According to Attebery (1980, P.3), “ any narrative which includes as a significant part of its make-up some violation of what the author clearly believes to the natural law – that is fantasy”.
Attebery (1980, p.3) also introduces W. R. Irwin’s description that ‘Fantasy’ is “an overt violation of what is generally accepted as possibility”. “Whatever the material, extravagant or seemingly commonplace, a narrative is a fantasy of the mind with all under the control of logic and rhetoric’ (p.9)”. Then he suggests “Fantasy, then, presupposes a view of exterior reality which it goes on to contradict” (Attebery 1980, p.3).
I would like to add a bit more to question number 1.
Fantasy to me has been defined by its characters. We can easily tell a graphic novel/novel is in the fantasy genre when we start reading about characters who are wizards and witches,trolls and dragons.
The setting of the genre also establishes itself here to. We can expect from most fantasys that the story will be set in a different or magical world for the most part.
For further reading below i have included my Wikipedia search on the fantasy genre
''The identifying traits of fantasy are the inclusion of fantastic elements in a self-coherent (internally consistent) setting.[1] Within such a structure, any location of the fantastical element is possible: it may be hidden in, or leak into the apparently real world setting, it may draw the characters into a world with such elements, or it may occur entirely in a fantasy world setting, where such elements are part of the world'' (Sourced from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_genre)
I had noticed that my previous posting of answer for Question 1 is just the part of answer for Question 2.
Although I’m not sure the difference between Question 1 and Question 2 so far, I’ll return to Qenstion 1 after having a little more clear understand of the reading material of Attebery.
Attebery “Any narrative which includes as a significant part of its make-up some violation of what the author clearly believes to the natural law – that is fantasy” (Attebery 1980, P.3).
W. R. Irwin "Whatever the material, extravagant or seemingly commonplace, 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” (Attebery 1980, p.3).
C. S. Lewis Fantasy “utilizes unconvincing characters and unlikely events, but it makes every effort to place them in a mundane, nonfantastic world” (Attebery 1980, p.3).
C. N. Manlove, among others “Fantasy is a game of sorts, and it demands that one play whole-heartedly, accepting for the moment all rules and turns of the game. The reward for this extra payment is an occasional sense of unexpected beauty and strangeness, a quality which C.N. Manlove, among others, calls ‘wonder’” (Attebery 1980, p.3).
Tzvetan Todorov Fantasy is classed “under the heading ‘the fantastic’ only ‘that hesitation experienced by a person who knows only the laws of nature, confronting an apparently supernatural event” (Attebery 1980, p.4).
Eric Rabkin Fantasy is classed a “limited subgroup: fantasies which contradict, not our accepted model of the world, but rather the model generated within the story itself” (Attebery 1980, p.4).
No. Attebery (1980, p.4) claims that “I do not believe that it is useful to take the definition of fantasy any further than this. The single condition, that a story treat an impossibility as if it were true, makes off a large body of literature for us; we can then seek to determine the characteristics of that body as a whole and of the various subdivisions we may wish to make within it”.
I’m no sure, but I think the five formative definitions in Attebery, which I mentioned in my previous posting for answering for Question 2 (exclude Attebery’s definition), they can be divided into two groups; the one is England - W. R. Irwin, C. S. Lewis and C. N. Manlove; the other is America - Tzvetan Todorov (He has lived in France since 1963 writing books and essays about literary theory, but he has been a visiting professor at several universities, including Harvard, Yale, Columbia and the University of California, Berkeley (Wikipedia n.d.) and Eric Rabkin.
If so, American construction is “giving the name fantasy to what is only a minor subtype of fantasy” (Attebery 1980, p.4), on the contrary, England construction is that fantasy cannot be defined such as limited subgroup.
Hi everyone I think the fantasy is a general term for any kind of fictional work that is not primarily devoted to realistic representation of the known world. In addition, the genre is the term that is used to classify of this term can most easily be understood when examining the human tendency to classify the majority of items of items in our society. As kimiko mentioned, Attebery has interesting explanation about fantasy “any narrative which includes as a significant part of its make-up some violation of what the author clearly believes to the natural law-that is fantasy.
I read Wikipedia and reread the reading material of Attebery.
Then, I think the explanations of item in Wikipedia only draw the obscure outlines of it, and I think (I’m sorry, this is just my thinking) it is not so useful for our study.
I agree with Bahram’s understanding, but this is just my image or feeling that have been created from the reading material of Attebery who thinks that the English construction of fantasy is better than American’s. For me, there is no evidence so far, because, I have just known the two types of definitions, and I’m not so familiar to the kind of stories.
I think I may find my answer through the learning in class and discussion with you.
I read Le Guinn’s open letter about “Plausibility in Fantasy”, but I think that there is no mention how is science fiction different from fantasy. Can anyone find it?
This is my question for Question 8, although I’m not sure that I properly understand the question’s meaning.
Le Gin’s fantasies deal with the inner life (Tax 2002).
The Earthsea books “lead one to think and feel outside of regular realistic patterns and details of everyday life, laying depth changes that bring up long-forgotten reveries of childhood, unrecognized forms of heroism, secret challenges to power”(Tax 2002, p.16).
”They let the wind into our imaginations, and help to set us free” (Tax 2002, p.16).
According to Tax (2002, p.13), traditionally there are only four possible roles for women I this sort of book: absent beloved, evil witch, damsel in distress and girl warrior”.
I’m not so familiar this sort of stories. Therefore, I cannot mention the specific titles for the examples.
But I think that surely there are lots of evil witches. Sometimes antagonists of good wizards are evil wizards, but that is to say there is no role for women in the stories.
It seems that there are lots of damsels in distress, and then, heroes appear and rescue them.
It also seems that there is one girl warrior in the righteous warriors in this sort of story as one of recurrent patterns.
Hi Kimiko I want to say that the story “A Wizard of Earthsea” is about a world of magic filled with wizards, dragons and evil. The Ged , hero of the story is a boy that begins inner journey. He learnt how to fend himself .During the journey Ged learns the most important lesson of all to complete his inner journey. Ged goes against man, nature and the supernatural. Ged knows to control his emotions and knows the right way to go. In the end it is clear that, the shadow represents death and that, they share a name. Finally, Ged learns that he can no longer be possessed by anyone, because he knows his true self, and that can never be taken away.
Hi guys As you see Kimiko showed us different explanation of fantasy according to Attebery. I’d like to describe my understanding of fantasy: Fantasy is a story with specific genre that always uses supernatural power and magic for story. It can be science story (fiction), horror, and romantic comedy and so on. Author need to have a high imagination to create fantasy story.
You guys have clearly explained Fantasy as a genre and I totally agree with those definitions.
This is a short addition according to Attebery (1980). Another way he defines Fantasy is by lining up a shelf of books, as he has mentioned all those different kinds of books in his extract.
In my point of view, I think Attebery is talking about a shelf full of magic and supernatural stories like tales of witches, dragon, soldiers, princesses, pitting tailor against king, godmoter against stepmother, and many many more.
I think, he is not talking about magic stories only, but books of adventurers, imaginative fictions, and all sorts of writing that seem to share characteristics with Fantasy.
Hey! is there any other definition which hasn't been mentioned by our group?
Hi Poe I hope you are good. I agree with your understanding about fantasy as a genre. As you mentioned and according to Attebrey (1980) using different kind of magic’s, supernatural powers, and evils and so on became common in the novels. As you know, political and social situation in the world was changed, in the West, especially after two World Wars. All people for escaping of real life were looking for someone who has a powerful fore, and who can bring the better life for them. I think, it can be one of the reasons of the appearance of fantasy novels in the 20 century. Finally, finding someone who has a supernatural power we can see in the ancient stories.
Hi Kimiko It is my understanding of the letter’s Ursula Le Guiu ( question 5)about fantasy and fiction says; “fiction can be, perhaps must be, incoherent in imitation of our perceptions of reality. Fantasy, which creates a world, must be strictly coherent to its own terms, or it loses all plausibility. The rules that govern how things work in the imagined world cannot be changed during the story” (p, 1, parg, 9).
To be sure, Le Guin describes “plausibility in fantasy” as you point out. I thought that the description is similar to Tolkien’s “secondary belief” when I read the letter. That is, fantasy needs consistency. “Reader and writer are committed to maintaining the illusion for the entire course of the fiction. Tolkien refers to this commitment as ’secondary belief’” (Attebery 1980, p.3). But I think this is just one of fantasy’s features, and is not the difference from science fiction.
Is there anything surprising while you are reading A wizard of Earthsea Le Guinn’s depiction of race and gender?
I’m sure there is, because I came across one depiction of race as how the author described this heavyset fellow, Vetch (p.43). While eating, he said nothing but shovelled in his food with a will. He had the accent of the East Reach, was very dark of skin, not red brown like Ged and Jasper, most folk of the Archipelago, but black brown. I think Le Guinn is trying to demonstrate that Vetch is unlike Ged and Jasper, even though Ged had a certain like for him at last.
Another depiction the author is attempting to reveal is to distinguish the Hardic language from other languages as she says “But magic, true magic is worked only by those beings who speak the Hardic tongue of Earthsea, or the old Speech from which it grew (p.50). I think, Le Guinn is pin pointing that this is the dragons language, the language spoken by Segoy who made the islands of the world. Also the language of their lays and songs, spells, fascination, and its words lie hidden and changed among their Hardic words.
Moreover, I want to talk about one gender depiction on (p.144), where Vetch introduced his sister and said this was his sister and the youngest of them, prettier than him, but much less clever. This means, ladies are prettier than men but are not as smart as them.
In what way does Tax (2002) suggest Earthsea may still be relevant today?
Tax (2002) believes that, as far as gender goes, Earthsea seems to be a symbolic of where we are now, with no untainted source of male power, no mature authoritative leadership of any kind, caught midway in our evolution as social beings, still trying to struggle up out of the mud onto the land, no longer tadpoles and not yet frogs.
Tax also feels that science fiction, as well as heroic fantasy began as the role of men, and the gradual entry of women into these genres, has not necessarily produced more psychological depth overall. In addition, he says the best writers including Le Guinn, has given us complex re-visionings of gender and power relations, but most writers have ambitions no higher than those of their counterparts, who write in other commercial genres like espionage, crime or romance.
That is why Earthsea is the cause for celebration, as it is a book by a master stylist writing at the height of her power. As all these things are happening in our modern life, I think, Earthsea is still relevant today.
21 comments:
This is may answer for Question1.
According to Attebery (1980, P.3), “ any narrative which includes as a significant part of its make-up some violation of what the author clearly believes to the natural law – that is fantasy”.
Attebery (1980, p.3) also introduces W. R. Irwin’s description that ‘Fantasy’ is “an overt violation of what is generally accepted as possibility”. “Whatever the material, extravagant or seemingly commonplace, a narrative is a fantasy of the mind with all under the control of logic and rhetoric’ (p.9)”. Then he suggests “Fantasy, then, presupposes a view of exterior reality which it goes on to contradict” (Attebery 1980, p.3).
Hi Guys,
I would like to add a bit more to question number 1.
Fantasy to me has been defined by its characters. We can easily tell a graphic novel/novel is in the fantasy genre when we start reading about characters who are wizards and witches,trolls and dragons.
The setting of the genre also establishes itself here to. We can expect from most fantasys that the story will be set in a different or magical world for the most part.
For further reading below i have included my Wikipedia search on the fantasy genre
''The identifying traits of fantasy are the inclusion of fantastic elements in a self-coherent (internally consistent) setting.[1] Within such a structure, any location of the fantastical element is possible: it may be hidden in, or leak into the apparently real world setting, it may draw the characters into a world with such elements, or it may occur entirely in a fantasy world setting, where such elements are part of the world'' (Sourced from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_genre)
HiIoui:
Thank you for your posting.
I had noticed that my previous posting of answer for Question 1 is just the part of answer for Question 2.
Although I’m not sure the difference between Question 1 and Question 2 so far, I’ll return to Qenstion 1 after having a little more clear understand of the reading material of Attebery.
This posting is my answer for Question 2.
Attebery
“Any narrative which includes as a significant part of its make-up some violation of what the author clearly believes to the natural law – that is fantasy” (Attebery 1980, P.3).
W. R. Irwin
"Whatever the material, extravagant or seemingly commonplace, 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” (Attebery 1980, p.3).
C. S. Lewis
Fantasy “utilizes unconvincing characters and unlikely events, but it makes every effort to place them in a mundane, nonfantastic world” (Attebery 1980, p.3).
C. N. Manlove, among others
“Fantasy is a game of sorts, and it demands that one play whole-heartedly, accepting for the moment all rules and turns of the game. The reward for this extra payment is an occasional sense of unexpected beauty and strangeness, a quality which C.N. Manlove, among others, calls ‘wonder’” (Attebery 1980, p.3).
Tzvetan Todorov
Fantasy is classed “under the heading ‘the fantastic’ only ‘that hesitation experienced by a person who knows only the laws of nature, confronting an apparently supernatural event” (Attebery 1980, p.4).
Eric Rabkin
Fantasy is classed a “limited subgroup: fantasies which contradict, not our accepted model of the world, but rather the model generated within the story itself” (Attebery 1980, p.4).
This posting is my answer for Question 3.
No.
Attebery (1980, p.4) claims that “I do not believe that it is useful to take the definition of fantasy any further than this. The single condition, that a story treat an impossibility as if it were true, makes off a large body of literature for us; we can then seek to determine the characteristics of that body as a whole and of the various subdivisions we may wish to make within it”.
This posting is my answer for Question 4.
I’m no sure, but I think the five formative definitions in Attebery, which I mentioned in my previous posting for answering for Question 2 (exclude Attebery’s definition), they can be divided into two groups; the one is England - W. R. Irwin, C. S. Lewis and C. N. Manlove; the other is America - Tzvetan Todorov (He has lived in France since 1963 writing books and essays about literary theory, but he has been a visiting professor at several universities, including Harvard, Yale, Columbia and the University of California, Berkeley (Wikipedia n.d.) and Eric Rabkin.
If so, American construction is “giving the name fantasy to what is only a minor subtype of fantasy” (Attebery 1980, p.4), on the contrary, England construction is that fantasy cannot be defined such as limited subgroup.
Hi everyone
I think the fantasy is a general term for any kind of fictional work that is not primarily devoted to realistic representation of the known world. In addition, the genre is the term that is used to classify of this term can most easily be understood when examining the human tendency to classify the majority of items of items in our society. As kimiko mentioned, Attebery has interesting explanation about fantasy “any narrative which includes as a significant part of its make-up some violation of what the author clearly believes to the natural law-that is fantasy.
Hi Louie and Bahram:
I read Wikipedia and reread the reading material of Attebery.
Then, I think the explanations of item in Wikipedia only draw the obscure outlines of it, and I think (I’m sorry, this is just my thinking) it is not so useful for our study.
I agree with Bahram’s understanding, but this is just my image or feeling that have been created from the reading material of Attebery who thinks that the English construction of fantasy is better than American’s. For me, there is no evidence so far, because, I have just known the two types of definitions, and I’m not so familiar to the kind of stories.
I think I may find my answer through the learning in class and discussion with you.
Hi Group:
This is my question for Question 5.
I read Le Guinn’s open letter about “Plausibility in Fantasy”, but I think that there is no mention how is science fiction different from fantasy. Can anyone find it?
This is my question for Question 8, although I’m not sure that I properly understand the question’s meaning.
Le Gin’s fantasies deal with the inner life (Tax 2002).
The Earthsea books “lead one to think and feel outside of regular realistic patterns and details of everyday life, laying depth changes that bring up long-forgotten reveries of childhood, unrecognized forms of heroism, secret challenges to power”(Tax 2002, p.16).
”They let the wind into our imaginations, and help to set us free” (Tax 2002, p.16).
This is my question for Question 6.
According to Tax (2002, p.13), traditionally there are only four possible roles for women I this sort of book: absent beloved, evil witch, damsel in distress and girl warrior”.
I’m not so familiar this sort of stories. Therefore, I cannot mention the specific titles for the examples.
But I think that surely there are lots of evil witches. Sometimes antagonists of good wizards are evil wizards, but that is to say there is no role for women in the stories.
It seems that there are lots of damsels in distress, and then, heroes appear and rescue them.
It also seems that there is one girl warrior in the righteous warriors in this sort of story as one of recurrent patterns.
Hi Kimiko
I want to say that the story “A Wizard of Earthsea” is about a world of magic filled with wizards, dragons and evil. The Ged , hero of the story is a boy that begins inner journey. He learnt how to fend himself .During the journey Ged learns the most important lesson of all to complete his inner journey. Ged goes against man, nature and the supernatural. Ged knows to control his emotions and knows the right way to go. In the end it is clear that, the shadow represents death and that, they share a name. Finally, Ged learns that he can no longer be possessed by anyone, because he knows his true self, and that can never be taken away.
Hi guys
As you see Kimiko showed us different explanation of fantasy according to Attebery.
I’d like to describe my understanding of fantasy:
Fantasy is a story with specific genre that always uses supernatural power and magic for story. It can be science story (fiction), horror, and romantic comedy and so on. Author need to have a high imagination to create fantasy story.
Hi everyone!
You guys have clearly explained Fantasy as a genre and I totally agree with those definitions.
This is a short addition according to Attebery (1980). Another way he defines Fantasy is by lining up a shelf of books, as he has mentioned all those different kinds of books in his extract.
In my point of view, I think Attebery is talking about a shelf full of magic and supernatural stories like tales of witches, dragon, soldiers, princesses, pitting tailor against king, godmoter against stepmother, and many many more.
I think, he is not talking about magic stories only, but books of adventurers, imaginative fictions, and all sorts of writing that seem to share characteristics with Fantasy.
Hey! is there any other definition which hasn't been mentioned by our group?
Love you all!
Hi Poe
I hope you are good. I agree with your understanding about fantasy as a genre. As you mentioned and according to Attebrey (1980) using different kind of magic’s, supernatural powers, and evils and so on became common in the novels. As you know, political and social situation in the world was changed, in the West, especially after two World Wars. All people for escaping of real life were looking for someone who has a powerful fore, and who can bring the better life for them. I think, it can be one of the reasons of the appearance of fantasy novels in the 20 century. Finally, finding someone who has a supernatural power we can see in the ancient stories.
Hi Kimiko
It is my understanding of the letter’s Ursula Le Guiu ( question 5)about fantasy and fiction says; “fiction can be, perhaps must be, incoherent in imitation of our perceptions of reality. Fantasy, which creates a world, must be strictly coherent to its own terms, or it loses all plausibility. The rules that govern how things work in the imagined world cannot be changed during the story” (p, 1, parg, 9).
Hi Bahram:
To be sure, Le Guin describes “plausibility in fantasy” as you point out. I thought that the description is similar to Tolkien’s “secondary belief” when I read the letter. That is, fantasy needs consistency. “Reader and writer are committed to maintaining the illusion for the entire course of the fiction. Tolkien refers to this commitment as ’secondary belief’” (Attebery 1980, p.3). But I think this is just one of fantasy’s features, and is not the difference from science fiction.
Hi everyone!
I will try to answer this question.
Is there anything surprising while you are reading A wizard of Earthsea Le Guinn’s depiction of race and gender?
I’m sure there is, because I came across one depiction of race as how the author described this heavyset fellow, Vetch (p.43). While eating, he said nothing but shovelled in his food with a will. He had the accent of the East Reach, was very dark of skin, not red brown like Ged and Jasper, most folk of the Archipelago, but black brown. I think Le Guinn is trying to demonstrate that Vetch is unlike Ged and Jasper, even though Ged had a certain like for him at last.
Another depiction the author is attempting to reveal is to distinguish the Hardic language from other languages as she says “But magic, true magic is worked only by those beings who speak the Hardic tongue of Earthsea, or the old Speech from which it grew (p.50). I think, Le Guinn is pin pointing that this is the dragons language, the language spoken by Segoy who made the islands of the world. Also the language of their lays and songs, spells, fascination, and its words lie hidden and changed among their Hardic words.
Moreover, I want to talk about one gender depiction on (p.144), where Vetch introduced his sister and said this was his sister and the youngest of them, prettier than him, but much less clever. This means, ladies are prettier than men but are not as smart as them.
Hi everybody!
In what way does Tax (2002) suggest Earthsea may still be relevant today?
Tax (2002) believes that, as far as gender goes, Earthsea seems to be a symbolic of where we are now, with no untainted source of male power, no mature authoritative leadership of any kind, caught midway in our evolution as social beings, still trying to struggle up out of the mud onto the land, no longer tadpoles and not yet frogs.
Tax also feels that science fiction, as well as heroic fantasy began as the role of men, and the gradual entry of women into these genres, has not necessarily produced more psychological depth overall. In addition, he says the best writers including Le Guinn, has given us complex re-visionings of gender and power relations, but most writers have ambitions no higher than those of their counterparts, who write in other commercial genres like espionage, crime or romance.
That is why Earthsea is the cause for celebration, as it is a book by a master stylist writing at the height of her power. As all these things are happening in our modern life, I think, Earthsea is still relevant today.
Post a Comment