Contradiction is an important notion in the realm of philosophy. It would seem less important after the axiom of groundlessness is accepted, for then we can be less sure either concept is suitably complete such that it necessarily actually contradicts another -it may just disagree.
As such if we make a principle which we desire to oppose φantasy and call it reality then this is not necessarily the contradiction of the notion of φantasy. The two rather seem be complementary. φantasies occur in the boundaries of apodicticity such as it is naively manifest. When we may, using some form of entity or belief system as a reason, deny the real, we invoke φantasy. Here we have invoked our new concept into the definition of our old one. Thus we must now move to elucidate reality.
Reality is that which seems apparent and coheres to induction, solidity, repetition. Reality is no doubt an accretion, but it is almost a meta-accretion. Is that really true? Exhorts us to answer with the best of our honesty that something is the case -as best as we are able to tell. Reality gives me the notion that it is folly to doubt it. The kitchen is really there when I am not there; this is not a reasonable doubt, we must invoke a special kind of φantasy to penetrate this realm.
φantasy and reality are not opposed like false and true. The real is beset by φantasy. It hovers around it on multiple horizons. Where the present has retreated, anything might have happened. When presence has become absence it tries to sneak in. When mystery clouds a phenomenon φantasy will manifest to explain. Remember φantasy might mean an explanation which cannot be outright denied and somehow persists, through a god, through a magickal force or somesuch.