As Irwin, W. R. (1976) states fantasy is "An overt violation of what is generally accepted as possibility" (cited in Attebury 1980). Irwin, W. R (1976) is further quoted as saying 'a narrative is a fantasy if it presents the persuasive establishment and development of an impossibility, an arbitrary construct of the mind with all under the control of logic and rhetoric.' Attebury (1980) goes on further to say "Any narrative which includes as a significant part of it's make-up some violation of what the author easily believes to be natural law - that is fantasy." These definitions assert that the author tells a story which is significantly different from that which is likely to happen in the world as we know it. For that reason I particularly like the next definition which is 'Fantasy involves wonder by making the impossible seem familiar and and the familiar seem new and strange'. The term 'wonder' instantly puts a picture in my mind of something magical and maybe out of this world. When reading the Wizard of Earthsea it is easy to imagine that wizardry is a normal everyday occurrence and when Ged is building a boat it is easy to question why he doesn't just magically make one appear. I think the story is so effective because Le Guin defines her version of magic and why Ged would rather make a boat then magically create one. In the story every act of magic has it's own consequence which helps lend to it an aspect of reality making it easier to connect with a fantasical story.
One definition that Attebury wrote of however seems to contradict the above definitions of fantasy. As cited in Tolkein(1965) he writes 'founded upon the hard recognition that things are so in the world as it appears under the sun; on a recognition of fact but not a slavery to it. Have I interpreted this wrong or does this appear more to be a definition of science fiction?
On the point of science fiction I read the article by Le Guin in which she details the differences between science fiction and fantasy. According to Le Guin (n.d) 'science fiction is a branch of realism'. Science fiction can either re-write the past or invent the future. As the future is basically whatever the imagination would like to make of it science fiction uses the basis of reality and stretches this image to create a new existence. As Le Guin (n.d) states realism and science fiction both employ plausibility to win the readers consent to the fiction'. They use scenarios which are an exaggeration of how readers view the world in the present (without streatching the truth to far) to help us believe that the event could occur in another time. She further goes on to state 'Fantasy is far more direct in it's fictionality than either realism or science fiction.' Fantasy doesn't cause the reader to question whether the story really could occur as the reader already knows that the story is not based in truth or reality.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, the definition of fantasy as an incitement of wonder is one that I too wholeheartedly agreed with. I do not think however that Attebery's "recognition of fact (without being ) a slave to it" is at variance with wonder as definition. Attebery is merely stressing the importance of consistency in fantasy, that essentially fantasy is functioning by it’s own rules, but only as an “extrapolation” or ‘fantastic’ elaboration of the rules of the ‘real’ world (the one we’re living in, as opposed to the world-hopping of ‘His Dark Materials’ or anything like that). Like with Tolkien’s ‘Secondary World’, positing that fantasy writing or ‘world-building’ as he puts it, is an extension of gods will, an ‘extrapolation’ of initial creation, offering range to His original work by exploring the alternatives that He, by some inexplicable point of reference, chose not to manifest (whereas Schrodinger insists it is ALL manifest somewhere, but this is a ‘fantasy’ post, not a ‘quantum’ post). Science fiction is nowhere near as intricate, because it has no need of asserting rules like with fantasy; even if the rules of a fantasy world closely resemble those of our own, a writer is forced to repeat them just to remove a reader from the real and put them into the fantasy-world on the strength of a few subtle existential nuances. Science fiction merely (lazily) juxtaposes the real or ‘mundane’ world by throwing a supernatural happening into it and offering tenuous explanations, which the geek-legions have no problem swallowing and later musing/blogging on (fanfic anyone?). If the aim of science fiction is to revitalize a readers appreciation for our own world, even with all of it’s ‘mundane’ rules, then fantasy perhaps does a better job of this, by the distance of an alternate reality giving us the most objective stance on our own.
ReplyDeleteHey Sam
ReplyDeleteThanks for the explanation, I really enjoy the way that you describe fantasy, I hadn't really thought of it that way. Probably why I didn't quite understand what Attebury meant by his last definition. Cheers!
Hi Rizwana,
ReplyDeleteGreat Post and nice to see you open to all ideas and perspectives. Sam seems reallt in to it and his posts make good reading, as do yours :)
I have previously commented to Sam that part of some fantasy texts, such as EarthSea by Le Guin, which I seem to notice and at times find frustration is the extent to which writers 'violate' reality in their fantasdtical creations. I understand the need for certain elements of the realms to be recognisable to readers, but feel this is limiting in some way - you?
You would think science fiction would be perhaps appealing to me than, but no, I prefer fantasy and it's diversions from the real world, just wonder if fantasy writers need to trust their readers more, or themselves and their (often detailed) introductions and descriptions of the famtasy realms.
Your post makes for good reading and thinking - well done,
Esther :)