Week 4
How does Tolkien (1964) define fantasy? Compare and contrast this to the other definitions from last week’s reader?
Tolkien says, “Fantasy combines with its older and higher of unreality of freedom from the domination of observed “fact”, in short of the fantastic” (1964, p.45). In this definition, Tolkien points out that Fantasy must have its “Unreality” feature which is similar with Attebery’s descriptions. Furthermore, Tolkien also mentions that Fantasy requests a Secondary World making and commands Secondary belief.However, Tolkien addresses that the “inner consistency of reality” is a high state of fantasy; in contrast, Attebery emphasized some violation of primary world’s law.
I think Attebery defines Fantasy as a literary genre. When he gives his definition, he may think about the different literary forms under this genre, such as Fantasy novels and Fantasy films, to find their common similarities. So, in his 1980 books, although he refers Tolkien’s definitions, his discussion is more on the genre level.
However, Tolkien’s fantasy seems to be in narrower sense. Tolkien Points out “fairy-stories offer …these things: fantasy, recovery, escape, consolation” (p.44). In this statement, Fantasy is defined as a type of fairy story . Moreover, in the book, Tolkien talks about fantasy from human mind abilities; it more likes a human instinct. Further onward, the author argues that fantasy is easier to be presented in words than painting and drama. Here, Fantasy is still not a genre; it is only a special characteristic of all genres. Therefore, based on this level of understanding, Tolkien describes that fantasy is in short of fantastic.
Reference:
Attebery, B. (1980). The fantasy tradition in American literature: from Irving to Le Guin (p.1-10). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Tolkien, J.R.R. (1964). On Faerie Stories. In Tree and Leaf. London: Unwin Hyman.
I like Tolkien's definition of fantasy coming from a fantasy writer himself he gives a imaginative example more than a literary example. For there to be unreality and a second world. Fantasy would not work if there was only the world and life as we know it. I agree with Tolkien saying that fantasy is easier to present in words that a painting or drama as there is the need to set up the story and create the world from scratch for the reader / viewer to fully understand.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that fantasy is easier to present in words, especially because many high fantasies require extensive back stories and convuluted plots - in fact this is true in most fantasies. However, when I see art set in a fantastical place it can instantly evoke feelings, whereas a story takes time to build - they work on different levels. I dont think it is possible to compare the two outlets.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tolkien's defintition that it needs the freedom to deviate from fact and a secondary world is often needed but this depends on the story. Most fantasy novels I read, whether high or low fantasy, seem to sojourn to another reality at some point. Certainly for a Tolkien novel, this secondary world is vital, however it is still Earth per se. I read Lord of the Rings as set in a time before our own, perhaps pertaining to the theory of history repeating itself - our time is just the one currently playing. Attebary is correct in saying it violates our laws in some way.
I agree that Tolkien's plot outline does appear formulaic to the point it borders on a fairy story. But don't all stories follow some kind of pattern? And can't we not class fairytales as fantasy?
I like what Tolkien says about fantasy. It's quite clear to point out what exactal what fantasy is."unreality" may be is a main feature that fantasy is being accepted successfully.
ReplyDelete