Results 31 to 60 of 118
Thread: Hard Fantasy
-
2017-12-14, 09:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- The Lakes
Re: Hard Fantasy
For hard science fiction, it's not just physics. Or, from the essay: "In science fiction, that can mean physics, computing, biochemistry, etc. A hard SF story is one that takes the known facts of those sciences and extrapolates them, rigorously exploring the mechanisms by which they operate, and how they might be made to operate in new, expanded ways."
It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.
Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.
The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.
The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.
-
2017-12-14, 10:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Gender
Re: Hard Fantasy
Perfect example of the chaos of the world:
1. Decide the argument that the world is too chaotic to be well understood is nonsense.
2. Rather than explain why this argument is wrong, which he should be able to do if he understands the world so well, posts something that is admittedly nonsense in order to...???Last edited by Vitruviansquid; 2017-12-14 at 10:14 AM.
It always amazes me how often people on forums would rather accuse you of misreading their posts with malice than re-explain their ideas with clarity.
-
2017-12-14, 10:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- The Lakes
Re: Hard Fantasy
Or rather, he gave your assertion exactly the level of response it deserved.
If you really want to discuss the blinkered notion that the world is so chaotic that no understanding is possible, I'm sure there are plenty of places to discuss that where it's not a complete and obvious attempt at a total off-topic derail.Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2017-12-14 at 10:16 AM.
It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.
Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.
The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.
The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.
-
2017-12-14, 10:25 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
- Location
- Sweden
Re: Hard Fantasy
Yes, it's true that it's not just physics. I just happen to easily slip into using it as an umbrella term for understanding nature and the physical reality.
In any case, Fantasy specifically do not want to follow natural sciences. You can change how biochemistry work, the laws of physics, chemical reactions and whatnot. This is why I think the term can easily become a little weird when as it has to be used differently in the two contexts. In Sci-fi, it means how much you stick to Science, whereas for Fantasy, it means how much you stick to your own, made-up science (as far as I understood it?). While I am certainly on board with internal consistency and taking things to their logical conclusion, I merely wish to avoid any future misunderstandings.
-
2017-12-14, 10:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: Hard Fantasy
Okay. Hard and "not hard". Whatever. If you are going to argue that there is a state that things can sometimes have, you necessarily imply the existence of the state those things have when they DON'T have the thing you define. It doesn't matter what you call it. Can you drop the needless semantics and talk about the actual problems with this?
-
2017-12-14, 11:26 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
Re: Hard Fantasy
I play a lot of pen and paper games that lack a lot of depth. I don't worry all that much about hard and fast rules or figuring out the how and why of most things. I do the minimum amount of extrapolation possible. I care about just a few things in this order:
- Is it fun? If everyone is having fun, there's no need to change anything and any future changes should be in line with what I perceive is making things fun.
- Does the scenario make sense to this point? I don't want to have to rely on fiat or hand-waving for the scenario to make sense.
- Does everything follow an internal consistency? I maintain a strict sense of internal consistency - I play with rules that allow characters to create things or alter scenes, but those things cannot contradict what has already been established by me or another player or the rules of the setting.
I do enjoy reading about the how's and why's of different settings. I even enjoy coming up with those sorts of things for my own worlds, but I find that the time that it takes is not worth while in many cases. The how and why is only for myself in those cases since the players rarely care and it won't come up most of the time. It doesn't add to the enjoyment of the game to do exposition on where the water goes after it falls off the edge of the world (and might make people fall asleep if done poorly!).
-
2017-12-14, 11:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- The Lakes
Re: Hard Fantasy
At the core, as far as I can tell, it is about internal coherence and consistence, and following things to their conclusion -- that the worldbuilding is rigorous, especially in those areas that the work is going to concentrate on. It doesn't have to be accurate to real-world physical science, especially as it applies to things that need to change to support the premise... even "hard SF" has the concept of "conceits" in order to allow the premise and/or story to be possible in the first place.
Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2017-12-14 at 12:37 PM.
It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.
Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.
The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.
The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.
-
2017-12-14, 12:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: Hard Fantasy
I get what you're going for.
For me, the difference is that hard sci-fi attempts to operate within the known constraints of physics.
"Hard fantasy" is similar, but the difference is that we allow for suspension of disbelief in a few significant areas, but then expect everything outside of that to logically follow.
That's why "but dragons!" doesn't work for some people. The existence of one fantastical element does not, to people that enjoy this, suggest that everything else is up for suspension of disbelief - in fact, the suspension of disbelief granted to dragons relies upon everything else acting in a consistent and believable way.Last edited by kyoryu; 2017-12-14 at 12:26 PM.
"Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"
-
2017-12-14, 12:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: Hard Fantasy
I know I've mentioned him before, as I am a fan of his works, but Brandon Sanderson (and his eponymous "laws") seem relevant, here. For discussion, I'm just going to copy in the laws:
1) An author's ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic.
2) The limitations of a magic system are more interesting than its capabilities. What the magic can't do is more interesting than what it can.
3) Expand on what you have already, before you add something new.
Now, of these, only the first and third are closely related to making it "hard fantasy" as described in the OP, but I think the set taken together leads to hard fantasy settings.
Magic need not have all things explained, but it needs to have laws the same way our real-world physics does, and those laws need to be understandable at least on the level of Newtonian physics. When this happens, you can have hard fantasy magic. Things grow from those rules, rather than being invented anew.
As a side note, I think this ironically makes it possible to argue that Piers Anthony's Xanth novels are hard fantasy. There are definite (albeit pun-based) rules to how it works. And a great deal of the development in any story - even the bad ones - is based on examining the consequences of the rules as established.
-
2017-12-14, 12:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- The Lakes
Re: Hard Fantasy
It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.
Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.
The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.
The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.
-
2017-12-14, 02:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2017
Re: Hard Fantasy
The problem with that is that, as I understand it from an outsider perspective, "hard" sci-fi is focused on scientific accuracy. If you tried to write a hard sci-fi novel with lightsabers, it wouldn't be hard sci-fi and the hard sci-fi crowd would pan it for having impossible and impractical laser swords.
Fantasy is inherently soft, dragons are expected, magic is expected. The world those dragons and that magic can be gritty and down to earth, it can be a silly kitchen sink or anything in between, but it's fundamentally not a "hard" genre. Fantasy has a much higher suspension of disbelief requirement by default.
The existence of giant fire breathing flying reptiles, sometimes giant fire breathing flying reptiles with genius level intellect, isn't just a single suspension of disbelief. It would totally destroy our understanding of physics and biology. A work of hard sci-fi might take place 500 years in the future, but it works on the fact that physics is still physics.Last edited by War_lord; 2017-12-14 at 02:33 PM.
-
2017-12-14, 02:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2015
- Location
- Right behind you!
- Gender
Re: Hard Fantasy
I'm not sure I'm a fan of the term "hard fantasy" because of obvious connotations with "hard sci-fi".
It sounds like the article is just talking about in-depth and internally consistent fantasy.
-
2017-12-14, 02:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- The Lakes
Re: Hard Fantasy
It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.
Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.
The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.
The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.
-
2017-12-14, 02:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
- Gender
Re: Hard Fantasy
...Yeah, that's what "hard" fantasy is. In-depth and internally consistent. Like with hard sci-fi.
Wich is a pretty logical choice of words considering there is almost no meaningful difference between sci-fi and fantasy. The main one is wether you use magic or sufficiently advanced technology.
Or as the late sir Pratchett put it : science fiction is fantasy with bolts on.Yes, I am slightly egomaniac. Why didn't you ask?
Free haiku !
Alas, poor Cookie
The world needs more platypi
I wish you could be
Originally Posted by Fyraltari
-
2017-12-14, 02:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2015
- Location
- Right behind you!
- Gender
-
2017-12-14, 02:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- The Lakes
Re: Hard Fantasy
IIRC Vonnegut said "Technology is magic that works."
But while true as a backhanded way of explaining why magic "feels magical" in the real world (that is, it doesn't work), I don't think it's true in the context of this discussion.
Star Wars is straight-up "future fantasy" or "sciencespace fantasy", and not really science fiction unless one defines science fiction purely by superficial trappings.Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2017-12-14 at 03:32 PM.
It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.
Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.
The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.
The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.
-
2017-12-14, 02:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2017
Re: Hard Fantasy
Hard Sci-fi follows the laws of physics, fantasy takes a crap on the laws of physics.
Pratchett should have stayed in his lane. That take is so utterly incorrect that it's not even wrong. Calling it wrong would imply that it's in the same ballpark as a correct answer. Star Wars and Star Trek are science fantasy, they do use technobabble as a cover for magic. Neither of them are actually sci-fi, never mind hard sci-fi.
"Anthropologically rigorious fantasy" doesn't make for catchy marketing, but it's probably the best term. Cultural fantasy makes me think of something like Earthbound, which is a fantasy story that uses Americana instead of Medievalism as a base.Last edited by War_lord; 2017-12-14 at 03:01 PM.
-
2017-12-14, 03:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- The Lakes
Re: Hard Fantasy
It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.
Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.
The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.
The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.
-
2017-12-14, 03:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: Hard Fantasy
Uh, yeah, that's why I pointed out that hard sci-fi works within the boundaries of our understanding of physics/etc., while fantasy, of any stripe, doesn't.
"Hard" fantasy, then, takes the impossible elements (be they dragons, magic, whatever), and attempts to extrapolate a believable world provided you accept the unbelievable elements. GoT has dragons, which are unbelievable, but it at least makes an attempt to consider the implications (being used as WMDs, their feeding, etc.).
So, yeah, dragons require suspension of disbelief. If you can't get your head around that, great!
But there's a number of people that can accept dragons, but still want the rest of the world to make sense given the presence of dragons. I think this is an understandable stance, and it's at least worth understanding that some people have it even if it's not something you, in particular, care about."Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"
-
2017-12-14, 03:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2017
-
2017-12-14, 03:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
- Gender
Re: Hard Fantasy
I was more thinking about the Dune books and the Ender trilogy, sold as sci-fi as far as I know, but I guess they're actualy science fantasy. Either book publishers and authors lie on what their books are about, or there are two wildly different definition of what the sci-fi genre is.
Mostly irrelevant to the point, but I feel like science fantasy is a poor classification. Science is pretty much meaningless here. Why not use a qualifier more helpful, like medieval/contemporary/dystopian/futuristic/space fantasy?Last edited by Cazero; 2017-12-14 at 03:30 PM.
Yes, I am slightly egomaniac. Why didn't you ask?
Free haiku !
Alas, poor Cookie
The world needs more platypi
I wish you could be
Originally Posted by Fyraltari
-
2017-12-14, 03:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2017
Re: Hard Fantasy
No, you fundamentally don't understand what it means to be "hard" sci-fi. Dragons, obsidian candles that grant foresight and telepathy when lit, changing the weather through blood magic, Necromancy, a massive man made wall of ice that's 300 miles long and 700 feet tall. None of these are single suspensions of disbelief, there's a huge number of implications that should exist but need to be handwaved to make any fantasy story work.
-
2017-12-14, 04:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2015
- Location
- Right behind you!
- Gender
Re: Hard Fantasy
Actually - both of those are reasonably hard sci-fi. I've even heard Dune used as an example of hard sci-fi when explained as the opposite end of the spectrum from Star Wars (likely to contrast the sci-fi melee excuses).
Dune's only fantasy element is the spice - everything else has a LOT of explanation. Melee is important because of shield belts mostly cancelling all ranged weapons - and it was one of the first settings I know of that did the whole premise of lost technology explaining the gaps in tech. (for a more modern setting - 40k took the idea and ran with it)
Ender doesn't explain what all the tech is (since none of the main characters know) but it actually worries about stuff like relative time due to near-light speeds etc.Last edited by CharonsHelper; 2017-12-14 at 04:14 PM.
-
2017-12-14, 04:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Gender
Re: Hard Fantasy
A better name for this would be "Plausible fantasy".
-
2017-12-14, 04:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Marlinspike
Re: Hard Fantasy
I've never had to use "suspension of disbelief" when reading "hard" fantasy. I don't have do suspend anything to believe the fantasy.
The key point for me is that a fantasy world is not our world, and as such the rules of our world don't have to apply. It is a hypothetical, theoretical fantasy world. If there are dragons in that world, that is a simple fact that is "true" of that world. So with that in mind, the "laws of physics" (or chemistry or whatever) are completely irrelevant to me when I read fantasy. What is relevant is that this fantasy world does have laws, and that those laws are consistent. For me, a proper "hard" fantasy as suggested in this post would have clean, clear and consistent laws.
I have always felt this way, and I was quite happy to read a quote from Tolkien with a similar view:
Spoiler"Children are capable, of course, of literary belief, when the story-maker's art is good enough to produce it. That state of mind has been called "willing suspension of disbelief." But this does not seem to me a good description of what happens. What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful "sub-creator." He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is "true": it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside. If you are obliged, by kindliness or circumstance, to stay, then disbelief must be suspended (or stifled), otherwise listening and looking would become intolerable. But this suspension of disbelief is a substitute for the genuine thing, a subterfuge we use when condescending to games or make-believe, or when trying ... to find what virtue we can in the work of an art that has for us failed."
-
2017-12-14, 04:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- The Lakes
It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.
Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.
The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.
The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.
-
2017-12-14, 04:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: Hard Fantasy
No, I really do.
That's why I drew a distinction between hard sci-fi (follows the laws of physics, perhaps extrapolates current scientific knowledge, does not break the laws of physics) and hard fantasy (breaks the laws of physics in a few areas, tries to logically extrapolate from there).
That's also why your examples of how I don't "get" hard sci-fi point at my descriptions of "hard fantasy", which I've explicitly stated is not hard sci-fi, and does not follow the same rules as hard sci-fi."Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"
-
2017-12-14, 07:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2017
Re: Hard Fantasy
Both of you are failing to grasp the problem. Lets try again.
"Hard" fantasy is an oxymoron created by trying to take a very specific term from sci-fi subgenres and trying to apply the term to something totally different. Hard sci-fi is called "hard" because the author of the work takes great care to work within the bounds of the "hard" sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics and so on). All fantasy works on a deliberate decision on the part of both author and reader to ignore the facts of these fields. You yourself don't contest this.
That's not "hard" fantasy. What you're actually describing is a world that willfully ignores the "hard" sciences, but follows the conclusions of "soft" sciences. That's a coherent request, but calling it "hard" fantasy is just wrong. It's an inherent contradiction.
Even if an author managed to handwave things enough to come up with an environment in which something like a Dragon could exist without using magic to explain it, that environment would be a totally alien planet, nothing like the typical fantasy setting.
Tolkien's talking about plausibility in story telling here, not the application of the "hard" sciences to those worlds. Fairy tales work on children because, not only to they lack knowledge of the "hard" sciences, they lack the intuitive understanding of the social sciences that most adults develop a degree of simply by existing in the adult world.
That's not what "hard" means in this context. I get the impression that some here are laboring under the assumption that the "hard" in "hard sci-fi" means "realistic" or "having verisimilitude". That's an incorrect assumption, if your work of fiction requires your audience to just ignore an unexplained breach of established physics, it's ignoring the "hard" sciences, and your work is therefore not "hard".
So then why describe it using a term that's literally derived from a specific sub-type of sci-fi? That's like inventing a new Cola and then marketing it as "cold coffee". Sure, it's black and it contains caffeine, but the similarities end there.
-
2017-12-14, 07:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2015
Re: Hard Fantasy
Originally Posted by War Lord
For the overwhelming majority of human history almost all people believed absolutely in the existence of supernatural beings and the experience of supernatural phenomena. Some groups even made a point of recording them. So you can be on sociologically firm grounds as long as fantasy elements remain within the scope of what people actually believed, even if your mystical elements are inconsistent.
It's also worth noting that GoT dragons are far less fantastical than D&D dragons, which has to do with the limitations imposed on fantastical elements when trying to make highly plausible fantasy settings.
Large flying 'reptiles' aren't fantasy; they're called Pterosaurs. Some of them, like Quetzalcoatlus were quite large. Given that example, postulating an alternative evolutionary progression in which archosaurs evolved down a different path and ended up with much more bat-like wing-membranes and retained a saurian jaw structure instead of developing bills. That gets you something fairly close to a GoT dragon (admittedly the show went a little crazy with the spines and teeth and stuff in recent seasons).
-
2017-12-14, 07:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Marlinspike
Re: Hard Fantasy
Actually, I would argue that you are too fixated on your perception of reality.
"Hard" fantasy is an oxymoron created by trying to take a very specific term from sci-fi subgenres and trying to apply the term to something totally different. Hard sci-fi is called "hard" because the author of the work takes great care to work within the bounds of the "hard" sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics and so on). All fantasy works on a deliberate decision on the part of both author and reader to ignore the facts of these fields. You yourself don't contest this.
Furthermore, the fact that you keep saying things like "ignore these fields" shows that you have a very different concept of a fantasy world. It appears that for you a fantasy world "should" follow our laws of physics, and since they don't you need to "suspend your disbelief". I personally don't see any reason why they should. It is a different reality with different rules.
It isn't "ignoring" our reality's science. Rather, our science simply doesn't apply. You can't ignore something that doesn't exist.
Even if an author managed to handwave things enough to come up with an environment in which something like a Dragon could exist without using magic to explain it, that environment would be a totally alien planet, nothing like the typical fantasy setting.
Tolkien's talking about plausibility in story telling here, not the application of the "hard" sciences to those worlds. Fairy tales work on children because, not only to they lack knowledge of the "hard" sciences, they lack the intuitive understanding of the social sciences that most adults develop a degree of simply by existing in the adult world.
To be honest I'm very glad that I am able to do that... I would miss out on a lot of the enjoyment of fictional media if I wasn't able to immerse myself into an alternate reality and accept it as true and real while I'm inside.
That's not what "hard" means in this context. I get the impression that some here are laboring under the assumption that the "hard" in "hard sci-fi" means "realistic" or "having verisimilitude". That's an incorrect assumption, if your work of fiction requires your audience to just ignore an unexplained breach of established physics, it's ignoring the "hard" sciences, and your work is therefore not "hard".Last edited by Aliquid; 2017-12-14 at 07:42 PM.