Fantasy with Friends is a weekly meme hosted by the good people over at Pages Unbound. Fantasy with Friends poses questions each Monday about fantasy, either as a genre as a whole or individual works.
This week’s prompt is:
How do you define “fantasy” as a genre?
This is tougher than I’d think—you know it when you see it? Nah, that’s not satisfactory. Well, there’s that old line from Clark about sufficiently advanced science, right? Fantasy is like that—just there’s no science involved (and no interest in it).
It’s a work of fiction with an accepted active supernatural world—magic, creatures like dragons, owlbears, hippogriffs, etc. Usually set in some sort of pre-Industrial world (frequently one where Industrialism isn’t needed—see Abercrombie’s recent The Age of Madness trilogy to see an exception). Even if it’s a work without a lot of evidence of magic or those creatures, and so on Our friends at Merriam-Webster use phrases like, “conceived or seemingly conceived by unrestrained fancy” and “so extreme as to challenge belief” to define “fantastical,” and that’s pretty close to me.
Even the no science thing is slippery, Bennett’s Shadow of the Leviathan books have a science. Just nothing we’d recognize as such. And there’s enough fantastical elements to that science to keep it in the world of Fantasy. Other examples I can think of fall into similar paths (I just can’t think of a more science-y Fantasy…oh, Blood Over Bright Haven, too). Even outside of Urban Fantasy (set in a world much like our own with matching technology), there are plenty of exceptions to the above. So many, in fact, that my definitions are useless. Bringing me back to the “you know it when you see it.”
Okay, it took 200+ words for me to just say, “I dunno, really.” And that’s after two drafts of this post. I don’t have the time or patience for a third–and I’m pretty sure it’d just be adding more words and coming up with the same result. I’m really looking forward to some of the other posts in response to this prompt to help me come up with a definition that I like.
Do you have responses to this? (either for the comment section below or from your own post)
![]()





















