Well... note that she doesn't say she doesn't think penguins dream; just that she doesn't think they dream about flying through the air and outer space. And I must say I agree with her; it seems pretty unlikely to me too. Apparently birds do dream (http://blogs.discovery.com/news_animal/2008/06/birds-dream-and.html), but it's probably pretty concrete-experience-based and instinct-driven, i.e. chasing food, fleeing predators, fighting rivals, courting, mating, parenting, surviving storms, because that's what the lives of birds are about.
I suppose it depends on how one defines fantasy. I myself don't think the animal-character genre counts as 'fantasy' - sorry, not even The Wind In The Willows, dearly as I love it. "Rabbits in waistcoats", y'know, characters that essentially lead ordinary human lives, even though they're supposedly bears or rabbits or whatever, and have a few animal characteristics laid on. Except for their supposed animal-ness, they're not extraordinary or magical, and their problems are ordinary human problems.
Contrast this with Gorky Rises (http://www.amazon.com/Gorky-Rises-William-Steig/dp/0374427844/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262635383&sr=8-1), which I would classify as both animal-character (frogs in clothes, who do nothing notably froglike) and genuine fantasy. Not because frogs don't really talk and wear clothes, not because frogs don't really fly, and not because frogs probably don't really dream about flying, but because our protagonist Gorky (who just happens to be nominally a frog) has an extraordinary, magickal experience, that might have been just a dream, but on the other hand might have been actually happened.
That's the essence of fantasy, IMHO: something magic actually happens, or at least might have actually happened. The possibility is left open, not shut down with "but it was all nothing but a dream".
Speaking of frogs, I highly recommend Frog Goes To Dinner (http://www.amazon.com/Frog-Goes-Dinner-Boy-Dog/dp/0803728840/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262636251&sr=1-1), which I would also classify as a genuine fantasy. Enjoy!
no subject
I suppose it depends on how one defines fantasy. I myself don't think the animal-character genre counts as 'fantasy' - sorry, not even The Wind In The Willows, dearly as I love it. "Rabbits in waistcoats", y'know, characters that essentially lead ordinary human lives, even though they're supposedly bears or rabbits or whatever, and have a few animal characteristics laid on. Except for their supposed animal-ness, they're not extraordinary or magical, and their problems are ordinary human problems.
Contrast this with Gorky Rises (http://www.amazon.com/Gorky-Rises-William-Steig/dp/0374427844/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262635383&sr=8-1), which I would classify as both animal-character (frogs in clothes, who do nothing notably froglike) and genuine fantasy. Not because frogs don't really talk and wear clothes, not because frogs don't really fly, and not because frogs probably don't really dream about flying, but because our protagonist Gorky (who just happens to be nominally a frog) has an extraordinary, magickal experience, that might have been just a dream, but on the other hand might have been actually happened.
That's the essence of fantasy, IMHO: something magic actually happens, or at least might have actually happened. The possibility is left open, not shut down with "but it was all nothing but a dream".
Speaking of frogs, I highly recommend Frog Goes To Dinner (http://www.amazon.com/Frog-Goes-Dinner-Boy-Dog/dp/0803728840/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262636251&sr=1-1), which I would also classify as a genuine fantasy. Enjoy!