tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621995982503387078.post7953544213093962156..comments2024-03-25T12:06:32.583-05:00Comments on THE ARCHETYPAL ARCHIVE: TODOROV O TODOROV PART 4Gene Phillipshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11495562795211277146noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621995982503387078.post-88621432636936800772010-11-22T10:08:45.856-06:002010-11-22T10:08:45.856-06:00Yes, that's a good summation of his thesis. A...Yes, that's a good summation of his thesis. And I can see some logic for his dismissal of those critics whom he feels have been too cavalier in classifying the fantastic according to how it makes them feel. But I think his attempt to apply a theory based on real-world cognition, with no place for the affective at all, in effect throws out the baby with the bathwater.Gene Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11495562795211277146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621995982503387078.post-38533333218922301462010-11-16T19:48:24.403-06:002010-11-16T19:48:24.403-06:00I agree with you that Todorov's distinction be...I agree with you that Todorov's distinction between the uncanny and the marvelous as resolutions to the fantastic, as he defines it, offers a useful point for literary analysis and criticism. My own understanding of Todorov is that he regards the world view offered by modern science as "realistic" and anything else (for example, paranormal or supernatural phenomena) as fantastic; depending upon how the fantastic resolves itself, it is either uncanny (H. G. Wells' "The Red Room") or marvelous (Stephen King's "1408"). It remains fantastic only when this tension between the two possibilities of interpretation (the uncanny and the marvelous) remains unresolved (Henry James' "The Turn of the Screw").Gary L. Pullmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582267259146924248noreply@blogger.com