Week 4

Is Tolkien’s notion of the ‘faery story’ linked to fantasy genre? How closely?

Tolkien (1964) considers the ‘faery story’ is one that involves Faerie. Faerie, he states, is the “realm or state in which fairies have their being” (Tolkien, p. 14). Tolkien links the ‘faery story’ closely with the fantasy genre as he considers a fairy-story uses to a greater or lesser degree Faerie. As Tolkien states, “a fairy story, a thing built on or about Fantasy, of which Fantasy is the core” (p. 54). When a person alters what we know to be real “in such ‘fantasy’, as it is called, new form is made; Faerie begins” (Tolkien, p. 25).

How does Tolkien (1964) define fantasy? Compare and contrast this to the other definitions from last week’s reader.

As Tolkien (1964) states, fantasy is “the making or glimpsing of Other worlds” (p. 40). To enlarge here, Tolkien “laid down criteria for fantasy worlds to be independent of our own” (Cockrell, 2006, p. 25). So Tolkien does not believe that fantasy can be a part of the primary world, because as soon as he considers something to be a part of this world it ceases to be fantasy: an example is when Tolkien discusses the stage portrayal of the witches in Macbeth (p. 47).

There is some contention, however, as to which works constitute fantasy and which do not due to the differing definitions of what fantasy actually involves. Whereas Rabkin (as cited in Attebery, 1980) considers Alice in Wonderland to be a work of “true Fantasy” (p. 4), Tolkien (1964) does not, because he considers the Alice books incorporate dreams which reduces fantasy phenomena to figments of the dream state rather than their being a product of Faerie (where the dream is not the product of Faerie), or the creation of the sub-creator who delves in fantasy. Tolkien also specifies a Secondary World is necessary for fantasy, so I suppose, taking this perspective, a dream cannot be considered a true Secondary World. However, Rabkin regards this “internally consistent mode favoured by MacDonald or Tolkien . . . as fairy-tale” (Attebery, p. 4) not fantasy, whereas Tolkien considers fantasy to be “a rational not an irrational activity” (p. 45, footnote).

Foster (as cited in Attebery, 1980) states an acceptance of fantasy is “to accept not only the conventions of fiction but also implausibilities within those conventions” (p. 3). This would seem to be a common thread in fantasy and can be likened to what Tolkien (1964) strives to achieve within his Art, what he calls Secondary Belief, where the ‘acceptance’ is lost when the reader loses Secondary Belief because the Secondary World loses its believability.

Irwin (as cited in Attebery, 1980) considers “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). There is no separation of Primary and Secondary Worlds in this definition, so it seems Irwin considers fantasy can occur in both, unlike Tolkien (1964). However, it is the word ‘arbitrary’ which is the key word here – that fantasy is an improbable story convincingly presented, with its creation being dependent on the prejudices and personal whims of the author. Perhaps Irwin would thus view Tolkien as being prejudice regarding aspects of his definition of Fantasy. For example, Tolkien clearly associates magic with the magician and considers fantasy strives for enchantment. That magic is “a technique; its desire is power in this world, domination of things and wills” (Tolkien, p. 50). As an aside: if magic is of this world, I must note here that magic is the power in “The Wizard of Earthsea”, not enchantment, which means Le Guin also has a differing opinion on what fantasy involves.

However, both Irwin (as cited in Attebery, 1980) and Tolkien (1964) agree that fantasy is what is deemed impossible in our world which also aligns with Attebery’s (1980) comment that fantasy incorporates what goes against what we know of our world. Also, it seems another common thread is that the fantastic that occurs in fantasy, which violates what we know of this world, does not have to be explained to the reader as seems to be the case with science fiction.

An attempt at opinion for Week 4:

Tolkien (1964) considers “Drama is naturally hostile to Fantasy” (p. 47) and presents his experience of the witches in Macbeth which he could accept when reading Macbeth, but not upon seeing their stage portrayal. Tolkien states “in human art, Fantasy is a thing best left to words, to true literature” (p. 46), and that Shakespeare should have written Macbeth as a book, not a play.

Tolkien (1964) achieves the state of Secondary Belief through fantasy by reading. But perhaps Tolkien is too quick to dismiss people’s ability to reach Secondary Belief by other means other than through the written word, for example, via drama. He does not consider that in the days of Shakespeare many people who watched these dramas could not read. These audiences were not as sophisticated as they were at the time of Tolkien’s writing (1964) just as audiences today are far more sophisticated than they were in 1964. Merely entering the theatre would have been similar to entering an enchanted place for many. In those days there was no electricity. The theatres drew light from fires and candles – and sometimes the theatres caught fire and burnt down as a result. But, imagine, if you will, how the witches and ‘animals’ would have looked by candlelight on stage. Considering, also, such factors as the superstitions of those times, for illiterate persons who could not draw on their imagination through the written word, surely these stage scenes must have held many spell-bound (or captured many in some form of Secondary World), even though they be merely observers?

Yet Tolkien (1964) stresses that drama is different to narrative art and that if one prefers “Drama to Literature [written word again] . . . you are apt to misunderstand pure story-making” (p. 48). I do not think that the state of Secondary Belief derived from fantasy is the luxury of literate people alone. Think of the rich oral traditions where audiences were held spell-bound merely by the voice of a story-teller.

If we take this idea that fantasy can only be reached through literature, are we then to accept that fantasy is a ‘modern’ phenomenon? How can this be when Faerie/fantasy/enchantment were brought into being (and believed) centuries ago when most people were illiterate? As Tolkien (1964) himself states, “Fantasy is a natural human activity” (p.51), something we “make in our measure and in our derivative mode” (p. 52). So if fantasy cannot be reached through literature, then surely we derive it from other means, for example, drama. And if Shakespeare had written Macbeth as a book and not a play, his audience would have been much smaller indeed.

In his Note F, Tolkien (1964) clarifies by stating that it is the acts of fantasy “fantasy of forms and visible shapes” (p. 70) that cannot be contained successfully within drama. I can only draw on my experience of Macbeth and other Shakespearean plays I have watched. The ones that come to my mind were those performed out of doors at night at the University of Auckland a number of years ago. There were very limited props, yet the atmosphere created by the old building as the backdrop and the enclosed space made the audiences a participant in the plays. Even the Shakespearean prose (language of the ‘Other world’ nowadays) and my imagination assisted me to Secondary Belief. Perhaps because of the limited props, the imagination was forced to work. Fantasy can be set free by means other than literature. I merely have to look at movie goers exiting a theatre. Some are in a dazed state, their minds still locked into a secondary world they have been visiting while they blink and orientate themselves to the Primary World.

When I read “The Wizard of Earthsea” (Le Guin, 1993; 1968), an acknowledged work of literature, I am aware it is a story in another world, but I did not enter Secondary Belief or experience “wonder” (Manlove as cited in Attebery, 1980, p. 3). Perhaps “The Wizard of Earthsea” was not depicted fully enough for me to do so. I would be interested to know if anyone in our group did achieve either of these two states and if there was anything in particular about “The Wizard of Earthsea” that permitted them to do so.

Why does the religious right in the US condemn fantasy, according to Cockrell (2004)?

According to Cockrell (2004), there are a number of reasons why the religious right is anti-fantasy, including:

• Fantasy is regarded as equating to duplicity and dishonesty so the more vulnerable (children) need to be shielded from works that include fantasy so that they are not mislead or rebel against parental/religious teachings.
  
  
• A work of fantasy, such as those by Rowling, is backed by the media (paid and otherwise), so there is no parental choice in whether a child is exposed to such work or not.

• There has been more focus on the supernatural through censorship which has brought fantasy more into the public eye.
  
  
• Fantasy includes magic and witches and such like, so such works may be considered as having a hidden occult message and expressing the ways and values of a group or belief system that is considered unsatisfactory, for example, Wicca.
  
  
• Fantasy in the Primary World creates discomfort for people who believe they face very real dangers from magic, occult, etc.

For me, fantasy best occurs in another world. This takes one out of our reality completely and so is what perhaps helps distinguish between the boundaries of what is real and what is not. I was fascinated to learn that religious groups are more accepting of Tolkien’s work because of this reason. Tolkien seems in sympathy with the effects that fantasy can have over others, so his insistence that fantasy should occur in another world. I have no interest in Rowling’s stories of Harry Potter, simply because they, for me, are not fantasy, but merely about a boy learning a technique that is ‘magic’ in this world. I can’t see anything particularly fantastic in that.

On what grounds does Cockrell defend fantasy literature, using Harry Potter as an example?

As Cockrell (2006) states, Harry Potter books get children to think independently of their parents, “to question their values, and to assume power for themselves – precisely what scholars of children’s literature have long recognized as the purpose of children’s books” (p. 26). In other words, these books apparently open children’s minds to other possibilities and ideas other than those held by their parents or guardians.

As per learning outcomes: “Analyse so-called plot – or turning point within the genres under study” (Popular Genres Paper Handbook, p. 2).

Having a go at this one, here’s a suggestion based on “The Wizard of Earthsea” (Le Guinn, 1993; 1968) using the Act Structure from the PowerPoint slides, Week 4.

ACT 1

Heroes introduced in ORDINARY WORLD

– Ogion visits Duny (Ged) after he learns of how Duny defends his home village.

They receive the CALL TO ADVENTURE

– After his naming, Duny leaves village and goes with Ogion for training.

They are RELUCTANT at first or REFUSE THE CALL

(not sure if this one is applicable).

Are encouraged by a MENTOR to . . .

- Ogion’s suggestion that Ged goes to the school on Roke

. . .CROSS THE FIRST THRESHOLD

The magic door on Roke.

ACT II

. . . and enter the Special World where

- school offers new life and world

They encounter TESTS, ALLIES AND ENEMIES

- Vetch becomes Ged’s friend; tests in art of magic and also tests of character; Jasper is an enemy to Ged’s pride and the shadow conjured is the main enemy.

They APPROACH THE INNERMOST CAVE, crossing a second threshold

- Crossing the boundaries of life/death by calling up the shadow.

Where they endure the SUPREME ORDEAL

- Ged nearly dies at the hand of shadow.

ACT III

They take possession of their REWARD

- Ged learns the art of wizardry and becomes a wizard.

Are pursued on THE ROAD BACK to the ORDINARY WORLD

- Shadow out to destroy Ged.

They cross the third threshold, experience a RESURRECTION, and are transformed by the experience

- Ged and Vetch sail to lands unknown and come across a strange place (p. 163). He speaks the shadow’s name and is`reborn’ as the new triumphant Ged.

They RETURN WITH THE ELIXIR, a boon or treasure to benefit the Ordinary World

- Ged returns having defeated the shadow, so the Ordinary World is safe from the shadow or a wizard controlled by the shadow.

References

Attebery, B. (1980). Locating fantasy. In The fantasy tradition in American literature: from Irving to Le Guinn (pp. 2-9). Bloomington: Indiana U P, 1980.

Cockrell, A. (2004). Harry Potter and the witch hunters: a social context for the attacks on Harry Potter. The Journal of American Culture, 29(1).

Le Guin, U. (1993; 1968). A Wizard of Earthsea. In The Earthsea Quartet (pp. 13-167). London: Penguin.

Tolkien, J.R.R. (1988; 1964). On Faerie Stories. In Tree and leaf. London: Unwin Hyman.

Also AUT PowerPoint Slides Week 4 from Critical Reader obtained from Blackboard.