or science-fantasy territory.

I agree. Without a clear definition of what a power fantasy is, I think it’s just like pornography: I can’t properly explain it, but I know it when I see it.

Is it a power fantasy when it is a substitute for prurient interests? A method of escapism? “I really like how this character totally swyved those wenches and, oh man! A barely legal maiden!” “Oh man, this knight is so good at sticking his sword in bad guys. At first he just put his dagger into the neck of a dirty goblin, then he was ramming his Claymore in the guts of a giant, and, WOW, now he’s gonna try to totally slay this God of Murder he caught with his pants down!” “Oh, this guy found this seedy apothecary and got a love potion from him, and now he found a princess at a club and, through legerdemain, made her drink it instead of the ale she thought she was drinking. Now she totally will do anything for him. Anything.”

Is it a power fantasy when there might not be a main character but it examines unusual societal practices? “So in this village, there is no nudity taboo and ladies call the shots? I want to see where this goes.”

Is it a power fantasy when characters undergo unlikely physical transformations? “This guy found out he’s a werebear, and now he’s getting really big and hairy and so so strong. He’s friends with this werevixen. She’s a total fox. I think they’re going to hook up, if they can just get past their social awkwardness.”

Is it a power fantasy when the characters struggle and have some successes but are ultimately defeated by an uncaring and vastly more powerful universe? “Oh god, there’s just scar tissue and sadness there. No one is having a good time. And… ugh, their protection wasn’t strong enough. Whatever happens next, I don’t want to see it.”

Edit: obviously the answer is No, but I didn’t want to just drop Ursula K. Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” and call it a day.

You found my Power Fantasy! Sadly, my wife seems only interesting in the second part. :)

The reason genre is hard to pin down is easy.

It’s not important at all to the story.

Literally the only thing that supports the claim that Dying Inside is SF is that it was by Robert Silverberg. If it had been by Neil Gaiman (which wouldn’t have been too much of a stretch) people would call it fantasy.

Sure, magical realism will work. I consider that genre a sub-set of fantasy, but again, I’m not operating from any position of expertise (it’s definitely not my field) just from my own sense of things. “Fantasy” to me is very general, when I’m talking theoretically. When I’m buying a book for my Kindle, yeah, I tend to define it a lot more narrowly. But my favorite fantasy/sci-fi stuff, no matter how defined, is the stuff where the good guys win and the bad guys get their comeuppance. Because to me, that’s the biggest fantasy, something that we don’t get in the real world. Which is why I loathe stuff like Game of Thrones, because to me taking a genre that (for me again) is about setting up situations that are not only fantastical often in setting are fantastical in their outcomes and the moral underpinnings, and turning it into a simulacrum of reality, complete with all the failings and nastiness that we have to endure all the time.

Really, if I want nobles behaving badly all I have to do is re-visit the stuff I had to read for my doctoral exams on medieval history.

True, it’s just important for the story to be good at all.

Take a more clearly defined genre. Is noir important for the story? Can you tell any type of story in a noir work?

Niven and Pournelle made the point that Dante’s Inferno may well have been the first sf book.

Based on the leading science of the time - theology.

Using the appeal of the pastoral approach it’s clearly fantasy, since it works from the mythological at the time (religious worldview) instead from change coming from a new discovery.

Which fits much better with how people instinctively think of the work.

One might argue that in the 13th century, there was no real concept of science yet, so calling theology the science of the time might be stretching it a bit.

Really the difference is as aesthetic as anything else. Just like the difference between science fiction and cyberpunk is largely aesthetic. Star Wars is sci fi to me, and claims it is fantasy not sci fi are plain silly.

Because technology exists, and is a focal point. But it also blends in the mysticism and warrior ethos of certain mythologies and fantasies. But the Death Star is a ‘technological terror’, and one of the main undertones of the story is the tension between technology as a tool of control, and the ability of people and spirit to overcome that. Luke embodies this when he launches his attack run. What else is his internal conflict over trusting the force versus his targeting computer, it is the coda to the thesis that technology is powerful, but the spirit will prevail. Vader is evil because he has been corrupted and is now more machine than man. it makes him strong, but it is ultimately his undoing.

Rogue One is even more clearly sci fi. It drops most of the mystical element and is purely a conflict between the will of people against brutal overwhelming technological force.

Now, sure, you could palate swap the Death Star with dragons, Vader’s mechanical outfit with a samurai outfit from Kagemusha, swap it X-wings for horses and the plans for the location of the legendary spear Gungnir. It would not be impossible to make that transition. But the same can be said for almost any story.

Is Magnificent Seven any less of a western for being heavily inspired by Seven Samurai?
Is Ran not a Samurai film despite being inspired by King Lear?
What about West Side Story?

When you get down to it, it’s all aesthetics. A way of framing the story. Sci fi merely frames it against a backdrop of technology. Though fantasy may invoke technology through the trope of the ‘long lost advanced civilization’.

I find trying to define genres by the narrative structure to be misguided effort. Far better to go by tone and aesthetics.

Magical realism is typically used to describe scenarios in which magic exists, but it is not the focus of the work. Instead, it’s merely part of the backdrop that helps to illustrate a real-world issue or concern.

Obviously, the definition is quite a loose one.

Keep in mind, it’s base long ago, in a galaxy far away. It doesn’t seem to be based on current ideas of what technology can achieve, and it has Orcs.

Setting aside, it has magic and evil overlords, large armies. It’s basically a Conan Movie.

This amused me because I have the complete opposite reaction - the Game of Thrones books and The Witcher games are the only fantasy I’m able to tolerate, precisely because they contain those human flaws but also because for the most part nobody can just snap their fingers and change reality. Everything has a cost, and I like my fiction to reflect that as well.

I’ve never read or watched anything like Game of Thrones myself. I enjoy fantasy and sci-fi in general, and, well depending on how it ends GoT might be my last venture in that sphere.

Yeah, I totally get that. Hell, I remember when Donaldson was doing the Thomas Covenant books, and how a lot of folks really responded to the (very) flawed protagonist. That’s not my thing, though. I prefer my movies, books, and other stories to transport me away from reality. I get enough reality as it is!

I wondered how long it would be before someone called me on this. :)

I’m using power fantasy very broadly, and more importantly, I don’t intend to use it in a derogatory way. Some of my favorite forms of entertainment are power fantasies. I think that most videogames are power fantasies. And I hope this doesn’t come across as glib or disrespectful, but it’s my feeling that most religion has its roots in power fantasy.

Basically, that’s the term that comes to mind for any narrative in which the main character exerts control over his world in an unusual or implausible way. To be more specific, does the story invite the listener/viewer/reader to identify with whomever prevails in a man vs. nature or man vs. man conflict? And how decisively?

The answer to those two questions is how I would identify a power fantasy. It’s basically an empowering affirmation out of proportion with the experience of day-to-day life. What I know of fantasy is about building worlds specifically for this purpose. Specifically tobe subordinated by the hero’s strength or resolve or destiny. And while it certainly exists in other genres, I don’t see it as the foundation of those genres.

Again, I’m just speaking in broad generalizations, and I don’t claim to have any meaningful insight into the fantasy genre, which is why I started this thread and why I’ve enjoyed reading you guys’ discussion so much. But, yeah, power fantasy is certainly a broad term and I don’t intend it as a negative.

-Tom