2. Find at least five formative definitions in Attebery (1980).
3. According to Attebery, Can the genre legitimately be defined by examples?
4. How do English and American constructions of fantasy diverge, according to Attebery?
5. How is science fiction different from fantasy, according to Le Guinn (http://www.ursulakleguin.com/ PlausibilityinFantasy.html)?
6. Can you identify any common fantasy meta-narratives from your own reading/viewing? 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?
Hi guys: ~ For our blog discussion this week, definitions of fantasy supported by examples will be the major topic for discussion. And fantasy is often divided into two main subgenres: so-called ‘High Fantasy’ and so-called ‘Low Fantasy’. I think Low Fantasy compare with High Fantasy is easier to be understood and have connection with the real world and real biology. High Fantasy is more complicated which may concern strange biology, extremely high- technology skills and have large distance of the real world.
And Question 2: Find at least five formative definitions in Attebery (1980). I find these as follow.
1. Attebury’s definition: ‘That a story treat an impossibility as if it were true’. 2. An overt violation of what is generally accepted as possibility." 3. "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"(p. 9). 4. 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.’ 5. "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" (Attebury, p. 3). Do you guys agree with me?
And my ideas of Question 3: According to Attebery, Can the genre legitimately be defined by examples? “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 Attebery (1980, p.4)”. According to Attebery’s point of view, the genre can not be defined by examples. The genre is the characteristic of the literature just like the quality of a man.
Hi Shirley, happy to see your comments here:) But I think that the definition of formative fantasy what you mentioned before both belonged to the same one of W. R. Irwin’s opinion. Those are you mentioned No.2 and No.3. Do you agree with me?
Hello all, I'm trying to answer the question of No.5. As far as I understand Le Guinn, life in fantasy is easy and unlikely to happen, and this theme doesn't change. On the other hand, life in sci-fi is difficult and the theme often changes.
Hi Hisako, your comments are nice point for us. And I’d like to say something about the same question of my personal view in the following paragraph.
According to Le Guinn, science fiction is on the basis of realistic world, it relates to the history, people, events and etc. The example of Le Guinn’s can make us to understand it clearly, which is “For example, Tolkien's references to places, people, events (often of long ago) that are not part of the immediate story: these give the reader a conviction of the reality of the immediate scene — because it is shown to be part of a much greater landscape, a long history, a whole world of which it is only a glimpse. This is a strong technique for making an imagined world plausible. This is a technique which one can imitate, performing it in one’s own way. ” But the fantasy is on the basis of an empty world, the writer can create a new world with his pen by himself. That just like what the Le Guinn said “I wrote them, merely words — "empty" nouns.” and “In the same way, I drew the map of Earthsea at the very beginning, but I didn't know anything about each island till I ‘went to’ it.”
According to Le Guin(2005) " some of the later exploits of Ged mentioned early in A Wizard of Earthsea. These were, when I wrote them, merely words — "empty" nouns. I knew that if my story took me to them, I would find out who and what they were. And this indeed happened. . . " When Le Guin wrote a fantasy story, he had no problem in writing it because fantasy story always have the relation to an existing world. Fantasy fiction and Science Fiction are both imagination story but Fantasy fiction is very close to the real world such as, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings and on the other hand Science Fiction based on aliens and something that out of human's reach which Le Guin may pointed out that it's easier to write Fantasy Fiction.
Hi Jocelyn ^-^ You said:“The fantasy is on the basis of an empty world, the writer can create a new world with his pen by himself.”I think the fantasy is not on the basis of an empty world but based on the real world. There must be some connection between the real world and the fantasy. Even the high fantasy, the writer lives in the real world; his fantasy is based on the real world as well. We do can find a particle of connection between the real world and the fantasy. Fantasy is a kind of extension of the real world.
Hello Jan, Nice comment to read, but I don't think fantasy stories are closer to the real world than sci-fi stories, according to Le Guinn. She mentions "Fantasy, which creates a world, must be strictly coherent to its own terms, or it loses all plausibility". In my interpretation, "it loses all plausibility" means that fantasy is not likely to be true. What I understand from Le Guinn's text is that the life in fantasy is easier than sci-fi, and this idea doesn't change until the end of the story. For example, problems in Harry Potter or L of R are small things, to rescue friends or to get the ring. On the other hand, problems in Alien or Matrix are huge, to rescue whole world or all people. So kids like fantasy because to rescue whole world is too big task for them to achieve. And, both fantasy and sci-fi are unlikely to happen because there is no person who can use magic, like Harry Potter.
hi Shirley and Jocelyn...I agree with Shirley on this one. I also think that fantasy fiction is not on the basis of an empty world. As Le Guin(2005) said "The fantasy writer must "believe in" the world she is creating, not in the sense of confusing it in any way with the actual bodily world, but in the sense of giving absolute credence to the work of the imagination — dwelling in it while writing, and trusting it to reveal itself". Whatever is in the fantasy fiction, the writer had created based on human being or very close to them. As in "A Wizard of Earthsea"(Le Guin, 1993), there were scenes like the boy herding the goats, singing in the thanksgiving day, people dancing and etc. These are all closed to the real world.
Hey guys, thanks for making comments of my view, and happy to see your opinions of Le Guinn’s article. To be honest, I did not understand clearly of the differences between science fiction and fantasy when I read Le Guinn’s work, because I think they are both produced by the human’s imagination. What I was thinking of that just was my personal idea, so thank you guys giving me good comments :)
Hello. I'm answering the question of No. 6. As I said last thread, problems in fantasy is small, so the characters are not so strong, but they are mentally strong (to rescue their friends, etc.). Yet problems in sci-fi is big, so the characters are physically strong (to save whole world).
Hi Hisako, I think 'Ged' who is the main character in "A Wizard of Earthsea", he is a little bit like the hero type. Do you agree? This type of fantasy fiction is everyone's favourite, as the fantasy fiction makers tend to make the hero type of fiction to reflect on their audiences. This is from my own view anyway. There are a few archetypes that I think I have come across before such as; The Evil/Orge, The Mentor, The Dansel Distress, The Hapless and The Hero (as I have mentioned.
hi guys, ill try to answer question 5. I agree with jocelyn on this. In Le Guins essay 'Plausabilty revistied', he mentions that science fiction is a 'branch of realism' and that "science fiction proceeds just as realistic fiction does, meeting conventional expectations of how people generally act, and either avoiding events that will strike the reader as improbable, or plausibly explaining them." He goes on to say that fantasy is more direct than science fiction in its fictionality.
I do agree with your opinion the fantasy world is basing on the realy world but not the empty world. And I do belive that some of writer's source material should be get from the real world such as from the daily life, the author's own experience, so that the writer would have the outline of the inspiration and create or immagine them to make up the story in order to attract the audiences.
In the first place, both Science fiction and fantasy stories are make-believe tales. However, the most different point is that fantasy stories are unlikely tales that have strange or imagined characters, places, or events. But science fiction stories are about life in the future or life on other planets.
Moreover, Fantasies are stories that involve beings and events that do not exist in real life. These works may start on a realistic bent but they soon evolve into tales that could never really happen. Science fiction literature focuses on real or imagined developments in science or technology. But they do have something in common which is thatAll science-fiction and fantasy writers face a common challenge.
According to Le Guinn, the main different between them should be the audiences. There is no doubt that as Le Guinn commented that "so acceptable to children, and even when frightening may give the reader reassurance: it has rules. It asserts a universe that, in some way, makes sense." However, the science fiction is more suitable to the teenages and over age people
18 comments:
1. How has fantasy as a genre been defined?
2. Find at least five formative definitions in Attebery (1980).
3. According to Attebery, Can the genre legitimately be defined by examples?
4. How do English and American
constructions of fantasy diverge, according to Attebery?
5. How is science fiction different from
fantasy, according to Le Guinn (http://www.ursulakleguin.com/ PlausibilityinFantasy.html)?
6. Can you identify any common fantasy meta-narratives from your own reading/viewing? 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?
Hi guys: ~ For our blog discussion this week, definitions of fantasy supported by examples will be the major topic for discussion. And fantasy is often divided into two main subgenres: so-called ‘High Fantasy’ and so-called ‘Low Fantasy’. I think Low Fantasy compare with High Fantasy is easier to be understood and have connection with the real world and real biology. High Fantasy is more complicated which may concern strange biology, extremely high- technology skills and have large distance of the real world.
And Question 2: Find at least five formative definitions in Attebery (1980).
I find these as follow.
1. Attebury’s definition: ‘That a story treat an impossibility as if it were true’.
2. An overt violation of what is generally accepted as possibility."
3. "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"(p. 9).
4. 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.’
5. "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" (Attebury, p. 3).
Do you guys agree with me?
And my ideas of Question 3: According to Attebery, Can the genre legitimately be defined by examples?
“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 Attebery (1980, p.4)”. According to Attebery’s point of view, the genre can not be defined by examples. The genre is the characteristic of the literature just like the quality of a man.
Hi Shirley, happy to see your comments here:) But I think that the definition of formative fantasy what you mentioned before both belonged to the same one of W. R. Irwin’s opinion. Those are you mentioned No.2 and No.3. Do you agree with me?
Hello all,
I'm trying to answer the question of No.5.
As far as I understand Le Guinn, life in fantasy is easy and unlikely to happen, and this theme doesn't change. On the other hand, life in sci-fi is difficult and the theme often changes.
Hi Hisako, your comments are nice point for us. And I’d like to say something about the same question of my personal view in the following paragraph.
According to Le Guinn, science fiction is on the basis of realistic world, it relates to the history, people, events and etc. The example of Le Guinn’s can make us to understand it clearly, which is “For example, Tolkien's references to places, people, events (often of long ago) that are not part of the immediate story: these give the reader a conviction of the reality of the immediate scene — because it is shown to be part of a much greater landscape, a long history, a whole world of which it is only a glimpse. This is a strong technique for making an imagined world plausible. This is a technique which one can imitate, performing it in one’s own way. ”
But the fantasy is on the basis of an empty world, the writer can create a new world with his pen by himself. That just like what the Le Guinn said “I wrote them, merely words — "empty" nouns.” and “In the same way, I drew the map of Earthsea at the very beginning, but I didn't know anything about each island till I ‘went to’ it.”
According to Le Guin(2005) "
some of the later exploits of Ged mentioned early in A Wizard of Earthsea. These were, when I wrote them, merely words — "empty" nouns. I knew that if my story took me to them, I would find out who and what they were. And this indeed happened. . . " When Le Guin wrote a fantasy story, he had no problem in writing it because fantasy story always have the relation to an existing world. Fantasy fiction and Science Fiction are both imagination story but Fantasy fiction is very close to the real world such as, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings and on the other hand Science Fiction based on aliens and something that out of human's reach which Le Guin may pointed out that it's easier to write Fantasy Fiction.
Hi Jocelyn ^-^
You said:“The fantasy is on the basis of an empty world, the writer can create a new world with his pen by himself.”I think the fantasy is not on the basis of an empty world but based on the real world. There must be some connection between the real world and the fantasy. Even the high fantasy, the writer lives in the real world; his fantasy is based on the real world as well. We do can find a particle of connection between the real world and the fantasy. Fantasy is a kind of extension of the real world.
Hello Jan,
Nice comment to read, but I don't think fantasy stories are closer to the real world than sci-fi stories, according to Le Guinn. She mentions "Fantasy, which creates a world, must be strictly coherent to its own terms, or it loses all plausibility". In my interpretation, "it loses all plausibility" means that fantasy is not likely to be true. What I understand from Le Guinn's text is that the life in fantasy is easier than sci-fi, and this idea doesn't change until the end of the story. For example, problems in Harry Potter or L of R are small things, to rescue friends or to get the ring. On the other hand, problems in Alien or Matrix are huge, to rescue whole world or all people. So kids like fantasy because to rescue whole world is too big task for them to achieve. And, both fantasy and sci-fi are unlikely to happen because there is no person who can use magic, like Harry Potter.
hi Shirley and Jocelyn...I agree with Shirley on this one. I also think that fantasy fiction is not on the basis of an empty world. As Le Guin(2005) said "The fantasy writer must "believe in" the world she is creating, not in the sense of confusing it in any way with the actual bodily world, but in the sense of giving absolute credence to the work of the imagination — dwelling in it while writing, and trusting it to reveal itself". Whatever is in the fantasy fiction, the writer had created based on human being or very close to them. As in "A Wizard of Earthsea"(Le Guin, 1993), there were scenes like the boy herding the goats, singing in the thanksgiving day, people dancing and etc. These are all closed to the real world.
Hey guys, thanks for making comments of my view, and happy to see your opinions of Le Guinn’s article. To be honest, I did not understand clearly of the differences between science fiction and fantasy when I read Le Guinn’s work, because I think they are both produced by the human’s imagination. What I was thinking of that just was my personal idea, so thank you guys giving me good comments :)
Hello. I'm answering the question of No. 6.
As I said last thread, problems in fantasy is small, so the characters are not so strong, but they are mentally strong (to rescue their friends, etc.). Yet problems in sci-fi is big, so the characters are physically strong (to save whole world).
Hi Hisako, I think 'Ged' who is the main character in "A Wizard of Earthsea", he is a little bit like the hero type. Do you agree? This type of fantasy fiction is everyone's favourite, as the fantasy fiction makers tend to make the hero type of fiction to reflect on their audiences. This is from my own view anyway. There are a few archetypes that I think I have come across before such as; The Evil/Orge, The Mentor, The Dansel Distress, The Hapless and The Hero (as I have mentioned.
hi guys, ill try to answer question 5. I agree with jocelyn on this. In Le Guins essay 'Plausabilty revistied', he mentions that science fiction is a 'branch of realism' and that "science fiction proceeds just as realistic fiction does, meeting conventional expectations of how people generally act, and either avoiding events that will strike the reader as improbable, or plausibly explaining them."
He goes on to say that fantasy is more direct than science fiction in its fictionality.
Hi guys
Re:Shirley
I do agree with your opinion the fantasy world is basing on the realy world but not the empty world. And I do belive that some of writer's source material should be get from the real world such as from the daily life, the author's own experience, so that the writer would have the outline of the inspiration and create or immagine them to make up the story in order to attract the audiences.
And then I'm gonna answer the question 5
How is science fiction different from fantasy?
In the first place, both Science fiction and fantasy stories are make-believe tales. However, the most different point is that fantasy stories are unlikely tales that have strange or imagined characters, places, or events. But science fiction stories are about life in the future or life on other planets.
Moreover, Fantasies are stories that involve beings and events that do not exist in real life. These works may start on a realistic bent but they soon evolve into tales that could never really happen. Science fiction literature focuses on real or imagined developments in science or technology. But they do have something in common which is thatAll science-fiction and fantasy writers face a common challenge.
According to Le Guinn, the main different between them should be the audiences. There is no doubt that as Le Guinn commented that "so acceptable to children, and even when frightening may give the reader reassurance: it has rules. It asserts a universe that, in some way, makes sense." However, the science fiction is more suitable to the teenages and over age people
Post a Comment