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?
For Q1! Fantasy is “any narrative which includes as a significant part of its make-up some violation of what the author clearly believes to the natural law ... 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’” (Attebery, 1980) In other words, it is a genre that uses magic or supernatural forms such as “dragons, flying horses, or shape shifting men." (Attebery, 1980) For example, ‘A Wizard of Earthsea’, there are a young with a magical power, dragons and some unknown creatures are coming out.
Hi guys~~ Can I just keep going or should I leave some for you guys? ^^~ For Q2! 1. “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.” (p.3) 2. "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.3) 3. Fantasy “utilizes unconvincing characters and unlikely events, but it makes every effort to place them in a mundane, non-fantastic world.” (p.3) 4. “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’.” (p.3) 5. 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.” (p.4) 6. 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.” (p.4)
For Q3! No, the genre can not be defined by examples in Attebery’s point of view. The genre is the characteristic of the literature just like the quality of a man. “I do not believe that it is useful to take the definition of fantasy any further than this. The single condition, that a story treats 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)
I'm not sure about these three questions. I just copied a bit where I thought as the best answer.
For Q4! Attebery (1980, p4) has defined American construction as it is “giving the name fantasy to what is only a minor subtype of fantasy, whereas, England construction is that fantasy cannot be defined such as limited subgroup."
For Q6! Not sure but maybe “absent beloved, evil witch, damsel in distress and girl warrior.” (Tax, 2002, p.13)
For Q8! Tax (2002, p.16) states that “(Earthsea) deals with the inner life and leads 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. … They let the wind into our imaginations, and help to set us free.”
Apart from the answers provided by Yuna Lee on question one , I would like to share my answer with you guys.
In accordance with Attebery (1980), a story can declare its fantastic nature in diverse ways. First of all, it can revolve around magical articles such as rings and hats and inanimate objects that do not possess in our experience. Besides, it can also proceed through incidents. For instance, in Tolkien's trilogy "The Lord of the Rings", trees are animate. They can walk and talk and even fight. Although this infringe basic assumptions about matter and life,fantasy deals with the impossibility without hesitation and doubt. It makes no attempts to settle the impossibility with the reader's intellectual understanding of the operations of the world or to make the reader believe that such thing could come true under any situations.
I would like to add a piece of information on question two.
The fantastic works have the sense of wonder as Attebery states that "Fantasy invokes wonder by making the impossible seem familiar and the familiar seem new and strange."(1980,p.4)
Guinn expresses that most science fictions assume that the future is the present or the past, and then tell the readers what happens in it. science fiction is likely to avoid the actual present time. A story about the immediate contemporary world is read with high expectations of factuality, and blatant contradiction of fact.if not satirical, will be regarded as nonsense.In addition to that, Guinn (2005,p.1)believes 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. Realism and science fiction both employ plausibility to win the reader's consent to the fiction."
All the same, Fantasy is not indirect in its fictionality than science fiction. There is no agreement to assume that its story occurs, might have occured, or might ever occur. Its invention is radical.With the informed consent of the reader, fantasy deliberately infringes plausibility in the sense of congruence with the world outside the story. Only in lesser incidents are realistic detail used to ground the story, to deter the reader from getting an overload of the improbable.
Hey Stephy and Yuna, I think fantasy can be also defined into high fantasy and low fantasy.
High fantsay is the fantasy that the writer creates the whole new world to start the story. E.G. Lord Of The Rings, Star Wars.
Low fantasy is the fantasy that the writer develops the story base on the real world. Then the go to the special world to start their advanture. E.G. Narnia, Doctor Who.
Yes, Edmond... that 'HIGH' and 'LOW' fantasy things.. I'm STILL reading 'A Wizard of Earthsea'- the 'HIGH' fantasy. And I liked... better say 'agree' with Kiniko's answer for Q5 which I missed! Well I don't really like Sci-Fi or Fantasy movies - I never saw Star Wars... I didn't see it because I didn't like that kind of movies BUT I LOVE 'the Lord of the Ring' and 'Harry Potter'. ^^~ Hmm... it looks like I like only characters and pictures but not the 'genre'. does it make any sense?
I’d like to add few more quotes to Kiniko’s answer for Q5. IT's saying pretty much the same thing... anyway ^^~ In my knowledge, ‘Fantasy Fiction’ and ‘Science Fiction’ are both stories with imaginations, but ‘Fantasy Fiction’ is very close to the real world and, on the other hand, Science Fiction is based on aliens or something that out of human's reach. According to Le Guinn (2005), science fiction is on the basis of realistic world, it relates to the history, people, events and etc. “For example, Tolkien's references to places, people, events 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.” But the fantasy is on the basis of an empty world, the writer can create a new world with his pen by himself. "Fantasy, which creates a world, must be strictly coherent to its own terms, or it loses all plausibility. … 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, ‘empty nouns’ … 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.”
15 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?
For Q1!
Fantasy is “any narrative which includes as a significant part of its make-up some violation of what the author clearly believes to the natural law ... 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’” (Attebery, 1980) In other words, it is a genre that uses magic or supernatural forms such as “dragons, flying horses, or shape shifting men." (Attebery, 1980) For example, ‘A Wizard of Earthsea’, there are a young with a magical power, dragons and some unknown creatures are coming out.
Hi guys~~ Can I just keep going or should I leave some for you guys? ^^~ For Q2!
1. “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.” (p.3)
2. "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.3)
3. Fantasy “utilizes unconvincing characters and unlikely events, but it makes every effort to place them in a mundane, non-fantastic world.” (p.3)
4. “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’.” (p.3)
5. 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.” (p.4)
6. 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.” (p.4)
For Q3!
No, the genre can not be defined by examples in Attebery’s point of view. The genre is the characteristic of the literature just like the quality of a man.
“I do not believe that it is useful to take the definition of fantasy any further than this. The single condition, that a story treats 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)
I'm not sure about these three questions. I just copied a bit where I thought as the best answer.
For Q4!
Attebery (1980, p4) has defined American construction as it is “giving the name fantasy to what is only a minor subtype of fantasy, whereas, England construction is that fantasy cannot be defined such as limited subgroup."
For Q6!
Not sure but maybe “absent beloved, evil witch, damsel in distress and girl warrior.” (Tax, 2002, p.13)
For Q8!
Tax (2002, p.16) states that “(Earthsea) deals with the inner life and leads 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. … They let the wind into our imaginations, and help to set us free.”
Wow - Yuna talking to Yuna.
So that's all credit to Yuna and a big fat zero for everybody else (how may golds has Korea won so far in Beijing?).
Apart from the answers provided by Yuna Lee on question one , I would like to share my answer with you guys.
In accordance with Attebery (1980), a story can declare its fantastic nature in diverse ways. First of all, it can revolve around magical articles such as rings and hats and inanimate objects that do not possess in our experience. Besides, it can also proceed through incidents. For instance, in Tolkien's trilogy "The Lord of the Rings", trees are animate. They can walk and talk and even fight. Although this infringe basic assumptions about matter and life,fantasy deals with the impossibility without hesitation and doubt. It makes no attempts to settle the impossibility with the reader's intellectual understanding of the operations of the world or to make the reader believe that such thing could come true under any situations.
I would like to add a piece of information on question two.
The fantastic works have the sense of wonder as Attebery states that "Fantasy invokes wonder by making the impossible seem familiar and the familiar seem new and strange."(1980,p.4)
Guinn expresses that most science fictions assume that the future is the present or the past, and then tell the readers what happens in it. science fiction is likely to avoid the actual present time. A story about the immediate contemporary world is read with high expectations of factuality, and blatant contradiction of fact.if not satirical, will be regarded as nonsense.In addition to that, Guinn (2005,p.1)believes 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. Realism and science fiction both employ plausibility to win the reader's consent to the fiction."
All the same, Fantasy is not indirect in its fictionality than science fiction. There is no agreement to assume that its story occurs, might have occured, or might ever occur. Its invention is radical.With the informed consent of the reader, fantasy deliberately infringes plausibility in the sense of congruence with the world outside the story. Only in lesser incidents are realistic detail used to ground the story, to deter the reader from getting an overload of the improbable.
This is my answer for question five
Reference List :
http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Plausibility
Revisited
x1
I will do Q1
Fantasy cannot be touched. It is only a imagination.
According to Guin. (1980) shows
"...without which work simply cannot be fantasy is "an overt violation of what is generally accepted as possibility"
I will follow Edmond reply.
Hey Stephy and Yuna, I think fantasy can be also defined into high fantasy and low fantasy.
High fantsay is the fantasy that the writer creates the whole new world to start the story. E.G. Lord Of The Rings, Star Wars.
Low fantasy is the fantasy that the writer develops the story base on the real world. Then the go to the special world to start their advanture. E.G. Narnia, Doctor Who.
Yes, Edmond... that 'HIGH' and 'LOW' fantasy things.. I'm STILL reading 'A Wizard of Earthsea'- the 'HIGH' fantasy.
And I liked... better say 'agree' with Kiniko's answer for Q5 which I missed!
Well I don't really like Sci-Fi or Fantasy movies - I never saw Star Wars... I didn't see it because I didn't like that kind of movies BUT I LOVE 'the Lord of the Ring' and 'Harry Potter'. ^^~ Hmm... it looks like I like only characters and pictures but not the 'genre'. does it make any sense?
I’d like to add few more quotes to Kiniko’s answer for Q5. IT's saying pretty much the same thing... anyway ^^~
In my knowledge, ‘Fantasy Fiction’ and ‘Science Fiction’ are both stories with imaginations, but ‘Fantasy Fiction’ is very close to the real world and, on the other hand, Science Fiction is based on aliens or something that out of human's reach.
According to Le Guinn (2005), science fiction is on the basis of realistic world, it relates to the history, people, events and etc. “For example, Tolkien's references to places, people, events 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.”
But the fantasy is on the basis of an empty world, the writer can create a new world with his pen by himself. "Fantasy, which creates a world, must be strictly coherent to its own terms, or it loses all plausibility. … 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, ‘empty nouns’ … 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.”
Post a Comment