I have a similar question: Is there much/any modern (post-Tolkien) fantasy that does not have magic? I'm talking about books that belong in the fantasy genre (or else nowhere), but are still governed by the same Newtonian/Relativistc laws of physics that we are familiar with. For example, think of the Liliputian, Brobdignagian, and Houyhnhnm/Yahoo sections of _Gulliver's Travels_. Six-inch humans and horses with vocal chords and brain power sufficent to process language are clearly fantasy, but they don't require magical physics to work.
I hope so, because in my first post to these boards I described my WIP novel _Aethan the Scribe_ as "hard fantasy (i.e., no magic)". I'll write the durn thing the way I conceived it no matter what, but I'd like to hope there's a market for it! (Is there?)
quote:
but they don't require magical physics to work.
Why not?
Talking horses and tiny humans don't require supernatural forces to exist. They only require unusual physiology. You can imagine that they might have evolved that way through purely natural processes. Another way to say it: Such fantastic elements rely on the improbable, but not the impossible. The imagination, but not the immaterial.
There are a couple of spots where magic comes into play but the basic story is the Count of Monte Cristo, set in his world.
Now that I stop and think about it, juvenille fiction is very nearly over-flowing with this type of fantasy (James and the Giant Peach or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl, Where the Wild Things Are by Maurice Sendak).
I'm not sure why I these are the examples that are coming to mind. However, if there is a market for it at one level, it is conceivable that there is a market at another level.
(Okay, this is taking a lot longer to write than I intended because I keep looking things up! And I just thought of another book that, although I haven't read it yet, might fit the bill -- The Princess Bride).
[This message has been edited by JBSkaggs (edited January 18, 2005).]
quote:
Six-inch humans and horses with vocal chords and brain power sufficent to process language are clearly fantasy
quote:
You can imagine that they might have evolved that way through purely natural processes.
The biology of humans will not support either intelligent humans of Lilliputian size nor humans of Brobingdigian size who do not collapse under their own weight. If you explain it through a different evolutionary path, it's science fiction. If you don't explain it through science, it's magical biology.
Hope this helps.
Rux
:}
).Note that virtually all of the magic in Tolkien could be explained away as advanced technology. In point of fact, it is all explained as being advanced technology, but the terms used are more along the lines of "ancient/arcane/elvish/dwarvish" "arts/skills/craft".
And almost all of it is a lot closer to being scientifically plausible than Lilliputians or Brobingdigians.
quote:
If the existence of six-inch humans and talking horses is explained through evolution, then they are no longer fantasy elements.
EJS (Survivor), I infer from this that we have different definitions of "fantasy". Do you then consider "naturalistic fantasy" an oxymoron, since the two terms are mutually exclusive, by definition? If that's what you're saying, I can respect it, since for all I know, you're right.
OTOH, FWIW, ETC I'm thinking of "fantasy elements" in a more general sense: Large-scale conceptual things that are known to have never existed, but might could have (depending on how strong your disbelief suspenders are). Such as tiny humans.
Then there's the Merriam-Webster 3.d sense: "imaginative fiction featuring especially strange settings and grotesque characters". This is broader than what I was thinking; so broad, in fact, that it would admit most (all?) science fiction.
(Then again, I wonder what distinguishes "naturalistic fantasy" -- if there is such a thing -- from science fiction? The ancient locales? Kings, castles, mortal elves in the one and captains, space ships, and aliens in the other?)
I think teddyrux may be on to something with the analogy to "alternate history". Maybe what I'm writing ISN'T fantasy at all. I could live with that, except that it makes what to list as the genre in my query letters that much more difficult (sigh).
The giants I'll give you. Brobdignagians probably couldn't survive for long in earth's gravity.
I'm saying that The Lord of the Rings is just as "naturalistic" as Gulliver's Travels. Contrarywise, Lilliputions and Brobdignagians clearly do require magical physics to work properly.
The element that makes both fantasy is that they are written as fantasy, there isn't the slightest attempt to suggest that these things are actually possible. That is a key distinction between fantasy and SF, that in SF it is generally suggested that this sort of thing could be possible.
Which would rule out The Princess Bride because of Miracle Max.
There's also the Gunslinger book and it's successors by Stephen King. There are some fantastic elements to it, but nobody "weilding" magic, per se. (Okay, maybe there are some magical elements, such as the three doors in the Drawing of the Three, and other things...but...I dunno).
Not really supporting my claim too well, I suppose.
At any rate, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Don't change the story just to make it conform to some expectd norm of "fantasy", tell it your own way.
It looks like you've made that decision already, so who cares? You're on the right track and if it's good enough, it'll sell. And I think once it's completed, you'll find the right market/niche/genre for it -- and it may or may not end up being fantasy where it fits best.
my 2 pennies
Okay, I'm not a huge fantasy reader either, so I can't vouch for HuntGod's or rjseller's recommendations. But most of the other examples mentioned have seemed sensible to me. I don't count all alternate history as fantasy given the respectability of multiple universe theory in SF, but some good stuff is clearly over the line into fantasy rather than SF.
I'm going to make myself very clear at this point, though. If you want a great example of "hard" fantasy that doesn't rely heavily on overt practice of archane arts, there is no better place to start than the works of J.R.R. Tolkien.
99% of the fantasy elements in Middle Earth are what you would call "naturalistic" (meaning not wizards, witches, or enchanted objects). And the "magic" is either unobtrusive or very "hard". It is no harder to imagine a throughly Tolkienesque fantasy work without wizards, witches, and enchanted objects than it is to imagine one without...say, Ents (or with Entwives, for that matter).
You are creating an artificial distinction where none exists. It's like asking if there is any good SF that doesn't involve starships per se. Magicians and enchantments are one possible fantastic element in a fantasy. Even though they are quite common, you could easily find numberous fantasy works that don't contain them if you read any fantasy. But it is better to ignore the question altogether.
Hi, Survivor.
I had a nice flamey response all written up and ready to go (99%? Ha!) but the better angels of my nature must be having a good day. (I really must get back to killing them with hard liquor.)
Like Potter Stewart, I may not be able to define what I mean by "naturalistic fantasy", but I know it when I see it. Or in this case, when I don't.
Let me be very clear about this: As far as I'm concerned, LOTR is Right Out.
Now, let us say that LOTR were no longer an epic myth about lovable hobbits defeating a disembodied spirit via the destruction of a magical ring that (metaphysically) contains his malevolent essence; rather, let us imagine that it is a novel about the political intrigues between Rohan and Gondor that surround the succession to the Gondorian throne, set against the backdrop of impending war with Southrons and Easterlings. Throw in a few dwarves, elves, and hobbits for spice (provided they don't have any supernatural powers) and now you have an idea of what I mean.
So, the question was (still is): Do such books exist, and if I wanted to read them, what would their titles be, and does my local library have a copy? Well, I can answer that last one on my own ... (Thanks to all who have already given suggestions.)
Mekvat
In thinking about it, I realize that I have read a (very) few fantasy novels in recent years. I re-read all of the LOTR trilogy just before the first movie came out. Last year I read the first chapter of a Terry Goodkind book when I was at my mother-in-law's and had to visit the loo. (Can't say I enjoyed it. The book, that is.) I re-read Gulliver's Travels and Animal Farm (if that be considered fantasy) in my own loo. I just returned Beowulf on tape to the library last week -- does that count? Oh, I also read Herodotus's Histories summer before last. (In Greek? No, I wish.) I get the distinct impression that he was mistaken (or misled) about a few things, but that doesn't qualify it as fantasy, per se ...
Briar King and Charnel Prince by Greg Keyes are also exceptional and the magic is generally pretty passive in those books, though there is some high magic in the back story.
[This message has been edited by HuntGod (edited January 26, 2005).]
I still think that you're drawing an artificial and pointless distinction between one "type" of fantasy and everything that is not that particular kind of fantasy. And it isn't like there haven't been a large number of successful fantasy novels that do not involve "magic" as you rather narrowly defined it. A fair number have been mentioned on this thread already, if it comes to that.
It's just as easy to find successful fantasy that doesn't have wizards and whatnot as it is to find successful fantasy that doesn't have elves, or fantasy that doesn't have dragons.
Now, MR mentioned Miracle Max above, and that's an important point. You have to be clear on what counts as "magic". If the witches and wizards use herbs and chemicals to achieve their results, that's a non-fantastic element, but under a very literal interpretation of what you said, you would think it was less "realistic/naturalistic" than having Lilliputions and Brobdignagians. Which is funny, because witches and wizards of this type are known to have existed, while Lilliputions and Brobdignagians are known to be physically impossible.
Which is why I'm arguing that the question is unimportant. The answer is yes, but the question itself reveals an untenable idea of what fantasy is.