Okay, so for the title: I finished reading Tzetan Todorov’s The Fantastic: A Structuralist Approach to a Literary Genre, then read Stanislaw Lem’s scathing review entitled “Todorov’s Fantastic Theory of Literature,” then read Robert Scholes’ “On Lem on Todorov,” which concludes with Lem’s response. Look, honey! An academic cat fight!

First, I should say that unlike Lem I find some of Todorov’s analysis to be useful. In a nutshell, Todorov suggests that in order for a work to fall into the genre of the fantastic, the reader must be put into a position of hesitation regarding the uncertain interpretation of an uncanny event. The options for Todorov range from the marvelous (otherworldly forces obviously at play), the fantastic-marvelous (in which the uncertain event is resolved by an otherworldly event), the fantastic-uncanncy (in which the uncertain event is resolved by worldly explanations such as hallucination, insanity, or hoax) and the fantastic (where there is no resolution). I’m paraphrasing here but that’s the gist of it.

Like I said, I find this to be somewhat useful. I can think of many examples of contemporary fantasies where you, as the reader, are left wondering whether the events really happened as depicted or whether there’s some psychological explanation. In fact, that description fits my story “Black Jack Davy” to a tee, and I would also lump in the film Pan’s Labyrinth into Todorov’s fantastic. He also makes useful points about the fantastic necessarily being a transgressive literature, an opinion I agree with 100%.

But I said somewhat useful. As Lem so eloquently says in his rebuttal, “a theory sometimes confirmed and sometimes confuted is no valid theory at all” and he appears to take pleasure in toppling this ever-so-shaky theory in a single word: Borges. What seems clear (to me and Lem at least) is that Todorov’s theory is best applied to hand-picked works that exemplify what he describes. Lem inserts the definitional problem of science fiction into the mix (and I would add to that the definitional problems relating to the terms “magical realism” and “postmodernism” to boot) and suddenly you have a mess where once you had Todorov’s theory. A theory sometimes confirmed and sometimes confuted…

It doesn’t help matters (for Lem and for me) that Todorov is a structuralist literary theorist, and a fairly devout one. For me, literary theories are like salt: a pinch here and a dash there helps bring out the flavor of foods, but too much spoils the taste. It quite often seems like Todorov has the small hole of structuralism and he’s trying to fit in the pegs of literature that are square, triangular, tetrahedronal, etc. But enough mixing metaphors, let’s just say I’m unconvinced.

Todorov’s book is still worth reading and contemplating, but I’m left far from convinced.

Current Mood: Okay |
Currently Listening To – Leadbelly – “Midnight Special”