We have taken to calling this section the science corner, though we really have not provided many in-depth scientific reports over the last few months. Rather, it is our forum for venting frustrations, waxing poetic and expressing our opinions on the art of writing in hopes that what we say may resonate within the hearts of some of our readers. Still, it has potential. But I fear the word "science" has caused us to overlook the fact that we are providing a venue for both science fiction AND fantasy writers.
Fantasy is a fundamental part of our lives. It touches everyone in one form or another. It is the stuff of our dreams. From nursery rhymes and fairy tales to mythology and Hollywood, we are imbued with a sense of wonder and enchantment from our earliest memories. In its broadest, most general definition, fantasy even includes fiction and science fiction. Don't worry sci-fi fans, allow me to give another definition of fantasy that will help to separate the three.
Isaac Asimov has tackled this issue by providing a stricter definition than just of a story that does not depict real events and real people. "Fantasy," he said, "should mean not only something that is not so and therefore exists only as an idea, but also something that could not possibly be so and therefore can exist in no other way than as an idea"(1) (emphasis in the original). This, then, allows us to separate science fiction of Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke from the fantasy of Tolkien and Robert Jordan. It also allows us to separate these from the genre of mere fiction.
Fantasy and science fiction have struggled for acceptance in society, even though science fiction has always been a forum for visionaries to expound upon technology and science and how they might affect our lives. Fantasy has suffered even more. Stephen King gets accolades for writing horror that is far more unbelievable and yet he's a favored guest on talk shows! I think part of the problem is that fantasy has suffered from too many cut-and-paste authors (science fiction has as well, but they have had champions such as Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and Carl Sagan). As long as you have a magician, a knight and an elf or dwarf, you've got a fantasy story to most people.
But fantasy isn't that easy. Good fantasy requires just as much skill at writing and delving into human nature as needed for a classic such as Melville or Bronte. All writing is the exploration of human nature and relationships. Fantasy merely has magic added to the equation, whereas science fiction has technology or theory. If you look at the masters of the genre, you can see what I mean. Tolkien, while most would see merely the elves and dragons and such, discusses such questions as the power of magic to corrupt, race relations, and how an individual finds courage in himself to face impossible odds. Now, those concepts aren't developed as much as they could be, but it is where good fantasy in our day has its beginnings. Robert Jordan, with his attention to detail in everything with regard to his stories, is a good example of what I see as good fantasy.
What we need are good fantasy stories. You will find one such story in this issue. A story needs to have characters that grab the reader's attention. I'm not saying elves or dwarves are something I hate, but if you must have them in the story, make them interesting. It's similar to writing science fiction in that when you create an alien race, you need much more than just their physical description and where they're from. You need to explain through actions and descriptions what their society looks like, how did it get that way, and how does this race view the world around them? Give them depth! Make them come alive. Any story, no matter the genre, is only as good as its ability to capture the readers' empathy. A stereotypical elf or human just turns the reader off completely.
Another good quality is a well thought-out plot and quest. Quests seem an integral part of a fantasy story, but they need to make sense and to lead to the story's conclusion. I know that sounds like common sense, but when I was younger, I know that I didn't always follow this simple rule. Sometimes it's difficult to make a quest original and integral, but all it takes is a little forethought before pen touches paper.
Perhaps fantasy is easier in the sense that the writer is free to investigate more extreme possibilities, though Asimov said that magic may be explained as technology or science as viewed through primitive eyes(2). Still, magic is much closer to the characters, more a part of them, than is a laser gun. And fantasy explores mysteries of the past rather than the future. Somehow, sword and sorcery speaks to me more of muscle and brawn and sweat and blood than does the sterile environment of space. Science fiction is cerebral, fantasy physical. I think that's why I like it. I also like a story with a good, rich background. What I mean by that is the story behind the story. Steve Lazarowitz's Birthright in this issue has such a background. It adds meaning to what the character experiences.
So, is fantasy easier than science fiction? No. Both require research, a strong plot and characters, and feelings behind the words. I hope that our webzine emphasizes in the minds of our readers that writers of both genres are peers and equals. In the end, we are all writing about human nature regardless of the time or place. We hope to offer you the best of both worlds and give you a glimpse of the future up-and-coming stars of the writing community.
And our greatest hope is that you become a part of that talented group.
1. Asimov, Isaac. (1996.) When fantasy became fantasy, in Magic, p.186.
Copyright 1998 Jody Speight