Q1 & 2. Fantasy has not legitimately been defined. It has been created by the ideas surrounding the investigation of its definition; though you can make a generalisation that fantasy breaks all the ‘rules’ of what is considered to be reality whilst breaking the ‘rules’ set by most fiction. It takes the extraordinary in a reality of its own. Five formative definitions of it throughout Attebery (1980): “An overt violation of what is generally accepted as possibility” Certain types of books i.e. Tolkien’s Lord of the rings trilogy, Narnia, the wind and the willows, the princess and the goblin and the list goes on... “An overt violation of what is generally accepted as possibility” “The single condition, that a story treat an impossibility as. “The fantastic, that hesitation experienced by a person who knows only the laws of nature, confronting an apparently supernatural event.” - Tzvetan Todorov “His fantasy is what is more generally termed nonsense or absurdiv; it involves periodic overturning of the ground rules of the fiction.” - Eric Rabkin
Question 1: Attebery says that 'any narrative which includes as a significant part of its make-up some violation of what the author clearly believes to be natural law - that is fantasy.'(textbook,p.149)
Under this definition, Attebery gives more explanation that it involves impossible things like dragons, flying horses etc and also involves magical stuffs like rings, hats etc. There are something I am not sure. In science fictions, there are also stuffs impossible and seem magical. How would people think about multifunctioned watch that combines the functions of time, medical check, small screen, game, phone etc. hundreds or thousands years ago, is it magical? Or maybe in future, a ring would be invented that it could make the person who wear it invisible like the lord of the rings. so is it a fantacy or a science fiction? I think there's no very clear boundary between the genre of fantasy or others.
Hi, I just copy and paste what I've done last week. Is it alright?
Question 4: Le Guinn states that 'Science fiction is a branch of realism'. Meanwhile, 'fantasy is far more direct in its fictionality than either realism or science fiction'.She explains that 'in general, science fiction proceeds just as realistic fiction does, meeting conventional expectations of how people generally act'.
I don't know if most of science fictions follow that rule. I remember that I've read some very new concept SF that was totally out of human's imagination or knowledge. I can't say they are a bit of reality like to be. Also take the pop movie "X men" for example. There's a guy can overcome the gravity principle and fly or free move in the space without anything. See, even in a wizard world, you need to rely on some kind of tools like broomsticks.
I totally agree with Harim about Q.1, though sometimes a definition could not be able to make every element included or explained. Sometimes it is just an instinct. When I read a book I can tell it is a fantacy or a scince fiction or a detective book or an adventure one, thongh I didn't know the definition of what a fantasy or other genres should be before.
What I was saying that the definitions could be well defining a genre, however, there's no absolutely very clear boundary between different genres. Further more, my personal opinion is that the definitions might be changing while time's changing.
Q6: Typical fantasy fiction normally consists of 4 or 5 types of characters. The most common of these 5 types is almost always the Wizard, which is evidently the centre character type in ‘A Wizard of Earthsea’. However ‘A Wizard of Earthsea’ derails from the main stereotypes of Wizards in that instead of depicting them as old and wise [such as the case of Gandalf the White from The Lord of the Rings] the main character Ged, or Sparrowhawk, is shown as a young and untrained individual. A second character type that manifests itself regularly in fantasy fictions is the Barbarians, which takes the form of the Kargs in ‘Wizard of Earthsea’. Although the Barbarians seem to take the shape and characteristics of the European Nords, obviously deviating from the Vikings, they can sometimes take the form of more obscene races, such as the Orcs in ‘Lord of the Rings’ or the Draconians in ‘Dragonlance’. Another character type typical of fantasy fiction is the Dragons, who are, in this novel, evil and destructive characters, but they can sometimes be friendly allies of humans, such as the case in ‘Dragonlance’. The last, but certainly not the least important character type seen in mainstream fantasy fiction is the ‘Warriors’, although they don’t play a major part in ‘A Wizard of Earthsea’, they are emphasised quite strongly by other authors, such as Tokien, whose ‘Aragon’ in The Lord of the Rings can be seen as, perhaps, one of the most defining examples of the Warrior characters.
7 comments:
Testing
Questions on Fantasy I:
1. How has fantasy as a genre been defined? Find at least five formative definitions in Attebery (1980).
2. Can the genre legitimately be defined by examples?
3. How do English and American constructions of fantasy diverge, according to Attebery?
4. How is science fiction different from fantasy, according to Le Guinn (http://www.ursulakleguin.com/ PlausibilityinFantasy.html)?
5. Can you identify any common fantasy meta-narratives from your own reading/viewing?
6.What are some archetypes (e.g. common character types)of fantasy fiction?
7. Note while you are reading A Wizard of Earthsea Le Guinn’s depiction of race and gender. Is there anything surprising in this? Why?
8. In what ways does Tax (2002) suggest Earthsea may still be relevant today?
Q1 & 2.
Fantasy has not legitimately been defined. It has been created by the ideas surrounding the investigation of its definition; though you can make a generalisation that fantasy breaks all the ‘rules’ of what is considered to be reality whilst breaking the ‘rules’ set by most fiction. It takes the extraordinary in a reality of its own. Five formative definitions of it throughout Attebery (1980):
“An overt violation of what is generally accepted as possibility”
Certain types of books i.e. Tolkien’s Lord of the rings trilogy, Narnia, the wind and the willows, the princess and the goblin and the list goes on...
“An overt violation of what is generally accepted as possibility”
“The single condition, that a story treat an impossibility as.
“The fantastic, that hesitation experienced by a person who knows only the laws of nature, confronting an apparently supernatural event.” - Tzvetan Todorov
“His fantasy is what is more generally termed nonsense or absurdiv; it involves periodic overturning of the ground rules of the fiction.” - Eric Rabkin
Question 1:
Attebery says that 'any narrative which includes as a significant part of its make-up some violation of what the author clearly believes to be natural law - that is fantasy.'(textbook,p.149)
Under this definition, Attebery gives more explanation that it involves impossible things like dragons, flying horses etc and also involves magical stuffs like rings, hats etc. There are something I am not sure. In science fictions, there are also stuffs impossible and seem magical. How would people think about multifunctioned watch that combines the functions of time, medical check, small screen, game, phone etc. hundreds or thousands years ago, is it magical? Or maybe in future, a ring would be invented that it could make the person who wear it invisible like the lord of the rings. so is it a fantacy or a science fiction? I think there's no very clear boundary between the genre of fantasy or others.
Hi, I just copy and paste what I've done last week. Is it alright?
Question 4:
Le Guinn states that 'Science fiction is a branch of realism'. Meanwhile, 'fantasy is far more direct in its fictionality than either realism or science fiction'.She explains that 'in general, science fiction proceeds just as realistic fiction does, meeting conventional expectations of how people generally act'.
I don't know if most of science fictions follow that rule. I remember that I've read some very new concept SF that was totally out of human's imagination or knowledge. I can't say they are a bit of reality like to be. Also take the pop movie "X men" for example. There's a guy can overcome the gravity principle and fly or free move in the space without anything. See, even in a wizard world, you need to rely on some kind of tools like broomsticks.
I totally agree with Harim about Q.1, though sometimes a definition could not be able to make every element included or explained. Sometimes it is just an instinct. When I read a book I can tell it is a fantacy or a scince fiction or a detective book or an adventure one, thongh I didn't know the definition of what a fantasy or other genres should be before.
What I was saying that the definitions could be well defining a genre, however, there's no absolutely very clear boundary between different genres. Further more, my personal opinion is that the definitions might be changing while time's changing.
Q6: Typical fantasy fiction normally consists of 4 or 5 types of characters. The most common of these 5 types is almost always the Wizard, which is evidently the centre character type in ‘A Wizard of Earthsea’. However ‘A Wizard of Earthsea’ derails from the main stereotypes of Wizards in that instead of depicting them as old and wise [such as the case of Gandalf the White from The Lord of the Rings] the main character Ged, or Sparrowhawk, is shown as a young and untrained individual. A second character type that manifests itself regularly in fantasy fictions is the Barbarians, which takes the form of the Kargs in ‘Wizard of Earthsea’. Although the Barbarians seem to take the shape and characteristics of the European Nords, obviously deviating from the Vikings, they can sometimes take the form of more obscene races, such as the Orcs in ‘Lord of the Rings’ or the Draconians in ‘Dragonlance’. Another character type typical of fantasy fiction is the Dragons, who are, in this novel, evil and destructive characters, but they can sometimes be friendly allies of humans, such as the case in ‘Dragonlance’. The last, but certainly not the least important character type seen in mainstream fantasy fiction is the ‘Warriors’, although they don’t play a major part in ‘A Wizard of Earthsea’, they are emphasised quite strongly by other authors, such as Tokien, whose ‘Aragon’ in The Lord of the Rings can be seen as, perhaps, one of the most defining examples of the Warrior characters.
Post a Comment