Thread by @GIFConGLA

Old @UofGFantasy students getting ready for Brian Attebery's "#BurningHarryPotter and other ways of misreading fantasy" lecture!
Follow this thread for the live-tweeting! (No promises of quality)

At the end of Attebery's visit, sound recordings of his Leverhulme lectures will be made available to all that couldn't be here today!

#BurningHarryPotter starts with @UofGFantasy introducing Brian Attebery's works that "transform and update" our ideas about fantasy!

Brian starts by mentioning the different kinds of fantasy his lectures will cover as well at the recurring questions his lectures will cover:
"How does Fantasy mean?" and
"What does Fantasy do?"
#BurningHarryPotter

Attebery: why do people get so worked up about fantasy as to preach for and against it?
He mentions #BurningHarryPotter as a criticism of Rowling's anti-Tr*MP views wryly adding that "Book burning is of course the best way to alleviate fears of heading towards a dictatorship"

Attebery mentions how "once there wasn't a thing called Fantasy and then there was" and takes us through a history of what Fantasy is and the complicated question of When did fantasy as a genre began.

Through an examination of the relationship between fantasy and fairytales he reaches the apparent definition "Fantasy is a fairytale which is a wonderful little tale that we are to marvel at but not believe".
That associatio allowed women and marginalized groups to approach it.

Are the paratextual elements of a story what makes a tale become Fantasy? #BurningHarryPotter

The term "nonsense" used to describes works by authors such as Carroll is "an act of misdirection worthy of Harry Houdini himself", the paratext instructing us to not seek for meaning while the work itself is full of it, hidden in plain sight.

The story of fantasy is usually found in terms of books but Attebery suggests that there is much to be discovered if one studies the magazines that published short stories.

Seeking for another term, to use in term of paratext: the heuristic intratext, that guides the reader on HOW to approach a text.
See George MacDonald's instructions on how to read his works. (Hint: not as allegories)

20th century fantasy usually appears to have a double nature: light entertainment and a deep and complicated exploration of psychology, philosophy, and a way of expressing real feelings and wishes.

We've now reached the paperback publication of the "decade-old instant hint" the Lord of the Rings. Tolkien one of the authors to publish decodings on how to read Fantasy. Both in non-fiction and in the form of "Leaf by Niggle"

That was a guide to reading fantasy, using your imagination to fill out the gaps left by the writer's inevitable inadequacies.

The same "decoding" of how to read Fantasy was also done by Ursula K. le Guin in critical works such as "why are Americans afraid of dragons" and stories such as "The Poacher".

Ballantines created Fantasy as a marketing category, leading to a lot of "Anacronyms": republishing works by MacDonald and Mirrlees as works of the new-old genre: Fantasy!

A "golden age of fantasy" for readers like Attebery, who knew what they liked to read but not how to find it.
And then came Shannara... Publishers printing books they didn't like but thought they could sell.

Attebery always hates to trash particular authors and books as everything has its defenders, but, luckily, Diana Wynne Jones and her Tough Guide to Fantasyland does it for him! (I could barely hold myself back from gleefully clapping at that)

"easy no penalties fantasy" leading readers away from fantasy novels and into RPGs. Literary fantasy became something rare. Then came another publishing phenomenon.... You guessed it: Harry Potter

Attebery is not "wild about harry" but if the books did anything it was reminding the readers that magic comes with a price.
HP is a return to high stakes fantasy, with a few powerful symbols (mentions dementors, the time turner...) It's what the book burners respond to.

Attebery mentions the religious leaders and their response to fantasy.
The book burners and the banners have a higher opinion of fantasy that those who merely read it for fun. They think it matters, it causes something, it is profound.

Back to MacDonald, hard Fantasy requires strict rules. Fantasy requires changing the physical world but not the moral or ethical world. A man described as good can't do only bad things.

Attebery thinks that his local ministers wouldn't approve of Macdonald's views of reader-dependent meanings. They know what a story means: anything else is heresy.

Fairytales are used as children's literature because children can hold two meanings in their heads at the same time: adults forgot how.

Rowling was a victim of book burning because of her popularity. When asked if she's worried if her books will lead children to satanism she famously replied "No! You are a lunatic!" But book burners aren't lunatics. They aren't good readers either.

Attebery talks about real, powerful, myth-making fantasy. symbols are distorted and stretched into Story and those subjects are too big for realism. Thus, Fantasy is the perfect medium for their expression.

Fantasy is a try to recreate the tradition of story telling in oral societies, examining stories like one examines dreams. Maybe, A. says, book burners understand the importance of fire but forget that stories are supposed to be told around them and not thrown into them!

The people who can and read fantasy don't usually see the world as being made of money or political slogans but of what Tolkien calls the simple and fundamental things: bread and trees and horses. And the things we ought to bring out of the world of dream are love and honour.

Mentions le Guin: Fantasy is true of course, it isn't Factual but it's true.
The more fantasy you read the less comfortable you get with literal readings. Symbols are like homemade rockets: you can never tell when one will go off.

"If you read [fantasy] wrong, or maybe if you read it right, it might explode!"
And that's a wrap! Moving on to audience questions with @UofGFantasy asking about the relationship between religion and fantasy.

Your social media manager thinks @UofGFantasy has American Gods in mind as he mentions the relationship between technology and belief.
Attebery laughs at how big the question Rob is asking is. He mentions the different relationships fantasy authors have with religion.

Attebery: "best way i try to analyze that is that fantasy speaks the language of he spirit. A lot of people find that this should not be done outside religion"

Q: rationality as another enemy of fantasy. Fantasy and reason can contaminate one another. We should tell more science stories and less fairy stories. Is the response to that similar to the religion response? Does it call for a different pedagogy, a different retort?:

A: the authors Attebery most enjoys are very rational about their fantastic worlds. Le Guin is one of them. But there is an irrational strand of fantasy. Intertwining of neo paganism and theosophy. There is a multiplicity that we are forced to address.

@RuthEJBooth brings back the two ways of reading fantasy (book burning and being able to read like an hold, holding separate ideas in one's head) how do you get your childish way of reading back?
A: not everyone has to! They can often find that wonder in different things.

Another audience member brings up the role of the educator in maintaining that fantasy receptor (credit for term @EllenKushner ).
Attebery mentions the importance of children reading, no matter what it is they read.

Q: publishers choosing to promote trilogies and extended pieces of literature
A: well that was on some level a happy accident! Lotr is one book published in three volumes for example. Some authors try to write the same book over and over and sell it over and over

@UofGFantasy brings back another "recurring thread", that of feeling. Does emotion and feeling remain central to the fantasy tradition?
A: as long as creating a sense wonder remains central to the fantasy canon.

Q on creating new works Vs imitations and retellings.
Attebery mentions that there's a difference between retellings and imitation. Retellings can still be new, original works, whereas imitations add nothing, use no symbols.

It's not originality that's important: it's depth and commitment. Once you have that you have a new work, even if it's a retelling. Medieval notion of originality: I want the stories that I know but I want them to be fresh and meaningful.

And that's a wrap for the Q&A now on to the pub!!