After looking over Rhetorics of Fantasy, I really like Mendlesohn’s approach to how she reads and understand fantasy stories. She is also very clear that what she had said was simply her opinion and should not have been taken the wrong way. “This book was never intended to argue that the fantastic should be written in the ways I have outlined, but instead to say, ‘this is what I see, what else is possible?’” (Mendlesohn 273). She is clear to announce that her opinion is just her opinion and she is open to listening to what other people have to say about fantasy.
“What happens if we consider fantasy from the way in which the fantastic enters the text?—have come issues of reader position and reader response; of character and story; issues of monosemy and polysemy; rather surprising (for me) conclusions about the apparent rigidity of ideological apparatus that surround the forms I identify; and an awareness that, while each form of fantasy plays the grammatical notes that Clute has identified, each shifts its emphasis to construct a set of variations of the fantastic” (Mendlesohn 273). Mendlesohn identifies issues of monosemy and polysemy in most of her readings. She separates stories which she can only find one meaning for the story compared to those which are unclear to her or she can find multiple meanings for the stories.
“Perhaps the only thing at that center is the idea of belief, that however metaphoric a text may be, the fantastical must also contain a metonymic meaning, must be itself as much as it may be an enhancement” (Mendlesohn 273). In this statement I believe Mendlesohn means she expects all fantasy stories to have multiple meanings in order to be considered a fantasy. As I read throughout her book, she has many beliefs in what a fantasy should be and what fantasy should not be. She explains how the fantasy stories need to have clear meanings as well as multiple meanings, otherwise in her opinion it is not a fantasy.
“If the schema I have outlined has any value at all, it will be in the questions it throws up about how authors use these structures and in the challenges it offers to writers of fantasy” (Mendlesohn 273). In this statement, Mendlesohn is explaining what she meant by all of her theories that she has stated previously. Mendlesohn points out what the point of her opinions are and makes it clear to the reader. She wants the reader to know that they should be questioning fantasy by means of how the compare to the structures she has mentioned.
Throughout this reading I had gained a lot of knowledge about what a fantasy story should be and what it should not be based on the opinions of Farah Mendlesohn. For the most part I agreed with all of the opinions presented in Rhetorics of Fantasy. My favorite of Mendlesohns statements was her belief that fantasy stories must be clear and have multiple meanings involved.