Fantasy as Antifantasy: 8 Kiss and Riddle continued

Peter has the absolute power to appeal to women. It seems to be symbolized by his first teeth.

He was a lovely boy, clad in skeleton leaves and the juices that ooze out of trees, but the most entrancing thing about him was that he had all his first teeth.


The acknowledgement of the attractiveness of Peter’s teeth, which everyone is convinced at a glance that “none of them should have been regrown”, must not be the result of strict objective analytical verification that “all of them are first teeth”. On the contrary, it must be a supposed condition for witnessing his overwhelming attractiveness. His absolute charm, which dominates the mind of the beholder, gives one a strange conviction that he must retain all first teeth, and it is told in a peculiar rhetoric of a description of transcendental attributes obtained through the inversion of causality. (note)

note:
It may be pointed out in various instances that this kind of metaphor is intrinsically closely related to the concept of irony. If we reflect on the interesting fact that the “rhetoric” itself is a straightforward result of the description of the supernatural, and that it has a solid function as a fundamental factor in the activation of fantasy, it must be ascertained that the form of fantasy as a genre, is in fact, nothing but the way of literature (fiction) itself, in a fundamental sense.



So, Peter is also going to extend a mysterious temptation to Wendy with an irresistible force.

“Wendy,” he continued, in a voice that no woman has ever yet been able to resist...


Despite having absolute influence over all women, Peter somehow has a strong distrust of the existence of a mother. He even wields tyrannical power in Neverland, strictly forbidding his boys to talk about their mothers.

It was only Peter’s absence that they could speak of mothers, the subject being forbidden by him as silly.


When Wendy began to talk to the children about the boundless magnitude of a mother’s love, Peter was the only one who seemed reluctant to hear.

“If you knew how great is a mother’s love,” Wendy told them triumphantly, “you would have no fear.” She had now come to the part that Peter hated.


And Peter tells his children a secret that only he has experienced. The abominable experience of being shut out by his mother. This is where Peter differs decisively from the children who selfishly have immense trust in their mothers. For some reason, Peter’s mother seems to be nothing more than an object of intense hatred.

Now, if Peter had ever quite had a mother, he no longer missed her. He could do very well without one. He had thought them out, and remembered only their bad points.


Peter wields more freedom and power than any of the children, but he also has what seems to be more painful and unbearable memories than anyone else. (note)

note:
If it is to be pointed out the unnaturalness of talking about Peter’s memory, which has been supposed to be so quickly forgotten and never to retain a single moment of recollection, it is reasonable to assume that the interactive manifestation of Peter’s intrinsically supernatural attributes has resulted in the use of rhetorical expressions such as “having a memory,” “dreaming,” and “having thought them out,” by shifting the direction of the vector between what indicates and what is indicated, following the previous example, which made a naive reference to the connection between rhetoric and fantasy. As mentioned in the above note, “rhetoric” is a concept that, along with irony, must be re-evaluated as a latent force that forms fundamental axes on which the basic grammar of fantasy should be constructed.

There seems to be no doubt that this is one of the most puzzling elements that form the mystery of Peter.

Sometimes, though not often, he had dreams, and they were more painful than the dreams of other boys. For hours he could not be separated from these dreams, though he wailed piteously in them. They had to do, I think, with the riddle of his existence.


Peter seems to be the beneficiary of the abundant blessing of resting in Mother Earth, but also an exile from his homeland who bears the eternal curse of being forever estranged from his Creator Mother. (note)

note:
There is no doubt that the existential attribute of the ingenious superposition of contradictory elements is the core of the systems theory that forms the mystery of Peter’s existence. Peter’s ontological nature, which sometimes functions as nonsense that leads to the disruption of meaning, also implies the existence of the ultimate mystery behind it that always leads to the collapse of the attempt to construct rational natural laws, and the only axiom that can be claimed from speculative reasoning* which is intended to be embodied as a miracle that transcends general propositions.

*
The proposition “There is no such thing as absolute truth.” is a contradiction because it includes the proposition itself as a subject of description, and paradoxically proves that this proposition is not true. If one attempts to make this kind of logical form of assertion, it is inevitable to adopt a mode of description with restrictions that make itself an exception, for example, “There can be no absolute truth except for this proposition. And a proposition described in this form is a special exception that deserves special mention, detached from generality, and its selective raison d'etre is forcibly asserted as an inherent system theory. An instance would be the following passage in Edgar Allan Poe’s Eureka:

…if an axiom there be, then the proposition of which we speak has the fullest right to be considered an axiom -- that no more absolute axiom is; and, consequently, that any subsequent proposition which shall conflict with this one primarily advanced, must be either a falsity in itself -- that is to say, no axiom -- or, if admitted axiomatic, must at once neutralize both itself and its predecessor.

　As Poe points out here on the subject of the assumption of the existence of axioms themselves, the aspect of self-reflexive discourse in which the question of one’s own legitimacy itself is the point of discussion can be regarded as a key factor that provides a convincing index for confirming the fundamental elements that establish the “mystery” at issue in this argument.