I think it's even more hand waved in Gattaca. In BNW, the first chapter takes you through a tour of the facility where all the "science" takes place. To be fair, most people, including myself, don't know enough about genetics to demand precise details. But I would be surprised if you didn't at least think that Gattaca was possible in the next century or whatever. Brave New World is obviously a bit more futuristic. The how is half of science fiction. The other half is, what does this entail? BNW and Gattica spend the entire length of the story exploring that. Look. I don't care if it's dragons or the 2030 Iphone. If the author can defend it's existence in the future of our world and then attempts to realistically explore it's ramifications, I call it science fiction.
I think that not-in-the-real-world stories, either fantasy or science fiction, often happen because the writer wants to explore a "what if" scenario. And that scenario may not support being explored in a story entirely set in the real world--if it did fit, the "what if" would happen, and therefore it would be less of mystery. What if humanity only saw night once every two thousand years? (Asimov's Nightfall) Caste; let's look at the concept of caste. (Asimov's Strikebreaker) What if an illness were a separate intelligent being that takes you over? (Bradbury's Fever Dream) Any of these three could have been fantasy rather than science fiction, because the core idea isn't about science, it's about humanity and human nature. Nightfall's night has science behind it--at least, I'm going to assume that it does, because I can't do the math. But the "what if" doesn't actually require science. Even if it couldn't be achieved with science, the "what if" would be interesting, and then the story would be fantasy. Strikebreaker doesn't really stretch science, as far as I can recall, but it's in a future world with machinery, so we regard it as science fiction rather than fantasy. But the core is about society, not science. Is there science in Fever Dream, or is it basically fantasy in a real-world setting? Not sure, and it doesn't really matter. Stories longer than short story size tend to have a bunch of different intertangling "what if"s--which makes it that much more likely that they'll need their own world.
Honestly, @123456789 is talking about bad writing and confusing it for fantasy. When it comes to good writing, here's an opinion that I respect: "... Anyone can invent human beings inside out or worlds like dumb-bells or a gravitation that repels. The thing that makes such imaginations interesting is their translation into commonplace terms and a rigid exclusion of other marvels from the story. Then it becomes human. "How would you feel and what might not happen to you," is the typical question, if for instance pigs could fly and one came rocketing over a hedge at you. How would you feel and what might not happen to you if suddenly you were changed into an ass and couldn't tell anyone about it? Or if you became invisible? But no one would think twice about the answer if hedges and houses also began to fly, or if people changed into lions, tigers, cats and dogs left and right, or if everyone would vanish anyhow. Nothing remains interesting, where anything may happen. For the writer of fantastic stories to help the reader to play the game properly, he must help him in every possible unobtrusive way to domesticate the impossible hypothesis. He must trick him into an unwary concession to some plausible assumption and get on with his story while the illusion holds. And that is where there was a certain slight novelty in my stories when first they appeared. Hitherto, except in exploration fantasies, the fantastic element was brought in by magic. Frankenstein even, used some jiggery-pokery magic to animate his artificial monster. There was trouble about the thing's soul. But by the end of last century it had become difficult to squeeze even a momentary belief out of magic any longer. It occurred to me that instead of the usual interview with the devil or a magician, an ingenious use of scientific patter might with advantage be substituted. That was no great discovery. I simply brought the fetish stuff up to date, and made it as near actual theory as possible. As soon as the magic trick has been done the whole business of the fantasy writer is to keep everything else human and real. Touches of prosaic detail are imperative and a rigorous adherence to the hypothesis. Any extra fantasy outside the cardinal assumption immediately gives a touch of irresponsible silliness to the invention." -H.G. Wells
Great quote. I LOVE H.G Wells. I've said before what fantasy can achieve. IE thought experiments. I've been talking primarily about mainstream fantasy, which generally focuses on escapism, lacks any sort of "hypothesis," and certainly adds "extra fantasy outside the cardinal assumption." This is a large chunk of fantasy books so I hesitate to call all those bad writing.
Have to say I disagree, if the one is fantasy the second is as well, unless you include a scientifically plausible explanation, based on the laws of science, as to how the body gained the power. The difference isn't how fantastic it is, but what the writer chooses to do with it (what would you call Kafka?) By the same reasoning - if I understand it correctly, and I admit I'm confused - any SF story that uses faster-than-light travel without making the way it works a major technical plot point is also fantasy. So are any stories involving aliens that don't precisely follow biology as we know it. This includes vast swathes of golden and silver age SF... And god knows, a daunting amount of sex in popular fiction can only be termed pure fantasy.
These's a lack of empathy and common sense in regards to your view on fantasy. On another world, or in an alternate version of our world, the fantastical may become the common. This is where the writer must establish his own world's normally and then introduce his fantastical element. For example, in Brandon Sanderson's Elantris, magic is a normal element of that world. His fantastical element is that something has gone wrong with magic. The magic city of Elantris is in ruins and its people are living corpses. Sanderson's succeeds in pulling off this, as Wells would say'magic trick' by employing good writing. That is the beauty of world building, the writer can play around with the norms and fantastic to tell a story and still adhere to Well's 'Law'. Human truths are human truths, regardless if told literally or figuratively. Fantasy stories are a wonderful way to change perspectives and allow human truths to be seen in a new light.
So if there's any fantasy that doesn't match your criteria of "escapism", then it's not "mainstream" and doesn't prove you wrong. Gotcha. I really don't understand why people are still making the effort to engage with you, when you're demonstrating such manifest bad faith every time you post. You're clearly going to just keep endlessly shuffling definitions and moving goalposts.
Guys, let's please not make this personal. The OP wants to know, what's with new writers and fantasy? My answers are not going to click with anyone overnight. Think about it. I used to LIKE fantasy. I even used to want to write fantasy myself. Then I got older. It wasn't overnight change, it was gradual. And so is my understanding of why I no longer enjoy most fantasy nor see much merit in it. The truth is I'm not the only one. Fantasy has a bad rep for a reason. Maybe it would do you well to understand why. Look guys, I'm throwing you lots of bones, making concessions where I can, even pointing out fantasy novels that are not escapism, and admitting that genre lines can be fuzzy. But if your ultimatel goal is to get me to admit that there is some depth or genuine purpose other than escapism in works like Wheel of Time, which certainly comprise some significant potion of mainstream fantasy, you're going to be sorely disappointed.
Most genres have "bad rep." And honestly, the whole "I used to like fantasy but then I got older"...come off it, seriously, it's got nothing to do with age.
I'm curious--other folks in the thread here, has anyone at all been striving to defend Wheel of Time? Maybe they have, but I haven't seen a herd of people rushing to its defense. I'm sure that some people love it, and I'm not decreeing that it's terrible, but I lost patience with that series after four or five books--and I was motivated to keep going, because I was on a MUSH that was themed on it. My issues had little, possibly nothing, to do with its being fantasy. Most of the problems could appear in a real-world-based story. I felt that most of the female characters followed a common pattern, and most of the male characters followed a different common pattern. Too many characters were overpowered, in the sense that they were superior to the normal run of humanity. The fact that Rand was Ultra Over Powered could have been forgivable--I like Buffy, for example. But when no one is ordinary and no one seems to have ordinary emotions in a coherent relatable way, there's no contrast and no interest. The only character that I found tolerable, at the point that I stopped reading, was Min. And I struggle to remember even one personal story about these characters. I'm sure that there were tons of them; my point is that I found none of them sufficiently engaging to be memorable. A real-world story could have the same flaws. For example, I could pick up West Wing, a real-world story of people with far more power than the ordinary person, but one that is gloriously engaging. I could replace President Bartlett with Rand, C.J. with Moiraine, Sam with Perrin, Toby with Nynaeve, etc., and eliminate most of the personal weaknesses, personal plots, and ordinary fondnesses between the characters. I'd have all the problems that I see in Wheel of Time, and not a scrap of fantasy.
Let's not make this personal he says, whilst implying that fantasy readers and writers are simply immature and will grow out of it.
The reasons are obvious: genre snobbery from outsiders on one hand and the typical reaction toward things people find "weird" on the other. We've seen both in the past few pages of this thread. They're not particularly good reasons.
Horror is pretty weird and I'm much more of an outsider to horror than I am to fantasy, but still I've got very little to say about horror, so I'm not sure about the reasons you listed.
The common criticisms are the same, when you get down to it. Horror is dismissed as being blood and cheap scares without literary merit by the snobs, just as they dismiss fantasy as mindless, childish escapism. Horror gets stereotyped as being for creepy nightmare fetishists, just as fantasy gets stereotyped as being for anti-social nerds who tabletop game and LARP. That TV Tropes page I linked goes into a bit more detail, but the criticisms of 'uncool' genres break down into the same categories.
Eh, nobody gets nearly as stereotyped as fantasy. At least not in my experience. I'm sure I could be wrong.
So now I'm thinking about why I have more tolerance for Game of Thrones. Wheel of Time just makes me shrug. I both disapprove of Game of Thrones, and find it interesting. I think it's because in with the creepy bits and a disturbing fascination with rape, Game of Thrones is woven through with an analysis of the mix of good and evil in human beings. From the inherently evil (Joffrey, Meryn Trant, The Mountain) to the "in a different world could they be human? Nah, probably not." (Cersei) to the "they could choose to be better but they don't, so aren't they the most evil of all?" (Tywin, Jaime) to the "they're much, much better than you'd expect" (Tyrion) to the "I should call them evil, but..." (Arya, The Hound) to the "how the BLEEP do they manage to be good in this cesspool of evil?" (Gendry, and I was going to say Eddard, but I think that Eddard goes in..) "Hmmm." (Brienne, Eddard, Daenarys) Dragons? Zombies beyond a giant wall? Meh. Don't care. They serve the same purpose as the murder in a murder mystery--something to shed light on character.
Heh. I only read the first two(?) books in order. Then I got a near-free Kindle compendium of the first five books, realized that practically everything from the TV series is on YouTube in little bits, and started reading and watching the bits with my preferred characters. I mostly only care what happens to Arya, Tyrion, and The Hound--I find them the most interesting mix of good and evil, and, come to think of it, the only characters that really seem to have a sense of humor. (Though Arya is fairly lacking in that area.) The further a character is from them, the less I know what's going on with them.
Not sure I want to wade into this, but... I think every genre has its own conventions, its own areas where readers need to suspend disbelief. Magic in lots of Fantasy, True Love (and endless orgasms) in lots of Romance, FTL travel and all the rest of the "hand-waving" in lots of Science Fiction, indomitable heroes in lots of Action, super-genius detectives in lots of Mystery, sharp-shooting cowboys in lots of Westerns, etc. For me, the important stuff is the deeper truths, and I think Fantasy is just as good, if not better, at giving authors potential to explore these issues. It may ruffle some feathers if I refer to the Bible as Fantasy, but for me as an atheist that's what it is, and it's still got lots of important truths in it, even though I don't believe in the magic parts. Myths from a variety of cultures fill the same role for me. Sure, there's lots of Fantasy out there that's uninspired, just like there's lots of uninspired stuff in every other genre. But I don't think there's anything inherent in the definition of Fantasy that means it can't carry deeper meaning. And I don't think there's any need to answer the question "Why do you write Fantasy?" with anything other than "It's what caught my imagination," or, even better, "Why do you write what you write?"
That was in the opening scene of Book 1 with the white walkers... though maybe they weren't established as zombified yet.
