What do you think?
Rate this book
Fantasy: The Literature of Subversion
This study argues against vague interpretation of fantasy as mere escapism and seeks to define it as a distinct kind of narrative.The issues that are bought up are discussed in relation to a wide range of fantasies with varying images.
211 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1981
18 people are currently reading
418 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
June 8, 2018
first of all, psychoanalysis is fake; the best parts were the times where she veered into Marxism. second of all, like 90% of what she says about the subversive potential of “literary fantasy” (read: things academics like but not, for the most part, anything anyone who reads, you know, actual fantasy would recognize as such) would apply to the texts she dismisses as “faery” or “the marvellous” — the way she talks about Le Guin, in particular, really makes it seem like she’s...never actually read Le Guin. she certainly doesn’t seem to have grasped any of Le Guin’s theoretical and political commitments. the whole book is just an exercise in making academics feel like they’re being politically good and transgressive for continuing to talk about a slight variation on the same corpus they’ve always been interested in, rather than (gasp), any popular literature. like to an extent I think it’s an indication that the fields of science fiction (which is apparently just a branch of “the marvellous”) and fantasy have changed since 1981, but there’s older stuff that I absolutely don’t think is as ideologically bankrupt/regressive/bourgeois as Jackson suggests.
also n.b. if you’re considering reading this, only the first half is theory; the second half is exclusively (not terribly close) readings of primarily nineteenth-century “literary fantasy”.
there are some okay moments, but overall this is a mess.
also n.b. if you’re considering reading this, only the first half is theory; the second half is exclusively (not terribly close) readings of primarily nineteenth-century “literary fantasy”.
there are some okay moments, but overall this is a mess.
October 23, 2024
Really, really mixed opinion here. On the one hand, I found this book very eye-opening. Jackson takes a strong theoretical stance and backs it up beautifully, making me think about many books I've read in a new and fascinating light. On the other hand, her cursory glance over, and absolute misreading of, many authors like Le Guin was very frustrating to read. She's defining modern "fantasy" but immediately excises classic, foundational fantasy authors like Tolkien as merely romantic/nostalgic. It seems to me that she close-read where it suited her and willingly misinterpreted where it didn't. As Attebery says, Jackson (and many other critics) seems to have defined texts she likes as "fantasy," crafting a definition that leaves out everything else. She also quotes Freud at length, with no qualification or explanation of exactly how she plans to engage with him. She talks about the Oedipal complex in books as if that idea isn't absurd and largely disproven. Overall I think she has some brilliant analysis, but she seems to have applied that analytical ability too unevenly and without enough critical investigation of her own main theorists.
November 6, 2015
It's necessary for my research, and there are some interesting ideas, but it's rather ponderous. I'm not a fan of her writing style (grammar errors and typos in my version... whoops), and I feel like her opaque prose is just a way of covering the fact that she's basically restating the same arguments over and over with slightly different examples. Also unhelpful is the fact that it's all intended as a response to Todorov, whom I haven't read yet. I should probably fix that.
July 9, 2020
thoughtful tracking through roots of speculative literature, with special attention to the gothic. useful deployment of todorov and other theorists of the uncanny. coverage does not extend to most well known mass serialized settings, though there is consideration of tolkien.
April 19, 2019
This study provides a general analysis of fantasy as a literary genre over the last centuries. It is very useful if you want to have an idea of the evolution of fantasy and of some of its main elements. I only regret that there's so little about the traditional fantasy that authors like Tolkien or Le Guin developed, which inspired many subsequent fantasy writers.
January 2, 2026
TL;DR – It made me angry but it also made me think.
Todorov’s Introduction à la littérature fantastique (better known in English as The Fantastic) - often (though somewhat inaccurately) described as the first important academic work on fantasy fiction - was published in 1970. At this time, ‘Fantasy’ (capital F) was more-or-less established as a self-conscious genre of fiction. This concurrence has led to a great deal of confusion, as Todorov is actually taking up a definition of the ‘fantastique’ that he finds in the Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov and he is seeking to describe a narrow set of works of (primarily) 19th century literary fiction – including James’ Turn of the Screw – which are characterised by the reader’s hesitation concerning the true nature of the events described – put crassly, are they real (marvellous) or aren’t they (uncanny). For Todorov, works such as Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings are not fantastic but simply marvellous and are therefore not especially interesting to him and certainly not the focus of his study. All in all, Todorov’s work is just a reflection of the European academy at the time he was writing – pretentious, detached, obscure.
Over ten years later, toward the end of 1981, we have the publication of Jackson’s Fantasy: The Literature of Subversion. By this time, ‘Fantasy’ is not only established but commercially successful; if you walk into almost any bookshop at this time, it’s going to have a shelf dedicated to the genre and front-facing displays will likely feature best-sellers like Terry Brooks’ Sword of Shannara and Stephen R. Donaldson’s Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Across the United States and Europe, cinemas are displaying posters for the soon-to-be-released Conan the Barbarian, featuring a muscle-bound Arnold Schwarzenegger holding aloft a shining sword. Surely, now, this book will be a proper academic study of ‘Fantasy’…?
Well, yes and no. But the yes is somehow more depressing than the no.
In an important concession, Jackson begins by speaking of an umbrella ‘fantasy’ which is “a literary mode from which a number of related genres emerge”. And under this umbrella we do find those works that publishers and booksellers were marketing as ‘Fantasy’, but also many other works beside. And, in a classic Todorovian move, we are told that it is the other works – written by a motley crew of everyone from (I kid you not) Dickens to Kafka - that are in some sense more ‘authentic’ and, therefore, more deserving of our critical attention.
So far, so boring. But there’s actually something much more sinister going on with Jackson. Where Todorov’s guiding vision was an effete liberal elitism, Jackson’s is unambiguously radical. Her stated goal is to “point to the possibility of undoing many texts” with the hope of bringing about “real social transformation”. And this shows, quite clearly, that she is not arguing in good faith. Her aim is to negate texts which she sees as impeding social change, and therefore her critical apparatus is subordinated to her political ambitions - she openly admits that she is unconcerned with what people might enjoy, she is concerned with what's conducive to progress.
From the outset, she makes clear who her enemies are, whose texts are to be “undone”: Tolkien, Lewis, T.H. White, and all other “modern fabulists [who] look back to a lost moral and social hierarchy, which their fantasies attempt to recapture and revivify”, as well as anyone – e.g. W.H. Auden – who promotes the “nostalgic, humanistic vision” that provides legitimacy to these reactionary “fabulists”. You might consider The Lord of the Rings to be a mere “pleasure-giving object” but Jackson is here to ensure you understand what’s really “going on under the cover of this pleasure” which, it turns out, involves not only a longing for the "chauvinistic" and "totalitarian" but also a full-blown “death wish”.
And, really, this could be the end of my review. As a dedicated reactionary fabulist, I presumably don’t need to hang around while Jackson decides exactly which lamp post I’m to be strung up from once the revolution starts and she and her comrades can help me realise my desire for death. One star. Half a star. No stars. Do not recommend.
And yet, wait around I did. And I must admit that, despite herself, Jackson managed to earn three stars (earn? wages?! WAGE-SLAVERY etc.) for three important insights that I intend to appropriate faster than a Bolshevik in a Minsk metal factory.
First – Fantasy is a “literature of desire” that deals with “unconscious material” and is therefore properly studied with reference to psychoanalysis. As a convicted Freudian, albeit of the bourgeois variety, I didn’t need much encouragement to bring Sigmund to the party, but I was particularly tickled by Jackson’s definition of fantasy as “a range of different works which have similar structural characteristics and which seem to be generated by similar unconscious desires. Through their particular manifestations of desire, they can be associated together.” Fantasy as the "literature of desire" par excellence is V.G. and the question as to the analysis of desire(s) remains open, despite Jackson’s attempts to close it with her rather crude assertions about death wishes and so on.
Second – Literary fantasies share many similarities with dreams and can be understood with reference to Freud’s insights concerning dream-work. Jackson makes this remark almost as an aside, and then doesn’t do much with it, since for her Freud’s later work – particularly on the notion of the ‘uncanny’ - is the lynchpin on which the psychoanalytic study of fantasy must turn. But accepting this insight, all of Freud’s key concepts and insights from his study of dreams become available to help us understand fantasy: wish-fulfilment, residues, condensation, displacement, symbols etc. etc.
Third – ‘Good’ literary fantasy lives and breathes in the dynamic tension between the mimetic (representation of reality) and the marvellous (presentation of unreality). The more readily a text can make us believe in those elements it brings over from the ‘real’ world, the more intriguing and affecting will be those elements that appear ‘unreal’ (magic, monsters etc.). And perhaps this is just another way of saying that a good fantasy writer is a good writer simpliciter, but I think there’s more to it than that.
All in all, this was a deeply frustrating book. I came away with a profound personal dislike for its author, who strikes me as the last person on earth you’d want to invite on a date to see Schwarzenegger play Conan. But I also came away with several intriguing ideas and, despite everything, this probably will be a book I’ll return to and reference in future.
Todorov’s Introduction à la littérature fantastique (better known in English as The Fantastic) - often (though somewhat inaccurately) described as the first important academic work on fantasy fiction - was published in 1970. At this time, ‘Fantasy’ (capital F) was more-or-less established as a self-conscious genre of fiction. This concurrence has led to a great deal of confusion, as Todorov is actually taking up a definition of the ‘fantastique’ that he finds in the Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov and he is seeking to describe a narrow set of works of (primarily) 19th century literary fiction – including James’ Turn of the Screw – which are characterised by the reader’s hesitation concerning the true nature of the events described – put crassly, are they real (marvellous) or aren’t they (uncanny). For Todorov, works such as Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings are not fantastic but simply marvellous and are therefore not especially interesting to him and certainly not the focus of his study. All in all, Todorov’s work is just a reflection of the European academy at the time he was writing – pretentious, detached, obscure.
Over ten years later, toward the end of 1981, we have the publication of Jackson’s Fantasy: The Literature of Subversion. By this time, ‘Fantasy’ is not only established but commercially successful; if you walk into almost any bookshop at this time, it’s going to have a shelf dedicated to the genre and front-facing displays will likely feature best-sellers like Terry Brooks’ Sword of Shannara and Stephen R. Donaldson’s Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Across the United States and Europe, cinemas are displaying posters for the soon-to-be-released Conan the Barbarian, featuring a muscle-bound Arnold Schwarzenegger holding aloft a shining sword. Surely, now, this book will be a proper academic study of ‘Fantasy’…?
Well, yes and no. But the yes is somehow more depressing than the no.
In an important concession, Jackson begins by speaking of an umbrella ‘fantasy’ which is “a literary mode from which a number of related genres emerge”. And under this umbrella we do find those works that publishers and booksellers were marketing as ‘Fantasy’, but also many other works beside. And, in a classic Todorovian move, we are told that it is the other works – written by a motley crew of everyone from (I kid you not) Dickens to Kafka - that are in some sense more ‘authentic’ and, therefore, more deserving of our critical attention.
So far, so boring. But there’s actually something much more sinister going on with Jackson. Where Todorov’s guiding vision was an effete liberal elitism, Jackson’s is unambiguously radical. Her stated goal is to “point to the possibility of undoing many texts” with the hope of bringing about “real social transformation”. And this shows, quite clearly, that she is not arguing in good faith. Her aim is to negate texts which she sees as impeding social change, and therefore her critical apparatus is subordinated to her political ambitions - she openly admits that she is unconcerned with what people might enjoy, she is concerned with what's conducive to progress.
From the outset, she makes clear who her enemies are, whose texts are to be “undone”: Tolkien, Lewis, T.H. White, and all other “modern fabulists [who] look back to a lost moral and social hierarchy, which their fantasies attempt to recapture and revivify”, as well as anyone – e.g. W.H. Auden – who promotes the “nostalgic, humanistic vision” that provides legitimacy to these reactionary “fabulists”. You might consider The Lord of the Rings to be a mere “pleasure-giving object” but Jackson is here to ensure you understand what’s really “going on under the cover of this pleasure” which, it turns out, involves not only a longing for the "chauvinistic" and "totalitarian" but also a full-blown “death wish”.
And, really, this could be the end of my review. As a dedicated reactionary fabulist, I presumably don’t need to hang around while Jackson decides exactly which lamp post I’m to be strung up from once the revolution starts and she and her comrades can help me realise my desire for death. One star. Half a star. No stars. Do not recommend.
And yet, wait around I did. And I must admit that, despite herself, Jackson managed to earn three stars (earn? wages?! WAGE-SLAVERY etc.) for three important insights that I intend to appropriate faster than a Bolshevik in a Minsk metal factory.
First – Fantasy is a “literature of desire” that deals with “unconscious material” and is therefore properly studied with reference to psychoanalysis. As a convicted Freudian, albeit of the bourgeois variety, I didn’t need much encouragement to bring Sigmund to the party, but I was particularly tickled by Jackson’s definition of fantasy as “a range of different works which have similar structural characteristics and which seem to be generated by similar unconscious desires. Through their particular manifestations of desire, they can be associated together.” Fantasy as the "literature of desire" par excellence is V.G. and the question as to the analysis of desire(s) remains open, despite Jackson’s attempts to close it with her rather crude assertions about death wishes and so on.
Second – Literary fantasies share many similarities with dreams and can be understood with reference to Freud’s insights concerning dream-work. Jackson makes this remark almost as an aside, and then doesn’t do much with it, since for her Freud’s later work – particularly on the notion of the ‘uncanny’ - is the lynchpin on which the psychoanalytic study of fantasy must turn. But accepting this insight, all of Freud’s key concepts and insights from his study of dreams become available to help us understand fantasy: wish-fulfilment, residues, condensation, displacement, symbols etc. etc.
Third – ‘Good’ literary fantasy lives and breathes in the dynamic tension between the mimetic (representation of reality) and the marvellous (presentation of unreality). The more readily a text can make us believe in those elements it brings over from the ‘real’ world, the more intriguing and affecting will be those elements that appear ‘unreal’ (magic, monsters etc.). And perhaps this is just another way of saying that a good fantasy writer is a good writer simpliciter, but I think there’s more to it than that.
All in all, this was a deeply frustrating book. I came away with a profound personal dislike for its author, who strikes me as the last person on earth you’d want to invite on a date to see Schwarzenegger play Conan. But I also came away with several intriguing ideas and, despite everything, this probably will be a book I’ll return to and reference in future.
February 24, 2024
Wonderful literary criticism on a subject still not quite understood by critics in general.
Jackson makes judicious use of Freud's and Lacan's theories, using it to colour rather than obscure her analyses.
For the record: psychoanalysis is not "fake," despite a few GR reviewers' opinions. There is much literature about contemporary (and verifiable) application of Freud's theories.
Jackson makes judicious use of Freud's and Lacan's theories, using it to colour rather than obscure her analyses.
For the record: psychoanalysis is not "fake," despite a few GR reviewers' opinions. There is much literature about contemporary (and verifiable) application of Freud's theories.
May 30, 2025
only read a few chapters for class, too pretentious to finish
May 10, 2020
Useful overview but I was distracted by Jackson’s conflation of ‘the fantastic’ as defined by Todorov and ‘fantasy.’
May 13, 2019
Jeg bliver altså aldrig gode venner med psykoanalysen... Finder det simpelthen for fjollet og søgt alt sammen.
November 6, 2025
“Fantasy in literature deals so blatantly and repeatedly with unconscious material that it seems rather absurd to try to understand its significance without some reference to psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic readings of texts.” (6)
June 17, 2018
Fantástico (valga la redundancia).
November 4, 2023
Interesting book on literary theory, but very focused on Victorian literature. Subversion is also not a prominent topic, as the author dances around the subject instead of analysing it directly. Still very interesting though.
July 5, 2019
3,5 / 5.
December 28, 2024
Very interesting theory and observations, although the whole psychoanalysis aspect is very dated by now.
January 27, 2022
Despite some minor logical faults and repetition, the book is an amazing starting point for further research on the topic (which is the fantastic, not fantasy). Highly recommend, especially since it has cool ideas and analysis of a variety of books: from early gothic lit, Portrait of Dorian Gray and Jekyll and Hyde to 20th century sci-fi and fantasy, and even Pynchon's works!
April 28, 2015
Rosemary Jackson's Fantasy: The Literature of Subversion is a fairly interesting rejoinder to the structuralist approach taken by Todorov. Jackson argues that Todorov's approach both insufficiently engages with the historical horizon that produces fantastic literature as a mode rather than as a genre, and misses out on how psychoanalytical readings of the genre allow for an engagement with the material conditions of the production of fantastic texts. Through that argument, Jackson argues that fantastic literature becomes a way of engaging with the repressed within capitalist societies, and at best, becomes a literature of transgression, rejection the symbolic order of those societies. At the same time, she recognizes that many authors explore this space only to reestablish the former order of the society. Because of that, she celebrates the work that resists these closings of the narrative, and instead celebrates a thread within the fantastic that runs from Sade through the work of Kafka and Pynchon, rejecting the far more popular narratives of Tolkien and Leguin as conservative and nostalgic. A worthwhile read.
January 31, 2014
This is not a bad book, in fact at times it's very interesting. But in my opinion it fails at clearly delivering its point. The line between uncanny and the fantastic that seemed so clear when explained by Tzvetan Todorov, becomes very confused in Jackson's take on the matter. After saying that they are different things, she keeps explaining the fantastic in words that are very reminiscent of Freuds essay on the uncanny, and it makes me think that Jackson herself isn't sure of the difference. Also, I'd like to point out that she lists a lot of themes and motives saying they are examples of themes and motives usually found in fantastic literature, but fails to note that those themes and motives are examples of gothicism (as portrayed by among others, Matthias Fyhr), even though she writes predominately about the gothic novels, or remnants thereof. No, there's a bit of logic missing, which is unfortunate, as the topic is very intriguing.
September 24, 2019
The star rating for this is in terms of usefulness. A lot of scholarship on fantasy literature makes reference to this text, so it's good to have read this if you are thinking about fantasy literature. However, I wouldn't say that I "really liked it" (which is what Goodreads says a 4/5 star rating means) It was informative and important with what I am studying, but it's not something I would read for shits and gigs. This wasn't a "pleasurable" read (for me anyway :P).
February 18, 2008
Jackson refuses to participate in any paradigmatic shifts in her writing. She sees only what she wants to see in the fantasy genre.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 25, 2009
I learnt a lot about what we call fantasy from this book. A bit confusing at times, but worth the reading.
September 3, 2011
Useful addition to the theory of fantasy literature.
July 22, 2012
Useful for defining the difference between fairytale and supernatural but the style was irritatingly dated.
August 15, 2012
Hyvin samantyylinen kuin Todorovin kirja, käsittelee samoja asioita lähes samalla tyylillä. Ei kovin mielenkiintoinen tai relevantti oman tutkimuksen kannalta.
March 8, 2014
Sure to be of interest to deep readers of fantastical literature.
November 21, 2017
A groundbreaking essay on the nature of fantasy literature and its potential impact upon the societal narrative: something sorely needed in these modern times.
January 27, 2016
Very intriguing read.
Read
February 22, 2017Meget større fokus på fantastisk litteratur end på fantasy, men hun har nogle meget fine pointer hist og her, som man godt kan trække med over.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews