Talk:History of fantasy

Current wording

Elements of the supernatural and the fantastic were an element of literature from its beginning. The modern genre is distinguished from tales and folklore which contain fantastic elements, first by the acknowledged fictitious nature of the work, and second by the naming of an author.^{[citation needed]} Works in which the marvels were not necessarily believed, or only half-believed, such as the European romances of chivalry and the tales of the Arabian Nights, slowly evolved into works with such traits.^{[original research?]} Authors like George MacDonald (1824–1905) created the first explicitly fantastic works.

Proposed new wording

Draft 1.0

The salient feature of fantasy in literature, according to Mendlesohn and Edwards, is "the presence of the impossible and the unexplainable".^[1]: 3 As a literary form, fantasy emerged in the 18th century, with epics, chivalric romances, ballads, sagas, legends and fairy tales prominent in its ancestry.^{[1]: 6, 9 [2]} Modern fantasy draws from many cultural strands, including Native American shamanism, Asian dragon lore, the religions of pre-Christian Europe, Persian myths, and the Arabian Nights.^{[3]: 2, 30–31} Authors such as George MacDonald and William Morris created the first consciously fantastic works.^{[3]: 28, 31}

—Protalina (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Several points;

1. First and second sentences would definitely have to be swapped in order to meet MOS:LEAD; The first sentence should always be something equivalent to a dictionary definition of the topic, with the following sentences serving to contextualize the definition rather than adding onto it directly.

2. The Mendlesohn-Edwards definition is far too broad to include without heavy qualification. Beloved, Picture of Dorian Gray, most of Borges's work, none of those would qualify as anything other than literary fic and magic realism, are they not also structured around impossible and inexplicable circumstances?

3. Naming basically every religious tradition besides Christianity as an influence is just wishful thinking, the body of the article makes it very clear how little development early fantasy had outside of Tolkien and the various Western pulp authors of the era.

—Orchastrattor (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: See original comment, pinging manually as section headers break {reply to} functionality. Orchastrattor (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Kind of you to ask, but I shall keep out of this, my interest being largely tangential to the article's subject really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Will wait a bit for other comments before responding.

—Protalina (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

In the meantime, working through & mulling over this recent overview, especially the discussion & critical analysis of definitions, developments, & roots in intro & ch.3: Sangster, Matthew (2023). An Introduction to Fantasy. CUP. ISBN 978-1009429948 DOI

—Protalina (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Using your point numbering for ease of reference:

1. OK.

2. Yes. However:

Rather than using the quote as a definition, Mendlesohn-Edwards[my bad]James refer to it, when discussing how to define fantasy, as an "[…] obvious construction [ital added] of fantasy in literature and art […]". So more of an emphasis than a boundary? M-J go on to state that this approach cuts out most science fiction (as SF "regards everything as explicable"), but does (indeed) "leave[s] in large swathes of horror". On magical realism, they state that the real | fantastical boundary is culture-bound: the example they give is MR texts from Latin America and the American South, which they assert "read as fantasy to fantasy readers". Definition-wise, the approach they draw attention to is "fantasy as a number of fuzzy sets".

Looking at recent definitions and characterizations of fantasy by a couple of other authorities in the field:

Attebery moved from a fuzzy set approach (1992) in Strategies of Fantasy that put LOR at the core – "One way to characterize the genre of fantasy is the set of texts that in some way or other resemble The Lord of the Rings" (p.14) – to stating that "fuzzy sets involve not only [family] resemblances but also degrees of membership" in Stories about Stories (2014) (p.33). And then to this statement in 2022 in Fantasy: How it Works DOI: "Fantasy is a form of fiction that evolved in response to realism, using such novelistic techniques as represented thought, detailed social settings, and manipulation of time and point of view to revisit pre-rationalist world views and traditional motifs and story lines" (p.43). A lot to unpack.

More recently: in the intro to his An Introduction to Fantasy DOI (2023), Sangster provides a historical survey, comparison, and summative critique of definitions and redefinitions of fantasy by scholars and writers (pp. 17-34). He covers M-J and Attebery above, and includes, among others, Wolfe, Le Guin, Hume, and Miéville. Sangster sees two broad styles of definition (pp. 30-34.).

• The first he dubs the prescriptive and categorical, with Mendlesohn's Rhetorics of Fantasy (2008) at the flexible end of a spectrum, and Todorov's The fantastic : a structural approach to a literary genre (1970 in the original FR) at the other, very rigid one. Todorov he sets aside. Mendlesohn's categories (p.xiv in Rhetorics) he generally lauds: the portal-quest, the immersive, the intrusive, and the liminal.
• The second is the looser, more descriptive approach exemplified, in his view, by Attebery.

Sangster himself advocates for what he calls "a more sociological approach" (p.32): "[There are] a complex array of interpreters [of fantasy] across different cultures, ranging from the publishing industry and institutions to authors and fandoms, and from broad general populations to individual readers. Opinions within this array will be far from monolithic. Different communities and groupings will not necessarily share a consensus regarding Fantasy, and different individuals are likely to be aligned with a series of overlapping consensuses, subscribing to some more wholeheartedly than others." He picks out several commonalities, though. To note that while there are several positive blurb reviews of this book by prominent academics in the field, need to check out the degree of scholarly consensus.

3. Doesn't the body of the article describe substantial changes over time in the form, format of, and audience for fantasy from the Late Middle Ages till the advent of Tolkien (and then beyond), and refer to many influences along the way? Looking at the section 'Development of fantasy', for instance, and running through Romances, The Enlightenment, and Romanticism, and sticking close to the wording of the current text, we see: creation of non-cyclical romances; novel combinations of realism and fantasy; inclusion in romances of more fantastical elements; marvels deployed; appearance of literary fairytales; newly targeted adult readership; use by Gothic writers of novelistic techniques; interest in medievalism reviving literary fairytales; and first fairytale novel in English. Then in 'Modern fantasy', 'Pre-Tolkien', there is, e.g., Anderson's new style; new levels of characterization by Ruskin; novel works by MacDonald; Morris's invented world' approach, prefacing a trend; appearance of dark fantasy; beginnings of a mass audience at the start of C20th; growth of Lost World subgenre; appearance of now-classic fantasies for children; arrival of magazines devoted to fantasy fiction; and debut of comic fantasy.

Next step proposed: second draft taking account of all comments so far and those to come on the above.

— Protalina (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The point is that all of fantasy's early influences are decidedly Christian, the phrasing of your lead doesn't reflect the body of the article whatsoever. Orchastrattor (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Here goes:

Draft 2.0

As a distinctive genre, fantasy emerged in the 18th century, with epics, chivalric romances, ballads, sagas, legends, and fairy tales prominent in its ancestry.^[1][2][3]

Most critics agree that a defining characteristic of modern fantasy is, as summarised by Kirk and Sangster, "a concern with the impossible", with works of fantasy mingling and juxtaposing "imagined impossibilities" with "quotidian beings, objects and forms".^[4] Critics surveyed by Wolfe also identified dealing with the impossible as a distinctive feature of fantasy. Wolfe notes, though, that the term 'impossible' is imprecise, relies overmuch on the reader's perceptions, and neglects "structural or thematic characteristics".^[5] Rather than focusing on how readers view the content of fantasy works, other critical definitions, states Sangster, converge on emphasising fantasy's "contrastive [...] function", meaning that "[b]y showing us other worlds, [fantasy] highlights what our own takes for granted or lacks".^[6]

Modern fantasies may appropriate from and adapt existing myths;^[7]: 3–5 draw on elements of epics and romances from many cultures and periods;^[8] rework fairy and folk tales from across the globe;^[9] and craft invented realms that are self-consistent, highly detailed, and logically cohesive.^[10] Authors such as George MacDonald and William Morris created the first consciously fantastic works.^{[7]: 28, 31}

References

—Protalina (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Continuing to mull this over. Protalina (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a specific issue with the current version in mind that you are trying to fix? Orchastrattor (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes – in fact, a few. Overall, it's not enticing.

Looking at each sentence in turn: (1) repeats "element/s"; the statement it makes is challengeable, and so requires a citation; and it doesn't draw the reader in. (2) doesn't reflect scholarly views (see Kirk & Sangster 2023, and Wolfe 1986) – said views have their own history, of course (Sangster 2023). (3) may be OR. (4): challengeable, so needs citing. (5) & (6): still reflecting on those.... Last one: no mention of the many media through which fantasy now manifests: stage, film, videogames... Also, just reread your points of 20 March: no. 1 is key, imho.

With this critique in mind, I propose replacing the current version with something along the lines of:

• a para 1 from Draft 2.0 of 10 April;
• then a citation-lite and quote-absent version of para 2 from 10 April (ie, un-bludgeoned :)) (or reverse order of paras? noting the first of your March points);
• a version of para 3 of 10 April with the current LOR text woven in; plus mention of media (expanding the article itself at some point – though film does get a mention at the end).

— Protalina (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Why Native American shamanism? How is it different than any other form of shamanism in its impact on fantasy? Dimadick (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Good question. Current formulation derived from source [3] in Draft 1.0 as follows: Attebery states that "Modern fantasy draws on a number of traditional narrative genres […]" (p.2). In giving examples, he specifies "North American shamanism" as one of the "veins of symbolic narrative" that, in his view, Le Guin's Earthsea "mingles", along with "Asian dragon lore, European tales of wizardry, […], and ethnologic concepts of mana and naming magic." In the Wiki article, the shamanism in North America section refers to Native American and First Nations cultures. "North American" would better adhere to the author's formulation, though. Any RS known for statements on other forms of shamanism? Protalina (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)