The impossible out of the net of words: rethinking the fantastic through Todorov, Tolkien and Lewis.

Chou, Christine Hsiu-Chin

I. Introduction

"The very heart of the fantastic," according to the modern theorist Tzvetan Todorov, known as "Mr. Structuralism," (1) lies in the sustained experience of "ambiguity"--whether the adventure (within the literary text) is "reality or dream," "truth or illusion." (2) In other words, the "uncertainty" vis-a-vis the question about "what is possible" and "what is impossible" is essential to the sense of wonder evoked by fantastic literature. Moreover, Todorov observes that in the textual world of the fantastic, this uncertainty and "hesitation" is "experienced by a person who knows only the laws of nature, confronting an apparently supernatural event," and that "[t]he concept of the fantastic is therefore to be defined in relation to those of the real and the imaginary." (3) It is noticeable that Todorov's generic consideration of the fantastic is oriented to assign the supernatural, the imaginary, the unreal, and the impossible as equivalents within the fantastic text. More importantly, as Robert Scholes suggests in his "Foreword" to Todorov's milestone book, The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre, Todorov's treatise in structural poetics of fantastic literature is critically positioned in "the modern phase of a traditional discipline," (4) in which thinking is basically in line which regards literature as verbal art, or "linguistic event," with its signification dictated by the structure/grammar of the literary text or by the coding system of linguistic signs. In the same vein, in Todorov's approach to the genre of fantastic literature, he dedicatedly "seeks linguistic bases for the structural features he notes in fantastic texts," (5) which indeed the very endeavor that signals Todorov's project of "fictional poetics" as one of structuralism.

However, if thinking beyond language and structure, one cannot but ask whether what is imagined in the text of the fantastic must be unreal? Couldn't it be possible that the imaginary/impossible verbally conveyed bears reference to the real in a trans-verbal sense or of certain transcendent order? Such questioning, the present study means to argue, is entirely justifiable to the deistic mindset (such as St. Augustine, who Todorov recognizes as the "groundbreaking" contributor to "the birth of semiotics" (6)) and cannot be ignored even by the proponent of the structural and essentially anti-metaphysical poetics of the fantastic like Todorov. After all, as would be scrutinized later in this discussion, in spite of his linguistic preoccupation, Todorov himself is unavoidably confronted with the problem of trans-linguistic signification located within the verbal construction and imagination of the supernatural.

Based on the perspective that pays attention to the trans-verbal aspect of literary/verbal art, the present study intends to re-visit the critical question about the possibility or impossibility of breaking up the equivalences between the imaginary and the impossible, or the supernatural and the unreal, in literature of the fantastic. This theoretical re-examination will be done through re-thinking Todorov's structuralist consideration of the relationship between literature and the fantastic against the alternative perspective of those literary critics who share the worldview of transcendental reality and tend to think about the same question beyond either language or the text itself, such as the British scholars and Christian fantasists, J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis.

Among the well-known British fantasy writers during the twentieth century, Tolkien and Lewis remain resonant in this literary field. Their importance is, to an extent, related to the twofold enterprise they are both involved with: the literary inventions of "other-worlds" and the theoretical conceptions or critical treatments of mythic and fantastic literature. Indeed, the reciprocal value of the combination of theoretical/critical insight and literary practice serve to make these two literary and congenial professors and authors influential voices, although their importance is perhaps recognized particularly by those who are sympathetic toward their works invested with Christian worldview. When it comes to fantasy literature, neither their critical views nor their creative works are put into consideration, for example, by Todorov, whose definition of the fantastic obviously bypasses the works of either Lewis or Tolkien. Nevertheless, this research attempts to rethink Tolkien's definition of "fairy-stories" and Lewis's critical views on "myth" and "fantasy" against Todorov's essentially different thinking about the literary fantastic. Generally speaking, this attempt is targeted at a theoretical "conversation" among these scholars who seem to speak of something similar but in different "languages" and positions.

According to Tolkien in his prominent and influential essay, "On Fairy Stories," (7) the notion of "fantasy" is classified as one of the central qualities of the fairy story. It is "a natural human activity," a "sub-creative" activity of the mind to invent a world beyond the natural world we know, namely, in Tolkien's words, "the Primary World." This "sub-created" world, derived from "the creative interaction of human imagination and human language," (8) is coined as "the Secondary World" full of wonder and strangeness, a mythic and enchanted realm that cannot possibly be envisaged in the mundane world yet can be encountered in the fairytale--through words, the very means of casting a spell. (9) Thus, unsurprisingly, Tolkien furthers his conception of fantasy with the idea that "[i]n human art Fantasy is a thing best left to words, to true literature." (10) In other words, the value of "narrative art," or verbal expression, is underscored in the sub-creative enterprise of fantasy, which is, so to speak, the "impossible" mission of making the unnatural/supernatural natural, the unreal real, the disenchanted world enchanted again. In the age already deeply preoccupied with the modern theory of language, that is, with the structure of signs and its anti-metaphysics implications, such an emphasis on words and the art of literature in the full play of Tolkien's sense of fantasy definitely deserves serious reconsideration.

Theoretically, the link, or conflict between fantasy and language, the former bearing the quintessential and ultimate function of invoking the "secondary belief" in metaphysics, whereas the latter, in semiotic terms, bearing the nature which absolutely pertains to anti-metaphysics, gives rise to an intriguing inquiry: How can the two, contradictory in essence, be possibly reconciled at their service of textualizing the literary fantastic? Basically, this study would investigate this question through comparing the critical or theoretical viewpoints held by the three critics, Tolkien, Lewis and Todorov. Toward the conclusion, this comparative discussion will take into account Tolkien's conception of the "eucatastrophic" ending of fairy story. The theme of "eucatastrophe," i.e., "good catastrophe," is significant and relevant to the present research attempting to probe into the verbal and trans-verbal dialectic of fantastic literature because this peculiar and essentially dialectic type of "happy ending," according to Tolkien, plays both "the strange mythic quality" and the "highest function" of the fairy tale, as it makes possible "glimpse of joy ... beyond the walls of the world." (11) To put it in another way, with the eucatastrophic ending, the fairy story or fantasy text, though structurally only a "linguistic construct" and supposedly having no true end, would ultimately give readers and characters alike some "glimpse" of Reality together with an other-worldly and transcendental order of hope. In this sense, it is no wonder that the theme of eucatastrophe, with its promise of fulfilling the transcendental longing, would ultimately become the key to bringing the enchantment of a fairytale to fruition.

In our attempt to negotiate between fantasy and language, we would like to see how the eucatastrophic ending would make impact upon the negotiation between fantasy and language. At last, this research looks to validate that the eucatastrophic theme may serve as suitable lens via which the impossible can be rendered possible, the supernatural, coexistent with the natural within the text of the literary fantastic. That is to say, it would perfectly be possible to set "the fantastic" free and real as well--out of "the net of words."

II. Negotiation in the critical views of Tolkien and Lewis

Concerning the spirit of Fantasy that can be referred to a genre or, in terms of Tolkien, to "a quality essential to fairy story," namely, "the Sub-creative Art" that gives expression to "a quality of strangeness and wonder" (12) in Faerie--the Enchanted Realm, it is conceivable that in either case, the "spirit" concerned must pertain to something beyond words. Even though Tolkien indeed assigns words or "true literature" as the best vehicle for the "the human art Fantasy," he, nevertheless, observes paradoxically that "Faerie cannot be caught in a net of words." (13) Seemingly self-contradictory, Tolkien's understanding of the use of language in the art of fantasy, in fact, pointedly addresses the discrepancy between word and spirit as well as between means and ends. To Tolkien, language plays the key role of empowerment in making man a sub-creator of Faerie. On the other hand, "potent" as it is, language is at the same time recognized as a tool of inability and limitation for serving the impossible purpose of imparting what Faerie signifies--something essentially indescribable. From the disaffirming viewpoint, a further inquiry would follow: how to understand such an end of impossibility that makes word/language inevitably fail to, as it were, "catch the bird"? Upon this question, the following thoughts of Tolkien, as lucidly paraphrased and interpreted by David Sadner below, may shed some light:

   Tolkien proposes that fantasy literature attempts to capture "in a
   net of words" a bird which must slip the net; fantasy is defined by
   its very ina bility to be defined, by the quality of longing for
   something which can only be glimpsed, but never found, in the story
   itself." (14)

Regarding why the end of fully describing fantasy (in Tolkien's sense of the word) is an impossible mission to achieve, Tolkien's explanation points to the essential but also peculiar quality of fantasy which involves a certain experience of yearning of a transcendental order, as what is longed for is not only intangible but also incommensurable in our (primary) world and therefore beyond the grasp of man, let alone his expression and portrayal in words.

Ultimately, in terms of Tolkien's insight, the "longing" of this unnamable kind is defined as a spiritual experience, and its metaphysical significance is elaborated more and more profoundly in his theoretical essay while analyzing and exploring other qualities/functions of fantasy literature besides Fantasy, i.e., Escape, Recovery, and last but not least, Consolation. So far, with Tolkien we can understand that related to the quality of Fantasy is the paradox of language, with its power in narrative art and meanwhile its incapacity in dealing with the indescribable spirituality of Faerie.

Turning to C. S. Lewis, whose critical ideas on fantasy are no less insightful and preoccupied with metaphysics than Tolkien's, we would encounter some meaningful echoes that can inform us, in different ways, of the artful aspect of fantasy and its spiritual dimension as well. As mentioned above, with the attempt to underline the mythological aspect of the place of fantasy, i.e., Faerie, (15) Tolkien ascribes to the sub-creative art of fantasy the power of revealing "the underlying reality," which is equal to a power of envisioning transcendental reality in which the natural and the unnatural coexist in a world that is, in nature, not merely material but also spiritual. Similarly, Lewis observes that abundantly in the art of fantasy as well as the fiction of myth lies the capacity of revelation that can broaden our vision of reality, especially the spiritual reality of the world and the self.

In his essay, "Sometimes Fairy Stories May Say Best What's to Be Said," (16) Lewis defines the Fantastic or Mythical as a literary mode that has the power "to generalise while remaining concrete, to present in palpable form not concepts or even experiences but whole classes of experience, and to throw off irrelevancies. But at best it can do more; it can give us experiences we have never had and thus, instead of 'commenting on life,' can add to it." (17) In Lewis's conception, fantasy and myth are no ticeably treated as highly equivalent forms of writing, seeing that they share the literary abilities to bring into life the reality/truth not only underlying but also transcending what can be grasped and experienced in human life in the mundane world. As to the ultimately real that can be imparted through fantasy or myth but is actually out of the bounds of human knowledge and this-worldly experience, Lewis, like Tolkien, is referring to an other-world longing, a mystical experience of some unfulfilled desire which he refers to as "Joy." Moreover, Lewis shares with Tolkien the idea that the experience of "Joy" is the bird that can only be "suggested" (18) but never be really caught or, in Sadner's words, "comprehended by the 'net' of either story or life." (19)

Yet, when it comes to the notion of reality, it is noteworthy that sometimes Lewis and Tolkien do not think the same things. Comparatively, Tolkien's contemplation is more focused on the cosmic/objective reality, at least theoretically. Lewis, in critical as well as literary practice, is relatively more oriented to putting special and significant concern with the subjective reality of the soul. One good example is found in Lewis's critical essay on The Lord of the Rings, with the title of "The Dethronement of Power," specifically his interpretative commentary on Tolkien's depiction of the heroic protagonist. Looking into the mythic manifestation and fantastic display of not just the life but the soul of the hero figure undertaking the quest in Faerie, Lewis firstly asks why setting the life story of the hero in "a phantasmogoric never-never-land." Then he offers an answer with the following perceptive theory about the reality of a man's life, including both the "inside" and the "outside," which can only be brought before our eyes through myth and fantasy:

   the real life of men is that mythical and heroic quality .... The
   imagined beings have their insides on the outsides; they are
   visible souls. And man as a whole, man pitted against the universe,
   have we seen him at all till we see that he is like a hero in a
   fairy tale? (20)

Evidently, the focal attention of the critic Lewis is paid to the mythic embodiment of what is real about a human soul in the world of fantasy.

Despite their somewhat different observations of the reality in fantasy, Lewis and Tolkien are still mostly congenial thinkers. In addition to holding fantasy and myth as inter-mixed modes of expression, they also share, by and large, similar ideas about the correlation between fantasy and reality, or more precisely, the association between the spirituality (rather than the mere art) of fantasy and the reality of the spirit pertaining to the individual self or the whole universe. Nonetheless, as pointed out above, even if they value the artistic function of fantasy and myth to provide certain "supposal" of reality and truth, neither Lewis nor Tolkien believes in the power of a mere "net of words" to entirely transcend the limited view of world or life or self and give us "the real thing" of the spiritual, metaphysical, or supernatural reality within the artful/verbal text of fantasy. In other words, equally concerned with revelation of the real, these two fantasy critics and writers both maintain that the real can only be envisaged and imagined both via and beyond the literary art of fantasy.

That is to say, Lewis and Tolkien fully recognize the paradoxical truth about the art of the fantastic as a literary mode: it is, on the one hand, indispensable, as only through the verbal art can Faerie be made "real," even if only aesthetically and imaginarily; on the other hand, the art made out of words is ultimately unreliable, for its product, i.e., the (verbal) text, is the very medium that the author must move beyond in order for the imagination/sub-creation to reach or "fly" to Faerie, the Secondary Realm of Reality. (21) In the understanding of Lewis and Tolkien, the "Reality" of the Primary or the Secondary world, i.e., in Creation or Sub-creation, is essentially a composite, unifying and transcending concept simultaneously encompassing all such binary pairs as outside/inside, material/spirit, appearance/essence, temporal/trans-temporal, mortal/trans-mortal, and natural/ supernatural, and thus ultimately cannot possibly be "caught by a net of words." In the light of Lewis's famous comparison of our mundane world to be merely the "shadow land" of Reality of the eternal universe, we may also say that what is "caught" by art and revealed as the Real in fantasy is but the shadow of Reality.

Such a paradoxical stance toward the relationship between language and fantasy, no doubt, is grounded on an overtly metaphysics-centered worldview, a belief that the existence of Reality, or the Real, bears the quality of meta-physical essence and transcends the "natural" world. From the theoretical perspective, it is absolutely justifiable, indeed also necessary, for any attempt to theorize the fantasy genre--the verbal art that mediates the literary imagination of the spiritual and the real--to come to a paradoxical understanding of language in the metaphysics-invested mode of art. As demonstrated in the practices of Tolkien and Lewis, theoretically they cannot avoid being confronted with the conflict between the medium and the spirit of (literary) art, namely, the incompatibility between language / the linguistic conveyor and Reality / the extra-linguistic conveyance in the operation of the fantasy art.

III. Todorov's structural approach to the fantastic

The same issue of conflict between "the verbal and the transverbal" inherent in the text of literary fantasy is seriously tackled by the later fantasy theorist Todorov. His early influential book The Fantastic (1970) established him as a significant theorist who defines the genre in a critically sophisticated manner, albeit in a very narrow scope. The most distinctive trait in his definition of the fantastic lies in his noted differentiation of the uncanny (i.e., "the supernatural explained"), the marvelous (i.e., "the supernatural accepted"), and the fantastic (as "located on the frontier of [these] two genres"). (22) Based on this distinction, it is definitely certain that the genre of the fantastic defined by Todorov is far from the literary fantasy conceived by Tolkien or Lewis. In fact, the fantastic in terms of both Tolkien and Lewis is actually near to the marvelous as understood by Todorov. Yet, equally undeniable is the fact that these literary critics' theoretical treatments of "the fantastic" still collide and even at a certain point overlap, since all of them address the question about the conflict and negotiation between language and literary fantasy. Therefore, regardless of Todorov's distinction of the three genres or his structural conception of the literary fantastic as a "linguistic construct," (23) the present study attempts to examine how Todorov's treatment of the issue agrees or disagrees to what is perceived by the other party, i.e., Tolkien and Lewis.

Concerning the aforementioned conflict, Todorov's exploration of what the fantastic ultimately signifies, that is, a broadened vision--trans-lingual and trans-textual--of universal reality, inevitably challenges and disrupts his structural-based theory, one that presupposes the limits of understanding set by the closed system of language. Seeing that the signification of the fantastic must transgress the boundaries of language and text, it is not hard to infer that Todorov too is confronted with the similar problem Tolkien and Lewis wrestled with, concerning language as an impossible but indispensable vehicle of imparting "the surplus meaning" of the marvelous, supernatural and strange in fantastic literature. Confrontation with such a problem entails in Todorov a theoretical (re-)orientation to thinking dialectically about literary language, about literature of the fantastic, and even about the structural approach he adopts. As a result, we seem to have a structural theorist trying to negotiate with himself. This viewpoint may actually lead us to agree to the following pointed commentary made by Lucie Armitt: "[A]t the same time, as Todorov adopts a structuralist paradigm, he is simultaneously working beyond its constraints." (24) According to Armitt, it is this double, subversive, and, we may add, "negotiating" position of Todorov's in his attempt to apply literary theory to the understanding of the fantastic that demonstrates the true and crucial contribution of Todorov's work to "contemporary studies of Fantasy and the fantastic." (25) Thus, we can be assured that the "negotiation" the structuralist theorist is engaged in deserves a closer investigation.

The negotiation is most conspicuously tackled in the last chapter of his book, entitled "Literature and the Fantastic," in which Todorov turns from his generic theorization to a serious consideration of the contradictions of literature, as expounded in the following quotation:

   By its very definition, literature bypasses the distinctions of the
   real and the imaginary, of what is and of what is not. ... Now
   literature exists by words; but its dialectical vocation is to say
   more than language says, to transcend verbal divisions. It is,
   within language, that which destroys the metaphysics inherent in
   all language. The nature of literary discourse is to go
   beyond--otherwise it would have no reason for being; literature is
   a kind of murderous weapon by which language commits suicide. (26)

   (Emphases added)

Here, Todorov offers his keen perceptions of the embedment of contradictions within the nature of literature and also of the dialectical relation between language and literature. Later, toward concluding his "negotiation" between literature and the fantastic, Todorov asserts that precisely because of "literature's paradoxical status" in which "literature embraces the antithesis between the verbal and the transverbal, between the real and the unreal," the very "synthesis of the supernatural with literature" (27) can take place. Such dialectical thinking appears to testify that Todorov is really thinking beyond his structural approach, as he is clearly underlining the fact that literature, though a linguistic product, is also trans-linguistic, capable of saying something trans-verbal, i.e., transcending the limits of the "net of words," or the system of linguistic signs.

Certainly, as far as fantastic literature is concerned, Todorov, like Tolkien and Lewis, at the same time underscores the indispensability of language in literary expression of the supernatural. Concerning the relationship between language and the supernatural in literature, Todorov observes: "The supernatural is born of language ... not only do the devil and vampires exist in words, but language alone enables us to conceive what is always absent: the supernatural. The supernatural thereby becomes a symbol of language." (28) Despite the seeming similarity in this regard, we still need to further inquire: What exactly is Todorov suggesting in the claim that "the supernatural is born of language"? Is he echoing Tolkien's and Lewis's understanding of the paradox of language, that language is charged with the "impossible" job of not merely conveying the supernatural but also revealing Reality in the work of fantasy? To figure out whether or not there is an "echo" between the two parties, we must take care of the touchy issue about "reality" in the fantasy again.

Given that underlying Tolkien's and Lewis's idea about the relationship between fantasy and reality is their shared worldview, one that is clearly metaphysics-informed, we may wonder how Todorov, in theorizing the fantastic by a structural approach, treats the connection between the supernatural and the metaphysical view of the world. In fact, it is detectable that while attempting to negotiate literature and the fantastic and developing a dialectical understanding of (fantasy) literature, Todorov emphasizes the imperative of destroying "the metaphysics inherent in all language." He argues that

   the fantastic questions precisely the existence of an irreducible
   opposition between real and unreal. ... Whence the ambiguous
   impression made by fantastic literature: on the one hand, it
   represents the quintessence of literature, insofar as the
   questioning of the limit between real and unreal, proper to all
   literature, is its explicit center. On the other hand, though, it
   is only a propaedeutics to literature: by combating the metaphysics
   of everyday language, it gives that language life; it must start
   from language, even if only to reject it. (29) (Emphases added)

This two-sided argument of Todorov's involves two questions for us to deal with: Firstly, what is exactly Todorov's definition of his term "the metaphysics in (everyday) language"? Secondly, why does the fantastic have to "combat" it so that language can "give life to" the fantastic? According to Todorov, the very idea of "the metaphysics in language" refers to "a common and simplistic view [that] presents literature (and language too) as an image of 'reality,' as a tracing of what is not itself, a kind of parallel and analogous series." (30) In the opinion of Todorov, this view is "doubly false" because it "betrays" both the act of saying something and what is being said. What Todorov is objecting to, in other words, is the very idea of a pre-existent "reality" of which language is but a parallel or analogy. That is to say, Todorov is suggesting that what is true is just the opposite: everything, real or unreal, can never be had until it "is born of language." The fantastic is certainly no exception. The rationale behind this radical denial of "the metaphysics in language" is actually not difficult to figure out. In some sense, it is out of the question to simultaneously have "metaphysics" and the fantastic in language because between the fantastic and the "metaphysics" is absolute confliction, with one indicating the absent and the unreal, whereas the other demanding the recognition of the real right in language itself. Therefore, it is impossible to have both at the same time; only when "the metaphysics in language" is "dead" can the fantastic be possible to be in language.

Now, if what needs to be destroyed is "the metaphysics in language" in terms of Todorov's theory of fantastic literature, what about his opinion of the metaphysics as a view of the world in the same theory? As shown in the following quotation from the last chapter of The Fantastic, Todorov's position is explicitly against the metaphysics either in language or as a worldview:

   Far from being a praise of the imaginary, then, the literature of
   the fantastic posits the majority of a text as belonging to
   reality, like a name gives to a pre-existing thing. The literature
   of the fantastic leaves us with two notions: that of reality and
   that of literature, each as unsatisfactory as the other. The
   nineteenth century transpired, it is true, in a metaphysics of the
   real and the imaginary, and the literature of the fantastic is
   nothing but the bad conscience of this positivist era. But today,
   we no longer believe in an immutable, external reality, nor in a
   literary which is merely the transcription of such a reality. Words
   have gained an autonomy which things have lost. ... Fantastic
   literature itself--which on every page subverts linguistic
   categorizations--has received a fatal blow from these very
   categorizations. But this death, this suicide generates a new
   literature. Now, it would not be too presumptuous to assert that
   the literature of the twentieth century is, in certain sense, more
   purely "literature" than any other. This must not of course be
   taken as a value judgment: it is even possible that precisely
   because of this fact, its quality is thereby diminished. (31)

   (Emphases added)

From the above quotation, we can definitely draw several important facts about Todorov's theoretical position and also about how it differs from Tolkien's and Lewis's points of view. First of all, Todorov makes distinction between two different kinds of fantastic literature, the classic and the new. The former, the out-of-date kind, is ascribed by Todorov as obsessed with "metaphysics" to such an extent that the notion of reality is prioritized at the cost of the imaginary. The new kind, on the contrary, rejects the metaphysic view of either the external world or the one made up within the text and thus is more authentically "literature" and more fully imaginarily charged. In addition to the division of old- and new-fashioned literature of fantasy in terms of its service or negation of metaphysics, it is also discernible that definitely it is the second type, the de-metaphysic one, that is favored by Todorov the structuralist. Indeed, his primary goal is clearly to formulate an up-to-date theory of fantastic literature compatible with the new era, i.e., the era of (post)modernity, in which metaphysics and the notion of reality are dismissed and dispelled from language, literature and general worldview.

Therefore, we can also assert almost surely that as a theoretical thinker Todorov actually holds on to an anti-metaphysic position and he never really "betrays" his structuralism, or at least not completely. Given that in the metaphysic-free realm of being and speaking, language is nowadays its own master, no longer servant to any pre-existent reality, it is now the fantastic rather than words that has the fate of "suicide" dictated by the governance of words. Under such a (pre-)condition or premise, it is thus justifiable for the theorist to keep adherent to structuralism as the pre-dominant paradigm of thinking about the fantastic in literature. Still, everything is gained with a price. Allegiance to language may not be a real and entire gain of autonomy for the speaker and thinker himself. If we put Todorov's full account above into closer scrutiny, particularly his very last comment in the above quotation concerning the "diminishing" in the quality of the fantastic, we seem able to overhear a "backlash" in his thinking revealing a subtle sense of "ambiguity" inside his structuralism-preoccupied mind. Perhaps, this could be viewed as a flash of momentary "nostalgia," in which the structuralist thinker cannot help being judgmental on the post-metaphysical way of doing with the fantastic that his own theoretical stance partakes in. From this view we can conceive another scenario of his having internal argument with himself in midst of the imaginary dialogue between him and the classic fantasy proponents. In such an internal self-debate, Todorov might truly think beyond structuralism and ask himself the same questions that the "old-fashioned" Tolkien and Lewis would possibly have for him, such as: Is everything non-existent in language, because of its trans-verbal nature, must be impossible to exist in reality too, for example, the supernatural? In the wake of the death of metaphysics and the dissipation of the notion of reality, is the supernatural still possible to inhabit even in the fantastic without the "suicide" of the supernatural? In case the aforementioned possibilities are all impossible, do we still have a language for imagination and literature at all, a paradoxical language that is both suicidal and life-giving? Finally, is the supernatural "only a symbol of language" and absolutely nothing else?

To these interrogations, Todorov himself may have already had some answers. In the conclusion of his book, specifically in the context of his wrestling with Kafka's literature, a new and different kind of fantasy that deliberately blurs the demarcation between the real/natural and the unreal/unnatural, Todorov, from a reconciliatory stance, re-asserts his dialectical treatment of literature and the fantastic. As demonstrated in his concluding remarks below, his language-centered way of thinking but not without an overtone of its "transgression":

   For writing to be possible, it must be born out of the death of
   what it speaks about; but this death makes writing itself
   impossible, for there is no longer anything to write. Literature
   can become possible only insofar it makes itself impossible. Either
   what we say is actually here, in which case there is no room for
   literature; or else there is room for literature, in which case
   there is no longer anything to say. As Blanchot writes in La Part
   du Feu: "If language, and in particular literary language, were not
   constantly advancing toward its death, it would not be possible,
   for it is this movement toward its impossibility which is its
   condition and its basis."

   The operation which consists of reconciling the possible with the
   impossible accurately illustrates the word 'impossible' itself. And
   yet literature exists; that is its greatest paradox. (32)

Quoting and following Blanchot's insightful remarks about the necessary "death" or "suicide" of language to give expression to the extra-linguistic, Tolkien obviously arrives at the point of reconciling language and literature (of the fantastic)--with the acknowledgement of the paradoxical nature of literary language. More specifically, toward the very end of his approaching the genre of fantastic literature in structural terms, Todorov, taking up again a dialectical posture, comes to his synthetic conclusion that literature is ultimately existing and functioning paradoxically, i.e., "reconciling the possible with the impossible," the verbal with the trans-verbal. Such a conclusion of reconciliation may be the "best" answer derived from his theory to resolve the problem of literature's "impossibility." Moreover, it is reached by Todorov the structuralist in a kind of ambiguous position, seeing that he seems to do his thinking and speculation not only in the theory of language but also to an extent beyond its constraints indeed. If we are to seek for alternative, more specific answers in response to Todorov's theory about the impossibility of literature, it may be a good idea to return to Tolkien's theory, particularly his inspiring notion of the best ending for a fairy story.

IV. To conclude in light of "Eucatastrophe"

In addition to their erudite scholarship in literature as well as their multi-roles of literary readers, authors and critics, Tolkien and Lewis, the two congenial and proliferate professors, also share understanding of language and literary art. For instance, reading literature, to both of them, is essentially an activity of interacting with a work of art. They both hold reading as, to use Kath Filmer's words, "not merely interpretation or decoding" but "imaginative experience." (33) Indeed, different from Todorov's structural approach to the literary fantastic with his focal concern about what language can do and cannot do with the fantastic, or what can possibly be compatible with the coding system or structural pattern of signs, the emphasis of Tolkien and Lewis is significantly put on the reader, specifically how readers can enjoy the work and what the work can do to them. To the first question, Lewis in his critical essay, "The Meanings of 'Fantasy,'" suggests that for a reader, a fantasy story "introduces the marvelous, the fantastic, says to him [the reader] by implication 'I am merely a work of art. You must take me as such--must enjoy me for my suggestions, my beauty, my irony, my construction, and so forth.'" (34) In other words, reading a fantasy story is like being invited to appreciate and understand it as a multi-functioned work of art. Without the reader's experience, a fantasy, however marvelously imaginative, does not really speak.

Tolkien, too, in his highly esteemed article, qualifies fairy stories according to the central effects this kind of story can have on the reader. He then attributes four key functions as the criteria: Fantasy, Escape, Recovery, and Consolation. It is generally affirmed by Tolkien's critics that his magnum opus, The Lord of the Rings, offers an exemplary work characteristic of these qualities. In other words, reading Tolkien's fantasy work, we readers will be placed in Faerie, the world of wonder, and offered a chance of, to borrow Filmer's paraphrase of Tolkien's idea, "escape from the 'prison' of the mundane world, the 'recovery' of a sense of enchantment in perceiving mundane reality, and 'consolation' in the promise of redemption and eternal life." (35) Among these "gifts" for readers, Tolkien informs that the functions of "escape" and "recovery" serve to open our eyes and prepare us for the ultimate impact given by the experience of Faerie, i.e., the miraculously good impact of "the Consolation of the Happy Ending," which Tolkien names with an unusual and paradoxical term: "Eucatastrophe," that is, "good catastrophe." Moreover, Tolkien asserts that the "eucatastrophic ending" is the "true form of fairy tale, and its highest function." (36) This claim of Tolkien's, however, leaves us even more perplexed by the strange notion of "eucatastrophe" both as a literary form and as an indispensable quality/function.

If turning to Tolkien for more light on this intriguing idea, we actually can discern at least two important things about "eucatastrophe." Firstly, it is a central element that serves to render fantasy literature into "a religious discourse," although in fairy story its religiousness is packaged in literary suggestions or imaginary supposals. By this paradoxical term Tolkien means to express a thematic situation opposite to Tragedy, a situation in which sufferings or calamities do not end hopelessly in total sorrow or failure; instead, they will somehow encounter "the sudden joyous 'turn'" and as a result become "good catastrophe," or "joyous salvation within apparent catastrophe," to use John Davenport's pithy phrase. (37) Thematically speaking, the conveyance of this "joyous turn" in the midst of catastrophe endows the fairy story with an aura of hope, a certain promise that even if everything points at absolute impossibility of happy ending, there is still possibility of ultimate joy to hope for. Moreover, as clearly explained by Tolkien, the ultimate possibility of this joy or hope in fairy story is related to the "miraculous grace" in a religious sense:

   In its fairy tale--or otherworld--setting, it is a sudden and
   miraculous grace, never to be counted on to recur. It does not deny
   the existence of the joy of deliverance; it denies (in the face of
   much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is
   evangelism, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls
   of the world, poignant as grief. (38)

   (Emphasis added.)

Even though the experience of this "Joy beyond the walls of the world" is but "a fleeting glimpse" in fairy story, Tolkien, however, is implying that the experience of such a flash of religious/eschatological hope actually suffices to provide a vision of ultimate salvation and eternal triumph which can be expected beyond the temporal/temporary "defeat" or despair in this world. In light of such a vision of Hope and Joy of "the other-world" we can definitely conclude with Filmer's observation that in the literature of the fantastic proposed and presented by Tolkien (and Lewis too), "the notion of secularity itself is displaced in favor of affirmative metaphysics." (39)

In addition to the thematic significance of "eucatastrophe" in the religious discourse rendered by fairy story, the eucatastrophic ending can also be valued as the touchstone of what the fantasy genre can possibly do in literature. Even though Tolkien does not really make any explicit value judgment like this, we, nevertheless, can make the inference from Tolkien's opinions revealed in his repeated affirmation of eucatastrophe as "the true form of fairy story," i.e., the very quality to make fairy story "complete" and also as the very thing that can be "produced" exceptionally well by the fairy story in particular.

At last, based on all those affirmative claims of Tolkien's, we can be convinced that Tolkien's theoretical enterprise ultimately testifies the "spirit," or the essential quality, of the fantasy genre, namely, the fact that it is the possible and also amazing type of literature to accommodate what is impossible to language--those "fantastic" notions derived from "affirmative metaphysics," such as the religious ideas of "Eucatastrophe." Besides, if we share the vision of "Joy" pertaining to the supernatural, namely, the ultimate hope of a religious kind as well as in an eschatological sense, we can also perceive beyond the reconciled conclusion reached by Todorov's structuralist project, that it is not impossible to have the "synthesis of the supernatural with literature." In terms of Todorov's theory of the fantastic, this "synthesis" has nothing to do with any "surplus meaning" in religious sense. Rather, it is simply grounded on the rationale that "literature [as exemplified by the fantastic work of Kafka, The Metamorphosis] embraces the antithesis between the verbal and the transverbal, between the real and the unreal." (40) Actually, we may further conclude that even Todorov's theoretical concern with the contradiction between language and literature is no substantial enterprise of reconciliation, at least not in the same sense of reconciliation as understood by Tolkien and Lewis. Compared and contrasted with the former's focus on the structural and "verbal characteristics of the text," (41) causing to the sustained "hesitancy" toward embracing the impossible as "the real," the latter party is more than ready to play the sub-creator of Reality by making the impossible free of "the net of words."

In a sense, such free play of "fantasy," or "sub-creativity," is close to what Ursula Le Guin suggests "a different approach to reality," with the "pararational" and "surrealistic" attributes just like dream (instead of daydream). (42) But, in another sense, treatinging fantasy as dream, both pertaining to "a heightening of reality," (43) actually speaks far less for the perception of Tolkien and Lewis than for the theory of Todorov. After all, to those who are responsive to the "Joy beyond the Walls of the World," fantasy cannot be merely a dream, but a dream that will eventually come true.

(1) See Robert Scholes' "Foreword" in Todorov's The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre (Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University, 1973, trans. Richard Howard), p. ix.

(2) Todorov, ibid, p. 25.

(3) Todorov, ibid, p. 25.

(4) According to Robert Scholes, Todorov's "structural poetics" belongs to a modernized tradition of Aristotelian poetics with the additions of Ferdinand de Saussure's and Roman Jakobson's theories of language and Russian formalists' notions of literature. See his "Foreword," p. x.

(5) Scholes, ibid, p. x.

(6) Cf. the latter part, focused on Augustine, of the chapter entitled "The Birth of Western Semiotics" in Todorov's book Theories of the Symbol (1977) (translated by Catherine Porter, Oxford: Blackwell, 1982), pp. 36-59.

(7) Tolkien's essay cited in this paper is the version with Tolkien's revision published in The Tolkien Reader (New York: Ballantine Books, 1966). Regarding the production of this essay, according to Tolkien's own "Introductory Note," "the essay was originally composed as an Andrew Lang Lecture and was in shorter form delivered in the University of St. Andrews in 1938. It was eventually published, with a little enlargement, as one of the items in Essays Presented to Charles Williams, Oxford University Press, 1947, now out of print. It is here reproduced with only a few minor alterations" (Tolkien, 31).

(8) This phrase is borrowed from the note on Tolkien's term, sub-creation, given by Verlyn Flieger and Douglas A. Anderson, the editors of Tolkien on Fairy-stories: Expanded Edition, with Commentary and Notes (London: HarperCollins Publishers, 2008), p. 11.

(9) Cf. Flieger and Anderson's etymological notes on the word "enchantment": "To enchant' originally (as in Middle English) means "to cast under a spell, to bewitch." "Thus enchantment is the act of enchanting, as well as the state or condition of being enchanted, bewitched or en-spelled. It is important to note that this particular altered state is dependent on works spoken or sung." Ibid, p. 112.

(10) Tolkien, ibid, p. 70.

(11) Tolkien, ibid, p. 86.

(12) The original quotation of Tolkien's definition of Fantasy: "I require a word which shall embrace both the Sub-creative Art in itself and a quality of strangeness and wonder in the Expression, derived from the Image, a quality essential to fairy story, I propose ... to use Fantasy for this purpose, in a sense, that is, which combines with its older and higher use as an equivalent of Imagination the derived notions of 'unreality' (that is, of unlikeness to the Primary World), of freedom from the domination of observed 'fact,' in short of the fantastic." Tolkien, ibid, pp. 68-69.

(13) Tolkien, ibid, p. 39.

(14) David Sadner, "'Joy Beyond the Walls of the World': The Secondary World-Making of J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis," J. R. R. Tolkien and His Literary Resonances: Views of Middle-earth (George Clark and Daniel Timmons, ed., Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2000, pp. 133-145), p. 134.

(15) Cf. Tolkien's words: "An essential power of Faerie is thus the power of making immediately effective by the will the visions of 'fantasy.' ... This aspect of 'mythology'--sub-creation, rather than either representation or symbolic interpretation of the beauties and terrors of the world--is, I think, too little considered." Tolkien, ibid, p. 49.

(16) See C. S. Lewis Essay Collection: Literature, Philosophy and Short Stories (Lesley Wamsley, ed., London: HarperCollins Publishers, 2000), pp.118-120.

(17) Lewis, ibid, p. 120.

(18) In Lewis's essay entitled "The Meanings of 'Fantasy'" Lewis proposes a proper approach to fantasy as a special form of literary writing: "A story which introduces the marvellous, the fantastic, says to him [the reader] by implication 'I am merely a work of art. You must take me as such--must enjoy me for my suggestions, my beauty, my irony, my construction, and so forth'" (emphasis added). See Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), p. 56.

(19) Sadner, p. 134.

(20) Lewis, "The Dethronement of Power," Understanding The Lord of the Rings: the Best of Tolkien Criticism (Rose A. Zimbardo and Neil D. Isaacs, ed., Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2004, pp.11-15), p. 14.

(21) This idea is derived from David Sadner's quotation: Sub-creation links the author of a Secondary Realm to Creation itself, asking art to move the artist beyond the medium, the text bound by its covers, into a direct relationship with Faerie itself' (Sadner, 135) .

(22) Todorov, The Fantastic, p. 41-42.

(23) The phrase is borrowed from Lucie Armitt's statement: "The world of the literary fantastic ... only exists as a linguistic construct." In Theorizing the Fantastic (New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc., 1996), p. 18

(24) Armitt, ibid, 31.

(25) Armitt, ibid, 30.

(26) Todorov, ibid, p. 167.

(27) Todorov, ibid, p. 175.

(28) Todorov, ibid, p. 82.

(29) Todorov, ibid, p. 168.

(30) Todorov, ibid, p. 175.

(31) Todorov, ibid, pp. 168-169.

(32) Todorov, ibid, p. 175.

(33) Kath Filmer, Scepticism and Hope in Twentieth Century Fantasy Literature (Ohio: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1992), p. 9.

(34) Lewis, An experiment in Criticism, p. 56.

(35) Filmer, ibid, pp. 9-10.

(36) Tolkien, ibid, p. 85.

(37) John J. Davenport, "Happy Endings and Religious Hope: The Lord of the Rings as an Epic Fairy Tale," The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy : One Book to Rule Them All (Gregory Bassham and Eric Bronson, ed., Chicago: Open Court, 2003, pp. 204-218), p. 210.

(38) Tolkien, ibid, p. 86.

(39) Filmer, ibid, p. 5.

(40) Todorov, ibid, p. 175.

(41) See the entry on Todorov, Tzvetan, in Key Thinkers in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language (Edinburgh: Edinburgh U P, 2005, Siobhan Chapman and Christopher Routledge, ed.), p. 256.

(42) See Ursula Le Guin's "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie" (1973), in Fantastic Literature: A Critical Reader (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2004, ed. David Sadner, pp. 144-155), p. 145.

(43) Le Guin, ibid, p. 145.

Works Cited

Armitt, Lucie. Theorizing the fantastic. New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc., 1996.

Chapman, Siobhan. Christopher Routledge. Ed. Key Thinkers in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh U P, 2005.

Davenport, John J. "Happy Endings and Religious Hope: The Lord of the Rings as an Epic Fairy Tale." The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy: One Book to Rule Them All. Ed. Gregory Bassham and Eric Bronson. Chicago: Open Court, 2003. Pp. 204-218.

Filmer, Kath. Scepticism and Hope in Twentieth Century Fantasy Literature. Ohio: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1992.

Flieger, Verlyn, and Douglas A. Anderson. Eds. Tolkien on Fairy-stories: Expanded Edition, with Commentary and Notes. London: HarperCollins Publishers, 2008.

Fuller, Edmund. "The Lord of the Hobbits: J. R. R. Tolkien," Understanding The Lord of the Rings: the Best of Tolkien Criticism. Ed. Rose A. Zimbardo and Neil D. Isaacs. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2004. Pp. 16-30.

Le Guin, Ursula. "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie." Fantastic Literature: A Critical Reader. Ed. David Sadner. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2004. Pp. 144-155

Lewis, C. S. An Experiment in Criticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961.

--, "The Dethronement of Power." Understanding The Lord of the Rings: the Best of Tolkien Criticism. Ed. Rose A. Zimbardo and Neil D. Isaacs. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2004. Pp.11-15.

--,"Sometimes Fairy Stories May Say Best What's to Be Said." C. S. Lewis Essay Collection: Literature, Philosophy and Short Stories. Ed. Lesley Wamsley. London: HarperCollins Publishers, 2000. Pp. 118-120.

Sadner, David. "'Joy beyond the Walls of the World': The Secondary World-Making of J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis." J. R. R. Tolkien and His Literary Resonances: Views of Middle-earth. Ed. George Clark and Daniel Timmons. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2000, pp.133-145.

--.Fantastic Literature: A Critical Reader. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2004.

Schlobin, Roger C. Ed. The Aesthetics of Fantasy Literature and Art. Brighton: Harvester, 1982.

Scholes, Robert. "Foreword." Todorov's The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University, 1973. Pp. v-xi.

Todorov, Tzvetan. The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University, 1973.

--. Theories of the Symbol (1977). "The Birth of Western Semiotics." Trans. Catherine Porter. Oxford: Blackwell, 1982. Pp. 36-59.

Tolkien, J. R. R. "On Fairy Stories." The Tolkien Reader. New York: Ballantine Books, 1966. Pp. 33-99.