Harry Potter: Fantasy or Sci-Fi?

[ourobouros_1999 at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 13947

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Ebony AKA AngieJ" <ebonyink at h...> wrote:

> Might as well try to start a new thread...
>

Good thread. :) Now this is something we non-shippers can sink our 
teeth into. 

> 
> Is Harry Potter really a fantasy series?

I'd say yes, partially. Not pure fantasy though. Hybrid with school 
story genre, which means it wants to deliver the elements that make 
that genre popular too. (Nostalgia, commitment to a certain realism, 
coming-of-age-tale, etc.)

<snip>
> 
> "Most of what passes for fantasy these days is just SF in 
disguise.  
> Adventures told in worlds where the physical laws are different, 
> allowing "magic" in one form or another.  But there is still a 
> physical world in these stories, and it is still more "real" than 
> what goes on in the minds of the characters.  So these tales... are 
> still rationalist, materalist fiction--science fiction.

Yes. I'd agree that if you use this definition, then the HP books are 
not pure fantasy, although, as above, I would not classify them as 
so. There tends to be a lot of emphasis on realism in the books. In 
fact, I guess you could also make them all psionists/espers, and the 
essential idea of the books would still kind of work. Also, given 
that magical power in general is an inborn capacity, this would make 
the HP wizards more like the people with special powers one sees in 
so often in sci-fi. 

> 
> "A lot of "fantasy" stories use what we call the utility theory of 
> magic.  In the utility theory, magic is a kind of natural force, 
like 
> magnetic fields, and magicians perform magic by tapping into this 
> force.  It's like plugging into a wall socket.  Because this is a 
> purely materialist conception (even if the magician shapes the 
result 
> with his mind), we tend to think of these stories as a form of SF, 
> rather than truly fantastic."
> 

Hmmm. This is very interesting....the pure magic thing seems to be 
quasi-mystical. Who is this writer? IIRC, most magical systems in the 
stuff I've read follow a more "utility theory" model. Some turn 
magicians into druids, getting their power from nature, or priests, 
from a god. I had thought that most people currently were jettisoning 
the distinction between fantasy and sci-fi in favor of putting it all 
under the "speculative fiction" catagory. 

BTW, I was a bit confused by the description of pure fantasy. Could 
someone just give a quick example of what books/series have this 
depiction of magic? And what is the exact difference between 
traditional and high fantasy? 

Going back to HP... JKR never really outlines a theory of magic. She 
doesn't really explain why some people are muggles and why some are 
wizards, doesn't explain the origin of their powers or why magic 
works, and doesn't come up with a kind of mythic framework to explain 
it all. (The books seem to have a very realistic, materialist-in-a-
non-pejorative-way feel, IMHO). These are not meant to be criticisms, 
but merely reflections on how it might be difficult to really 
classify the books given the lack of magic detail to focus on. 

Well, maybe because Harry will be going to some new magic realm in 
book five, we'll get more info on the HP universe. 

Charmian the long-winded.