Does Fantasy have rules?

Discussion in 'Fantasy' started by ChickenFreak, Nov 1, 2018.

Tags:
  1. 18-Till-I-Die

    18-Till-I-Die Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    178
    Location:
    Detroit, MI
    Ninja edit: or look at our world, look at Twitter and smart phones, these technologies seem irrelevant and immaterial ("change the color of goldfish" immaterial) but when they appeared our world changed forever. To the point it could realistically be said that we now have a President elected because his followers on Twitter were given direct feeds to his moment to moment thoughts and ideologies, like an ad hoc, daily campaign rally updated on the hour. No matter how immaterial something may seem unless rendered COMPLETELY useless it can change things if you think about it enough, so if you introduce that, you the have to realistically question how it could be used, what would change, and to what end. Because again unless it's almost a joke or a parody in the background, it WILL change things, it will cause things to evolve, and that will make the world and the setting move forward and evolve--unless the author forces it to stay frozen in time. IF a character shows up and can teleport, and that is ALL the magic allows, then just a moment looking into that and you can come up with ten thousand ways it can be used. These "Transporters" or "Jumpers" or whatever you want to call them would change the military, travel (if they can bring people with them) and society forever. Is it a huge, world-breakng power? No, but it is one that the world would never be the same after it appears.
     
    Paneera and Oscar Leigh like this.
  2. matwoolf

    matwoolf Banned Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    Messages:
    6,631
    Likes Received:
    10,135
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Can't I delete that? It was a burp.
     
    Cave Troll likes this.
  3. Oscar Leigh

    Oscar Leigh Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    8,496
    Likes Received:
    5,120
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    But no. You keep trying to talk about the fantastical elements. But this thread was specifically created for an argument about the depiction of the more real elements. An argument about whether a setting resembling medieval europe required removing modern colloquial language, which is what the OP in the other thread was considering doing or not. Whether the fantasy elements are consisten is irrelevant. This is about depicting the setting.
    But then again we can talk about fantasy element design somewhat too.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2018
  4. Bone2pick

    Bone2pick Conspicuously Conventional Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2018
    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    1,926
    Yes, I'm speaking about fantasy elements; this is the fantasy forum, after all. But to your point, the argument this thread was created for didn't restrict itself to mundane elements within fantasy. The opening post in this thread made this claim: But a story has to have some form of internal reality, and it needs to be true to that reality.

    Magic is an undeniably part of a world's reality. And it's my position that certain worlds/stories can get away with inconsistent and unstructured magic.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  5. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    I'm feeling the need to define inconsistent. I think that you mean that (1) the story itself is inconsistent? As in, at one point it's story reality that "Southern Gadget Magic can never have an effect on emotions; never can, never will." and at another point somebody's using Southern Gadget Magic to magically make someone sad?

    As opposed to, (2) on Monday Fred can make somebody sad magically, but on Friday it's just not quite working, and that sort of unreliability is just a natural part of the magic.

    You're saying (1), right?
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  6. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    Well, actually, I am talking about both. I'm talking about the argument, in the other thread, that since fantasy is fantasy there are no rules. And I'm arguing that each piece of fantasy fiction absolutely has internal rules--rules for the realistic/mundane elements, and rules for the fantastic elements.

    And I should clarify that I mean each good piece of fantasy fiction.

    And I think that @Bone2pick is arguing that, no, there are good, or successful, or readable, pieces of fantasy fiction for which that is not true.

    I think.

    Yes?
     
    Azuresun and Oscar Leigh like this.
  7. Stormburn

    Stormburn Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,223
    Likes Received:
    1,569
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    I believe the answer to your question is found in Hemingway's Iceberg Theory:

    If a writer of prose knows enough of what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The dignity of movement of an ice-berg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water. A writer who omits things because he does not know them only makes hollow places in his writing.
    —Ernest Hemingway in Death in the Afternoon[4]

    The fantasy writer often time has to create those elements of the fantastic that will be omitted. In poor fantasy writing, those elements are left out because they were never created.
     
    Stormsong07, DK3654 and Oscar Leigh like this.
  8. Bone2pick

    Bone2pick Conspicuously Conventional Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2018
    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    1,926
    Yes, specifically in respect to serial fantasy stories.
    More or less (1), but the inconsistencies are rarely so flagrant as your example. Most magical elements don't have "can never perform this feat" labels attached to them. We come to understand their properties through observation. A better example would be: vampires in one story arc are burned to ash instantly by direct sunlight, where in another they are merely badly scorched, without any explanation as to why.

    The same applies to pseudoscience. For instance, the range of the transporters in the same series of Star Trek is inconsistent from episode to episode. It's my conclusion this is done consciously for plot reason. If the plot would benefit from the transporters having more range, the writers extend it. If the plot requires less transporter range to keep the conflict from being too easily solved, the writers shorten it. And the kicker is, the viewership (by and large) doesn't care.
     
    ChickenFreak likes this.
  9. John Calligan

    John Calligan Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    1,479
    Likes Received:
    1,683
    That's because Star Trek isn't about transporters. It is about the characters and how they feel about things, and how we feel for them. Sometimes photon torpedoes can end worlds and sometimes they just make a flash of light. Sometimes hand phasers can "burn off half a building" and other times they just kind of make things smoke. None of that matters.

    On the other hand, if one episode Data had emotions, and the next he didn't (this actually happens in one of the movies), it will irritate viewers. If Odo could turn into something with moving, mechanical parts like a clock, or if Dax could take her symbiotic organism out, that shit would be a problem, because it would change how we see something we care about.

    I think being inconsistent is a bit of a risk, because you are in danger of screwing with something that audience cares about. That does happen.

    I was a real prick stickler for facts when I was a teenager. I remember watching the first season of Voyager and counting their photon torpedoes, because the show was keeping track and claiming they couldn't resupply. I counted with them and they kept it right, until one day they just stop counting and shot off like a thousand of them. No one noticed or cared but me, but I stopped watching it for quite a while.
     
    Stormburn, Stormsong07 and DK3654 like this.
  10. Bone2pick

    Bone2pick Conspicuously Conventional Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2018
    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    1,926
    That's been my point. The fans prioritize character portrayals in Star Trek, the writers understand this, and they try their damnedest to make them consistent. But the displays of the series' pseudoscience isn't as prioritized, and therefore less consistent.

    DC and Marvel Comics do likewise with the characters and fantastical elements in their universes.
     
    Oscar Leigh and John Calligan like this.
  11. John Calligan

    John Calligan Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    1,479
    Likes Received:
    1,683
    For sure.

    You never really know if Wolverine is going to be able to solo the new robot bad guy or if his claws will go through its armor, but you know for certain what his relationship with Scott, Gene, Jubilee, and Gambit is going to be like. :)
     
    Bone2pick likes this.
  12. Bone2pick

    Bone2pick Conspicuously Conventional Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2018
    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    1,926
    I wanted to post this clip in hopes some of you might appreciate it. The Scottish comic book author is Grant Morrison, who wrote what I consider to be one of the finest superhero comics of all time - All-Star Superman.

     
    John Calligan likes this.
  13. Alan Aspie

    Alan Aspie Banned Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    2,641
    Likes Received:
    3,358
    For thinking value systems in SFF I would recommend Mary Douglasses book Purity an Danger.

    It gives you a structure to help to create value systems, social systems, culture...
     
  14. DK3654

    DK3654 Almost a Productive Member of Society Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2018
    Messages:
    1,244
    Likes Received:
    1,384
    Location:
    In the vibe zone
    I'd argue that to an extent the wild inconsistency of fantasy and sci-fi elements in comic book universes are there own form of consistency. The consistent rule is that the universe contains pretty much everything.
    But more importantly perhaps, if that within that multitude there are clear sub sections. Different main characters tend to interact with their own assortment of side characters and within most of these clusters things are more consistent. Things of the same flavour, the same origins, share similar rules to how they operate.
    A strong example is X-men, and the dominance of mutants. But also, spiderman as a soft sci-fi base superhero tends to fight soft sci-fi supervillains. Doctor Strange tends to fight mystical villains. Thor tends to fights otherworldy and mythological villains.

    I think the Marvel and DC universe's honestly though do suffer a little from their inconsistency of world, but not as much as they suffer from inconsistency of plot but that's a whole nother discussion
     
  15. Bone2pick

    Bone2pick Conspicuously Conventional Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2018
    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    1,926
    In direct opposition to you, I'd argue that's one of their greatest strengths. Those universes can support the wildest pseudoscience and magical plots imaginable, as well as small-scale, realistic crime stories. The storytelling possibilities are endless.
     
  16. DK3654

    DK3654 Almost a Productive Member of Society Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2018
    Messages:
    1,244
    Likes Received:
    1,384
    Location:
    In the vibe zone
    I don't entirely disagree. But they don't make a lot of effort to unify things neatly, it can be a bit contradictory or otherwise conflicting sometimes.
     
  17. 18-Till-I-Die

    18-Till-I-Die Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    178
    Location:
    Detroit, MI
    @Bone2pick @JohnCalligan
    I have to argue the opposite. The fact that these powers, in comics, and the technology in like Star Trek is inconsistent is, FOR ME now this is just my opinion, but for me it is a huge problem. I have always tried to be as "realistic" (consistent, continuity driven, logically applying technology and powers) whenever I write sci-fi and even in the few times I've cranked out some fantasy short stories back in my youth. Now, again, this may be me--but I kinda sit down and think through the technologies and factions and powers and stuff before hand, then make sure I get where this would lead logically and go from there.

    Yes, story is incredibly important, the characters and setting can make or break a story...but if they live in a world where half the population have telepathy and can read minds (wild random example I never wrote this) but if they DID live in that world, and then someone did something to betray everyone and no one else ever was aware they were thinking of say betraying them...that simply wouldn't work. Plot-wise, setting-wise, story-wise, logically, realistically, it wouldn't work.

    I have actually tried writing what could be called "Capepunk" before, more dystopian realistic superhero settings, and my advice to anyone would be before you dive into something with unique powers or magic or technology, sit down and think it through, plan it out, and develop...I guess "continuity notes". Like for example in one of these "dystopian superhero" stories a major plot point is a character who is basically the avatar for electromagnetic force, he is the physical embodiment of electromagnetic force. He can bend it to his will, make it do ANYTHING he wants, but largely within he realm of physics. So I sat down and researched what EM Force does in nature, and gave him a (vast) array of powers built around "he can make EM Force do anything". He's absurdly powerful. HOWEVER in this setting, psychic abilities also exist, and one of the MAIN rules is that to defend yourself against "Noetic Powers" (psychic stuff) you either have to be incredibly intelligent so you can overwhelm the attacker, have Noetic abilities yourself, or have willpower on a tremendous scale. This character has none of these advantages. SO while he could realistically like grab the sun and throw it around, or generate an electromagnetic blast in the range of like millions of terwatts of raw power...Emma Frost would annihilate him in a heartbeat since she could crush his mind like a fly. Likewise magic exists, various kinds, and one key aspect is that magic DOES NOT conform to physics and therefore it affects everyone equally regardless of durability, so while this guy could obliterate a moon with an angry glance, and basically has complete omnipresence since he can "be" wherever electromagnetic force has a presence, someone like Zatanna would walk over him like he's not even there cause of her magic.

    That's rambling so I know it must be very laborious to read through, let me summarize *clears throat* TLDR, never have your powers and technology exist just to advance a story, come up within the world, the characters and the themes and have the story conform to that.
     
  18. 18-Till-I-Die

    18-Till-I-Die Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    178
    Location:
    Detroit, MI
  19. 18-Till-I-Die

    18-Till-I-Die Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    178
    Location:
    Detroit, MI
    A sci-fi example would be, if transporters are a part of the setting, then FIRST before anything else because of how groundbreaking this technology is establish what it can and can't do, what ranges it has or even if it has range limitations, and what it realistically can stop it if it can be stopped at all.

    So if Starship A has a transporter, and Starship B has a transporter, but neither use them IN BATTLE when they could transport nukes into the other ship's command deck, BUT you explain that's because a transporter has a set range of 2000 miles and they're fighting at 2300 miles range (btw entirely plausible in space combat, with how directed-energy weapons work) then you have just explained why in one sentence. "We're not in range".

    NOW that means, every battle has to be 2300 miles or more apart, or else they use transporters. So just say that. Just mention, offhand or even just IMPLY it that they're say 3000 miles apart, and bang, perfectly consistent.
     
  20. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    When we are talking about what you can or should do, the market is a more objective indicator of that than any given individual opinion. From that standpoint, it is hard to argue that hand-waving or realism in Star Trek is a significant issues. Viewers/readers don’t expect it to be hard SF.
     
  21. Azuresun

    Azuresun Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2017
    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    573
    Stop being so edgy, you're scaring the children.

    Or to put it another way "Repeat to yourself it's just a show, I should really just relax." :)

    I mean, I get it. Obvious ass pulls and characters forgetting they have powers or gadgets that could trivialise a problem despite having used them yesterday are annoying and lazy writing. And a lot of the time, the inconsistencies can be patched over with a single line of dialogue ("they're jamming our transporters!").

    But you're going to get to a degree of nitpicking where it really is a case of severely diminishing returns--yes, maybe spending story time explaining something would placate the tiny minority who are up in arms about Green Lantern's ring not working exactly like it should according to this editor's footnote fifty issues ago, but the rest of the audience will just be wanting to skip forward to the bit where he rams a fighter jet made of green energy into Sinestro's face. :) And especially in big multi-character universes like Marvel and DC, worrying about how things are presented in somebody else's book which the reader might never have seen is a quick route to insanity (see: the history of Hawkman). Indeed, a lot of the really awful storylines or failed reworks in comics lore have come from having too much continuity and trying to reverse it or straighten it out when the majority of readers just wants to get on to the punchin'.
     
  22. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    Ignoring your claim of omnipotence and omniscience, and just translating that to "lots of power"--why would you assume that an alien would be incapable of empathy and morals?
     
  23. Bone2pick

    Bone2pick Conspicuously Conventional Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2018
    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    1,926
    @ChickenFreak One more thought: in every case I can think of, the fiction that can get away with magical and technological inconsistencies are episodic. And while the inconsistencies violate what earlier episodes have shown us, they never violate anything we've been shown in that episode. I feel that's a distinction worth understanding.
     
    ChickenFreak likes this.
  24. 18-Till-I-Die

    18-Till-I-Die Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    178
    Location:
    Detroit, MI
    Well, on a PERSONAL level, I would argue that he's an alien being so his brain is completely different than ours and so I would argue it's almost impossible he processes emotions and ideas as we do, especially since he has been documented as having a brain more developed than a human being which has a processing ability utterly different (you might even say ALIEN) than ours. But that's a personal argument, take it or leave it. Now on a more empirical level my argument would be that, given a fraction of his power, actual humans with human ideologies and concepts like fear, love, compassion and morality have used that power for evil. So a being who can do basically anything and has no real limits (or more specifically, he has limits, but they're so nebulous it becomes irrelevant) even if he HAD human emotions would act in ways different than a normal man. They just would. Given power, humans act different than without it. NORMAL humans, not beings who can run so fast they can outrun time (and yes both Superman and the Flash have done this) and not beings who (and again this is documented) can easily withstand multigigaton explosions and punch planets apart. That is what I mean when I say “nigh-omnipotence” because at that point whatever “weaknesses” he may have become so irrelevant they may as well not exist. And again, given an immaterial fraction of that power NORMAL humans would use it in wildly different ways than “a normal guy”. Asking the reader to believe an ALIEN being, with a brain that operates wildly different than our own, and this has been documented in-universe too, would not only act like a normal average joe but want to be a normal guy and almost look down upon or disdain his powers? Why? Like I'm sorry, but this is something that always bothered me about the very idea of Superman, the burden of proof is on the writer, and those who defend the story, to explain to me why God is acting like some guy from Kansas, when they openly admit his brain is different and he has powers we can barely imagine. Doctor Manhattan, the near-emotionless sociopathic being with no connection to humanity, is closer to what realistically Superman would be, in my opinion, and I frankly think I could show it empirically if asked to.
     
  25. 18-Till-I-Die

    18-Till-I-Die Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    178
    Location:
    Detroit, MI
    @Azuresun
    A-ha. A-ha. A-ha.

    I'm so edgy.

    But ok fine, maybe I'm “nitpicking”, but I'll go to my grave standing by my assertion that if the only explanation for wild inconsistencies and plot contrivances in a story is “I couldn't think of a way to make it work otherwise” the flaw is in the setting, not the nitpicker. If you introduce something that can do something incredible, then forget about it half-way through, that's a flaw, that's a plot hole, that's stupid. So either remove it, or adapt the setting, like it or not, to deal with it. Honestly if you REALLY genuinely cannot explain it, don't put it in the story, just have it set in modern times or call it historical fiction and go from there, have no magic, no powers, just tell some story about a guy from Kansas who works as a reporter in New York. No superpowers. Because if you start showing him do insane shit like move planets then pretend he gets outmaneuvered by some normal human who just happens to be rich, and not just outmaneuvered but completely defeated and overwhelmed, and for no reason other than to move the plot forward, the burden is on you to show why or to rewrite that plot element. And “just repeat to yourself it's just a show” only works in a pure comedy (like MST3K) or in a parody. If you apply ANY kind of actual plot or story (and lets be honest comedies and parodies have no actual plot nor is consistency necessary since it's meant to be funny, a joke, so plots can be as slapstick and crazy as you want) but if you DO have a set plot with actual characters and themes and concepts, explore them or leave them out. And even things like “ you can change the color of goldfish” isn't something you can just write off. Like, for example, in our world people pay THOUSANDS for little bobble head figures and toys, so why would I honestly not be able to say people would pay for these goldfish with different colors, allowing the wizards who do this to attain great wealth and start their own armies, like the Baratheons or Lanisters?

    And keep in mind, Mark Zuckerberg is a BILLIONAIRE because he made an app that lets people chat online easier, and this dramatically changed telecommunications and even to a degree society, FOR-FUCKING-EVER. So “They can change the color of goldfish” may sound dumb but you can make it something incredible by just thinking. Taking ideas, powers and technologies that don't exist in our world and then adding them in, changes that world, period. So either explain and explore those changes or don't add them in PERIOD. It's not that hard. “They're jamming our transporters!” there, perfect, one line, less than a second, bang you explained it. Or “They're not in range.” and again one sentence, bang done. This isn't rocket science, this isn't crafting a new world, all you have to do is think what they could do with this IN THE REAL WORLD and then make sure you conform to it. And I apologize for sounding “edgy” or whatev but if basic logic has become some incredibly deep plot element no one wants to explore anymore, I guess I'm in two minorities now lol
     
    Stormburn likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice