What do you think?
Rate this book
The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre
In The Fantastic, Tzvetan Todorov seeks to examine both generic theory and a particular genre, moving back and forth between a poetics of the fantastic itself and a metapoetics or theory of theorizing, even as he suggest that one must, as a critic, move back and forth between theory and history, between idea and fact. His work on the fantastic is indeed about a historical phenomenon that we recognize, about specific works that we may read, but it is also about the use and abuse of generic theory.
As an essay in fictional poetics, The Fantastic is consciously structuralist in its approach to the generic subject. Todorov seeks linguistic bases for the structural features he notes in a variety of fantastic texts, including Potocki's The Sargasso Manuscript, Nerval's Aur lia, Balzac's The Magic Skin, the Arabian Nights, Cazotte's Le Diable Amoureux, Kafka's The Metamorphosis, and tales by E. T. A. Hoffman, Charles Perrault, Guy de Maupassant, Nicolai Gogol, and Edgar A. Poe.
As an essay in fictional poetics, The Fantastic is consciously structuralist in its approach to the generic subject. Todorov seeks linguistic bases for the structural features he notes in a variety of fantastic texts, including Potocki's The Sargasso Manuscript, Nerval's Aur lia, Balzac's The Magic Skin, the Arabian Nights, Cazotte's Le Diable Amoureux, Kafka's The Metamorphosis, and tales by E. T. A. Hoffman, Charles Perrault, Guy de Maupassant, Nicolai Gogol, and Edgar A. Poe.
180 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1970
101 people are currently reading
2375 people want to read
About the author
Tzvetan Todorov
198 books361 followersIn Bulgarian Цветан Тодоров. Todorov was a Franco-Bulgarian historian, philosopher and literary theoretician. Among his most influential works is his theory on the fantastic, the uncanny and marvellous.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews
June 29, 2024
Absurde, ins Leere laufende Bestimmung des Fantastischen durch begrifflich-schwankende Theorie-Schelmereien.
Todorovs Text „Einführung in die fantastische Literatur“ gehört zu den Standardwerken der Literaturtheorie und erschien 1970, um von dort aus eine Diskussion über das Phänomen und seine begriffliche Fassung anzustoßen. Als Ausgangspunkt seiner Untersuchung wählt Todorov den Strukturalismus, um sich von Anfang und immer wieder von jedweder substanzialistischen Literaturinterpretation zu distanzieren, d.h. Todorov will die Funktionsweise, die sprachlichen Zusammenhänge innerhalb eines Textfeldes wie der Literatur herausarbeiten, er nähert sich seinem Untersuchungsgegenstand in diesem Sinne so abstrakt wie nur möglich:
Das Fantastische liegt im Moment dieser Ungewißheit; sobald man sich für die eine oder die andere Antwort entscheidet, verläßt man das Fantastische und tritt in ein benachbartes Genre ein, in das des Unheimlichen oder das des Wunderbaren. Das Fantastische ist die Unschlüssigkeit, die ein Mensch empfindet, der nur die natürlichen Gesetze kennt und sich einem Ereignis gegenübersieht, das den Anschein des Übernatürlichen hat.
Mit diesem Zitat lässt sich die „Einführung in die fantastische Literatur“ vom Standpunkt der Literaturwissenschaft leider schon komplett zusammenfassen. Der Rest des über zweihundert Seiten langen Textes schwafelt Todorov unentschlossen, schwammig, zerfasert und unsicher, unschlüssig zweifelnd, ohne begriffliche, strukturelle Konsistenz über die verschiedenen Formen des Fantastischen in konkreten Einzelwerken: Nikolai Gogol „Die Nase“, Henry James „The Turning of the Screw“, Matthew Gregory Lewis „Der Mönch“, Gérard Nerval „Aurélia“ oder Guy de Maupassant „Unheimliche Geschichten“, um einige zu nennen.
Todorov unternimmt diese fragmentarische Reise, um zu zeigen, dass die fantastische Literatur weder Allegorie noch Poesie, weder unheimlich noch wunderbar, weder rational noch fiktional, weder pathologisch noch psychologisch sein darf:
Wir wollen uns zunächst die bereits skizzierten Berührungspunkte zwischen diesen thematischen Netzen und anderen, mehr oder minder bekannten Organisationen noch einmal ansehen. Vielleicht ermöglicht uns dieser Vergleich, tiefer in die Natur des Gegensatzes einzudringen, ihn präziser zu formulieren. Gleichzeitig wird jedoch unsere Gewißheit in bezug auf unsere These geringer werden. Das soll nicht die übliche Klausel sein: alles, was folgt, behält in unseren Augen rein hypothetischen Charakter und ist als solches aufzufassen.
Bevor ich mit einer eindeutigen Warnung vor diesem Text ende, soll noch fairerweise hinzugefügt werden, dass die begriffliche Bestimmung zwischen „verbal“, „syntaktisch“ und „semantisch“ überzeugen, aber nicht überzeugend angewandt wurden; auch die Temporalität des Fantastischen, das sich zwischen zwei Gleichgewichtszuständen (das Wunderbare und Unheimliche) als Balanceakt hält (inspiriert durch die Theorie Juri Michailowitsch Lotmans), scheint heuristisch brauchbar, ohne in der Analyse von Todorov umgesetzt worden zu sein. Seine Ausflüge in die Psychoanalyse, seine Aufnahme von literaturtheoretischen Texten von Maurice Blanchot, Gérard Genette und Jean-Paul Sartre, seine allgemein, beinahe clownesk-geschraubten Vorläufigkeitsbeteuerungen seiner Untersuchungen zeigen jedoch deutlich genug, dass er seiner Terminologie und Begrifflichkeit, seinem eigenen Zugang zum Thema, und das zurecht, nicht über den Weg traut:
Wenn man schreibt, dann tut man dies und nichts anderes; diese Geste ist so gewichtig, daß sie keiner anderen Erfahrung Raum läßt. Gleichzeitig schreibe ich jedoch von etwas, selbst wenn dieses Etwas das Schreiben selbst ist. Schreiben wird überhaupt erst dadurch möglich, daß es vom Tod dessen ausgeht, von dem es spricht; dieser Tod jedoch macht es selbst unmöglich, denn es gibt nichts mehr zu schreiben. Die Literatur kann nur insofern möglich werden, als sie sich selbst unmöglich macht.
Es ist das eine, sich anthropologisch der Literatur als Philosophikum zu nähern (wie Maurice Blanchot oder Roland Barthes), oder literarische Texte strukturalistisch aufzuarbeiten, transparenter in ihrer Wirkungsweise werden zu lassen (wie Gérard Genette oder Roman Jakobson). Die konsequente, vermischte Durchwirrung aller Theorien des 20. Jahrhunderts in einem Haufen voller fantastisch-unschlüssiger Topoi bewirkt hingegen nichts und erscheint tatsächlich lediglich als akademisches Trittbrettfahrertum und intellektuelle Hochstaplerei.
Todorovs Text „Einführung in die fantastische Literatur“ gehört zu den Standardwerken der Literaturtheorie und erschien 1970, um von dort aus eine Diskussion über das Phänomen und seine begriffliche Fassung anzustoßen. Als Ausgangspunkt seiner Untersuchung wählt Todorov den Strukturalismus, um sich von Anfang und immer wieder von jedweder substanzialistischen Literaturinterpretation zu distanzieren, d.h. Todorov will die Funktionsweise, die sprachlichen Zusammenhänge innerhalb eines Textfeldes wie der Literatur herausarbeiten, er nähert sich seinem Untersuchungsgegenstand in diesem Sinne so abstrakt wie nur möglich:
Das Fantastische liegt im Moment dieser Ungewißheit; sobald man sich für die eine oder die andere Antwort entscheidet, verläßt man das Fantastische und tritt in ein benachbartes Genre ein, in das des Unheimlichen oder das des Wunderbaren. Das Fantastische ist die Unschlüssigkeit, die ein Mensch empfindet, der nur die natürlichen Gesetze kennt und sich einem Ereignis gegenübersieht, das den Anschein des Übernatürlichen hat.
Mit diesem Zitat lässt sich die „Einführung in die fantastische Literatur“ vom Standpunkt der Literaturwissenschaft leider schon komplett zusammenfassen. Der Rest des über zweihundert Seiten langen Textes schwafelt Todorov unentschlossen, schwammig, zerfasert und unsicher, unschlüssig zweifelnd, ohne begriffliche, strukturelle Konsistenz über die verschiedenen Formen des Fantastischen in konkreten Einzelwerken: Nikolai Gogol „Die Nase“, Henry James „The Turning of the Screw“, Matthew Gregory Lewis „Der Mönch“, Gérard Nerval „Aurélia“ oder Guy de Maupassant „Unheimliche Geschichten“, um einige zu nennen.
Todorov unternimmt diese fragmentarische Reise, um zu zeigen, dass die fantastische Literatur weder Allegorie noch Poesie, weder unheimlich noch wunderbar, weder rational noch fiktional, weder pathologisch noch psychologisch sein darf:
Wir wollen uns zunächst die bereits skizzierten Berührungspunkte zwischen diesen thematischen Netzen und anderen, mehr oder minder bekannten Organisationen noch einmal ansehen. Vielleicht ermöglicht uns dieser Vergleich, tiefer in die Natur des Gegensatzes einzudringen, ihn präziser zu formulieren. Gleichzeitig wird jedoch unsere Gewißheit in bezug auf unsere These geringer werden. Das soll nicht die übliche Klausel sein: alles, was folgt, behält in unseren Augen rein hypothetischen Charakter und ist als solches aufzufassen.
Bevor ich mit einer eindeutigen Warnung vor diesem Text ende, soll noch fairerweise hinzugefügt werden, dass die begriffliche Bestimmung zwischen „verbal“, „syntaktisch“ und „semantisch“ überzeugen, aber nicht überzeugend angewandt wurden; auch die Temporalität des Fantastischen, das sich zwischen zwei Gleichgewichtszuständen (das Wunderbare und Unheimliche) als Balanceakt hält (inspiriert durch die Theorie Juri Michailowitsch Lotmans), scheint heuristisch brauchbar, ohne in der Analyse von Todorov umgesetzt worden zu sein. Seine Ausflüge in die Psychoanalyse, seine Aufnahme von literaturtheoretischen Texten von Maurice Blanchot, Gérard Genette und Jean-Paul Sartre, seine allgemein, beinahe clownesk-geschraubten Vorläufigkeitsbeteuerungen seiner Untersuchungen zeigen jedoch deutlich genug, dass er seiner Terminologie und Begrifflichkeit, seinem eigenen Zugang zum Thema, und das zurecht, nicht über den Weg traut:
Wenn man schreibt, dann tut man dies und nichts anderes; diese Geste ist so gewichtig, daß sie keiner anderen Erfahrung Raum läßt. Gleichzeitig schreibe ich jedoch von etwas, selbst wenn dieses Etwas das Schreiben selbst ist. Schreiben wird überhaupt erst dadurch möglich, daß es vom Tod dessen ausgeht, von dem es spricht; dieser Tod jedoch macht es selbst unmöglich, denn es gibt nichts mehr zu schreiben. Die Literatur kann nur insofern möglich werden, als sie sich selbst unmöglich macht.
Es ist das eine, sich anthropologisch der Literatur als Philosophikum zu nähern (wie Maurice Blanchot oder Roland Barthes), oder literarische Texte strukturalistisch aufzuarbeiten, transparenter in ihrer Wirkungsweise werden zu lassen (wie Gérard Genette oder Roman Jakobson). Die konsequente, vermischte Durchwirrung aller Theorien des 20. Jahrhunderts in einem Haufen voller fantastisch-unschlüssiger Topoi bewirkt hingegen nichts und erscheint tatsächlich lediglich als akademisches Trittbrettfahrertum und intellektuelle Hochstaplerei.
December 13, 2017
Fun With Genres, a video in which I discuss this book.
One of the finest and clearest works of literary criticism I have ever read. A blueprint suggesting how to approach genres, impossible to ignore whether you agree with Todorov's methodology or not. Also great fun to readers outside academia (!).
One of the finest and clearest works of literary criticism I have ever read. A blueprint suggesting how to approach genres, impossible to ignore whether you agree with Todorov's methodology or not. Also great fun to readers outside academia (!).
September 13, 2022
Odličan uvod u temu.
Read
November 7, 2018Sadece Fantastik'e değil edebiyata dair düşünmek için de güzel bir alan açabilecek bir kitap.Dili çok sade, düşünce ilerlemelerini sıçrayarak değil de sürekli bir öncekş düşüncenin üzerinden geçerek sağlıyor; bu yüzden takip etmesi de çok kolay.
Edebiyat hakkında kuram oluşturmaya çalışırken ya da sadece düşünürken kategorilere ayırma işleminin risklerinin farkında ve bu riskleri dikkate alarak, durumları birbirinden ayırırken geçirgen sınırlar koymaya özen göstermiş. Fantastik'i incelerken sık sık psikanalizle de yolları kesişiyor Todorov'un ve edebiyatla psikanaliz arasındaki bağları arayıp taramayı çok sevdiğim için daha bir zevk aldım kitaptan.
Sonuç bölümünde Kafka üzerinden Fantastik ile modern edebiyat arasındaki ilişkiyi, doğru tabirse, geçişi inceliyor. Fantastik'i kararsızlık ve belirsizlik durumlarının ''istisna'' olarak barındığını ama modern edebiyatta-psikanalizin de etkisiyle- tekinsize dair olanın bir kural, genel bir gerçeklik olarak bulunmaya başladığını söylüyor.
Üzerine düşünmek için çok şey sundu bana Todorov, ilgililere de mutlaka tavsiye ediyorum.
Dört buçuk yıldız.
Edebiyat hakkında kuram oluşturmaya çalışırken ya da sadece düşünürken kategorilere ayırma işleminin risklerinin farkında ve bu riskleri dikkate alarak, durumları birbirinden ayırırken geçirgen sınırlar koymaya özen göstermiş. Fantastik'i incelerken sık sık psikanalizle de yolları kesişiyor Todorov'un ve edebiyatla psikanaliz arasındaki bağları arayıp taramayı çok sevdiğim için daha bir zevk aldım kitaptan.
Sonuç bölümünde Kafka üzerinden Fantastik ile modern edebiyat arasındaki ilişkiyi, doğru tabirse, geçişi inceliyor. Fantastik'i kararsızlık ve belirsizlik durumlarının ''istisna'' olarak barındığını ama modern edebiyatta-psikanalizin de etkisiyle- tekinsize dair olanın bir kural, genel bir gerçeklik olarak bulunmaya başladığını söylüyor.
Üzerine düşünmek için çok şey sundu bana Todorov, ilgililere de mutlaka tavsiye ediyorum.
Dört buçuk yıldız.
November 6, 2023
"Vimos que lo fantástico no dura más que el tiempo de una vacilación: vacilación común al lector y al personaje, que deben decidir si lo que perciben proviene o no de la “realidad”, tal como existe para la opinión corriente. Al finalizar la historia, el lector, si el personaje no lo ha hecho, toma sin embargo una decisión: opta por una u otra solución, saliendo así de lo fantástico. Si decide que las leyes de la realidad quedan intactas y permiten explicar los fenómenos descritos, decimos que la obra pertenece a otro género: lo extraño. Si, por el contrario, decide que es necesario admitir nuevas leyes de la naturaleza mediante las cuales el fenómeno puede ser explicado, entramos en el género de lo maravilloso."
Uno de los textos de teoría literaria más importantes a la hora de abordar ese género tan maravilloso que es la literatura fantástica.
Todorov nos da una soberbia cátedra que sigue siendo esencial para todos los lectores que se interesan en lo fantástico.
Uno de los textos de teoría literaria más importantes a la hora de abordar ese género tan maravilloso que es la literatura fantástica.
Todorov nos da una soberbia cátedra que sigue siendo esencial para todos los lectores que se interesan en lo fantástico.
January 19, 2014
A frustrating read. Very few parallels are drawn to the fantastic genre and Todorov's rather simple theory is hidden beneath a mountain of academics. Still - most chapters are very good while a few (like chapter VIII) are almost unreadable.
January 4, 2012
NOTE: This review first appeared at
The King of Elfland's 2nd Cousin
on January 3rd, 2012. If you enjoy it, you'll find more stuff like it there!
Happy New Year! Now that the formalities are out of the way, I thought I'd take a few moments to share with you what I did between Christmas and New Year's: In addition to remodeling our library, and turning our dining room into a library annex, I also spent the week slowly and carefully reading Tzvetan Todorov's classic book of genre criticism, appropriately titled The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre .
Of course, I'd read about Todorov many times before. I'd even read a couple essays he'd written (I particularly recommend his typology of detective fiction). But I figured that it was best to see for myself what he had to say. And though in the end I was very satisfied, this book really defied my expectations.
The book's title is misleading. From the adjective-cum-noun "Fantastic" it is a short leap to the modern genre of "fantasy" - and so when I first bought the book, I expected to find a master critic expressing his own Unified Theory of Fantasy, like a Northrop Frye or a Wayne C. Booth for the speculative genre (for two excellent analyses more in this vein, I recommend Farah Mendlesohn's Rhetorics of Fantasy and Brian Attebery's Strategies of Fantasy ). Instead, Todorov uses a much narrower interpretation of fantasy, placing it on a spectrum between stories where ostensibly supernatural events are explained through rational means (which he calls the "uncanny") and stories where supernatural events are shown to actually be supernatural (which he calls the "marvelous").
To put it another way, Todorov's uncanny stories are Scooby Doo episodes: during the action, the characters and reader experience events which are ostensibly beyond mortal ken (ghosts, monsters, strange worlds, etc.). But by the end of the story, all of the ostensibly supernatural experiences are explained away in a naturalistic and rational fashion, thus erasing the supernatural from the story. It's like Old Man Withers being unmasked by the gang. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Todorov's "marvelous" stories are Buffy episodes: during the action, the characters and reader experience events which are beyond mortal ken, but by the end of the story, all of the ostensibly supernatural experiences can only be explained by an acceptance of their supernatural reality. Todorov's "fantastic" genre, however, is the Twilight Zone: neither the characters nor the reader is ever really certain whether the supernatural events are to be accepted.
This is a much narrower definition of "the fantastic" than "fantasy" would imply. It excludes almost all secondary world fantasy, and almost all science fiction. Even most wainscot fantasies would fall into Todorov's "marvelous" camp. Which is a shame, because anything beyond his narrowly defined borders gets brushed off as beyond the scope of his analysis.
The first half of The Fantastic is an interesting, if dry, exercise in critical philosophy and semantic hair-splitting. He defines what he means by the fantastic, and provides a definite set of criteria for use in its identification. Given my (incorrect) expectations, the book initially frustrated me. I wanted to gleam sweeping insights with applicability across a broad swathe of fantasy titles and sub-genres. Todorov's painstakingly detailed definition of "hesitation" or what I would call ambiguity: the uncertainty felt by the character and the reader as to their implied frame of reference for experiencing the story. According to Todorov, if a story has no ambiguity, then by definition it falls outside the bounds of his fantastic. Now, I love ambiguous stories. But most fantasy, and most science fiction, eschews the degree of ambiguity described by Todorov. Let's face it: there are few The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever or There Are Doors out there.
Yet once Todorov establishes his definitions, he begins to dissect his ambiguous stories in much more painstaking detail, parsing their themes and structures. And here, The Fantastic becomes a treasure trove of insight. The conclusions Todorov draws regarding the fantastic are not, in fact, particularly interesting. They may be thought provoking, but they have limited applicability beyond his caged genre, and furthermore I suspect his reliance on the psychoanalytic school of criticism ignores too many other factors. Yet the techniques that Todorov applies, independent of the genre against which they are applied, are quite impressive.
In a very real sense, Todorov draws the treasure map to a very narrow sub-genre. But by doing so, he shows us how to draw such maps for any other genre in existence. I wish that Todorov had taken the trouble to do the same for both his uncanny and marvelous genres. But the process of structural analysis that he applied to his ambiguous stories can just as readily be applied to secondary world fantasy, portal/quest fantasies, wainscot fantasies, liminal fantasies, intrusion fantasies, and all the rest. And that is why this book remains significant: on the one hand, it adds to our critical toolkit, and by using much-analyzed "classic" texts of the Gothic age, it helps to bring the tools of genre criticism into the "respectable" light of academia.
In that sense, later critics like Farah Mendlesohn or Brian Attebery both benefited from Todorov's work. On the one hand, they apply to a broader body of work the universal techniques that Todorov pioneered. And on the other hand, they benefit from the fact that Todorov dragged ghosts and demons into the light of critical respectability.
All in all, this is a book on criticism well worth reading. But not for its conclusions: more for its methods.
NOTE: This review first appeared at The King of Elfland's 2nd Cousin on January 3rd, 2012. If you enjoy it, you'll find more stuff like it there!
Happy New Year! Now that the formalities are out of the way, I thought I'd take a few moments to share with you what I did between Christmas and New Year's: In addition to remodeling our library, and turning our dining room into a library annex, I also spent the week slowly and carefully reading Tzvetan Todorov's classic book of genre criticism, appropriately titled The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre .
Of course, I'd read about Todorov many times before. I'd even read a couple essays he'd written (I particularly recommend his typology of detective fiction). But I figured that it was best to see for myself what he had to say. And though in the end I was very satisfied, this book really defied my expectations.
The book's title is misleading. From the adjective-cum-noun "Fantastic" it is a short leap to the modern genre of "fantasy" - and so when I first bought the book, I expected to find a master critic expressing his own Unified Theory of Fantasy, like a Northrop Frye or a Wayne C. Booth for the speculative genre (for two excellent analyses more in this vein, I recommend Farah Mendlesohn's Rhetorics of Fantasy and Brian Attebery's Strategies of Fantasy ). Instead, Todorov uses a much narrower interpretation of fantasy, placing it on a spectrum between stories where ostensibly supernatural events are explained through rational means (which he calls the "uncanny") and stories where supernatural events are shown to actually be supernatural (which he calls the "marvelous").
To put it another way, Todorov's uncanny stories are Scooby Doo episodes: during the action, the characters and reader experience events which are ostensibly beyond mortal ken (ghosts, monsters, strange worlds, etc.). But by the end of the story, all of the ostensibly supernatural experiences are explained away in a naturalistic and rational fashion, thus erasing the supernatural from the story. It's like Old Man Withers being unmasked by the gang. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Todorov's "marvelous" stories are Buffy episodes: during the action, the characters and reader experience events which are beyond mortal ken, but by the end of the story, all of the ostensibly supernatural experiences can only be explained by an acceptance of their supernatural reality. Todorov's "fantastic" genre, however, is the Twilight Zone: neither the characters nor the reader is ever really certain whether the supernatural events are to be accepted.
This is a much narrower definition of "the fantastic" than "fantasy" would imply. It excludes almost all secondary world fantasy, and almost all science fiction. Even most wainscot fantasies would fall into Todorov's "marvelous" camp. Which is a shame, because anything beyond his narrowly defined borders gets brushed off as beyond the scope of his analysis.
The first half of The Fantastic is an interesting, if dry, exercise in critical philosophy and semantic hair-splitting. He defines what he means by the fantastic, and provides a definite set of criteria for use in its identification. Given my (incorrect) expectations, the book initially frustrated me. I wanted to gleam sweeping insights with applicability across a broad swathe of fantasy titles and sub-genres. Todorov's painstakingly detailed definition of "hesitation" or what I would call ambiguity: the uncertainty felt by the character and the reader as to their implied frame of reference for experiencing the story. According to Todorov, if a story has no ambiguity, then by definition it falls outside the bounds of his fantastic. Now, I love ambiguous stories. But most fantasy, and most science fiction, eschews the degree of ambiguity described by Todorov. Let's face it: there are few The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever or There Are Doors out there.
Yet once Todorov establishes his definitions, he begins to dissect his ambiguous stories in much more painstaking detail, parsing their themes and structures. And here, The Fantastic becomes a treasure trove of insight. The conclusions Todorov draws regarding the fantastic are not, in fact, particularly interesting. They may be thought provoking, but they have limited applicability beyond his caged genre, and furthermore I suspect his reliance on the psychoanalytic school of criticism ignores too many other factors. Yet the techniques that Todorov applies, independent of the genre against which they are applied, are quite impressive.
In a very real sense, Todorov draws the treasure map to a very narrow sub-genre. But by doing so, he shows us how to draw such maps for any other genre in existence. I wish that Todorov had taken the trouble to do the same for both his uncanny and marvelous genres. But the process of structural analysis that he applied to his ambiguous stories can just as readily be applied to secondary world fantasy, portal/quest fantasies, wainscot fantasies, liminal fantasies, intrusion fantasies, and all the rest. And that is why this book remains significant: on the one hand, it adds to our critical toolkit, and by using much-analyzed "classic" texts of the Gothic age, it helps to bring the tools of genre criticism into the "respectable" light of academia.
In that sense, later critics like Farah Mendlesohn or Brian Attebery both benefited from Todorov's work. On the one hand, they apply to a broader body of work the universal techniques that Todorov pioneered. And on the other hand, they benefit from the fact that Todorov dragged ghosts and demons into the light of critical respectability.
All in all, this is a book on criticism well worth reading. But not for its conclusions: more for its methods.
NOTE: This review first appeared at The King of Elfland's 2nd Cousin on January 3rd, 2012. If you enjoy it, you'll find more stuff like it there!
February 11, 2018
Brevi accenni su ciò che potrete trovare in questo testo molto interessante, che consiglio a tutti di leggere. Prima o poi.
Todorov nasce a Sofia, nel 1939, ed è morto da pochissimo, nel febbraio 2017, a Parigi. Il suo nome è legato allo strutturalismo francese perché lui negli anni ’60 si è trasferito a Parigi ed è stato allievo di Roland Barthes. La critica strutturalista si sviluppa in Francia, a Parigi, come nuova critica in opposizione alla critica di stampo storicistico che si praticava nelle Accademie e nelle Università. La critica storicistica si basa sull’analisi dell’opera in rapporto diacronico con i testi che vengono prima e dopo e, soprattutto, anche in rapporto alla vita dell’autore. Todorov definisce il fantastico come genere, attribuendogli delle caratteristiche specifiche, rinvenibili ad una serie di testi anche appartenenti a periodi diversi. Nella premessa, in cui riflette su cosa sia un genere letterario, distingue tra i generi storici, che sono basati sul concetto di diacronia, e i generi teorici, basato sul concetto di sincronia. Todorov, in via preliminare, ci dice che la sua analisi del fantastico in quanto genere si baserà su tre aspetti principali, che costituiranno la base delle sue ricerche: l’aspetto verbale dell’opera, che riguarda i registri della parola, lo stile, quindi l’enunciato ma che riguarda anche l’enunciazione, cioè legato a colui che emette il messaggio. Dunque l’aspetto verbale a sua volta si divide in due parti: l’analisi dell’enunciato e l’analisi dell’enunciazione. L’altro aspetto è l’aspetto sintattico, cioè le relazioni che intercorrono tra le parti dell’opera nella sua composizione, e come un elemento dell’opera è legato all’altro. Il fantastico, secondo Todorov, occupa il lasso di tempo di questa incertezza. Non appena si è deciso per una delle due opzioni, si entra nel regno di due generi limitrofi: lo strano e il meraviglioso. Quindi il concetto di fantastico si definisce in rapporto ai concetti di reale e di immaginario. Todorov fa anche uno specchietto piuttosto complesso sul rapporto tra il fantastico, il reale e l’immaginario e distingue tra lo strano puro, il fantastico strano, il fantastico meraviglioso e il meraviglioso puro. È questa è la parte più superata della teoria di Todorov e più contestata dai critici successivi. “Nello schema” scrive Todorov subito dopo questa partizione “il fantastico sarebbe rappresentato dalla linea mediana, quella che separa il fantastico strano dal fantastico meraviglioso. Questa linea corrisponde perfettamente alla natura del fantastico, frontiera tra due campi vicini”.
Todorov nasce a Sofia, nel 1939, ed è morto da pochissimo, nel febbraio 2017, a Parigi. Il suo nome è legato allo strutturalismo francese perché lui negli anni ’60 si è trasferito a Parigi ed è stato allievo di Roland Barthes. La critica strutturalista si sviluppa in Francia, a Parigi, come nuova critica in opposizione alla critica di stampo storicistico che si praticava nelle Accademie e nelle Università. La critica storicistica si basa sull’analisi dell’opera in rapporto diacronico con i testi che vengono prima e dopo e, soprattutto, anche in rapporto alla vita dell’autore. Todorov definisce il fantastico come genere, attribuendogli delle caratteristiche specifiche, rinvenibili ad una serie di testi anche appartenenti a periodi diversi. Nella premessa, in cui riflette su cosa sia un genere letterario, distingue tra i generi storici, che sono basati sul concetto di diacronia, e i generi teorici, basato sul concetto di sincronia. Todorov, in via preliminare, ci dice che la sua analisi del fantastico in quanto genere si baserà su tre aspetti principali, che costituiranno la base delle sue ricerche: l’aspetto verbale dell’opera, che riguarda i registri della parola, lo stile, quindi l’enunciato ma che riguarda anche l’enunciazione, cioè legato a colui che emette il messaggio. Dunque l’aspetto verbale a sua volta si divide in due parti: l’analisi dell’enunciato e l’analisi dell’enunciazione. L’altro aspetto è l’aspetto sintattico, cioè le relazioni che intercorrono tra le parti dell’opera nella sua composizione, e come un elemento dell’opera è legato all’altro. Il fantastico, secondo Todorov, occupa il lasso di tempo di questa incertezza. Non appena si è deciso per una delle due opzioni, si entra nel regno di due generi limitrofi: lo strano e il meraviglioso. Quindi il concetto di fantastico si definisce in rapporto ai concetti di reale e di immaginario. Todorov fa anche uno specchietto piuttosto complesso sul rapporto tra il fantastico, il reale e l’immaginario e distingue tra lo strano puro, il fantastico strano, il fantastico meraviglioso e il meraviglioso puro. È questa è la parte più superata della teoria di Todorov e più contestata dai critici successivi. “Nello schema” scrive Todorov subito dopo questa partizione “il fantastico sarebbe rappresentato dalla linea mediana, quella che separa il fantastico strano dal fantastico meraviglioso. Questa linea corrisponde perfettamente alla natura del fantastico, frontiera tra due campi vicini”.
October 24, 2020
I had to try this book as I have a paper to write, but more than that, I kept hearing about its "revelatory" powers when it came to this dubious genre called FANTASY.
It is a surprisingly short book. It barely fills 200 pages. It is readable.
It is not that great as it is too much theory and too little "practicality". There are some critics that are mentioned at times and they are analyzed, but the examples of Fantasy novels are scarce or old or so vague that they get lost in the general fogginess.
There is no analyze on The Lord of the Rings, for example, even if the book (this book) was finished in September 1968.
Here a quote:
“This is one of the constants of the literature of the fantastic: the existence of beings more powerful than men.”
Instagram\\my Blog\\
It is a surprisingly short book. It barely fills 200 pages. It is readable.
It is not that great as it is too much theory and too little "practicality". There are some critics that are mentioned at times and they are analyzed, but the examples of Fantasy novels are scarce or old or so vague that they get lost in the general fogginess.
There is no analyze on The Lord of the Rings, for example, even if the book (this book) was finished in September 1968.
Here a quote:
“This is one of the constants of the literature of the fantastic: the existence of beings more powerful than men.”
Instagram\\my Blog\\
December 24, 2024
lidos tres primeiros capítulos para un traballo
May 19, 2022
Las nociones básicas de lo fantástico siguen sosteniéndose a partir de este libro, ya sea por mero capricho académico o porque la falta de bibliografía traducida al español lo ha hegemonizado. En primera instancia, sí es una introducción -un tanto somera- a los aspectos del registro fantástico a partir del concepto de "género"; luego, en segunda instancia, encerramos a todo un género a un momento en específico dentro del relato y de allí parte toda la teoría de la vacilación ante la irrupción de lo inexplicable.
Todorov se defiende a su modo estructuralista durante los primeros capítulos y después da bandazos contradiciéndose constatemente y dejando por fuera las otras tipologías que el mismo trajo a colación -lo extraño y lo maravilloso-; es decir, cataloga y no se hace cargo de sus propias etiquetas, por lo que lo verdaderamente ambiguo de toda su premisa es la premisa en sí misma en cuanto a lo que él reconoce como fantástico y que no. Para rematar, traerá a colación relatos que parecen salirse de su propia estructura teórica -cuentos de Las mil y una noches, cuentos de terror- y los tratará de fantásticos a pensar de haberlos tirado hacia otra categoría.
Dentro de las teorías del yo, el tú y el otro, se perderá inexorablemente y no ampliará nada sobre el panorama de lo fantástico, más allá de ser un relleno teórico sin importancia. Ya al final, volverá sobre su teoría de definición y divagará sobre las funciones semánticas de las mismas tanto fuera como dentro del relato.
¿En conclusión? Un libro que ya está desfasado, que no dudo que habrá dado de qué hablar en su momento, pero lo mejor es dejarlo de hacer. Ha corrido mucha agua debajo de ese puente.
Todorov se defiende a su modo estructuralista durante los primeros capítulos y después da bandazos contradiciéndose constatemente y dejando por fuera las otras tipologías que el mismo trajo a colación -lo extraño y lo maravilloso-; es decir, cataloga y no se hace cargo de sus propias etiquetas, por lo que lo verdaderamente ambiguo de toda su premisa es la premisa en sí misma en cuanto a lo que él reconoce como fantástico y que no. Para rematar, traerá a colación relatos que parecen salirse de su propia estructura teórica -cuentos de Las mil y una noches, cuentos de terror- y los tratará de fantásticos a pensar de haberlos tirado hacia otra categoría.
Dentro de las teorías del yo, el tú y el otro, se perderá inexorablemente y no ampliará nada sobre el panorama de lo fantástico, más allá de ser un relleno teórico sin importancia. Ya al final, volverá sobre su teoría de definición y divagará sobre las funciones semánticas de las mismas tanto fuera como dentro del relato.
¿En conclusión? Un libro que ya está desfasado, que no dudo que habrá dado de qué hablar en su momento, pero lo mejor es dejarlo de hacer. Ha corrido mucha agua debajo de ese puente.
December 3, 2011
This book came to me highly recommended by a friend of the uncanny, and has truly become one of my most trusted reach-to favorites. You know that ailment that's been bugging you, but you didn't have the name for it and didn't know how a bunch of symptoms were actually related until you went and saw a specialist? Todorov's structuralist breakdown of the marvelous, the fantastic, and the uncanny--with the fantastic mediating in the middle through uncertainty--was the holy grail of aha! moments for me as a reader and writer: so THAT'S WHY E.T.A. Hoffman works here, and King fails there, and why Nabokov's "Wingstroke" remains such an enduring and chilling delight for me. The fantastic's connection to poetry and allegory is discussed through literal and figurative language--a extremely helpful link for me to finally and comfortably say why the mythic, fable and fairy tale (including folklore, religion, and broad swaths of medieval literature) have always also been of great interest. Puts some modern gothic/Southern gothic writers into interesting and illuminating light (F.O'Connor, E.Bowen, C. McCarthy), although not a direct interest of the book. And manages to put mystery into play with John Dickson Carr, Agatha Christie, etc., etc. An extremely helpful and well-informed must-read for any student of non-realist fiction. The reading list alone will keep you busy for a year!
December 12, 2012
It was really easy to read, but I absolutely have no use for Todorov's Definition of the Fantastic.
June 28, 2024
3 STARS
This is a very vital part for my BA as I'm planning to use Todorov's theory of the Fantastic, so naturally I had to read this. I'd say half of this was gold and I know I can make my case with this as a framework but the other half was unhelpful. Therefore, 3 stars.
I like the conception of the fantastic as a genre and the categories Todorov created but I'm already curious what critics say about this theory. I have many thoughts.
This is a very vital part for my BA as I'm planning to use Todorov's theory of the Fantastic, so naturally I had to read this. I'd say half of this was gold and I know I can make my case with this as a framework but the other half was unhelpful. Therefore, 3 stars.
I like the conception of the fantastic as a genre and the categories Todorov created but I'm already curious what critics say about this theory. I have many thoughts.
September 19, 2024
Tiene planteamientos debatibles, pero no se puede negar el excelente abordaje que hace Todorov del género fantástico aunque para él solo sea una introducción.
February 16, 2025
todorov tkm
September 5, 2025
je vs conseille ct super intéressant (à part 3-4 chapitres que j’ai lus en diagonale) et ça finit sur kafka ct fait exprès pour moi je pense ❤️❤️
June 16, 2025
There are undoubtedly some nuances lost in translation, but at first glance Tzvetan Todorov's definition of "the fantastic" adheres to what I always thought of as "the uncanny." Todorov curiously categorizes the latter as the left circle in the Venn whose center the former occupies. That is, he strictly defines "the fantastic" as the interstice between the uncanny (his label for that which appears supernatural but is explained away in natural terms) and the marvelous (that which appears as, and is, supernatural).
At first, this definition seems bafflingly arbitrary, and it certainly doesn't align with my understanding of the fantastic's customary definition as inherently speculative (or supernatural). However, there's a lot more to this book than its self-imposed semiotic limitations, and there's something refreshing about the rigor and clarity of Todorov's structuralist analysis while living through the current trend of postructuralist smoke-and-mirrors reading and misreading. Not to mention, Todorov acknowledges the inherent limitations and even arbitrariness of his methodology.
He contends with psychoanalysis and biographical modes of literary analysis without wholesale buying into their tenets, but his primary approach is staunchly semiotic, asking not only what is the fantastic, but also why is the fantastic, both on and beyond the page? Most pleasing to me is his argument for literary subversion or transgression:
"Apart from institutionalized censorship, there is another kind, more subtle and more general: the censorship which functions in the psyche of the authors themselves. The penalization of certain acts by society provokes a penalization invoked in and by the individual himself, forbidding him to approach certain taboo themes. More than a simple pretext, the fantastic is a means of combat against this kind of censorship as well as the other: sexual excesses will be more readily accepted by any censor if they are attributed to the devil."
Of course, such a metonymic system is not inherently great—it can be used to either deeply productive or deeply conservative ends—but, to my mind, antagonism belongs in art and especially in fantastic literature. This is by no means a spotless or timeless work of scholarship, but it's packed with careful analysis and exciting openings for thought.
At first, this definition seems bafflingly arbitrary, and it certainly doesn't align with my understanding of the fantastic's customary definition as inherently speculative (or supernatural). However, there's a lot more to this book than its self-imposed semiotic limitations, and there's something refreshing about the rigor and clarity of Todorov's structuralist analysis while living through the current trend of postructuralist smoke-and-mirrors reading and misreading. Not to mention, Todorov acknowledges the inherent limitations and even arbitrariness of his methodology.
He contends with psychoanalysis and biographical modes of literary analysis without wholesale buying into their tenets, but his primary approach is staunchly semiotic, asking not only what is the fantastic, but also why is the fantastic, both on and beyond the page? Most pleasing to me is his argument for literary subversion or transgression:
"Apart from institutionalized censorship, there is another kind, more subtle and more general: the censorship which functions in the psyche of the authors themselves. The penalization of certain acts by society provokes a penalization invoked in and by the individual himself, forbidding him to approach certain taboo themes. More than a simple pretext, the fantastic is a means of combat against this kind of censorship as well as the other: sexual excesses will be more readily accepted by any censor if they are attributed to the devil."
Of course, such a metonymic system is not inherently great—it can be used to either deeply productive or deeply conservative ends—but, to my mind, antagonism belongs in art and especially in fantastic literature. This is by no means a spotless or timeless work of scholarship, but it's packed with careful analysis and exciting openings for thought.
May 11, 2016
Todorov's comprehensive report on the definition of fantastic literature wrapped in an exhaustive introduction to structuralist narratology is a classic example of structuralist finickiness producing interesting theory of limited practical use. The concepts he introduces are entertaining exercises in mental athletics: In order to qualify as genuine fantastic literature a text has to be right on the edge between the real and imaginary world. The hint of the supernatural and marvelous has to be believable but never realized, yet the world the reader perceives must be grounded in realism so as to make the incongruity discernible. Like Shroedinger's Cat the fantastic is alive and valid only as long as it remains unknown whether the supernatural element is present or not. Uncertainty and ambiguity are the defining elements of Todorov's concept of the fantastic.
He introduces several different aspects of fantastic literature which he theoretically explores, yet in practice his definition is so restricting as to exclude virtually any potential candidates for the genre, shunting them into adjacent genres like horror, gothic, mystery, literary nonsense, absurdist fiction and surrealism.
Nonetheless, his theory remains influential, not least because of the numerous attempts to discredit and refute it. Reading Todorov's monograph it becomes impossible not to strongly react to his statements, especially considering how uncompromisingly they are worded, provoking an equally adamantly phrased response.
He introduces several different aspects of fantastic literature which he theoretically explores, yet in practice his definition is so restricting as to exclude virtually any potential candidates for the genre, shunting them into adjacent genres like horror, gothic, mystery, literary nonsense, absurdist fiction and surrealism.
Nonetheless, his theory remains influential, not least because of the numerous attempts to discredit and refute it. Reading Todorov's monograph it becomes impossible not to strongly react to his statements, especially considering how uncompromisingly they are worded, provoking an equally adamantly phrased response.
Read
December 31, 2021This essay attempts to define “the fantastic” genre by what I can only define as a process of elimination. By endeavoring to explicate what “it is not”, Todorov not only defines the genre in question, but also sheds light on other, adjacent genre (such as the marvelous, the mysterious and even some styles such as the poetic or the allegorical). It was a very interesting and enlightening read, if a little challenging. It is not, though, an entry level text, because, for all of its clarity, it presumes the reader to be already acquainted with a vast majority of literary and linguistic terminology, such as the difference between utterance and speech acts.
“If we try to transcend the words in order to reach the vision, the vision might be classified in the category of the supernatural: the octave which ensnares the days, the chant of the mountains, the earth’s sigh, etc. But here we must not follow such a path: the phrases quoted require a poetic reading, they do not tend to describe an evoked world. Such is the paradox of literary language: it is precisely when words are employed in the figurative sense that we must take them literally.”
“If we try to transcend the words in order to reach the vision, the vision might be classified in the category of the supernatural: the octave which ensnares the days, the chant of the mountains, the earth’s sigh, etc. But here we must not follow such a path: the phrases quoted require a poetic reading, they do not tend to describe an evoked world. Such is the paradox of literary language: it is precisely when words are employed in the figurative sense that we must take them literally.”
July 22, 2024
Esta é a terceira vez que leio este livro. A primeira vez foi ainda em 2008 quando não tinha GoodReads e queria me preparar para o mestrado em Escrita Criativa que nunca fiz e nunca passei também. A segunda foi em 2016 provavelmente procurando algum aporte literário para algum artigo para enriquecer o currículo para outro mestrado. E agora li ele porque confundi com o livro de Vladmir Propp, a Morfologia do Conto Maravilhoso, que me foi indicado como leitura depois da minha banca de doutorado. De oito em oito anos li esse livro, mas nenhuma das vezes ele subiu ou desceu do meu conceito, continuou ficando ali nesse meio-termo. Agora preciso mesmo encontrar o livro de Propp porque segundo me prometeram ele se relaciona bastante com as minhas pesquisas. Veremos.
August 15, 2021
A beautiful example of the overlap of philosophy and literature; in theoretical shape.
Anybody intrigued by the philosophical potentialities of literature, as well as the literary potentialities of philosophy, should read this essay. It might be so Derridaean and deconstructionist as to the point of becoming instantly blasé, but the serious study of literature might indeed be the next step in the development of philosophy. More so than any kind of dry logic ever will.
Indeed, logic limits itself in its inherent setting of limitations, whereas literature breaks open that state of limitation through its inherent ambiguity. We need only realise that ambiguity does not always signify incongruity, nor incompatibility, but can also signify simultaneity.
Anybody intrigued by the philosophical potentialities of literature, as well as the literary potentialities of philosophy, should read this essay. It might be so Derridaean and deconstructionist as to the point of becoming instantly blasé, but the serious study of literature might indeed be the next step in the development of philosophy. More so than any kind of dry logic ever will.
Indeed, logic limits itself in its inherent setting of limitations, whereas literature breaks open that state of limitation through its inherent ambiguity. We need only realise that ambiguity does not always signify incongruity, nor incompatibility, but can also signify simultaneity.
December 2, 2016
“La literatura puede existir a partir de la diferencia con el lenguaje corriente”, así capta nuestra atención este libro que nos convence de clasificar la literatura fantástica a partir de una metodología. Lo fantástico es un instante que se encuentra limitado a su derecha por lo fantástico maravilloso y a su izquierda por lo fantástico extraño, los límites son lo extraño y lo maravilloso. Lo primero recibe una explicación racional de los acontecimientos. Lo segundo es más parecido a los cuentos de hadas, también lo clasifica en hiperbólico, exótico, instrumental y científico. Si necesitas una definición este es el libro indicado.
December 24, 2007
An analytical view of the fantastic and its contribution to literature as a whole. I find this book delightfully philosophical about my favorite topic: literature. Todorov's theories about defining the fantastic are direct, correct, and applicable. Sometimes I read things on literary analysis, and I wonder why it matters, but, for some reason, I was completely drawn into Todorov's arguments and never once questioned why I couldn't just enjoy a book for what it's worth and move on. He inspired and motivated me to question WHY we have the fantastic, not just what it is.
January 9, 2016
Eu me sinto mais burro depois de ter lido este livro do Todorov. Eu devia imaginar que a leitura seria arrastada como foi A Conquista da América. O livro me ajudou a pensar em algumas características do estilo fantástico e do maravilhoso na literatura. Mas, de fato, não é uma leitura para qualquer um.
Não recomendo para iniciantes.
Não recomendo para iniciantes.
May 28, 2015
Es evidente que para leer literatura fantástica no es necesario conocer este libro, sin embargo, su lectura y análisis te encamina a cualquier amante del género del imaginario hacia una estructura profunda del relato fantástico. Un ensayo ameno y completo.
July 4, 2018
Bueno, no es secreto que me gusta más la propuesta de Rosemary Jackson, pero Todorov fue el primero, y Fantasy no existiría de no ser por él.
(Además, creo que mi preferencia por Jackson tiene bastante que ver con una cuestión temporal.)
(Me faltó la última parte.)
(Además, creo que mi preferencia por Jackson tiene bastante que ver con una cuestión temporal.)
(Me faltó la última parte.)
May 23, 2015
I liked his arguments in the first few chapters, but I quickly lost interest in chapter five and onwards.
April 14, 2025
nada nuevo (creo)
May 29, 2020
In The Fantastic, Tzvetan Todorov first gives the definition of literary genres, the concepts on which they should be designed and critical view on the genre studies prior to his. It is about the use and abuse of the generic theory since we cannot recognise the uniqueness except as a deviation from some norm. Afterwards, by examining separate fantastic texts narrows down the key concepts of the fantastic and formulates his own definition. While doing so, Todorov also draws structural parallels between fantastic and some other genres to clear cut its boundaries and founding rules. Historiographic metafiction in itself is also a human construct that obeys certain regulations like the use and abuse of concepts it features. While defining fantastic, Todorov suggests its opposition with poetry and allegorical reading. Thus, a certain type of reading is required in order to achieve the fantastic effect. Structurally, fantastic should be read in a linear way which can appeal to historiographic metafiction as well even though it does not have a linear sense of happenings. Otherwise, there is a risk of untimely revelation of the unfulfilled effects.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews