Fantastic

Fantastic (pronounced fan-tas-tik)

(1) Conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque; strange, weird or fanciful in conception or appearance (reflecting the original idea of fantasy +‎ -tic (the adjectival suffix)).

(2) A person who dresses or behaves eccentrically (obsolete, but still used in the sense “a fanciful or whimsical person” as a literary or poetic device on the model of “an exquisite”).

(3) Extraordinarily good; excellent.

(4) Something extreme or acute (now rare).

(5) Fanciful, whimsical or capricious (of people, ideas or concepts).

(6) Imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish or irrational.

(7) Extravagantly fanciful; marvelous.

(8) Great to an incredible extent; extreme; exorbitant.

(9) In architecture and design, extravagantly decorated or detailed; excessive ornamentation.

(10) Highly unrealistic or impractical; probably impossible; preposterous; absurd.

(11) Created in the mind; illusory; a flight of fancy.

1350–1400: From the Middle English fantastik (pertaining to the imaginative faculty), from the Middle French fantastique, from the Medieval Latin fantasticus, a variant of the Late Latin phantasticus, from the Ancient Greek φᾰντᾰστῐκός (phăntăstĭkós) (imaginary, fantastic; fictional; able to present the appearance (of something)), a derivative of phantázein (to make present to the eye or mind), the construct on the conceptual model of phānós (light, bright) or phaínein (to bring to light, cause to appear) + -tikos .  The –tikos suffix was commonly used to form adjectives.  The Greek τικός (-tikos) was derived from the noun τι (-tis) (“one who does” or “related to”).  Typically, when –tikos was appended to a word, it conveyed the sense of “being related to, characterized by, or pertaining to the base word”.  It was used also (n various contexts) to create adjectives that describe qualities or characteristics associated with the base word.  The ultimate source was the primitive Indo-European beh- (to shine).  The alternative forms fantastick, phantastic, phantastick & phantastique are all obsolete.  Fantastic & fantastical are nouns & adjectives, fantastication, fantasticness, fantasticity, fantasticalness & fantasticism are nouns, fantasticate & fantasticize are verbs, fantastically, fantasticly & fantastically are adverbs; the noun plural is fantastics.

Google Ngram: Fantasticly.

Google Ngram (a quantitative and not qualitative measure): Because of the way Google harvests data for their Ngrams, they’re not literally a tracking of the use of a word in society but can be usefully indicative of certain trends, (although one is never quite sure which trend(s)), especially over decades.  As a record of actual aggregate use, Ngrams are not wholly reliable because: (1) the sub-set of texts Google uses is slanted towards the scientific & academic and (2) the technical limitations imposed by the use of OCR (optical character recognition) when handling older texts (typically a scanner might misread an “f” for a long “s” or a “u” for an “n”) of sometime dubious legibility (a process AI (artificial intelligence) should improve).  Where numbers bounce around, this may reflect either: (1) peaks and troughs in use for some reason or (2) some quirk in the data harvested.

Olivia Hussey (1951–2024) as Juliet in Romeo and Juliet (1968).

Most dictionaries seem now to list the once fashionable adverb fantasticly as “archaic” although none seem yet to have declared it extinct.  The statistics indicating a late twentieth century revival of use are a product of the proliferation of internet sites dealing with such words (dictionaries, thesauruses, style guides, lists of the rare or unusual etc).  Still, it’s there to be used and would add distinctiveness to a text but authors should be cautioned those having an AI (artificial intelligence) agent do the “proof reading” might find it flagged and it may not impress many flesh & blood editors there to render drafts “accessible”.  In the Old French there was the different adjectival form fantasieus meaning “weird; insane; make-believe” while in Medieval Latin fantasticus was used as a noun meaning “a lunatic; a madman”, adopted by William Shakespeare (1564–1616) in the Italian form fantastico (one who acts ridiculously).  That had an interesting history, the plural form (fantasticoes) appearing in Act 2, Scene 4 of Romeo and Juliet (1597), spoken by Mercutio: “The pox of such antic, lisping, affecting fantasticoes, these new tuners of accents!”.  That definitely was the noun being used in the sense of “a person full of wild, extravagant fancies or absurd ideas”, rather than as the modern adjective meaning “wonderful”.  What Shakespeare had Mercutio do was mock Tybalt and young, fashionable men who adopt affected Italian manners, fencing styles, and pretentious speech.  It was printed as “fantasticoes” in the early (1597) first Quarto printing of the play while editors of some later editions (including the widely-distributed 1623 First Folio) used the spelling phantacies (fantasies), though most versions have restored fantasticoes, not merely as a respect for the original but because the form better fits Mercutio's insult.    The “trivial” sense of “wonderful, marvellous” was in use by at least 1938.

In the creation of slang forms, elements of fantastic have contributed to portmanteau words including “fabtastic”, the construct a blend of fab(ulous) + (fan)tastic, “fantabulous”, the construct a blend of fanta(stic) + (fa)bulous, “fantasterrific”, the construct a blend of fantast(ic) + (t)errific, “funtastic”, the construct a blend of fun + (fan)tastic and “fantascience” (a now rare genre of fiction combining orthodox or speculative science with fantastical elements), the construct a blend of fanta(stic) + science.  Fabtastsic, fantabulous, fantasterrific and funtastic (there are others, some quite specific to circumstances) all are used in the sense of “wonderful, marvelous, outstanding (ie simultaneously both fantastic and fabulous) and often as a superlative (eg “a most fantabulous event”).  These coinings appear mostly a post-war phenomenon.

Fantastic magazine covers. Top row: January-February 1953, March 1953, August 1954; Middle row: August 1956, October 1956; November 1959; Bottom row: February 1960, May 1961, November 1963.

Fantastic was a US SF (Science Fiction) and fantasy magazine published between 1952 and 1980.  Founded as a fantasy companion to Amazing Stories (launched in 1926), so successful was Fantastic that the publisher soon closed their other titles serving the genre, merging all content.  Thematically, Fantastic tended to respond to the construct of the scientific zeitgeist in the popular imagination (ie what was appearing in film and on television) so subjects at times embraced included space travel, global thermo-nuclear war, visiting flying saucers and pandemics from other planets although, despite the range, there seemed often a justification for the covers to feature at least one scantily-clad young woman.  Fantastic published work by writers who would become well-known in the SF community but, rather improbably, pieces by Truman Capote (1924–1984) and Evelyn Waugh (1903-1966) also appeared.

A cleverly composed photograph by AP (Associated Press) photojournalist Tom Brenner (b 1994) with Donald Trump reflected in the lens of Susie Wiles' sunglasses, South Lawn of the White House, Washington DC, October 2026.

In the aftermath of the 2026 US congressional elections at which (for the Republican Party), things went either “as badly as expected” or “worse than expected”, it’s not known if Pete Hegseth (b 1980; US Secretary of Defense (and War) since 2025) was much assured by Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) saying of him he had done a “fantastic job” but if so, he might have considered that apparent endorsement in the light of the POTUS having just sacked his chief of staff (Susan Wiles (b 1957, chief of staff to the POTUS 2025-2026) despite a fortnight earlier, in response to a question asking if her was considering replacing her answering: “Zero chance, zero.  She’s phenomenal.”  The election results however seemed to focus Mr Trump’s mind and, after announcing her departure, he told the press Ms Wiles had done “a great job… but I just wanted to make a change”, later adding “We’ve got to make moves.  Sometimes in life, you have to make moves.”  Commentators in a number of places have taken some glee is tracking the large numbers of women dismissed from positions during the second Trump administration, contrasting that toll with the remarkable survival rate among the men, even those whose conduct in office has been less than stellar, one even subsequently appointed US ambassador to the UN (United Nations), an institution for which the POTUS has no fondness.  He probably thought of the job rather as Richard Nixon (1913-1994; VPOTUS 1953-1961 and POTUS 1969-1974) regarded the embassy in Upper Volta.

Pete Hegseth (in brown shoes, left) and Donald Trump (right) beneath flags, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Virginia, October 2025.

Certainly, Mr Trump would have understood the point made by Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) who, in Their Finest Hour (The Second World War, Volume II, (1949)), writing of political leadership, observed: “If he trips he must be sustained.  If he makes mistakes they must be covered.  If he sleeps he must not be wantonly disturbed.  If he is no good he must be pole-axed.”  The historian Professor John Ramsden (1947–2009) summed up Churchill’s explanation of the mechanics of the process as “autocracy tempered by assassination”.  Even if not familiar with those passages, presumably Mr Hegseth is wondering if in the POTUS’s mind he’s being “sustained” or about to be “pole-axed” but anyway seems in no mood to admit making mistakes that would benefit from a “covering up”.  Addressing a rare press conference, when responding to a motion of impeachment introduced in the house by disaffected Republican Thomas Massie (b 1971, US Representative for Kentucky 4th congressional district since 2012) who’d been “primaried” by Mr Trump and was thus serving in his last congress, Mr Hegseth was combative, conceding nothing and comparing the unfairness of him being impeached with no such action being taken against Lloyd Austin (b 1953; US Secretary of Defense 2021-2025), despite the several grounds Mr Hegseth cited as a reasonable basis for Congress to take such a step.

In his address, Mr Hegseth managed also to use a phrase suggesting General Austin (an African-American) had been a “DEI” (diversity, equity & inclusion) appointment; Mr Massie’s motion was voted down in the (still) Republican-controlled chamber.  It was a set-piece performance by Mr Hegseth who has been criticized as appearing to be “a method actor auditioning for the part ‘strong, confident and decisive secretary of defense’”, the consensus being he’d likely not be offered the role because of a tendency to “over-act”.  In that, he was unlike the deliciously wicked Donald Rumsfeld (1932–2021: US Secretary of Defense 1975-1977 & 2001-2006) who was strong, confident and decisive, conveying exactly that with a clipped, precise, yet seemingly effortless delivery.  His predecessor’s political fate will however not much encourage Mr Hegseth, Mr Rumsfeld sacked by George W Bush (George XLIII, b 1946; POTUS 2001-2009) immediately after the Republicans were routed in the 2006 mid-term elections.  Most POTUSes have not found the attitude of Harry S. Truman (1884–1972; POTUS 1945-1953) helpful, preferring to have the buck stop somewhere lower down the chain of command. 

Doing a “fabulous job” of looking fabulous: Sydney Sweeney (b 1997) on the cover of Fabulous magazine, August 2025.

As a one-time employee of Fox News (with all that implies), Mr Hegseth will have noticed the similarity in personnel management practices between Mr Trump and Rupert Murdoch (b 1931), both very much of the “hire ‘em and fire ‘em” school and if dwelling on the POTUS saying he’d done a “fantastic job” while in charge of the Pentagon, he may recall it was President Bush minor who had sacked Colin Powell (1937–2021; US Secretary of State 2001-2005) a few months after telling the press at a gathering at his ranch in Crawford, Texas that general had done a “fabulous job” as his “vicar of foreign policy”.  Even at the time, nobody in the White House press corps could recall anyone in Texas ever being dubbed “fabulous” (except maybe in Oil Can Harry’s in Austin) so the conclusion was General Powell's political career prospects were not good.  So it proved.  How Mr Hegseth will determine whether it augers better if one’s boss says one is doing a “fantastic job” rather than a “fabulous job” isn’t known but what won’t be reassuring is that Mr Trump also doubtlessly agrees with Churchill about the circumstances when a swift pole-axing is demanded.

Donald Trump endorses Mr Hegseth's continuation in office, says he has done a “fantastic job” and explains why the “state of armed conflict” in the Persian Gulf is not a “war”.  Had it not been for certain recent events, he might have styled the venture a “special military operation”.

In February 1953, the prime minister had explained to his personal physician (Lord Moran, Charles Wilson, 1882-1977; president of the RCP (Royal College of Physicians) 1941-1949, personal physician to Winston Churchill 1940-1965) why he needed a referral to another eye specialist, Moran noting in his diary: “The P.M. asked me today if he could see another eye specialist.  ‘I have stuck to Juler [Dr Frank Anderson Juler (1888-1962), Ophthalmic Surgeon, St. Mary’s Hospital, London] for so long,’ he told me, ‘because he did discover the in-growing eyelashes when no one else did.  At that time my eyes were so bad I could not read, even official documents.  But he is stumped now, and we must change the bowling.’”  Other than polo and big game hunting (the latter still then thought by many a “sport”), Churchill took little interest in sport so may be forgiven for mixing his metaphors; in cricket it’s a batsman (the gender-neutral “batter” now preferred) who is “stumped” (ie the bails atop the wicket dislodged with the ball by the wicket keeper or other fieldsman (fielder) while the batter is “out of their crease”), the correct idiomatic phrase to describe an ineffective bowler being something like “hit out of the attack”.  It's doubtful Mr Hegseth knows much of the jargon of cricket but he'd get the idea.

Looking fantastic: Lindsay Lohan in skin-tight teal wetsuit during the filming of Freakier Friday (2025), Malibu Beach, California, August 2024.

Mr Hegseth has been a reformer within the US military and the POTUS has praised him as a “great warrior” who has re-oriented the military away from becoming a “woke institution”, pointing out it had become top-heavy and administratively bloated, more generals reputedly on the establishment than during World War II (1939-1945) when the largest conflict in human history was being prosecuted.  It seems the Pentagon proved as vulnerable as any to the phenomenon of “bureaucratic inertia” and other militaries have similarly been affected.  When in 1952 a delegation from the newly elected British government visited the embassy in Washington DC, instead of the expected handful of military liaison officers, there were over a hundred, nobody in London having ever reduced the establishment created during the war, by then over for more than six years.  Still, Mr Hegseth’s well-publicized assault on the “woke agenda” (ending DEI programmes and banning transgender soldiers from service, conducting testosterone tests on serving personnel etc) has acted like a lightning rod for the Democratic Party and his stance on these matters, combined with the “Iran war” that hasn’t gone as intended, mean impeachment may be re-visited when the new (Democrat controlled) congress assembles in January.  At that point, the word “fantastic” may start to be used of Mr Hegseth in one of its more ancient senses.