Virtual Worlds and the Land of Oz In the introductory chapter of Michael Saler’s book, As If, Saler argues that fantasy became popular at the rise of modernity because it was a way for people to bring wonder and enchantment back into their modern, demystified lives. He explores the concept of visual worlds, fantasy scapes in which a community of people could take on a ‘double consciousness’ of being able to distinguish that these virtual worlds were unreal while simultaneously gaining new perspectives from said worlds and applying them to reality. Additionally, this recognition enabled people realize that their own realities were also malleable. From here, Saler presents two approaches to modernity and premodernity--the binary and dialectical …show more content…
After all, he states, “water-cooler conversations are as likely to be about the boss in Mad Men as one’s own employer;” thus even adult, realistic television provides a fantasy in its own way. He attributes this popularization of fantasy entertainment culture in the West to several reasons, particularly the pleasure obtained from participating in a shared imaginary world with other fans. The origins of such mass mental gatherings can be traced back to the emergence of role playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons and the large followings of popular fantasy series like J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of The Rings and DC and Marvel comics. But even before this, the middle and working classes were turning to fantasy due to a combination of socioeconomic and cultural reasons, especially …show more content…
The binary approach, as was taken on by Max Weber, views modernity and premodernity (or enchantment) as to separate and opposing entities. Conversely, in the dialectical approach, as discussed by Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, modernity is “exposed as dangerously oppressive and inhumane.” However, in both of these approaches, mass culture is seen as a highly negative component of society. It is here that Saler offers up his own idea of what defines modernity; he argues that modernity is governed by “unresolved contradictions and oppositions” that pull on each other, irreconcilable yet somehow coexisting in the same space. This is perhaps the best component of his argument, as it acknowledges components of the previous two approaches while simultaneously recognizing that modernity is far more complex than either of them (and maybe even his own approach) can