Week 3

How has fantasy as a genre been defined? Find at least five formative definitions in Attebery
(1980).


Attebery (1980) has made it very clear that fantasy as a genre cannot be defined by just the one thing; its definition is made up from many small things, each on their own rather insignificant, however together they form the basis for what fantasy truly is. These rules (as I like to call them, because every fantasy novel, movie, comic or whatever has its own set of rules) give something intangible a working definition - something by which it can be named, measured and categorised by.

The first thing Atterbery mentions is that for something to be classed as fantasy, a "significant part of its make-up" needs to be in violation of what the author knows to be real. Taking Harry Potter as an example, J. K. Rowling knows for a fact that wizards don't exist (or at least I really hope this is the case, lol), but she writes about them anyway. This is an aspect of fantasy. Though in saying that one could argue that the CSI TV series are also fantasy - I attended a lecture at Auckland University once where a forensic psychologist spoke to us about how UNlike TV his job was. He told us that the only real crime scene he had to attend was a fire at his own home! The writers know that life isn't that dramatic (and that nobody needs to be taking their sun glasses on and off every five seconds), but they write it anyway. Though, to me at least, CSI can not be classed under the fantasy genre, even though it meets one of the criteria.

Creating a sense of wonder was another aspect of the true fantasy genre, that Atterbery noted (bye bye CSI). He uses the Alice in Wonderland books as an example, which I find ironic (Wonderland...wonder. Get it?), but he does have a point - the world of Wonderland is so fantastical and awesome that it really couldn't fit in to any other genre that we have. I know I'll never look at a white rabbit without thinking "Where's the waist coat and nifty watch!?" - privately, of course. Tales such as Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles of Narnia just blow my mind with the detail in them, and just how different they are from the hum-drum of our normal life. If a talking lion isn't something to be wondered at, I don't know what is.

Atterbery mentions folklore or 'fairytales' as something that can be classed as fantasy. Of course not all fantasy is a fairytale, but all fairytales are fantasy - a lot of them begin in fact, however. Just think about this; you catch a fish that's about 5cm long. No biggie. But 20 years later, when you are telling your kids about it, it took your three hours to reel in and was twenty feet long. I think basic facts can be twisted in to something fanciful. How did Tolkin put it? "Fact became legend, legend became myth" or something like that. The point is, all you really need to do it pick up a Disney movie to get the point; Sleeping Beauty, Snowhite and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella....they are all based off folk tales, but are now cherished fantasy stories.

Creating a world unto its own, with its own laws, was another thing that Atterbery touched on. You only need to look at the Hogwarts Universe to know that it exists in its own little bubble of magicey goodness - it does follow its own rules, though. The same as Middle Earth follows its own rules. Said rules normally consist of: nobody is TOTALLY perfect and immortal and unharmable, there is ALWAYS an attractive woman involved at some point, and the funny one always gets it.

Finally, I do like the fact that Atterbery mentions the darker side to fairytales. I'm going to use the Brother's Grimm as an example for this one. Lets all think of Hansel and Gretel, shall we? Starving young children and using them for slave labour, then burning an old woman alive in her own oven? I'm going to take a guess here, and say that's pretty dark stuff. Granted not all fantasy has to be dark and twisty, nor is everything dark and twisty always fantasy, but I think the good stuff is.
I'll leave you with Goldie Locks and the Three Bears - nothing says STAY OUT OF MY HOUSE like tearing someone to pieces for eating your porridge. ^_^



How is science fiction different from
fantasy, according to Le Guinn (http://www.ursulakleguin.com/ PlausibilityinFantasy.html)?

I don't actually think that the webpage listed for us to look at really answered this question (unless I totally missed the point of it) as it doesn't really mention anything about sci fi at all. It does say that for fantasy to be plausable it needs to have a world that exists well outside of what is presented to us, but my biggest problem with this is Star Wars - it's a sci fi, there's no question about that, however the Star Wars universe exists outside of the movies. It has a history and events that occur that are not shown to us, so that falls in to both catergories, according to what Le Guinn said in that letter.

My personal opinion is that there's not much difference at all, really. Sci fi involves technology and straight out fantasy does not. That's the only major difference between them as far as I am concerned.