who refuse to listen to dragons are probably doomed to spend their lives acting out the
nightmares of politicians. This is a quote taken from Ursula Le Guin's fantasy-like poetry
speaks the language of the night. It's also at the heart of my interest in the rise of
fantasy that began with the youth movements of the late 1960s. They were protesting the
atomic bomb, Vietnam, the economical exploitation of natural resources, and they were united
in a disillusionment with traditional systems of belief, be they political or religious.
A new focus for their frustrated hopes and dreams soon came along in 1965 with the unauthorized
mass market edition of J. L. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings and the start of Linkharta's
Bellentine adult fantasy series that published reprints of classics and new talents like
Peter S. Beagle knew at the time that it.
Fantasy was quickly established as a counter-cultural phenomenon from its roots on the fringes of
marketability and the academic literary canon. Forty years later, The Lord of the Rings has
shed both its sub-cultural creation and its counter-cultural adoption. It has transcended
media boundaries into animated films, role-playing games, and computer games. There have also
been three blockbuster films together grossing almost three billion US dollars, and The Return
of the King in 2003 is still the highest-grossing fantasy film ever. The films also sparked
mass interest in fantasy, so the sales of books and other media of the genre have soared
since then. But the question remains what might be possible reasons for this enormous
cultural impact of fantasy after its humble start, with the readership numbering only
a few thousand throughout the world in the late 1950s, according to Michael Moorcock.
I'd like to find possible answers to that on two levels. First of all, the level of
the definition and development of fantasy, asking the question, what is it? And secondly,
on the level of the functions of fantasy, asking the question, what does it do on a
metaphysical, psychological, and socio-cultural level?
So before we speak about fantasy, we also have to speak about the term itself, so what's
in the name? The word itself originates in the Greek phantasia, which means a making
visible according to Prickett. In its earlier English use, it was connected to spectral
operations and phantoms, and it was not until Chaucer's time, which for those of you who
are not in English studies since the late 14th century, that we see a neutral attribution
to the unreal as a mental image of something that does not exist. In Shakespeare's time,
and I'm not giving it a time here, there were connotations of the unhealthy and immature
that were connected with fantasy, and this remained intact until the 18th century, so
we always have this association with medmen and children when people speak of fantasy
at the time. It was not until the romantics reclaimed and reappropriated the word in their
struggle for autonomy of the artistic creation beyond mimesis that it came to mean a mental
image or a daydream, and it took until 1949, according to the Oxford English Dictionary,
that we see fantasy meaning a genre of literary composition, so fairly late actually. Defining
fantasy has always been a tricky business. Prickett builds his definition on the development
of the term, so for him fantasy means the making, that's a quote, the making visible
of something that does not exist, unquote. Tolkien focuses in his definition on his concept
of the sub-creation, quote, the making and glimpsing of other worlds, unquote, together
with the strangeness and wonder that is derived from the images created. Colin Manlove then
tried to bring all these earlier definitions together, and he formed a very detailed and
comprehensive definition himself, as, quote, a fiction evoking wonder and containing a
substantial and irreducible element of the supernatural or impossible worlds, beings
or objects. What I find most interesting in this attempt of defining fantasy is, oops,
sorry, is Ativer's approach, because he differentiates between different kinds of fantasy. So for
him fantasy can be the formulaic fantasy that we all know, the mass market popular escapist
entertainment and commercial product that relies on consistency and predictability, and on the
other hand of the spectrum Ativer locates fantasy as a mode, a sophisticated self-reflexive and or
subversive investigation into the construction of all meaning and reality. In between these two
extremes, Ativer then puts the genre of fantasy. So that will be all representations mixing
elements of both extremes, according to the historical and socio-cultural contexts. Interesting
about Ativer's attempt is also that we find this basic conflict between creative freedom and
conventions that is inherent to all making of meaning within the definition of fantasy itself.
And it's also a mythological tapas that we find here, the eternal struggle between chaos and order
that is then formally mirrored in fantasy in our rational and secular societies. Wolf takes up
Tolkien's ideas of secondary belief, that is belief created from and targeted at secondary worlds,
that is used to overcome what in Tolkien's reading is the broken reading experience of
Coleridge's willing suspension of disbelief. According to Wolf, a successful reading of
fantasies only possible if you integrate the ideas presented with the effective qualities
of fantasy. This then creates what he calls deep belief. The secondary world becomes quote,
an analog of inner experience virtually as valid as events of the real world, unquote. So based on
these previous definitions, I will come to an attempt of my own definition uniting all of these
ideas. Fantasy would then be a quote myself genre, not only of literature, constantly oscillating
between open mode and static formula that establishes impossible secondary worlds and
from these creates secondary deep belief to inspire effective reactions to the ideas presented in the
reader viewer. Speaking about the development of fantasy, you always have to ask yourself the
question, what are the sources of the materials that are used? Obviously, you would have to go
back to mythological and epic literature as well as the medieval romances that inform the motifs
and structures like the archetypal heroes, the magical items, the epic quest talking back to
Campbell's hero's journey. But there's a big difference between myth and fantasy. This is
what Martin calls the Sitz im Leibn. So the historical, textual and socio-cultural context
of its production and reception. Whereas myth is evoking primary belief, frequently also in
connection with institutionalized religion for social and collective functions, fantasy is
evoking secondary belief for more introspective and private functions. This can be connected back
nicely to the beginnings of the genre associated with the romantic turn away from reason and the
dictates of mimics and the objective truth towards imagination and the fantastic in the early 19th
century. It was British authors who first established a referential framework for the genre
that we now call fantasy using the creative power of the mode of fantasy. George McDonald's
Fantasties of 1858 or Lilith of 1895 both create secondary worlds that appear to be more real than
the primary world we live in. George McDonald also established the traditions of the fantasy heroes
that we all know now. William Morris with the well at the world's end of 1896 is called the
father of fantasy by Nagel. As he creates, according to Nagel, the first unique and
comprehensive secondary world, the distinctive register and style of fantasy, as well as the
epic quest form. The third in this triad at the beginning of British fantasy is Lord Dunsany with
his king of Elfland's daughter of 1924 who also creates a complex secondary world and in turn the
naming conventions that we find so familiar now in most of the fantasy that we read.
In a second step, it was US authors who created the sub-genre of sword and sorcery or heroic
fantasy. So the focus was more on adventurous battles and mystical magic. These stories were
published in pulp magazines so the pendulum now swings towards the more formulaic
anti-entertainment aspect of fantasy. Robert E. Howard's Conan of 1932 is the genre prototype
but there are others like Fritz Liebers, Swords of Langkma of 1939 or Paul Anderson's novel The
Broken Sword of 1954, which again connects the genre nicely back to its roots in epic and
historical literature. Unavoidable then comes Tolkien, who is always credited with establishing
the genre conventions. So I'm not doing that again. He turned the creative process upside
down, which is very interesting. So he first created this extremely detailed secondary world
and then from the world he created his stories. I mean we're all familiar with The Hobbit,
1937, or The Lord of Rings, 1954, 55, but there are a couple of other stories. So what is then
what makes Tolkienian fantasy? On a level of content we have this immensely detailed secondary
world that is a fully established secondary reality. On a level of structure Tolkien goes
for a comic structure, but comic not like haha funny, but comic in that sense that order is
restored at the end of the hero's journey. And this is exactly where the escapist readings of
Tolkien click with the text. On a level of the reader response, Tolkien aimed for consolation
and cathartic wonder. And when we talk about the metaphysics of Tolkienian fantasy, this is mostly
about the recovery of the child sense of wonder and the reenchantment of the world versus an
ideology of appropriation that Tolkien so rampant in the early to mid 20th century when he wrote
the text. All of the later authors are then obviously always constructed in reaction to
Tolkien either directly or indirectly. So we have Michael Murcock's Elric saga begun in 1961
that many see as a conscious break with Tolkienian conventions. He gives us a doomed anti-hero who
destroys everything and everyone he loves in his quest. This refusal of consolation then reinforces
the role of the individual in the narrative and also the emotional impact of the stories.
Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea series began in 1968, replaces the mythical and epic scope with a
private and psychological one. So she basically writes a fantasy belongs Roman, which I was told
is also the English word with her internalization of the hero's journey. Peter S Beagle with the
Last Unicorn 1968 is a playful and ironic rewriting of the genre conventions with stock
characters violating reader expectations and intentional anachronisms fracturing the illusion
of the secondary world. And obviously in the 1970s and 80s we had feminist authors rewriting
the traditionally underdeveloped female characters and empowering them in text such as Patricia
McKillib's Riddle Master of Head trilogy 76-79 or Marion Sima Bradley most famously for Mr.
Vavilon 1983. What is interesting about this process however is that the genre itself seems
to be a product of a still ongoing constant negotiation between the different aspects of
that are used to define fantasy itself. So talking about the functions of fantasy now
again both myth and fantasy speak to us about the conditio humana but there is a crucial
difference. Myth expects an unreflected collective and dogmatic primary belief
creating a community of passive objects to authorial and discursive power. Fantasy calls
for reflected individual and negotiated secondary belief creating a community of active subjects
using discursive power to co-create meaning. This obviously has a huge impact on the functions
of fantasy. On a metaphysical level we speak about the question of truth capital T that is.
So after the collapse of primary belief due to enlightenment nature was constructed as conquered
and possessed this in turn led to a sense of alienation from the self the other and nature
together with this feeling of the impossibility of truth as we recognize that the human mind
can only indirectly represent reality whatever that may be and we need mediation through
perception and conceptualization and then secondly also through representation.
Fantasy being the child of the romantic term all mimesis in truth is inherently seen as
problematic but meaning is not impossible to it. Tapping into the power of myth and archetype
is used to give meaning and effective relevance to the text of fantasy while at the same time
breaking these archetypes through the co-creative process as there can be no consensus on the true
nature of the secondary world. This creates a negotiated middle ground seeking answers beyond
dogma and at the same time not falling into the abnegation of all meaning and thus silence.
This was maybe would appeal to the revolutionary generation of the late 1960s
on their private search for universal deeper meaning in a shared but individual rebellion
the refusal of monological ideology the preference for plural plural plural plural logical it's a
bit early and it's sunny sorry and I have a headache the preference for plural logical
openness and the longing for the power of meaning talking about the psychological function of
fantasy we're talking about the individual so fantasy is the language of the inner self according
to Le Guin the subconscious and association are dominant creative instances not the conscious and
the paradigm it's all about symbolic representation that prevents objective reference fantasy thus
is highly subjective reinstating the human factor and the individual in a very ironic
formulation at a very attest that quote fantasy is in a way in a sorry in a sense mimetic for
it depicts the associational processes of the unconscious unquote the freedom of fantasy thank
you freedom fantasy creates anxiety also through the constant questioning of the self and the
structures around us so existential angst and latent auto aggression also echo the feelings
of the young generation of the 1960s the power of meaning making was lost to them in traditional
forms of belief and living but there was a promise for recovery and reenchantment in fantasy
fantasy was also perceived as akin to altered states of consciousness so these authors became
quasi-spiritual guides on on the way to new impressions and sensations and the body and
sexuality became central to renegotiations in areas of conflict of heroic fantasy and especially
feminist fantasy this anxiety also according to Le Guin results from the socially expected
repression of the Jungian shadow in all of us so that thus weakened personalities fall into what
she calls empty forms this being the ideologies religions and all the other meta narratives that
provide the illusions of security and i'm hoping i hope i'm stepping not and i'm not stepping on
anyone's toes here when i say that fantasy to Le Guin is the literature of emancipation
harking back to the top us of coming of age it's all about redefining the shadow as the guardian
of the special towards the subconscious and the source of all creative power
it's about confronting and accepting the shadow to form a mature self that is able to live
Keats's negative capability and thus true community the theory to Le Guin is not enough
she needs visceral and instinctual understanding through art and thus she creates a wizard of earth
sea in 1968 which is the story of an individual's return to wholeness through self-knowledge
accepting his shadow as part of himself in a quasi-mythological scene
when we talk about the sociocultural functions of society we need to fight answers to the question
why did fantasy explode into the public awareness exactly then and there talking about the time
post-modernism like modernism reacts to the metanarratives of the 19th century but it does
not provide coherent and ordered responses it refuses binary choice and shows a preference
for ambiguity it paradoxically deconstructs and yearns for the stability of what Olson calls the
transcendental signified and building on this idea Olson then claims that post-modernism can
be seen as a symptom of a culture in crisis although the negative connotations that we usually
have with crisis is not appropriate here this is more a state of change rapid change to him
quote post-modern art faces the problem of responding to a situation that is literally
fantastic no wonder then that fantasy becomes the vehicle for the post-modern consciousness
the fantastic becomes the realism our culture understands unquote talking about the space of
the emergence of fantasy u.s society has always been especially fond of fantasy that might go back
to the collective experience of the frontier and the wildness that is frequently identified as a
core concept behind motifs in u.s literature the american dream according to thompson is all about
denying the fall and creating the place of total freedom yet the negative reaction the system
shows to fantasy speaks against this idea so fantasy was not found in public libraries in
the beginning it was not appreciated by academics it was relegated to escapist entertainment
this led to leguins famous question why are americans afraid of dragons
for her this moralistic censorship that fantasy faced in the beginning
was not a sign of strength of the system but of fear so the white male profit-minded heterosexual
puritans rejected the genre because reading for pleasure was sin to them creating a fictional
world does not create immediate profit and fiction and imagination in itself were seen as
unmanly thus they were quote afraid of dragons because they are afraid of freedom unquote
this is either an ironic perversion of the american dream as constructed by thompson and others
perpetuated by exactly the group that most fervently propagated it or in leguins reading
this could also be about the the fears of this group's own repressed desires
so is fantasy then and this is my conclusion so thank you is fantasy then the nightmare of
politicians possible reasons for the cultural impact of fantasy could be found on the level
of definitions and development like this indeterminacy and openness of the genre
the refusal of mimesis and dogma constantly renegotiating between freedom and convention
and at the same time the promise of deeper meaning while breaking the illusion of universal
and objective truth on the level of the functions of fantasy you could construct the reading of the
genre as a powerful tool to create self-aware self-sufficient and active subjects out of acts
of emancipation while at the same time it lends itself nicely as a screen for the projection of
repressed desires be they escapist in nature about childlike wish fulfillment or on the other hand
about aggressive refusal of the genre itself what is for me most interesting though is that
fantasy seems to be the natural whatever that may be in the context expression of the postmodern
individual searching for truth and at the same time being unwilling to find it but there are two
caveats i'd like to end on first of all the openness and subjective quality of fantasy might
have been the exact reason why the forces controlling discourse at the time allowed
fantasy to become the focus of the countercultural movement because the collective and revolutionary
impulse to enforce social change in the primary reality would be fractured and directed towards
a secondary reality or secondary creation secondly the enormous financial success of
fantasy at the turn of the millennium seems to be proved that the powers that be have learned how
to abuse the effective power affective power of fantasy for profit so we have the implicit
self-censorship that we see in fantasy authors to boost sales on the mass market and what we end up
with is the empty sellable and mass produced commodity that we all hate so those formerly
afraid of dragons now seem to be breeding them for profit experienced readers of fantasy know
that dragons are amongst the oldest and wisest creatures there are so you would naturally go
and listen to them on your quest to avoid living the nightmares of politicians but experienced
readers of fantasy also knows that dragons never say anything innocently and always have plans of
their own thank you