<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nPreface<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- Why study the Fantastic in Literature<\/strong>. Hasn’t it, by now, been properly recognized and characterized? One claim is that recent fantasy has driven a reconsideration of is dimensions and properties. A second claim is that new theoretical examinations of narrative — looking a time, character, feminist and post-structural analyses, and Bakhtin’s dialectic theory — offer a new understanding. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Le Guin points out that even though genre <\/em>ought to be a neutral descriptive term, … it is applied only to those genres whose primary readership is outside the power structure of the academy<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Chapter 1<\/strong>: Fantasy as mode, genre, formula.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- Formula vs. Mode. <\/strong>Two definitions: (1`) Fantasy as a formula<\/strong> in which stock characters and devices are used to enact a struggle in which good triumphs over evil. (2) Fantasy as a mode<\/strong> of storytelling characterized by “stylistic playfulness, self-reflexiveness, and a subversive treatment of established orders of society and thought,” and aims to recapture the vitality and freedom of epic, folktale, romance and myth. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Frye’s definition of mode:<\/strong> “One of the most famous uses of the term mode is Northrop Frye’s fivefold division of literature into the mythic, romantic, high mimetic, low mimetic, and ironic modes. These are identifiable according to the status of a story’s primary characters: whether they are superior or inferior in degree or kind to their social and physical environment.”<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Mimesis vs. Fantasy… <\/strong>Claim that two poles of mode are mimesis (trying to create a faithful rendition), and fantasy, though fantasy relies on mimesis to ground it in the sensory. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Fantastic literature has a long history.<\/strong>“Most narrative literature, except for an aberrant period from the mid nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries (you see the temptation?), has made use of the fantastic. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Icons. <\/strong>“Out of groupings of sentences, descriptive and narrative, a storyteller generates the larger systems that we call \u201ccharacters\u201d or \u201cevents\u201d or \u201csettings.\u201d […] these stand in relationship to the extraliterary world not as ordinary signs but as what Charles Sanders Peirce called icons<\/strong>. <\/em>By this he meant that the sign is recognizably modeled after its referent […] (e.g. one example of an icon is a map of an unknown city…)”<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Borrowing. “Nearly all modern fantasy has made such raids on the recorded inventory of traditional narratives. “<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Fantasy vs. Fantastic.<\/strong>I will use the term fantasy <\/em>henceforth for the genre, letting fantastic <\/em>designate the mode<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Categorization<\/strong> as declarative or prototypical<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Fantasy consists of (1) impossible content, (2) comic structure (a positive ending), and (3) a reader response of “consolation,” [Tolkien], but more aptly called wonder<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>A Trip to the Moon by Georges M\u00e9li\u00e8s (~15 min)<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nWatching the film with \u2018modern eyes,\u2019 it seems weird, chaotic and difficult to follow. To me it falls more into the category of spectacle than entertainment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What I Saw<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- We see something that looks sort of like a scientific church, with masked and hatted people seated sort of like a choir. Most appear to male, except for a panel of three women at the front who are either playing an instrument or making notes. The scene seems chaotic and there appear to be disputes among the characters. There is a blackboard with a drawing that shows something heading towards the moon. Apparently a decision is made, though I can\u2019t tell what. But people are changing clothes \u2013 some are now wearing tophats and business attire. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Now the scene switches to the construction of a space capsule that looks a lot like a bullet. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Now people are on rooftops overlooking a smokey Victorian city — they have a telescope. Perhaps they are going to watch the launch. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Now people in suits are getting in the craft assisted by young women in shorts and hats who seem to be a cross between cheereaders and stewardesses.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Now the craft is shown hitting a personified moon in its left eye, and the moon crying\u2026<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Now the people exit the craft onto the surface of the moon and watch the earth rise. Then they go to sleep and a comet goes by\u2026 and then we see stars and planets raining snow down on them as they sleep. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Now they go down into a cave where there appear to be mushrooms and perhaps plants\u2026 a man opens his umbrella and plants it and it turns into a mushroom. Now a moon person shows up. It has a headdress (or perhaps an antennaed head) and hops arounds \u2013 something like an ape. The visitors are frightened and attack it with their umbrellas \u2013 it vanishes in a puff of smoke. More moon people show up. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Next we see the voyagers captured. Then they escape, and are pursued by a mob of moon people who are carrying spears. All reminiscent of European explorers tangling with \u2018natives.\u2019<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The space capsule is now is now on edge of a cliff. One of the voyagers pulls it off and they plumet back to earth (later it is pointed out that a moon native has been strapped to the back of the craft). The capsule lands in the sea and sinks to the sea bottom, but then it floats up to the surface and a ship brings it back in.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The voyagers are brought back and celebrated. In a festive atmosphere they appear to be crowned, and a statue is erected of the leader. <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>A Trip to the Moon: Film History #1 (12 min)<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThis video provides context. First were the Lumiere brothers who made very short (seconds to minutes) documentary videos of daily life (or often exotic or unusual scenes of daily life). The most famous just shows the arrival of a train in the station, and it is said that this produced consternation among the viewers. \u2026 — Arrival of train in station.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Against this background Georges Mi\u00e9l\u00e9s is lauded for his accomplishments. A stage magician, he was excited about the new technology and saw it as a new way to do tricks and special effect. His film, A Trip to the Moon, is considered the first gre
at achievement in movie making. Mi\u00e9l\u00e9s wrote, produced, and starred in the film. It challenged established notions (which imo weren\u2019t terribly established yet) of
= how long a movie could be,
= how much it could cost,
= and what it was capable of showing.
It was apparently very popular, both in Europe and America.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Science Fiction as Modern Realism, Kim Stanley Robinson<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nI’m a fan of KSR and his work, so it is no surprise that I gravitated to this video which feels like it excerpts comments from a much longer video. It appears to be shot in a desolate space — I was going to guess the dry valleys of antarctica until later on when various components of infrastructure show up. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Various Notes<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- Focus on socio-technical realism<\/strong>. Early on KSR was reacting against Star Trek’s cardboard sets \u2013 he wanted the effect of the real and wanted the backgrounds to be deeply real. Thus is focus on geology and geography and (I would suppose, political, cultural and socio-economic factors).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- KSR says SF best described the way he felt about the world: there\u2019s an acceleration of history, rapid technological change. By writing about the future you are really writing about now\u2026<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- KSR’s evolution as a writer. <\/strong>When I was young it was a matter of thinking that man would go to space, and that we lived in an interesting neighborhood. But as time whent by it became more and more obvious that we are creatures of earth and expressions of this planet only. What makes an interesting story is that it has to do with what humans could potentially do. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Ministry for the Future<\/strong><\/em> has been transformative for him \u2013 the end of a series of books that tried to describe how we could get to a better relationship to the biosphere. Ministry for the Future is him laying all his cards on the table and trying to envision a positive ending. “Utopia is now just avoiding a mass extinction event<\/strong>” and Ministry is about the collective making the best of a bad situation. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The climate crisis<\/strong> is an odd problem to have, in that it is never really happening to you. So its difficult to imagine as a lived experience. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Plots are made of things going wrong\u2026 when slow violence turns into fast violence. The power of imagination is strong enough to change your behavior in the presence.<\/strong> <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Science as magic. <\/strong>Some SF treats Science as magic. He calls this Scientism. It is really a quasi-religious belief that science can do anything; it doesn\u2019t have much to do with actual science. science as a form of magic\u2026 Where anything is possible, nothing is interesting. <\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
- KSR’s writing and research. <\/strong>KSR says: I write the scenes first, and then ask what I need to know. It\u2019s an iterative process. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The scientific community. <\/strong>Scientific communities are utopian \u2013 they are active in the world and attempting to be fair, accurate, justice. As a SF writer I try to speak for the community\u2026.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n