I love, love, love The Neverending Story. That's a great fantasy book, perhaps the best I've ever read (not a big Harry Potter fan).
I have to nit pick. It's part of who I am. I don't see how fantasy is easier or takes less thought than sci-fi. It can be just as difficult and time consuming to think up a magic system. Also, in sci-fi you don't have to explain how a heat blaster works and doing so might drag the story. You can say they restructored the planets surface without explaining any science. It is really only hard sci-fi fans that want explanations. I am always tempted to explain how everything works in both sci-fi and fantasy. I have to hold back.
I tried to read Goblet of Fire and only finished half of it. Not my cup of tea. The movies are not bad. I want more fantasy like The Neverending Story. Know of any? Also, like the Laberinth, but novels of course.
i've written a lot of fantasy, some pretty long. i'm not saying easier to write persay, but easier to get away from explaining. The inside of the story still has to be well written, but if you have a dragon flying, its just taken that a dragon can fly, a wizard can cast a spell, wards and such. in sci-fi which i've written also, you have to explain the system, the propulsion of the ship, the planet's composition, the alien races and their language, even if they have none. that's what i mean. the story inside is just a story, it always has to be told with care. but the facts behind it, well science is science, fantasy is fantasy
Personally, I can't say which of those two is better. For me, that would be Fantasy, but I think it's like personal taste of food, music and way of dressing. One could always judge whether something is good or not, but at the end of the day it's a very personal matter whether he'll buy the thing or not(ex. <Name of song> was amazing, the lyrics were well-written, the vocal had a fitting voice, the instrumental was perfect etc... but I'd never listen to it on my own, it's simply not my preferred style). Fantasy seems easier to explain at first. However, it's that kind of easy (that seems so, but isn't) that makes people slip up and end up making mistakes. One might think "It's just magic, that explains everything" - does it? Or the other mistake - explain too much, until the reader gets annoyed and almost says out loud "Okay, I get how magic works, can we get on with the story?"
You still have to explain how the wizard is able to cast a spell. What sort of magic system is used in the world? Fantasy is dull without a magic system. If a wizard can cast spells and there are no side effects or draw backs, well, that's no fun. However you don't have to explain a ships propulsion. It's not necessary. Something like hyperdrive is well accepted, so you can say they used hyperdrive without explaining how it works. But magic should always be explained. You would have to give just as much information about a new planet in a fantasy novel as in a sci-fi novel. Hebert didn't share much about the composition of Arrakis in Dune. I know I seem argumentive, sorry. I dig it.
No, no, by all means, explain magic. But don't overdo it, I've seen that happen. By 'overdo', I mean explain the same thing around 234 times. The exact same thing. I've seen that happen as well. Multiple times. Many times. In famous books.
lol i disagree about the ships propulsion. Too many rely on that hyper-drive and just accept it is understood. as for magic, no, you don't have to explain how the wizard cast the spell, you could go through the chants, draw the pentagrams but still a spell is a spell. fantasy gives you less limits on what is believeable, with sci-fi you have science and logic to deal with. for example describe how a wizard uses magic to disappear. you cast a spell but how does that de-materialise him? its just assumed. now i'm not saying fantasy is easy to write, and to write it well is hard to do, but the technology involved and the explaining of how the technology words is harder because we have to base it a bit on facts we know.
You don't have to say how he desintegrates, but you have to define how much energy that takes, how much time, how much effort, can he do it to amazing masses of people, what are the requirements for the chant, what could go wrong and for how long he could do it (and you still shouldn't overdo it). I personally don't care for the actual chant, nor the pentagrams. Then again, I'm a fan of Feist's version of magic, and yes, there are different versions. Tons of them. Steven Erikson's system is also quite well done. And god, is that a big system.
I feel if you explain magic, it is science fiction. This is how I view the difference: Sci-fi explanation of flying: He rose above the ground, his weight's unusual lightness permitting him to levitate for a few moments longer than a feather. Fantasy explanation of flying: He rose above the ground, but only for a few moments, as his powers of levitation were limited. It's a difference in explanation, and nothing more.
yes i understand that, but the thing is, the technology doesn't need to be explained in fantasy because its fantasy, but sci-fi has a link to our present, its something we hope to achieve and so need to explain more. i've written pieces with mixtures of sci-fi and fantasy, space travel to planets with dragons and such but they are read as fantasy rather than sci-fi just because of the dragons or an ocassional wizard thrown in. sometimes you need to show the depth of a spell, i've used chants written in lyrical form, just to bond the magic to the page. still in the end, regardless of the genre, its the story inside and how well its written that brings in the reader, sci-fi or fantasy, it all begins there. i dont' know about that explanation of fantasy/sci-fi and if explained it makes it sci-fi. A dragon flies, sometimes by magic, sometimes by gas sometimes by wings. how it does it, has no science if magically achieved, magic is a fantasy. but i think this has become more now personal views which is interesting but moved away from the threads start. out of the two, i prefer fantasy interesting thread, thanks for the thoughts
See, I don't think you do at all. I think the writer needs to know what limitations they want to place on the magic but that doesn't always need to be revealed if it is not pertinent to the story. I've seen a few books now that don't grab me because they have tried to explain magic and, because of that, the story has become bogged down in the explanation. To go back to the OP; I think we're really looking at three different things in this thread. Sci-fi Fantasy Horror Horror is always left out because the genre blends in to the other two genres so often but it is always worth noting that the three can fit together perfectly well. I take, for example, Doctor Who. The show has taken on demons, werewolves, witches and an assortment of aliens from the far-flung reaches of the universe. That's just in the last few years. It remains, however, staunchly a sci-fi program. Why? Because whenever it encounters these creatures it handles them in a scientific way; the show has scientific explanations (usually that it is a type of alien) for every monster featured. So, here's the real difference as I see it: Sci-fi deals with subjects using technology as a catalyst. Fantasy deals with subjects using magic as a catalyst. Horror deals with subjects using (and sometimes expanding on) folklore as a catalyst. To expand a little, your typical sci-fi story would be one where the protagonist is placed in a situation with some sort of technology as the backdrop (whether that be the thing placing him in danger, the solution to his problems or just the world in which he lives). Fantasy typically places our protagonist with some form of magical or mystical backdrop. It is sometimes bases on myth of folklore or has elements of them intertwined with the story. In fantasy, it is not usual for the existence of magic to be the thing that puts them in danger and magic is often part of their 'ordinary world'. Horror is almost the polar opposite to fantasy. It uses exactly the same elements but the whole point of the story is to place your character in a deadly situation and see if they will escape. Unlike fantasy, our protagonist is often placed in danger because of the magical or mystical and it is often not part of his 'ordinary world'. Horror is more of a re-imagining of folklore than fantasy is.
I've seen a few books now that don't grab me because they have tried to explain magic and, because of that, the story has become bogged down in the explanation. To go back to the OP; I think we're really looking at three different things in this thread. Sci-fi Fantasy When I say to explain magic, I don't mean to explain how magic is done, but the magic system. Does doing spells drain the person's energy? What does it take to preform a spell, and what does it take to preform a more powerful spell? Does casting a spell take blood, energy, someones life, or herbs? The rules for any unique world need to be explained as soon as possible and they need to be stuck to. This is one thing that can make writing good fantasy difficult. If a wizard needs to sacrifice a cat in order to cast a love spell, and later in the story a wizard successfully cast a love spell without sacrifices a cat, then the laws of that fantasy world have been broken. We have been cheated. All this discussion actually helps to understand the differences between the two. I enjoy writing both.
But, surely, explaining how the system works is explaining how magic is done? It's not in a replicable way of course but it's the explanation that is often the problem. I would contest that you don't need an explanation of the system in order to have a good fantasy piece. The writer needs to know it, and stick to it. The audience doesn't, unless it is pertinent to the story. If a rule of magic is preventing a character from doing something then great because anything that creates conflict will be an interest in your story. The problem with some fantasy is that it relies on these rules to create the conflict, mistakenly thinking that the human element isn't important within the story. The thing is, you don't need to know how Merlin retrieved Excalibur from the lady of the lake. You just need to know that he did. Similarly (going back to sci-fi) you don't need to know how the TARDIS works, just that it travels in time and space.
The magic system doesn't have to be explained by telling. I should have used a different word. It is best to show how the magic system works. Magic must have a cost, or it is dull. If a wizard can just as easily raise the dead or shoot a fire ball, that is not fun. There should be a cost. Casting that spell should cost something, and it should be harder to raise the dead than to shoot a fireball. The magic system in the TV show The Dresdian Files is shown. Sometimes magic is explained, but the whole system is shown. That is what I mean by explained. I don't believe we will find a successful novel that includes magic where the magic has no cost, where the magic system is not revealed in some way. But I agree that it can be boring the read the mechanics of magic. Showing is the best way.
the fact still remains, that if you choose to use a new drive to propel yourself through space, ie light sails/solar flares and such, a brief explaination would help set the reader to visualise how it is done. you can't assume everyone just takes it for granted that an alien race has no arms/legs/mouth and yet sits in a craft designed by men without showing the modifications. as for magic, the mechanics of the spell don't fully need to be described but a constant stream of wands waving and suddenly poof its gone/there/destroyed/reborn seems to cheat the reader. As for the cost, it is just assumed that there is a price to pay, it doesn't necessarily have to be. i've seen books where they channel it through earth and air, converting one form of energy into another is not a cost its just a replacement. magic is a fantasy, it can be anything you want i guess, sci-fi though looked at in the future still has human-based history. light speed to you all
I bet when they channeled it throgh the earth or air it was limited. That is it took more magical strength to channel the magic needed to destroy the Earth than it would to destroy a house. If they were all equal and godlike, then we have a story more about gods, which is hard to pull off.
there was this series i read by David Eddings it had gods in it that walked about as humans, having their vices and such, wish i could remember the series, but i liked the fact that they used gods and demi-gods as characters with flaws, but yes harder to pull off. as for channelling's limits, well its as limited as the writer wishes it to be. nodes of lode stones and such, lots of air out there, big earth to walk on.
Well you have the explanation definition right and I never heard science fiction or fantasy being less geeky than the other, they're both just as geeky. They all contain the same elements. Most of the super hero comic book stuff is sci-fi. Me, well I haven't really read much of sci-fi, but I do have great experience of it from TV and films. I think I prefer fantasy just a tad more, but they're both great!
speaking of movies and such, i like how they are portraying the new super heroes, showing the darker side, about time.
If you read my posts you will see that I am not saying otherwise. I would say that, rather than being dull, it is too powerful for the universe it inhabits - in the hands of a skilled writer, that could be used well. I find myself returning to my previous argument. You only have to show the effects of magic if they are pertinent to the story. A piece set in a magical world does not need an explanation of the system if magic is a consequence of the fantasy world and not integral to the plot. You don't even need to have magic in a story for magic to exist in the universe the story is set in.
i dont' know if magic needs a cost. it needs a means, but anything has a price in some ways, but it doesn't have to be a personal price. action/reaction save a person, lose a country,, want of a nail and all that. I think the normal 'price' of magic just is another bit to tie sympathy to the magic user. saves the kingdom but drains himself to almost death. i always wondered why mythical beasts never had a price to pay, they used magic all the time.
