#55 = Volume 18, Part 3 = November 1991
Douglas Barbour
In Search of the Poetic Fantastic
Patrick D. Murphy & Vernon Hyles, eds.
The Poetic Fantastic: Studies in an Evolving Genre.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1989. xxviii+226. $39.95.
Scott E. Green. Contemporary
Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror Poetry: A Resource Guide and Biographical Directory.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1989. xviii+234. $35.00
As a writer and reader of poetry as well as a reader of SF, I can be expected to find a
study of The Poetic Fantastic interesting, even if I may not be sure just what
the title-term refers to. Indeed, I am not alone in referential anxiety, as both the
editors and the contributors appear to have a most elastic sense of definition when it
comes to "the fantastic" or "fantasy" as applied to poetry. There is something in me
which happily embraces their confusion: I am, after all, someone who, after having spent
half a decade trying to discover a workable definition of "science fiction," still found
Damon Knight's ("It means what we say when we point to it") the most useful formulation
I could come up with. Nevertheless, I found myself wishing, as I read through this mixed
collection of essays, that more definition could be given to what all the contributors
clearly wanted somehow to separate from other "kinds" of poetry. (But what does
"kind"
mean in this context: Generic differences such as lyric, epic, etc., or something else,
such as romantic, classic, modernist, postmodernist? The general difficulties of
definition clarify in a kind of chaos-theory manner as we ask such questions.)
Almost all the contributors and, most especially, the editors tend to begin their
search for a definition with Todorov's statement that "[t]he fantastic occupies the
duration of [an] uncertainty. Once we choose one answer or the other, we leave the
fantastic for a neighboring genre, the uncanny or the marvelous. The fantastic is that
hesitation experienced by a person who knows only the laws of nature, confronting an
apparently supernatural event" (25).1 As various critics have pointed out,
this is a very narrow definition which relegates to those other two "genres"--the
uncanny and the marvelous--most of what the ordinary readership calls "fantasy"; but
that is not our worry here. What the editors of The Poetic Fantastic seek to
refute is one of Todorov's further statements:
If as we read a text we reject all representation, considering each sentence as a pure
semantic combination, the fantastic could not appear:for the fantastic requires,
it will be recalled, a reaction to events as they occur in the world evoked. For this
reason the fantastic can subsist only within fiction; poetry cannot be fantastic. (Todorov
60)
Thus, in an early essay, Patrick Murphy insists: "I believe that such hesitation
occurs not only in fiction but also in poetry. Poets use techniques of the Fantastic, in
the broad generic sense, including those of the fantastic, as Todorov narrowly
defines the term."2 And in his foreword to The Poetic Fantastic, he quotes
himself from another essay to provide a "broad definition of fantastic poetry":
Fantastic poems range in the material they treat from the strange but explainable to
the utterly fanciful, from horror to wonder, and from the rigidly verisimilitudinous to
the purely surrealist. They may utilize traditional prosody or may avail themselves of the
discontinuities and fragmentation of modernist free verse. They may use as setting the
primary world, a secondary world, or a combination of the two. (xii)
He adds that "[t]his last point recognizes the existence of fantastic poetry as both
'low' and 'high' fantasy" and insists therefore that "[f]antastic poetry includes all
three 'genres' Todorov considers in The Fantastic: the uncanny, the fantastic,
and the marvelous" (xii). I think we're getting close to Damon Knight's territory here,
but that's all right; this is a definition that is Open (something like Canada under the
Tories' Free Trade Agreement with the US), and maybe that's the only way to approach a
"genre" (surely another term of extraordinarily wide application) which these critics
wish to see operating from pre-history to the present day (as Murphy's appeals, in ranging
from Homer to Margaret Atwood, demonstrate).
I am willing to accept that the fantastic, so defined, plays its role in poetry
throughout the ages, but I begin to wonder how useful it remains as a concept for analysis
of individual works. As a reader of Canadian poetry, I can (now) easily apply this
wide-ranging definition to a number of poets whose work, so far as I'm concerned, is far
superior to many of the contemporary poets alluded to or discussed in this collection. I
would point not just to such Atwood texts as "Circe/Mud Poems," but also to Nichol's
massive The Martyrology (whose preface is marvelously science-fictional); John
Newlove's "The Green Plain"; Michael Ondaatje's "Peter" (a poem I am sure he never
thought of as fantasy, a genre he never reads, although he would willingly accept that it
is mythopoeic), as well as his The Collected Works of Billy the Kid (which did
get listed in Locus once, as I recall); many of the early poems of Susan Musgrave;
and various works by Al Purdy, Robert Bringhurst, Earle Birney, Leonard Cohen, Jeni
Couzyn, Phyllis Gotlieb, and many others. None of whom are mentioned, of course, in The
Poetic Fantastic--and why should they be? But neither are many US poets who come to
my mind (I am thinking of a really interesting essay that could be written on such poems
of Robert Duncan's as "My Mother Would Be a Falconress," to name just one of many. To be
fair, Vernon Hyles admits as much in his Afterword). Nor are such major British poets as
Edwin Morgan and David Jones. I could go on in this vein; but as we all know, there's
never been an anthology (of poems or essays) which will satisfy everyone, so I'll carp no
more on this point.
What we do have in The Poetic Fantastic is an eclectic collection of essays
ranging from the mediocre to the very fine, and offering an even wider array of
definitions that the Foreword has prepared us for. Although Hyles's Afterword is generous
and intelligently outward looking, his "The Poetry of the Fantastic" is too generalized
and superficial to prove successfully its major point: that "[t]hat aesthetics of poetry
and the aesthetics of fantasy...are the same" (8). This rather grandiose statement does
allow all poetry to be studied as "fantastic," however--if one considers that a useful
critical gain. Yet Peter Malekin's "Poetry and the Pre-Fantastic" differentiates
"the
fantastic" from "fantasy" in such a way as to deny Hyles's main point. One is left with
the feeling that making definitions is a mug's game, and turns with relief to the essays
on specific poets and poems.
Of these, a few stand out as interesting and valuable studies, even if some are all too
short, stopping just when the really useful close readings might have begun. Four consider
pre-modernist works (I include C.S. Lewis as essentially a pre-modernist writer). Martha
Nochimson's "Lamia as Muse" makes a good case for re-interpreting Keats's poem, although
I'm not sure she needs the concept of "the poetic fantastic" to do so; her argument is
at least as much based on feminist rehistoricizing of the Lamia figure. Benjamin Franklin
Fisher's essay on Poe is too thin to be of much use; but Charlotte Spivack's "The Hidden
World Below" has a substantial argument to make about why fantasy was a necessary method
for "Victorian Women Fantasy Poets" both psychologically and aesthetically, and her call
for further study rings true. Murphy's reading of C.S. Lewis's "Dymer" as "a long,
continuous narrative poem that begins as a hesitation fantasy but is resolved as a
supernatural (marvelous) fantasy" (67) is interesting--although the quotations did not
win this reader to the poem as poetry.
Turning to modernism and beyond, Carl Schaffer, in one of the best essays in the
collection, eloquently argues for the use of the fantastic in holocaust poetry as a method
by which "to define in poetic terms the essentially indefinable" (79). Lance Olsen
suggests that Mark Strand's "project" is to "overthrow 'reality' by generating metaphorically autistic worlds of phobia,
oppression, and entrapment" (95), while Karen Michalson presents Anne Sexton's Transformations
as a work which "attacks the assumptions [that] realism as a literary genre is based on"
yet "confirms the existence of some kind of consensual reality at the same time it denies
its own ability to describe this reality" (101). One of the basic problems with
definitions appears here, for if "the fantastic" is no more than a kind of troping, do
we need it as a category at all? Clearly the contributors to The Poetic Fantastic
believe so, but ofttimes their own arguments undercut that belief. For example, the appeal
to Alice Ostriker's concept of "Revisionist Mythmaking"3 by many of the
critics of women's poetry reveals a separate concept outside genre boundaries which is
equally useful in showing how such poetry works with and against inherited ("natural"?)
ideologies. Nancy Lang points out how humor and fantasy mix to play their parts in the
postmodern poems Slinger and "Ko," but her essay is far too short for its
topic. Murphy returns once more to write about Ursula K. Le Guin's poetry, arguing that
the kind of approach to her prose that Robert Scholes takes in Structural Fabulation
could equally be applied to her poetry; but while Murphy begins promisingly enough, he too
undercuts his own project by referring to Ostriker's work. Ralph Yarrow writes about a
group of unknown British poets whose work deals with consciousness-in-stillness in a
manner which he finds connected to recent studies in cosmology; but to fit in here, he
offers a definition of "fantasy" which seems unnecessary to the rest of his paper.
Finally, and most to the point of the volume, Michael Collings outlines three modes of SF
poetry today with examples; his is one of the few essays to pay attention to writers who
consciously present themselves as SF poets.
The Poetic Fantastic is a useful and often rewarding collection of essays,
despite the difficulties some readers may have with the problem of definition. I suppose I
have harped on that problem so much because it continues to trouble all of us who write
about SF in any form. I'm still of two minds on the matter, wishing to have as much
freedom as possible to include whatever I like under the rubric SF while never quite
giving up on the elusive Eldorado of a working definition which will not exclude any work
I personally want to keep in. When it comes to poetry, I approach the problem from a
somewhat different perspective: it's all poetry, why do we need any further narrowing of
contexts? Instead, I want simply to seek out what I believe to be the best or most
interesting or most challenging texts to read. I don't find
many of these texts in the pages of the usual SF anthologies or magazines, although, as
always, many other readers will. Yet I do often find, in the poetry texts I seek out
elsewhere, a reading experience similar to what happens when I read a truly fine work of
SF. I remain, in this as in so many things, confused.
All this being the case, Contemporary Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror Poetry
is not an especially useful book for me--nor for most readers of prose SF, perhaps. It is
precisely what it says in its subtitle: "A Resource Guide and Biographical Directory,"
mostly to those writers who have published in the genre anthologies and magazines.
Therefore it actually has little in common with The Poetic Fantastic (the only
essay which connects the two directly is Collings's). On the whole, most of the
contemporary poets discussed in The Poetic Fantastic are not listed in Green.
Certainly none of the Canadian poets I mentioned earlier are, not even Atwood, although
Charles de Lint, a widely accepted SF&F writer is present and accounted for. Equally,
a number of the poets represented in such landmark anthologies as Poly do not get
into Green's directory, apparently because they do not tend to publish as "genre"
writers. What all this means, as far as definitions are concerned, I'm not really sure. I
was pleased to see a solid bio of Edwin Morgan, but what does one do with a paragraph like
this?
In Britain the attempt to classify writers and their work by genre has not been a
problem. Writers are less likely to suffer from having their work viewed or published
according to narrow definitions. It seems doubtful that Edwin Morgan would have enjoyed
such success and acceptance if his career had started in America. (136)
This simply raises far too many questions to take on here. I will say that, as a
reader, I would have liked to see some examples of various writers' work, as I know much
of it would strike me as uninteresting verse but some would prove an exciting new
discovery. Green's, in short, is essentially a reference book for libraries, and as such
does its job proficiently. (I must mention, however, that a number of typos mar both
books--to cite one of the most egregious, Michael Collings's name is misspelled in his
biographical entry [but correctly spelled in the byline on the same page]. But then, in
the super-high-tech publishing world of today, where no human being ever enters the
copy-editing process, typos are nothing new, are they?)
When read in tandem, these two books suggest something of the complicated ways in which
market "gentrification" and critical attempts at literary definition collide with and
contradict one another today. This as long been true for fiction; but poetry, partly
because it has such a small market, has not had to worry about it. For the most part, and
despite the efforts of the critics in The Poetic Fantastic, poetry is going to
remain untouched by this particular controversy (it has enough problems of its won). But
for those interested in poetry and also fans of SF, these essays will be of use in a
number of ways: they will engage you in the ongoing arguments about definitions and what
they actually do to our reading; they will provide a new way of looking at some well-known
poems; and they may just introduce you to some exciting and marvelous poetry you hadn't
known about before.
NOTES
1Todorov, The Fantastic. Trans. Richard Howard. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
UP, 1975.
2Murphy, "Mythic and Fantastic: Gary Snyder's 'Mountains and Rivers without
End."' Extrapolation 26.4 (Winter 1985): 291.
3Ostriker, "The Thieves of Language: Women Poets and Revisionist
Mythmaking." The New Feminist Criticism. Rd. Elaine Showalter. NY: Pantheon,
1985. 314-38.
Back to Home