Fantasy as Antifantasy: 10 Deconstruction in Antifantasy continued

Wendy in the fictional story is talking about the future of her fictional self, one stage removed in the fiction. It may sound specifically meaningful, but it is not necessary to bring up the strategic techniques of postmodernism and metafiction, in fact, such a reflexive mechanism itself must have been the intrinsic function of the act of telling a story, that is, constructing a fictional world. It would be enough to ascertain that what Attebery calls “non-imitative traditional modes of expression” is being fully exploited. The essence of literature cannot be discussed under the illusion that concepts such as modernism or realism, let alone postmodernism, exist as safe definitions as if they prescribe a solid object as a definite substance. It would be fine if we could reaffirm the dubiousness of the argument that the rise of realism is the birth of a “novel” that depicts the lives and psychology of human beings living in modern society as they are, as is plausibly debated. (note)

note:
The author perpetrated the corresponding task to this issue, in his responsible lecture “Modern and Novel”, adopting Fantasy as Antifantasy as its main text. This lecture was shared on Twitter and the archived data is accessible on Academia.

Modern and Novel:
https://www.academia.edu/72457067/Modern_and_Novel


It was already implied in the first chapter of this study that the term “fantasy” bares a de-illusionizing function on such a rigid view on literary products. Therefore, this book must prove that antifantasy and fantasy are fundamentally equivalent. If we adopt the terminology “fantasy” as a word to describe the appearance of the two-faced deity in the phase of fictionality, it is rather natural that the expression “antifantasy” must be introduced.
The narrator is not only omniscient, but also omnipotent in the operation of the work world. To narrate is nothing but to create a possible world in which the speaker is the Almighty. In this sense, it can be said that the author, who plays the role of the narrator of Peter and Wendy, Hook, who is the main character behind the scenes, and Peter, who is the shadow of Hook, are all bifurcated aspects of the same person. This is because, in the universe that was created by the materialization of the idea of Genesis, all the creation exists as part of the will of the One Creator. That is why the idea of believing in the existence of the Commander of Principles can also claim that “God is in the details.” And the narrator wields full power over the fundamental constants of the universe in this way. It is a description of the crocodile watch that brought Hook a “heroic” end.

He [Hook] did not know that the crocodile was waiting for him; for we purposely stopped the clock that this knowledge might be spared him; a little mark of respect from us at the end.