Analysis of the Elements of the Modern Fantasy Genre
Ann Swinfen. In Defence of Fantasy: A Study of the Genre in English and American Literature since 1945: Routledge Library Editions: Modern Fiction. 254pp, hardback. ISBN: 978-0-367-33680-6. New York: Routledge, 2019.
*****
This book considers either very or mildly popular fantasy fiction, including Narnia and Lord of the Rings. The opening chapter explains that the genre’s popularity and its introduction recently into “English Literature Courses” are some of the reasons for its study. It further argues that too many of the past studies have been considering fantasy’s “great” authors, as if they were fan-fictions honoring these makers. Instead, Ann Swinfen sets out to evaluate the structure of the fantasy genre in its varied types and how it differs from the “realist novel”. Then, Swinfen discusses the relevant sub-genres and offers the perspectives on them from their creators (1-11). The chapters are logically divided by sub-genres or by elements groups of these novels have in common that can be critically evaluated for patterns between them. These include chapters on stories featuring beasts. Most of the chapters are about more abstract concepts such as symbolism, fantastical worlds, and idealism. Given the vast number of texts reviewed, a good portion of the book is summarizing the plots of these novels, or the references to individual quotes and details would be harder to connect. While I wish this study was a pure, detached structural analysis of the elements, Swinfen does often digress into the emotional impact of these stories and the emotional lives of the characters, such as when she writes about how “Stuart never comes to terms with his mouse body, but remains painfully divided between his physical limitations and his human mind and soul” (25). These types of abstractions cannot really be proven as either truthful or false, and they are mostly empty words; this sentence, for example, covers the body, mind and soul in a manner that can apply to any text where all three are present. In other sections, the criticism does pick a specific element and examines and compares it closely between the texts; for example, a section on the application of language to fantastic worlds, a review is offered as to how the Prydains speak “one language” but their “spells and enchantments” are in a different language; on the other hand, the “enemies of the Minnipins speak a different language, but the language of the Minnipins themselves is treated as English” (85). These types of comparisons are extremely useful for writers and critics who are searching for patterns regarding good practice in such matters. A novel can slip into racism, or unfair representation if it creates an us-versus-them division between white English-speakers and the “other” foreign aliens who are speaking a made-up nonsense language. Reading about how past writers have approached a problem like this one is very useful for improving future fictions. Theorists also have not approached topics such as this one, choosing instead to repeat the few symbolic or thematic conclusions that past critics have made regarding these fantasies. Another section addresses how “martial virtues” when mishandled can slip into “suggestions of sadism and masochism” (156). Each chapter and paragraph appear to begin with logical opening paragraphs and sentences that guide readers to understand the topic about to be covered instead of clouding comprehension with digressions into irrelevant subjects in these critical moments. The approach to spirituality and theology appears to be objective: this is much better than some books that sound like Christian doctrine or subversively anti one or another of the foreign religions covered. Here is an example: “Spiritism is gradually revealed as a sham religion, its seances and the public pronouncements of its Seers serving as convenient tools in manipulating the populace” (210). It is particularly important for scholarly books about the fantasy genre to achieve this kind of a critical interpretation of fictional religions because mixing “real” religious rhetoric and believes with those propagated in fantasy implies the critic believes the fictions are relating truths, and this is a delusion that taints a critic’s ability to step back and observe the fictitious culture created by the authors.
The summary presents the book thus: “The modern fantasy novel might hardly seem to need a defence, but its position in contemporary literature in the 1980s was still rather ambivalent. Many post-war writers had produced highly successful fantasy novels, some phenomenal publishing successes had occurred in the field, and an increasing number of universities throughout the English-speaking world now included the literary criticism of fantasy as part of their English Literature courses. None the less some critics and academics condemned the whole genre with a passion that seemed less than objectively critical.” I wrote a book myself in which I analyzed the structure of fantasies, romances, mysteries and other modern popular genres, but while I was attempting to remain objective, I discovered that my hatred for some of these works did include as I read more and more of them and noticed the repetitions of the same plot elements, character types, and even types of facial descriptions between them. But I don’t think these types of flaws are a reason to avoid studying something; if there is horrid literature out there, critics are needed to offer their honest negative opinions. Without negative criticism, authors might not realize that repetition is a fault.
“In this book, originally published in 1984…” Ah, this is interesting: this is a critical classic: this explains why it is better than most of the recent genre-studies I have been reviewing. Also curiously, perhaps there is a correlation between critics ability to be objective regarding this genre and the quality of the texts this earlier period produced; there are few works equivalent to Narnia and Rings across the past couple of decades. “…Dr Ann Swinfen presents a wide-ranging and comprehensive view of fantasy: what it is, what it tries to achieve, what fundamental differences distinguish it from mainstream realist fiction. She concentrates on the three decades from 1945, when a new generation of writers found that Tolkein had made fantasy ‘respectable’.” The blurb stated earlier that critics still don’t find fantasy to be respectable, but this is a hopeful sentiment. “Her approach is thematic, rather than by individual author, and she brings out the profound moral purpose that underlies much modern fantasy, in a wide range of works, both British and American, such as Russell Hoban’s The Mouse and His Child, C.S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia and Ursula Le Guin’s Earthsea Trilogy.”
This book is of interest to a few unique groups of readers. First, modern genre fiction theory classes would be well-served by including it on the syllabus. Second, fantasy writers should read this book or another like it at some point, so they can consider the options of the genre in a compressed theoretical format. Third, book review writers in the fantasy genre would benefit from reading a book like this to enrich their opinions with more diverse perspectives. And finally, given the diverse nature of these groups, libraries of all types internationally should include it in its collections in case somebody in their community finds a use for it.