“Give the pupils something to do, not something to learn; and the doing is of such a nature as to demand thinking.” — John Dewey, The School and Society (1899)			“The only person who is educated is the one who has learned how to learn and change.” — Carl R. Rogers, Freedom to Learn (1969)
		“Teaching may open the door to learning, but students must walk through it, make the journey their own, and learn to travel without us.” — Jonathan Acuña Solano (2026)

Introduction

For many years, my approach to online teaching focused on designing meaningful learning experiences, selecting appropriate digital resources, and ensuring that students had opportunities to practice and demonstrate what they had learned. As both a curriculum designer and an online instructor of college young adults and corporate working adults, I have always believed that engagement is essential to successful learning. However, participating in the ISTE+ASCD course Designing Online Learning Experiences – Department of State has challenged me to rethink an important aspect of my teaching philosophy: Who truly owns the learning?

One of the most valuable insights I have gained from the course is understanding that student agency is not synonymous with differentiation. Before taking this course, I often associated offering choices with promoting autonomy. However, I now recognize that meaningful agency goes much further than allowing students to choose between teacher-designed options. Instead, it involves intentionally creating opportunities for learners to influence how they learn and how they demonstrate their understanding without compromising the intended learning outcomes.

As I reflected in my course journal,

"Taking the ISTE course Designing Online Learning Experiences – Department of State, I have now come to understand the true meaning of student agency and how it differs from differentiation. Making this distinction opens more doors to having students co-create assessments where they can better demonstrate what they have learned in a course. Agency is not giving students more choices of my own, but to allow them to find a way to make their own choices to show teachers what they have learned." (Acuña Solano, personal reflection, 2026)

This realization has encouraged me to reconsider not only the design of my online lessons but also the relationship between teacher expertise and student ownership. Rather than seeing agency as reducing the teacher's role, I now understand it as a thoughtful design principle that empowers learners while maintaining clear academic expectations.

Who Owns the Learning?

One of the guiding questions presented in the ISTE+ASCD course asks a deceptively simple question: Who owns the learning? Although straightforward, the question invites educators to examine how much genuine ownership students actually experience throughout a course. According to the course materials,

"When students have meaningful control over some part of their learning, the effects go well beyond engagement. Research on student voice and agency in digital environments shows consistent connections to deeper motivation, stronger self-regulation, and more lasting learning outcomes… Designing for agency is not about handing over the classroom or dropping structure; it is about making deliberate choices about where student ownership can live without undermining the learning goals that drive it" (Mitra, 2024).

This statement resonates strongly with my own teaching context. My students are not children; they are university students and professionals balancing work, family responsibilities, and academic commitments. Many supervise teams, make important decisions in their workplaces, and solve complex problems every day. Yet, once they enter a virtual classroom, they often encounter highly structured learning environments in which nearly every decision has already been made for them.

Reflecting on this contrast has led me to question whether online courses sometimes underestimate the capabilities of adult learners. Providing meaningful opportunities for students to make decisions does not imply lowering standards or removing guidance. On the contrary, it requires thoughtful instructional design that identifies specific areas where learners can exercise autonomy while still working toward common learning objectives.

This perspective aligns with Mitra's (2024) work on student voice, which emphasizes that agency develops when students are invited to participate meaningfully in shaping their educational experiences. Rather than viewing learners as passive recipients of instruction, educators begin to see them as collaborators whose experiences and perspectives enrich the learning process.

Understanding Student Agency Beyond Choice

Perhaps the most transformative concept introduced in the course is the distinction between choice and agency. The course clearly explains that selecting between two similar activities does not necessarily create ownership. A student may choose between completing Worksheet A or Worksheet B, but if both activities are predetermined and lead to identical experiences, the decision remains largely superficial. Instead, the course defines agency as follows:

"Real agency means students are making decisions that actually shape their learning experience in ways they can feel. The difference matters because many digital lessons offer the appearance of choice without creating the conditions for genuine ownership."

This distinction has significant implications for my own teaching practice.

Previously, I often believed that providing multiple assignment options automatically promoted learner autonomy. After reflecting on the course materials, I now see that authentic agency requires something deeper. The central question is no longer, How many choices can I provide? Instead, it becomes, Which decisions genuinely influence students' learning experiences? This subtle shift changes the teacher's role considerably. Rather than simply expanding the menu of activities, educators become intentional designers of learning environments where students exercise meaningful decision-making while remaining accountable for achieving established outcomes.

This perspective also complements the work of Deci and Ryan (2000), whose Self-Determination Theory identifies autonomy, competence, and relatedness as three fundamental psychological needs that foster intrinsic motivation. Student agency directly supports autonomy by allowing learners to influence aspects of their educational experiences. At the same time, carefully designed opportunities for agency can strengthen competence by encouraging students to demonstrate learning through formats that reflect their strengths and professional contexts. For adult learners, this connection is particularly meaningful. Corporate professionals frequently make important decisions in their workplaces. Consequently, allowing them to exercise thoughtful decision-making within the learning environment respects the expertise they already possess while increasing their investment in the learning process.

Agency by Design

One of the ideas I appreciated most in the course is that agency does not emerge accidentally. Instead, it results from deliberate instructional design. The course notes state:

"Student agency does not appear in a lesson because a teacher has good intentions. It appears because someone made a specific design decision that created a real opening for students to own some part of their learning."

This statement captures an important reality for online education. Effective digital instruction depends heavily on planning. Unlike face-to-face teaching, where instructors can make continuous adjustments based on classroom interactions, online environments often require decisions to be embedded into the course before students even log in. Consequently, promoting agency becomes less about improvisation and more about purposeful course design.

This idea also reminds me of the principles of backward design proposed by Wiggins and McTighe (2005). Rather than beginning with activities, educators first identify desired learning outcomes and determine acceptable evidence of learning. Student agency can then be incorporated by allowing learners flexibility in how they demonstrate that evidence without altering the intended outcomes themselves. In other words, the destination remains fixed while multiple meaningful pathways become available.

This realization has prompted me to rethink assessment in particular. Instead of asking, What assignment should students complete?, I have begun asking a different question: What evidence would convince me that learning has occurred? Once that evidence has been clearly defined, students may be able to determine the most authentic way to demonstrate it, whether through presentations, podcasts, interviews, business proposals, debates, or other professional communication tasks aligned with the course objectives.

Applying the Four Avenues of Agency in My Teaching Context

The ISTE+ASCD course presents four practical avenues through which educators can intentionally design for agency: pace, path, time, and place. Rather than treating agency as an abstract concept, these dimensions provide a concrete framework for examining where students experience meaningful ownership within a digital course.

To better understand my own practice, I analyzed the online platform used in one of my university English courses. The reflection helped me identify both strengths and opportunities for growth.

Table 1

Reflection on the Four Avenues of Student Agency in Cambridge One

Avenue	Reflection
Pace	The platform is organized around three major submission periods during a 15-week semester. Students generally have about three weeks to complete each set of four units, allowing them to move more quickly through familiar content or revisit activities that require additional practice.
Path	This is the most limited avenue. Students cannot choose different learning pathways to complete the platform successfully. Their primary decision involves determining the order in which they complete individual exercises rather than selecting alternative routes toward the learning outcomes.
Time	Students enjoy considerable flexibility regarding when they engage with the platform. They decide how frequently they log in and how much time they devote to each study session, provided they meet the established deadlines.
Place	Because the platform is entirely online, students may work wherever they have internet access, including at home, on campus, while commuting, or even while traveling.

Analyzing my course through these four dimensions revealed an interesting pattern. While pace, time, and place already provide students with meaningful flexibility, path remains relatively constrained. This observation has encouraged me to consider future redesigns that preserve academic rigor while expanding opportunities for learners to determine how they achieve the established learning goals. Rather than simply adding more choices, the challenge is to create authentic opportunities for students to exercise ownership over their learning journey.

From Differentiation to Authentic Agency

One of the most valuable outcomes of reflecting on the ISTE+ASCD course has been recognizing that differentiation and student agency, while related, are not the same concept. For many years, differentiation has encouraged educators to adapt instruction to accommodate learners' needs, interests, and readiness levels (Tomlinson, 2014). This remains an essential component of effective teaching. However, differentiation generally positions the teacher as the primary decision-maker who selects the options students will receive. Student agency represents a different shift in thinking. Rather than asking, How can I provide better options for my students?, agency asks, How can students participate in making meaningful decisions about their own learning?

This distinction has become particularly relevant in my own teaching. Most of my students are college young adults or professionals who study English while balancing demanding careers and personal responsibilities. They regularly make complex decisions in their workplaces, manage projects, supervise colleagues, and solve authentic problems. Yet, traditional educational models often limit them to following predetermined learning paths designed entirely by the instructor. The more I reflect on this contrast, the more convinced I become that adult learners deserve opportunities to exercise the same decision-making skills inside the classroom that they use successfully outside of it.

This realization has also influenced how I think about assessments. In previous semesters, I often focused on designing a single product that all students would complete. While this approach ensured consistency, it sometimes limited students' ability to demonstrate learning in ways that reflected their professional identities. Today, I find myself asking a different question: What evidence would convince me that learning has occurred?

Once that evidence has been clearly identified, multiple possibilities emerge. If the objective is to demonstrate persuasive communication, one student might prepare a TED-style presentation, another might produce a business proposal, while another records a professional podcast or participates in a structured debate. The learning outcome remains unchanged, but students have greater ownership over how they demonstrate their achievement. This approach aligns with Wiggins and McTighe's (2005) principles of backward design, where assessment begins with identifying desired evidence rather than prescribing identical learning products for every learner.

Student Voice and Shared Ownership of Learning

As my understanding of agency has evolved, I have also found Dana Mitra's work on student voice particularly meaningful. Her framework suggests that authentic participation develops progressively through three levels: being heard, collaboration with adults, and building capacity for leadership (Mitra, 2004, 2024). Initially, I associated student voice with gathering feedback through surveys or end-of-course evaluations. While these practices remain valuable, I now see that they represent only the beginning of a much broader process.

Being heard means students have opportunities to express their perspectives and experiences. Collaboration occurs when teachers and students jointly make decisions about aspects of learning. The highest level, building capacity, positions students as genuine partners who contribute to improving educational experiences for themselves and future learners.

This framework has encouraged me to think differently about the role of reflection in my own courses. For example, after completing a unit, students might identify which activities contributed most to their learning and explain why. Rather than treating those reflections as simple feedback, I could invite students to redesign one activity they believe would better support future classes. Small groups could compare ideas, justify their recommendations, and collaboratively propose improvements. In this scenario, reflection becomes more than an individual exercise; it becomes a mechanism for continuous course improvement.

This idea also connects closely with Donald Schön's (1983) concept of the reflective practitioner. Schön argued that professionals develop expertise through systematic reflection on their own practice. While his work primarily addressed educators and other professionals, I believe the same principle applies to students. When learners analyze their own learning processes and contribute to improving them, they become reflective participants rather than passive recipients of instruction.

Student Agency in Online Learning for Young Adults and Working Professionals

Teaching online introduces both opportunities and challenges for promoting student agency. One advantage is that digital environments naturally support flexibility regarding time, place, and often pace. Students enrolled in my university and corporate courses frequently study after work, during weekends, while commuting, or even while traveling. These forms of flexibility are already embedded within many online learning environments.

However, my reflection on Cambridge One revealed that flexibility alone does not necessarily produce agency. The platform allows learners considerable freedom regarding when and where they study, and it offers some flexibility in pacing. Nevertheless, students have relatively little influence over the learning pathway itself. The sequence of activities is largely predetermined, and opportunities to personalize learning remain limited.

This observation does not suggest that the platform is ineffective. Rather, it highlights an important distinction between adaptive technology and student agency. Adaptive systems often determine what learners should do next based on their performance. Agency, on the other hand, invites learners to participate in those decisions whenever appropriate.

Recognizing this distinction has helped me identify opportunities that exist outside the platform itself. For example, synchronous class meetings provide space for collaborative problem-solving, student-selected discussion topics, peer teaching, project proposals, and authentic communicative tasks connected to learners' professional experiences. Likewise, assessment design offers one of the greatest opportunities for expanding agency without requiring major technological changes. Instead of viewing digital platforms as complete learning environments, I increasingly see them as one component within a broader instructional design that intentionally creates opportunities for student ownership.

Implications for My Teaching Practice

Perhaps the most significant change resulting from this course is not a new teaching strategy but a new perspective on instructional design. Previously, I often asked myself: How can I make this lesson more engaging? Today, I find myself asking: Where can students genuinely influence their own learning without compromising the intended learning outcomes? This subtle change has important implications for future course development.

Rather than focusing exclusively on delivering carefully planned instruction, I hope to create learning experiences that gradually transfer greater responsibility to students. This does not mean removing structure or lowering expectations. Instead, it involves identifying purposeful moments where learners can make authentic decisions regarding learning pathways, collaborative activities, assessment formats, and course improvement. As Deci and Ryan (2000) explain, autonomy represents one of the fundamental psychological needs that support intrinsic motivation. When learners experience meaningful ownership over their educational experiences, they are more likely to demonstrate persistence, engagement, and self-regulation. These qualities are particularly valuable for adult learners studying online, where independent learning plays such a significant role.

Ultimately, I now view student agency not as an instructional trend but as a design philosophy. It challenges educators to think carefully about where ownership belongs within a course and how thoughtful design decisions can transform students from participants who simply complete assigned tasks into learners who actively shape their own educational experiences.

Conclusion

Completing the ISTE+ASCD course has provided me with more than a new instructional framework; it has prompted me to reconsider the relationship between teaching, learning, and ownership in online education. Perhaps the most important lesson I have learned is that agency should not be confused with simply offering more choices. Meaningful agency emerges when students participate in decisions that genuinely influence how they learn while maintaining clear and consistent learning goals. This distinction has reshaped the way I think about lesson planning, assessment, and course design.

My own reflection on Cambridge One illustrates that many online learning environments already support flexibility in terms of pace, time, and place. Nevertheless, opportunities remain to strengthen students' ownership of their learning path and, more importantly, to involve them in shaping assessments and improving learning experiences. These changes do not require abandoning structure; they require designing opportunities for shared responsibility.

As an instructor who teaches college young adults and corporate working adults online, I believe this perspective is particularly relevant. Adult learners bring valuable professional knowledge, life experience, and decision-making skills into every virtual classroom. Designing learning experiences that acknowledge and build upon those strengths demonstrates respect for learners while creating richer educational experiences.

Looking ahead, I hope to continue exploring ways to integrate student voice into both my classroom practice and my curriculum design work. If learning truly belongs to students, then educators must intentionally create environments where that ownership is not simply encouraged but thoughtfully designed. In doing so, we move beyond delivering content toward cultivating reflective, autonomous learners who are prepared not only to succeed academically but also to continue learning throughout their professional lives.

Ensinar não é simplesmente transmitir conhecimento, mas ajudar outras pessoas a descobrir que podem aprender, crescer e caminhar com as próprias pernas.

 

San José, Costa Rica

Saturday, October 10, 2026

Blog Post #593

 

📚 References

Acuña Solano, J. (2026). Reflective journal: Supporting student agency in the digital classroom [Unpublished course reflection]. ISTE+ASCD Learning Academy, Designing Online Learning Experiences – U.S. Department of State course.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

ISTE+ASCD Learning Academy. (2026). Designing Online Learning Experiences – U.S. Department of State [Professional learning course]. ISTE+ASCD.

Mitra, D. L. (2004). The significance of students: Can increasing "student voice" in schools lead to gains in youth development? Teachers College Record, 106(4), 651–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00354.x

Mitra, D. L. (2024). Supporting student agency in the digital classroom. ISTE+ASCD, Designing Online Learning Experiences – Department of State course materials.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

 

 

	“The fantastic is that hesitation experienced by a person who knows only the laws of nature, confronting an apparently supernatural event.” — Tzvetan Todorov			“O homem só é superiormente feliz quando está superiormente enganado.” — Eça de Queirós
		“The dead are not absent; they are invisible.” — Victor Hugo

 

Introduction: Realism Meets the Supernatural

Eça de Queirós, one of the foremost representatives of Portuguese realism, is often associated with sharp social critique, irony, and a commitment to depicting the material conditions of nineteenth-century life. Yet, in O Defunto, Eça de Queirós ventures into narrative territory that appears to challenge the epistemological foundations of realism: the intervention of a dead man in the affairs of the living. This seemingly anomalous narrative choice invites critical inquiry through the lens of Tzvetan Todorov, whose structuralist theory of the fantastic offers a rigorous framework for analyzing the interplay between natural and supernatural explanations in literature.

This essay, my 592^nd publication on my reflective blog, argues that O Defunto initially constructs a Todorovian fantastic through epistemological hesitation but ultimately resolves this ambiguity within a providential and moral framework aligned with the marvelous. By doing so, Eça de Queirós transforms the fantastic into a transitional device that bridges rational uncertainty and theological affirmation.

Todorov’s Framework: Hesitation as the Core of the Fantastic

In The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre, Todorov defines the fantastic as the moment of hesitation experienced when confronted with an apparently supernatural event. He writes, “The fantastic occupies the duration of this uncertainty” (Todorov, 1975, p. 25). This hesitation is not merely thematic but structural: it depends on the reader’s inability to determine whether the events described obey the laws of nature.

Todorov’s tripartite model distinguishes between:

1.	The uncanny: the supernatural explained rationally
2.	The fantastic: sustained hesitation
3.	The marvelous: acceptance of the supernatural

The critical question for any analysis, therefore, is not whether supernatural elements appear, but how the text manages the reader’s uncertainty.

The Emergence of Hesitation in O Defunto

The narrative of O Defunto introduces the figure of a dead man who intervenes decisively in the life of Dom Rui. This intervention is initially framed in a way that invites doubt and interpretive tension. The atmosphere surrounding the apparition is marked by ambiguity, as the text describes the encounter with a tone that oscillates between realism and the uncanny. And one striking moment emphasizes this ambiguity:

“E era um morto — um morto que ali estava, diante dele, com os olhos abertos e uma vontade firme.”

This sentence encapsulates the paradox at the heart of the fantastic: the coexistence of death and agency. The dead man is not merely a corpse but a subject endowed with intention. The reader is thus compelled to ask: how can a “morto” possess “vontade”? This is precisely the kind of epistemological rupture Todorov identifies as essential to the fantastic. The laws governing reality appear to be suspended, yet no immediate explanation is provided to restore coherence.

Character and Reader: Shared Hesitation

Todorov emphasizes that the fantastic often requires not only the reader’s hesitation but also that of a character. In O Defunto, Dom Rui embodies this uncertainty. His reactions mirror the reader’s interpretive struggle, as he confronts an event that defies his understanding of reality. At one point, the narrative suggests his internal disorientation:

“Dom Rui não sabia se estava sonhando, se era ilusão dos sentidos, ou se verdadeiramente o morto ali falava.”

Here, three explanatory possibilities emerge:

1.	Dream
2.	Illusion
3.	Reality

Thitriadic structure aligns perfectly with Todorov’s model, positioning the narrative within the fantastic as long as none of these explanations is definitively confirmed.

Language and the Suspension of Reality

The linguistic texture of Eça de Queirós’s narrative plays a crucial role in sustaining hesitation. The prose does not immediately assert the supernatural as fact; instead, it carefully modulates description to preserve ambiguity. Based on this idea, let’s consider the following passage:

“A figura permanecia imóvel, mas havia nela uma energia estranha, como se a morte não tivesse apagado completamente a vida.”

The phrase “como se” is particularly significant. It signals a “simile rather than an assertion,” leaving open the possibility that what is perceived may not correspond to reality. This rhetorical strategy prolongs the reader’s uncertainty, maintaining the conditions necessary for the fantastic.

As Rosemary Jackson (1981) notes, the fantastic often operates through “a hesitation between incompatible meanings” (p. 28). Eça de Queirós’s use of suggestive, rather than definitive, language exemplifies this dynamic.

The Gradual Dissolution of the Fantastic

Despite the initial ambiguity, O Defunto does not sustain hesitation indefinitely. As the narrative progresses, the actions of the dead man acquire coherence and purpose. His intervention is not random or chaotic but directed toward a clear moral outcome: the protection of Dom Rui and the restoration of justice.

This shift is evident in passages that attribute intentionality and ethical significance to the dead man’s actions:

“Vinha para o salvar — e salvar com ele a honra que estava prestes a ser perdida.”

The clarity of purpose here diminishes the ambiguity that defines the fantastic. The dead man is no longer an inexplicable anomaly but an agent within a moral framework.

From Fantastic to Marvelous: The Acceptance of the Supernatural

According to Todorov, the fantastic ends when the reader adopts a stable interpretation. In O Defunto, this interpretation aligns with the marvelous: the supernatural is accepted as real within the narrative world. Todorov (1975) explains that the marvelous emerges when “new laws of nature must be entertained” (p. 41). In Eça de Queirós’s story, these “new laws” are not arbitrary but consistent with a worldview in which divine or supernatural intervention is possible.

The narrative ultimately invites the reader to accept the dead man’s presence as part of a larger moral order. This acceptance is reinforced by the absence of any rational explanation that could reclassify the events as uncanny.

The Catholic Marvelous: Providence and Moral Order

A crucial dimension of O Defunto is its alignment with a Catholic worldview. The supernatural is not presented as a source of terror but as an instrument of justice and redemption. This distinguishes Eça de Queirós’s narrative from Gothic traditions, where the supernatural often destabilizes reality. Instead, the story suggests a providential order:

“Nada se perde na ordem divina, nem mesmo a morte impede o cumprimento do justo.”

This perspective transforms the supernatural into a moral force, aligning the narrative with what Northrop Frye (1957) describes as the mythic mode, in which “the supernatural is a higher form of natural law” (p. 136). Carlos Reis (1999) similarly observes that Eça de Queirós’s fiction often transcends strict realism, incorporating symbolic and moral dimensions: “a narrativa queirosiana articula o real com uma dimensão simbólica que o ultrapassa” (p. 115).

The Fantastic as a Transitional Device

Rather than functioning as an end in itself, the fantastic in O Defunto serves as a transitional phase. It creates a moment of epistemological instability that prepares the reader for the acceptance of a broader conception of reality. David Roas (2011) emphasizes that the fantastic requires “la confrontación entre lo posible y lo imposible” (p. 58). In Eça de Queirós’s narrative, this confrontation is resolved not by eliminating the impossible but by integrating it into a coherent moral framework.

Thus, the fantastic becomes a narrative strategy rather than a stable genre. It opens a space for questioning, only to guide the reader toward affirmation.

Comparative Chart: Todorov vs. O Defunto

Todorov’s Maxim	Application in O Defunto
The fantastic requires hesitation between natural and supernatural explanations.	Dom Rui questions whether the event is a dream, illusion, or reality: “não sabia se estava sonhando...”
The hesitation must be shared by the reader and character.	Both Dom Rui and the reader experience uncertainty regarding the dead man’s nature.
The text must encourage a literal reading.	The narrative presents the dead man as a concrete presence, not merely symbolic.
The fantastic exists only while hesitation persists.	Early ambiguity sustains the fantastic, but later clarity dissolves it.
Resolution determines genre (uncanny or marvelous).	The story resolves into the marvelous by accepting the supernatural.
The reader’s perception defines the fantastic	The reader is guided from doubt to belief through narrative progression.

Limits of Todorov’s Model

While Todorov’s framework is highly effective in identifying the structural dynamics of O Defunto, it also reveals its own limitations. His theory presupposes a clear distinction between natural and supernatural laws, a distinction that may not hold in narratives shaped by religious worldviews.

As Todorov himself admits, “The perception of the fantastic depends on the reader’s conception of the real” (1975, p. 46). In a cultural context where belief in divine intervention is normalized, the hesitation central to the fantastic may be less pronounced. In Eça de Queirós’s case, the narrative reflects a tension between modern rationality and traditional belief systems. The fantastic emerges from this tension but is ultimately resolved in favor of a worldview that accommodates the supernatural.

Ethical Closure and Narrative Purpose

Unlike many fantastic narratives that leave the reader in a state of unresolved ambiguity, O Defunto provides a clear ethical resolution. The intervention of the dead man restores justice and prevents wrongdoing, reinforcing a moral order.

This ethical dimension aligns the story with didactic traditions, where supernatural events serve to illustrate moral truths. The fantastic, in this context, is not an end but a means of engaging the reader in a process of reflection.

Conclusion: Hesitation Resolved into Faith

The application of Todorov’s theory to O Defunto reveals a complex interplay between ambiguity and resolution. The story begins by destabilizing the reader’s understanding of reality, introducing a moment of hesitation that aligns with the fantastic. However, this hesitation is not sustained; it is gradually resolved within a framework that affirms the reality and significance of the supernatural.

In this sense, O Defunto exemplifies a hybrid narrative form that both engages with and transcends Todorov’s categories. The fantastic functions as a transitional device, guiding the reader from doubt to belief, from uncertainty to moral clarity. This movement reflects not only the narrative strategy of Eça de Queirós but also the cultural and philosophical context in which his work is situated.

Ultimately, the story demonstrates that the boundaries between the natural and the supernatural are not fixed but contingent upon the interpretive frameworks brought to the text. By navigating these boundaries, Eça de Queirós creates a narrative that is at once unsettling and reassuring, challenging and affirming, a testament to the enduring complexity of the fantastic.

References

Frye, N. (1957). Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. Princeton University Press. http://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691012986/anatomy-of-criticism

Jackson, R. (1981). Fantasy: The Literature of Subversion. Routledge. http://www.routledge.com/9780415280202

Queirós, E. de. (2002). Contos. Livros do Brasil.

Reis, C. (1999). Eça de Queirós e a narrativa realista. Coimbra Editora.

Roas, D. (2011). Tras los límites de lo real: Una definición de lo fantástico. Páginas de Espuma. http://paginasdeespuma.com/catalogo/tras-los-limites-de-lo-real/

Todorov, T. (1975). The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre (R. Howard, Trans.). Cornell University Press. http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801491465/the-fantastic/