Magical Realism

[Sharon Mock]

Split off from the Definitions thread. Copied for context:

More definitions

Magical Realism
... is not so easy to define, actually. (I don't recommend Wikipedia for this one, at least not with the article in its current state.)

Kitty Pryde has pointed to an awesome collection of links on the subject. (http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/margin/links.html)

Bruce Holland Rogers has an excellent essay on magical realism and how it differs from genre fantasy here: (http://www.writing-world.com/sf/realism.shtml)

Science fiction and fantasy are always speculative. They are always positing that some aspect of objective reality were different. [...]

Magical realism is not speculative and does not conduct thought experiments. Instead, it tells its stories from the perspective of people who live in our world and experience a different reality from the one we call objective. If there is a ghost in a story of magical realism, the ghost is not a fantasy element but a manifestation of the reality of people who believe in and have "real" experiences of ghosts. Magical realist fiction depicts the real world of people whose reality is different from ours. [...] Magical realism endeavors to show us the world through other eyes. [...]



It's possible to read magical realism as fantasy, just as it's possible to dismiss people who believe in witches as primitives or fools. But the literature at its best invites the reader to compassionately experience the world as many of our fellow human beings see it.

Another essay, from a more academic/literary perspective, is here: (http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/MagicalRealism.html)

Magical realism is characterized by two conflicting perspectives, one based on a rational view of reality and the other on the acceptance of the supernatural as prosaic reality. Magical realism differs from pure fantasy primarily because it is set in a normal, modern world with authentic descriptions of humans and society [ed. note: I don't actually think this is a useful diagnostic criterion]. According to Angel Flores, magical realism involves the fusion of the real and the fantastic, or as he claims, "an amalgamation of realism and fantasy".
Magical realism is strongly associated with South American literature, but not, most people agree, confined to it.

[Kitty Pryde]

Can you help me to understand how those essays are defining magical realism? It seems like they are saying it's any story set in the regular modernish world, in which the narrating characters take for granted their belief that some not-real fantastic element (like ghosts, prophecies, whatever) is real. So...Jim Butcher writes magical realism? Charles de Lint? Heaps of other urban fantasy writers? Is 'Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town' by Cory Doctorow a science fiction magical realism novel?

I can see where the magical realism writers of S. America have that aspect of nonchalant acceptance of the supernatural, but isn't there something more to it? Like when I have read that stuff, I had a sense of it being dreamlike and almost following dream logic in some parts. Some of the later bits of that essay made sense to me, where he said that magical realism included non-linear time, non-causality, and writing 'the ordinary as miraculous and the miraculous as ordinary'.

[Shweta]

I can see where the magical realism writers of S. America have that aspect of nonchalant acceptance of the supernatural, but isn't there something more to it? Like when I have read that stuff, I had a sense of it being dreamlike and almost following dream logic in some parts. Some of the later bits of that essay made sense to me, where he said that magical realism included non-linear time, non-causality, and writing 'the ordinary as miraculous and the miraculous as ordinary'.

...Maybe it's saying that this sort of thing (dream logic, non-causality) is taken for granted, rather than just the existence of supernatural elements?

I tend to think of magical realism as being "Night brain" storytelling in a superficially "Day brain" world. Plus, you know,its original cultural context. I wonder if we can even think about the modern instantiation, taken out of its cultural context, and its effects on modern fantasy, without raising the cultural appropriation (http://theangryblackwoman.com/2009/01/15/what-is-cultural-appropriation/) issue? Which perhaps everyone in this mix'nmatch group should at least be aware is an issue...

[Sharon Mock]

Can you help me to understand how those essays are defining magical realism? It seems like they are saying it's any story set in the regular modernish world, in which the narrating characters take for granted their belief that some not-real fantastic element (like ghosts, prophecies, whatever) is real. So...Jim Butcher writes magical realism? Charles de Lint? Heaps of other urban fantasy writers? Is 'Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town' by Cory Doctorow a science fiction magical realism novel?
This is why I really like Rogers' claim that magical realism isn't speculative. (And why "normal, modern world with authentic descriptions of humans and society" gets up my nose a bit.) I think it puts a finger on a fundamental difference between genre spec fic and... well... the slipperier stuff.

Jim Butcher is speculative: what if magic were a real part of modern life? So is most other urban fantasy. And I finally know why War for the Oaks isn't magical realism (what if Faerie came to Minneapolis?).

Someone Comes To Town... on the other hand, is different. "What if a mountain and a washing machine had children?" doesn't even make sense, really. That's not what the book's about. Alan's family is part of its world, no more or less alien than free wi-fi for everyone.

Now, I don't think Someone Comes... quite qualifies as magical realism, myself, but for other reasons. For me, an essential trait of magical realism is that its non-realist bits are integrated into its milieu--and parental mountains and washing machines are not, I believe, a part of any milieu any broader than Cory Doctorow's brain. (Although, if anybody's brain were to qualify as its own community...) But it's definitely a closely related animal.

I cannot speak for Charles de Lint, never having read him (the gaps in my knowledge are astonishing, I know). But I believe at least some readers do consider his stuff to be magical realism. It may well be at least another closely related animal.

I can see where the magical realism writers of S. America have that aspect of nonchalant acceptance of the supernatural, but isn't there something more to it? Like when I have read that stuff, I had a sense of it being dreamlike and almost following dream logic in some parts. Some of the later bits of that essay made sense to me, where he said that magical realism included non-linear time, non-causality, and writing 'the ordinary as miraculous and the miraculous as ordinary'.
I tend to think of it in terms of making metaphors concrete, and having the world obey that narrative logic that is so often lacking in everyday life. But I might well be completely missing the boat on that one.

[Kitty Pryde]

...Maybe it's saying that this sort of thing (dream logic, non-causality) is taken for granted, rather than just the existence of supernatural elements?

I tend to think of magical realism as being "Night brain" storytelling in a superficially "Day brain" world. Plus, you know,its original cultural context. I wonder if we can even think about the modern instantiation, taken out of its cultural context, and its effects on modern fantasy, without raising the cultural appropriation (http://theangryblackwoman.com/2009/01/15/what-is-cultural-appropriation/) issue? Which perhaps everyone in this mix'nmatch group should at least be aware is an issue...

I love the term 'night brain' and I shall think mightily upon it. That's a helpful way of considering magical realism. And, AH! I love the ABW! And yeah, I think a thread on cultural appropriation would be awesome in this forum, as it applies to the roots of magical realism. And maybe also the same thread or a different one about how being the minority/The Other relates to Interstitial as a genre, would be awesomesauce and make us all smarter.

This is why I really like Rogers' claim that magical realism isn't speculative. (And why "normal, modern world with authentic descriptions of humans and society" gets up my nose a bit.) I think it puts a finger on a fundamental difference between genre spec fic and... well... the slipperier stuff.

Jim Butcher is speculative: what if magic were a real part of modern life? So is most other urban fantasy. And I finally know why War for the Oaks isn't magical realism (what if Faerie came to Minneapolis?).

I tend to think of it in terms of making metaphors concrete, and having the world obey that narrative logic that is so often lacking in everyday life. But I might well be completely missing the boat on that one.

OK, so I've been thinking on the idea that magical realism isn't speculative. But what about 'A Very Old Man With Enormous Wings' by Marquez? Can't that be described as, 'What if some people found a sad old downtrodden angel in their tiny fishing village?' or alternatively 'What if angels were real and fell out of the sky?' So what makes it not speculative/fantasy?

I'm not trying to be contrary, really. I just have a logical-must-categorize-all-things brain, and the idea of this is rattling the bars of the cage a little bit. This topic may be immune to logic? I'm sort of thinking it's feelings that make something MR, rather than concrete content. <shakes fist angrily at feelings>

PS Some awesome links about MR here (http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/margin/links.html).

[backslashbaby]

OK, so I've been thinking on the idea that magical realism isn't speculative. But what about 'A Very Old Man With Enormous Wings' by Marquez? Can't that be described as, 'What if some people found a sad old downtrodden angel in their tiny fishing village?' or alternatively 'What if angels were real and fell out of the sky?' So what makes it not speculative/fantasy?


What if the ride the reader takes is not intended to be "What if angels were real and fell out of the sky?" but "A creature that may be an angel did fall out of the sky"? No what-if about it. The symbolism/allegory/etc chosen is for reasons other than what-if, and the author finds the what-if question irrelevant, while angels are very relevant.

I hope my thoughts make sense; it's hard to put into words :)

[Sharon Mock]

I think magical realism is a mode that just isn't easy to explain in concrete terms. I'm no more than an interested layman on the subject; there are things I've read that I think of as being in that mode, not all of which are canonical (W.P. Kinsella's Shoeless Joe, made into the movie Field of Dreams), and to a certain extent I try to think of magical realism in terms that will encompass the works I think ought to fit under that umbrella.

Which is, obviously, quite dangerous indeed.

That said, I agree with what backslashbaby said about speculative vs. non-speculative. But I also think it shows just how squishy some of this stuff can be, and how happy it will be to squirt through our fingers if we try to grasp it too tightly. Which is why it's the stuff you find in the interstices, of course.

Kitty Pryde, that collection of links is awesome. I've incorporated it into the original definition post on Magical Realism, in case this discussion gets split off into its own thread (I'm thinking it will). I hope you don't mind--if you do, let me know!

[Shweta]

Uh Sharon, you realize it'll get split off if you split it off, right? :)

[Sharon Mock]

Shweta: I realize that, but I wanted to discuss it with you first. :D

[Shweta]

Shweta: I realize that, but I wanted to discuss it with you first. :D

oh right, cause you're the nice one :)

[Red.Ink.Rain]

I got a short story back from my teacher, and she commented, "This is one of the greatest magical realism pieces that I've ever seen." And I just kind of blinked and thought, Oh, THAT'S magical realism. Lol.

[Toothpaste]

I don't actually think it's that hard to define really. There's always been a clear line to me: if there is an explanation offered, then it's speculative. If there isn't it's magical realism. More importantly if the point of the story has nothing to do with the "magical" elements, that too makes it magical realism.

I know that then brings up a host of clarification questions, but this simple definition is the basis that works for me.

Urban fantasy: in new york, a guy has a friend who is a faery. The reason this guy has a friend who is a faery is that a rift one day opened up in his apartment connecting the faery world with our reality, and she hasn't been able to get home since.

Magical realism: in new york, a guy has a friend who is a faery. This faery is also the head of publicity for the publishing firm he runs.

The latter does not explain why there is a faery in new york, no one in the book questions that there is a faery in new york, and we are more concerned with how the faery does as the head of publicity than her faeryness.

This might not work for everyone, and granted I haven't read every example that you guys have posted where the lines were blurred. But I hope this might have helped somewhat. I wrote a blog post (http://ididntchoosethis.blogspot.com/2007/12/magical-realism.html) about Magical Realism with some more links, though Kitty's are more than adequate . . .if anyone is interested.

[Shweta]

I don't actually think it's that hard to define really. There's always been a clear line to me: if there is an explanation offered, then it's speculative. If there isn't it's magical realism. More importantly if the point of the story has nothing to do with the "magical" elements, that too makes it magical realism.

except that this ends up labelling an awful lot of fantasy "Magical Realism", and I don't think that's helpful. There is... a taste... to MR that isn't going to be easily given necessary and sufficient conditions.

By this definition, War for the Oaks, one of the founding Urban Fantasy titles,is magical realism. So is ... gah, most of the Urban Fantasy I like, which just does not have the same feel to me. Meanwhile, Patricia McKillip's stories, which have much of the dream-feel of MR, would not be (explanation: secondary world).

[Liosse de Velishaf]

I don't actually think it's that hard to define really. There's always been a clear line to me: if there is an explanation offered, then it's speculative. If there isn't it's magical realism. More importantly if the point of the story has nothing to do with the "magical" elements, that too makes it magical realism.

I know that then brings up a host of clarification questions, but this simple definition is the basis that works for me.

Urban fantasy: in new york, a guy has a friend who is a faery. The reason this guy has a friend who is a faery is that a rift one day opened up in his apartment connecting the faery world with our reality, and she hasn't been able to get home since.

Magical realism: in new york, a guy has a friend who is a faery. This faery is also the head of publicity for the publishing firm he runs.

The latter does not explain why there is a faery in new york, no one in the book questions that there is a faery in new york, and we are more concerned with how the faery does as the head of publicity than her faeryness.

This might not work for everyone, and granted I haven't read every example that you guys have posted where the lines were blurred. But I hope this might have helped somewhat. I wrote a blog post (http://ididntchoosethis.blogspot.com/2007/12/magical-realism.html) about Magical Realism with some more links, though Kitty's are more than adequate . . .if anyone is interested.


I think this basically sums it up. Urban fantasy(etc) has this need to explain the elements. Magical Realism doesn't.

[Toothpaste]

except that this ends up labelling an awful lot of fantasy "Magical Realism", and I don't think that's helpful. There is... a taste... to MR that isn't going to be easily given necessary and sufficient conditions.

By this definition, War for the Oaks, one of the founding Urban Fantasy titles,is magical realism. So is ... gah, most of the Urban Fantasy I like, which just does not have the same feel to me. Meanwhile, Patricia McKillip's stories, which have much of the dream-feel of MR, would not be (explanation: secondary world).


Not really. I'm not sure you quite understood my explanation then. I didn't know what that book was about that you mentioned and so I googled it. It looks to me to be a story about faeries in our world, and the battle between their courts. This is quintessential Urban Fantasy, fantastical creatures using our world as a staging ground. Whatever the reason, parallel dimension, alternate reality where fae live amongst us, the fact is there is still a reason given. I bet too that when that girl first meets these fae she's pretty surprised isn't she? Well that is the total opposite reaction from a protagonist of Magical Realism.

Magical Realism supports a world where everything is exactly as it is now, a world where having a fae as a friend ought to be considered odd because this is the normal world, not any of the above suggested settings. But no one considers them odd. I'll also postulate that the "magical" elements of Magical Realism are rarely the point of the plot. We aren't watching an epic battle between werewolves and vampires, we are watching the story of John Smith who's wife just left him and who is trying to figure out if he should quit his job at the bank and travel the world. For advice he turns to his faery buddy who tells him, "Hey I dunno man, can you afford it?" His faery buddy isn't going to help him magically, he isn't going to send him to a magic world, he's just some dude who's his friend.

If there is any explanation offered. Any at all. Even if it comes from the conceit of the novel itself, that is not magical realism.

Think Family Guy. Brian is a dog. He behaves like a dog, he doesn't like the vacuum cleaner and goes to the washroom on the lawn. He also talks. Is an alcoholic. And dates human women. In fact, he has a human son. And no one bats an eyelash. No one comments. We aren't in some parallel world where all animals can talk. We are most distinctly still on our Earth. And yet, Brian is what he is.

Many cartoons actually could be categorised as Magical Realism really. Though there are more serious undertones to the genre, and it isn't meant as a diversion only.

Anyway, I hope this clarifies my explanation somewhat.

ETA: After all this I will add that there are exceptions to every rule of course, but that goes with every genre. I just personally don't see why Magical Realism has to be considered such a difficult genre to define because of that. Why can't we say, "For the most part, this is what it is, but of course there are always exceptions"?

[Shweta]

Not really. I'm not sure you quite understood my explanation then. I didn't know what that book was about that you mentioned and so I googled it. It looks to me to be a story about faeries in our world, and the battle between their courts. This is quintessential Urban Fantasy, fantastical creatures using our world as a staging ground. Whatever the reason, parallel dimension, alternate reality where fae live amongst us, the fact is there is still a reason given.
No. There isn't. It's just not true.

The Seelie and Unseelie Courts are duking it out in Minneapolis. Why Minneapolis? Because that's what's happening. Why do they exist? Because they do. The "explanation" thing is just not valid in a lot of current fantasy. The need to Explain Everything is classic SF, and it's something that a lot of fantasy writers just don't feel the need for. This is a false distinction.

War for the Oaks is not just som book, by the way. To a lot of people it's definitional urban fantasy. (Urban fantasy is like, two different genres by one name, btw -- the fantasy-but-our-world that has its roots in books like War for the Oaks, and the paranormal-romance-or-thriller that got renamed, that has its roots more in adventure/romance books. The two groups have oddly little overlap, the ways they handle character and place are different, and often the second group doesn't know the first ever existed, let alone was there first.)

I bet too that when that girl first meets these fae she's pretty surprised isn't she? Well that is the total opposite reaction from a protagonist of Magical Realism.

This, I think, is a much clearer part of the difference. As it happens, the girl is scared out of her mind, but it's effectively the same thing.

The humans in this-world fantasy follow this world's assumptions, and respond as we would. The humans in secondary-world fantasy follow that world's assumptions, which the reader is clued into, and respond as we would if we grew up in that world.

But I think this goes back to the night-brain thing. In Magical Realism, characters respond as we would in a dream.

[Sharon Mock]

I don't think War for the Oaks is magical realism either, but explaining why means displaying my reasoning, freshly downloaded from pulledoutofmynotcompletelyuninformedbehind.com. :D

One of the things that I think defines magical realism is that the magic is part of its milieu... part of the identity of the place, or of the people who dwell in that place. The magic--the concrete metaphors--are bound to the world. (This is how I justify things like Shoeless Joe and L.A. Story as magical realism, BTW.)

In War for the Oaks, though, the Faerie Courts have nothing to do with Minneapolis. They're just there. And there's no explicit (or even implicit, really) tie between Eddi's heritage and her connection to Faerie. She's just the right person at the right place in the right time.

I do think the previous argument--that War for the Oaks is inherently speculative, it's exploring its speculative element rather than taking it for granted--is also valid. It's just not the argument I've been making in my head.

[Shweta]

I do think the previous argument--that War for the Oaks is inherently speculative, it's exploring its speculative element rather than taking it for granted--is also valid. It's just not the argument I've been making in my head.

Agreed. And I think it's a good test cas of what's not magical realism, because it's a really strong example of urban fantasy.

And I don't think it's about anything as simple as explanation. I think it has to do with deep connections between characters, cultures, and the magic. There is realism in magical realism, which has always seemed to me to be emotional realism.

[MacAllister]

The way it's typically used in a Lit Crit context, because I'm a litcrit geek:

"magic realism" (http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t56.e683) The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. Chris Baldick. Oxford University Press, 2008. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. UC - Los Angeles. 3 March 2009

Most people won't be able to use the URL; it's subscription based.

PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE EXAMPLES GIVEN. Those example texts say more than I ever could about the actual nature of Magical Realism -- of which, YES, South American writers have been an important contingent. But they're hardly the only writers to do it, NOR were they the first writers to do it.


magic realism (magical realism) A kind of modern fiction in which fabulous and fantastical events are included in a narrative that otherwise maintains the ‘reliable’ tone of objective realistic report. The term was once applied to a trend in German fiction of the early 1950s, but is now associated chiefly with certain leading novelists of Central and South America, notably Miguel Ángel Asturias , Alejo Carpentier , and Gabriel García Márquez . The latter's Cien años de soledad (One Hundred Years of Solitude, 1967 ) is often cited as a leading example, celebrated for the moment at which one character unexpectedly ascends to heaven while hanging her washing on a line. The term has also been extended to works from very different cultures, designating a tendency of the modern novel to reach beyond the confines of realism and draw upon the energies of fable , folktale and myth while retaining a strong contemporary social relevance. Thus Günter Grass's Die Blechtrommel (The Tin Drum, 1959 ), Milan Kundera's The Book of Laughter and Forgetting ( 1979 ), and Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children ( 1981 ) have been described as magic realist novels along with Angela Carter's Nights at the Circus ( 1984 ) and Rushdie's The Satanic Verses ( 1988 ). The fantastic attributes given to characters in such novels—levitation, flight, telepathy, telekinesis—are among the means that magic realism adopts in order to encompass the often phantasmagoric political realities of the 20th century. See also fabulation . For a fuller account, consult Maggie Ann Bowers , Magic(al) Realism ( 2004 ).

Bluntly, part of what the conversation about Magical Realism seems to be missing is an understanding of how very political the literary tradition tends to be.

[Shweta]

Bluntly, part of what the conversation about Magical Realism seems to be missing is an understanding of how very political the literary tradition tends to be.

So my knowledge on this front comes down to "Er, I know it's political". Which is why I hadn't gone there :sheepish grin:

Maybe elaborate?

[MacAllister]

In terms of the specifics, if we look at the political situations preceding or surrounding the writers and texts primarily identified as MR, generally we'll see a political climate of turbulence, violence, opposition, suppression, and very real danger -- in many cases, danger to the writer. This is true of the both earlier German movement (primarily Jewish-identified writers, btw) and the somewhat later Latin American writers, as well.

Isabelle Allende (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/isabel_allende/index.html?inline=nyt-per) is a terrific case in point.

So what you have is a level of tension in the text illustrating a very real, political/physical peril -- but simultaneously manage to transcend the physical reality of the situation. Thus, you have a dynamic opposition between personal/political, magical/real, physical/metaphysical, damnation/transcendence. That dynamic, that tension, serves to illustrate a fairly specific kind of experience. Now, that's not to say that the movement cannot grow beyond this stage, but there's definitely a dynamic opposition inherent to Magical Realism (as demonstrated by the name itself.)

Oh dear. I'm not actually sure I explained that very well at all.

[Cranky]

Well, it makes sense, if that helps you at all. :)

I understand what you're saying, and I think it's an interesting part of the history of MR, so to speak. My question then becomes: is it a necessary ingredient to be able to categorize a work as MR?

[Shweta]

That not only makes sense to me but makes a) entire chunks of history and b) a story of mine suddenly make sense!

I now know why I had to take an approach that was closer to magical realist than standard fantasy in my Beastly Bride story, and it's because of real (though personal/cultural rather than political) risk on my part. It didn't allow the distance that "being speculative" gives us.

[MacAllister]

Well, it makes sense, if that helps you at all. :)

I understand what you're saying, and I think it's an interesting part of the history of MR, so to speak. My question then becomes: is it a necessary ingredient to be able to categorize a work as MR?Cranky, I don't know the specifically political aspect necessarily must still be inherent -- but certainly I'd argue that the dynamic opposition between disparate elements, as a narrative method to illustrate some deeper truth or tension regarding the reality the text reflects? Sure. I think that's gotta be present.

[Cranky]

Check. I was wondering about the political aspect, as you guessed (can't believe I left that part of of my reply, sorry for making you try to mind-read, lol). That's what happens when I try to wrap my brain around new concepts at 2:30 in the morning, lol.

Lots of stuff to cogitate on.

[MacAllister]

And with that, I'll take my pedant hat back off.

*g*

[Shweta]

*steals Mac's pedant hat and puts it on the squid*

[Cranky]

That post just screams out for a photoshopped response, Shweta. :roll:

[MacAllister]

I now know why I had to take an approach that was closer to magical realist than standard fantasy in my Beastly Bride story, and it's because of real (though personal/cultural rather than political) risk on my part. It didn't allow the distance that "being speculative" gives us.Yeah - that's it exactly. Cultural risk, in many ways, is very much arguably political crisis, though, you know? Just on a different scale than a military coup or an internment camp.

[Esopha]

Thought:

Most definitions of magic realism I like incorporate both the "needs no explanation" and "nightbrain" definitions. I like to think of it as incorporating magic into the worldbuilding in such a way that it doesn't become magic to the people within the story -- it's "magic" to us but "realism" to them. Yes?

Also, I think that MR lends itself well to political themes and that's why the two coincide so frequently. Because it's a great way to get people to think about their own situations, and a nice metaphor for real life. Like, you get readers who go, "No one could live like this! This is ridic -- oh wait a second..."

I want a pedant hat.

[Shweta]

I want a pedant hat.

You'll have to fight the squid for it.

Also, I like your post :)

[Esopha]

But but but but but. The squid will beat me up!

[Toothpaste]

Actually I did know about the political side Mac, but that wasn't really what we were debating initially. There is also a whole side about country vs city, holding up a simple rural life as the desired existence. In fact there is so much more to Magical Realism than just this small debate about where the line is drawn between it and Urban Fantasy. But at the same time, I think a fair bit of Magical Realism now is also a lot more about that fine line, than the politics. Much like how Steampunk used to be incredibly political and topical, and has now turned into Gaslight Romance.

Shweta - again, I understood that the faeries just existed without perceived explanation, but the fact that their existence is seen as surprising to the MC, and the fact that the story is focused on their tale, suggested to me that this therefore was an alternate reality being established by the author, and that was the reason. But of course I could be wrong as I haven't read it. And I'm sorry I didn't know the book, from the way you talked about it I assumed it was a big deal, I wasn't trying to dismiss it. Should I have pretended to know it? In all honesty I'm not that well read, and I could have ignored it altogether, but I wanted to do some research and do your argument justice and not just pretend you hadn't made it.

I'm sorry too if somehow my posts are offending, I'm sensing a small level of defensiveness to what I've been saying and that can only come from the tone of my posts, and I apologise. Truly I thought I was just entering a discussion, I did not feel any animosity towards anyone. Still I know that my enthusiasm can sometimes come off badly, and I actually am sorry about that. :)

[Mythical Tiger]

I think I get it. Thanks for the thread:tongue.



~Sam

[MacAllister]

There is also a whole side about country vs city, holding up a simple rural life as the desired existence. In fact there is so much more to Magical Realism than just this small debate about where the line is drawn between it and Urban Fantasy. But at the same time, I think a fair bit of Magical Realism now is also a lot more about that fine line, than the politics. Much like how Steampunk used to be incredibly political and topical, and has now turned into Gaslight Romance.
Yes, yes, yes! Exactly -- that inherent opposition, the simultaneous connection and tension between elements so disparate as to be opposites, or nearly so -- and in some measure, examining the mundane through an illustration of the fantastic, illuminating the profane with the sacred, and vice versa.

I'm sorry too if somehow my posts are offending, I'm sensing a small level of defensiveness to what I've been saying and that can only come from the tone of my posts, and I apologise. Truly I thought I was just entering a discussion, I did not feel any animosity towards anyone. Still I know that my enthusiasm can sometimes come off badly, and I actually am sorry about that. :)I don't think your posts are offending, at all. This is just a large part of my own thinking, reading, and writing about specfic has been about for more than twenty years on both a personal and a professional level. :)

[Williebee]

Actually, Mac -- I think you nailed down an important element in the origins of MR re political reality.

And Toothpaste? For my two cents worth, you're saying many of the things about MR that I've been firming up in my head since my first book, which was an MR piece (although I didn't realize it until AFTER the first draft). So, thanks!

[Ruv Draba]

I think of magical realism as the fantastical without whimsy. That's a Treatment (see my post on Treatments vs Subjects (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3352966#post3352966)) and the question is then: what might one usefully do with it?

Clearly, any subject where subjective vs objective are at tension is a candidate for MR treatment, because unwhimsical fantasy is already creating that tension in the reader. So: stories about politics (political narrative vs real actions), psychology (objective vs subjective experience), social outsiderness (personal narrative vs dominant social narrative) are all promising candidates.

And guess what? We find MR treatments for all of these subjects in fiction.

Strictly speaking, I think of MR as distinct from Fantasy (which I think of as being whimsy-driven). The treatments are different and the effective uses are too. Whimsy is great for playing with idealism for instance. MR is much better for sowing seeds of cognitive dissonance and doubt.

[backslashbaby]

I'm enjoying everyone's comments very much!

Yes, yes, yes! Exactly -- that inherent opposition, the simultaneous connection and tension between elements so disparate as to be opposites, or nearly so -- and in some measure, examining the mundane through an illustration of the fantastic, illuminating the profane with the sacred, and vice versa.
The old-man-angel falling to earth and being taken advantage of by the unsurprised, downtrodden, bitter townsfolk. Very much to do with this great quote (and politics), and very little to do with speculation.

In my mind, the political is essential, or the societal is at least. But I'm not as familiar with very new works considered MR. I tend to think along the lines of GGMarquez, then Rushdie...actually Beloved was a wonderful example.

I would have placed Beloved in a different category if the story hadn't been about slavery, btw. If her daughter had died in a carwreck she caused, for example, it becomes something else, I think.

[Team 2012]

It seems to have a lot to do with butterflies.

Seriously, the big clue is in the term itself (whoever coined it). Generally, personally unreal elements manifesting in the "real world".

It wouldn't be at all weird for a girl to suddenly ascend to heaven because of her beauty if she lived at Hogwarts. Or if she lived in New York, but had run into supernatural elements there that created a new shuffle of what the consensual world is all about.

But to do so in our communal, consensual world is magical.

To an extent, the same event would take on different ramifications if presented in certain genres. If it happened in a Heinlein novel it wouldn't be magical realism, would it? It would be science fiction...even if no scientific explanation was given.
(Ray Bradbury, by the way, is a master class magical realist, though he's not discussed as such and considered, for some, reason, to be a scifi writer)
If it happened in something with castles and warlocks on the cover, it would be fantasy.
If there is a shirtless man and bodice-busting girl on the cover it would become romantic and supernatural.

So what is magic realism depends to an extent on the setting and the "lens" we train on it. Which is both magical and realistic.

[Jerry Cornelius]

When I'm being especially cynical, I don't see "magical realism" as anything other than a marketing technique. I'm instantly reminded of attempts to categorise John Crowley and Samuel Delaney as "magical realist" as if to salvage them from the spurious association with straight fantasy.

[badducky]

I've always considered this a technique, not a movement.

Another sister techinque/movement I haven't seen mentioned is "surrealism".

The difficult line to draw is not between SF/F and magical real, but between surrealism and magical realism.

As a political literature, I think it is important to note that the term is utterly American. Garcia-Marquez rejects it, as do many practicioners of the "form". Magical realism is a fancy way for Western literary critics to apologize for elements of myth and whimsy in otherwise "serious" realistic literature, because in "Western" academia we over-emphasize - perhaps even fetishize - realist, everyday, occasionally turgidly self-important prose best represented by Ernest Hemingway, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Chekov, and Tolstoy and others like them.

As the term was invented to separate "serious" literature of the fantastic from fairy tales and adventurist fiction, I find the term hollow and meaningless. Fairy tales and adventurist fictions are quite capable of astonishing literary depth, after all.

I prefer to think of numerous MR scribblers as mere surrealists, including Carpentier and the guy who ran for president of Peru... what was his name... Blah. Mindblank.... I prefer to think of Borges as a Speculative Fictionist. Garcia-Marquez and Gunter Grass are more like Faulkner than any of the other magical realists that supposedly share their artistic medium.

Simply defining a work of art by one writing technique is so limiting as to be laughable. to me, it has far more to do with our academic obsession with exactly one kind of "Great... American... Novel..." than with any actual categorical truth.

[backslashbaby]

See, these sorts of things make me wish I could call my WIP something else. Fantasy? It'll let down most fantasy readers, I'd think; it doesn't have enough to do fantasy justice. It's not straight satire, for sure.

In any case, my only reason for the distinction is to try to connect readers with the work they like. I do read what is considered MR and expect the sorts of things discussed above.

Surrealist work usually doesn't include all of the elements that I enjoy in MR. Fantasy usually doesn't either. It's probably very true that MR could 'really' be something else, but I like knowing I'll find so many of the same elements in one work.

[Kitty Pryde]

Well, this thread was spun off from the general definitions thread because I was asking annoying questions a few months ago. In the interim I have been pondering the heck out of the subject, and have come to figure out my own opinion on it. I have decided that it is an interstitial subgenre, defined by content and style and theme. A book about angels in NYC, for instance, might be urban fantasy, or MR, or horror, depending on the style and the theme. MR fits into a very superficial definition of fantasy, but digging deeper it doesn't really fit in. Containing a fantasy element doesn't really make something fantasy (like, every episode Desperate Housewives is narrated by the ghost of a dead woman. But it's not at all a fantasy work, it's entirely mainstream drama.) MR also fits into a broad definition of literary, but then it kind of sticks out with all its magical whatnots.

I recently read a book that was a science fiction magical realism novel. It wasn't a science fantasy, it wasn't SF With Magic In It (TM), it was a science fiction novel and a magical realism novel. The most interesting thing about it was the way the author integrated the SF worldview (objective, based in scientific laws and probability) with the MR worldview (subjective, spiritual, reality based on intention, the literal power of metaphor). There is a pair of twins in the story that embody this dichotomy, which he uses in a really cool way. For every event that could be explained by either the power of magic or the power of science, the author (or characters) explain it as both. So the dissonance between those two ideals is a major theme. So is rural life versus evil corporations, and mankind versus nature, and individual passions versus group needs.

To me, MR isn't anything like urban fantasy. Except that it is a subgenre with its own style and conventions, just as UF is a subgenre with its own style and conventions. And that's what I think.

PS The book is 'Desolation Road' by Ian McDonald, and you should read it.

[badducky]

The reason, by the way, that MR is nothing like Urban Fantasy, has more to do with the dilineation between Adventure Fiction and Literary Fiction.

I hate using the term "Literary", but at the moment, it's the only term I know to use to distiinguish the two, though the unintended implication of quality granted by the term "literary" is incorrect and certainly not intended.

[Shweta]

When I'm being especially cynical, I don't see "magical realism" as anything other than a marketing technique. I'm instantly reminded of attempts to categorise John Crowley and Samuel Delaney as "magical realist" as if to salvage them from the spurious association with straight fantasy.

Many things are nabbed by marketing departments in this way, but that doesn't make them only that. Yes, sure, there's a marketing technique of using magical realism. That doesn't restrict magical realism itself, however, and the side that isn't marketing is a lot more relevant to us :)



Toothpaste -- my only issue with your definition was that it risks restricting Urban Fantasy to The Genre That Is No Longer Called Paranormal-Romance, which is a limitation I object to hugely on principle. So if my annoyance was coming through, apologies -- it was not with anything you're actually saying about MR, but with the crowds of people who seem not to know that Urban Fantasy existed before Paranormal Romance got renamed, and it was a label for different and interesting work :)

I really like this conversation, overall, I just think we need to be careful anytime we say "Well it's not just X, because X is limited in these ways", not to undersell X.

On the same topic, badducky, I think you're underselling fantasy and science fiction by placing restrictions on them that don't always apply :)
I'd agree your definitions work -- most of the time. But - for example - I'd have a lot of trouble seeing Butler's Kindred as adventurist, though it's clearly fantasy. I'd have a lot of trouble seeing Delaney as adventurist, too, or Karen Joy Fowler, or many of the Tiptree winners. Both SF and fantasy do cross the pulp/lit line, (IMO especially at the short fiction level, but also in long form).

[badducky]

Ah, Shweta, but the application of the technique of fantasy or science fiction does not require adventurist prose.

Marketing distinctions in bookstores and academic distinctions for useful debate are not equal entities.

[Sharon Mock]

I've split off the discussion of fantasy as technique into its own thread, as it deserves. (Which is not meant to be an Insult Concealed.) Copied some posts, moved others... there may be more shuffling later.

I don't have a whole lot of time for much more than a post-and-run, unfortunately. But I will say that I think magical realism is a subgenre of surrealism, much like, say, Mundane SF is a subtype of science fiction. So I think trying to figure out what makes magical realism different from surrealism isn't going to get very far. What sets it apart from other forms of surrealism is a better question to ask.

Does that make any sense at all?

[Shweta]

I've split off the discussion of fantasy as technique into its own thread, as it deserves. (Which is not meant to be an Insult Concealed.) Copied some posts, moved others... there may be more shuffling later.

Because, after all, why should the Interstices forum be limited to linear ordering? :D

I don't have a whole lot of time for much more than a post-and-run, unfortunately. But I will say that I think magical realism is a subgenre of surrealism, much like, say, Mundane SF is a subtype of science fiction. So I think trying to figure out what makes magical realism different from surrealism isn't going to get very far. What sets it apart from other forms of surrealism is a better question to ask.

Does that make any sense at all?

Makes sense to me! I don't know the surrealism category (in anything other than visual arts) enough to know if I agree, but it sounds good.

Since my response to this got moved, I want to do one quick repeat/rehash:

Ah, Shweta, but the application of the technique of fantasy or science fiction does not require adventurist prose.

Marketing distinctions in bookstores and academic distinctions for useful debate are not equal entities.

I'd say the adventurist/literary distinction is actually closer to a marketing category and further from a useful writer category for me than the fantasy/sf categories I was talking about.

What I was trying to say is that fantasy/sf, as writing categories/genres/conversations distinct from interstitial arts/slipstream/squidpunk, can use the same techniques/rhetoric/tropes in adventurist or literary prose, and that readers can still consider it sf/f.

It also does not necessarily affect marketing so much. I'd say you could draw a strong literary/adventurist line to demarkate the marketing genre... oh, back when Le Guin wrote The Left Hand of Darkness. That's what's going on with this rejection letter.
(http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Reject.html)
Since then, she and others have blown that boundary wiiide open, to readers and editors alike. At this point "literary" fiction might be less central to the wriitng category, but is still there.

[Karen Duvall]

I think of magical realism as literary because of the lyricism and character-focus of the stories. I never considered politics in the mix. My favorite magical realism author is Alice Hoffman. Her Practical Magic is stunning, as is Fortune's Daughter and Turtle Moon. Margaret Atwood's amazing Robber Bride is also filled with magical realism that's dark and mysterious. Another favorite of mine is Like Water for Chocolate by Laura Esquivel.

[katiemac]

My goodness I have needed you people. And you've been right here this whole time.

[MMcQuown]

I think my head hurts -- if it's really my head, and not a bell jar. By the above described definitions, would Dennis Wheatley's novels be considered MR? His settings are contemporary, his characters completely modern, but they are opposing people who routinely use magick to get what they want, and end up invoking the Devil himself on Salisbury Plain. By any of the definitions offered, absent the political element, most horror stories would fall into this category.

[Cranky]

Without reading them, I'd say that sounds more like urban fantasy than magical realism.

[Kitty Pryde]

I think my head hurts -- if it's really my head, and not a bell jar. By the above described definitions, would Dennis Wheatley's novels be considered MR? His settings are contemporary, his characters completely modern, but they are opposing people who routinely use magick to get what they want, and end up invoking the Devil himself on Salisbury Plain. By any of the definitions offered, absent the political element, most horror stories would fall into this category.

Using 'magick' and invoking the devil implies a system of magic, which is a pretty good sign that it's not magical realism IMO. In magical realism the magic is just there, and nobody calls attention to it with conjuring or summoning magical forces and whatnot.

Most horror isn't MR because there's a system in place and people spend time talking about it/explaining it/figuring it out (or at least the narrator does). Like, Freddy Krueger comes in your dreams and kills you! But if you stay awake, you're fine. But you can't stay awake forever (poor poor Johnny Depp). Why does Freddy live in your nightmares? Well. His mother was a nun who was raped by a hundred insane criminals, thus making him evil. Then he became a regular old child murderer, until he was killed by the townspeople. That's why he's evil undead. But, by a convenient caveat, if you drag him to the real world, you can kill him. There's a whole system of strengths and weaknesses and explanations and systems for everything surrounding him...and that's why horror isn't MR. I think.

[MMcQuown]

Using 'magick' and invoking the devil implies a system of magic, which is a pretty good sign that it's not magical realism IMO. In magical realism the magic is just there, and nobody calls attention to it with conjuring or summoning magical forces and whatnot.

Most horror isn't MR because there's a system in place and people spend time talking about it/explaining it/figuring it out (or at least the narrator does). Like, Freddy Krueger comes in your dreams and kills you! But if you stay awake, you're fine. But you can't stay awake forever (poor poor Johnny Depp). Why does Freddy live in your nightmares? Well. His mother was a nun who was raped by a hundred insane criminals, thus making him evil. Then he became a regular old child murderer, until he was killed by the townspeople. That's why he's evil undead. But, by a convenient caveat, if you drag him to the real world, you can kill him. There's a whole system of strengths and weaknesses and explanations and systems for everything surrounding him...and that's why horror isn't MR. I think.
Oooookaaayy! A think is as good as a mile. This seems to be a lot like the blind men examining the elephant, but at least it does make people think.

[wrinkles]

I’m another of those whose writing started out with elements of magical realism before I actually had heard of the term. It’s just the way my thought processes worked. I remember way, way, way, back in college in freshman English, we read The Metamorphosis. The professor, in a voice that suggested she had asked this question many times before, asked the class if anyone believed Gregor had actually turned into a bug. I was one of the few that raised my hand in the affirmative.

Now even though I wasn’t very well-read or well-educated at the time, I did understand that the story could be read, and would be read by most, as a metaphor of a man who loses, or gives up, what differentiates humans from lower life forms. But to me, it read as a man who physically transforms, or was transformed, into a bug.

As the debate raged, I pretty much stayed out of it, except to say a few times, “I really don’t think it matters. Isn’t that really the point?” But no one paid attention.

And I still think that’s really the point of magical realism. It really doesn’t matter. Both interpretations are valid. One just as valid as the other. They are yes or no, black or white, on or off, yin or yang, positive or negative. Two distinct states of being, but one not better or even preferable to the other.

A long time ago, it was probably taken for granted that some women could make men fall in love with them through the power, or magic, of their cooking. Later, this was pooh-poohed as superstitious nonsense. A man conceivably could fall in love with a woman after a great meal, but there was no causal relationship there. And now? Is such a thing possible? Could it be that love is such a complex state of being and we are so ignorant of its real origins, or more accurately it is so complex that we can never understand its origins, that such a thing could very well happen?

And that to me is magical realism. The acknowledgement of the limits of our ability to understand how the world works, leading to the acknowledgement of the validity of alternative relationships and unproven, and probably unprovable, connections. None of which are more valid than any other.

[Ruv Draba]

MR isn't saying 'there are more things in heaven and earth' because its whimsy is localised and unexplored, while fantasy either generalises its whimsy or dives into it. Wheately does the latter -- he's a straight, turn-over-a-rock horror writer.

The magic in MR isn't whimsy so much as hyperbole. We're not drawn to it because it's wonderful; we accept it because it's a natural extension of character. You could curb it to mundane levels and other than aesthetically the story would be unchanged.

[Regan Leigh]

I'm glad I saw this thread pop up! I was at a loss for explaining my WIP a few months ago. After doing some research, I finally realized I had a Magic Realism piece.

BUT after reading this thread...well, I'm confused again. LOL Oh, well. I'll just keep writing and let someone else tell me what it is later!

[backslashbaby]

Awesome, awesome new posts on this! I agree with every one of you.

Wrinkles, I'm totally begging you to read my WIP when it's done.

If anyone wants to pitch in some thoughts on what would happen to MR if a strong dose of satire were thrown in, please do if it's not too off-topic. That's my WIP.

I could see the satire in Marquez, clearly. But mine's a bit more like Catch-22 with ghouls. I don't know if I've morphed it right out of MR because of that.

-- I'm confident the magic in mine is MR, btw. Don't let the 'ghouls' part throw you off :) I'll explain if anyone is interested.

[wrinkles]

Backslashbaby - MR combined with a good dose of satire sounds like a recipe for a hit. Now I'm not an expert on satire by any means. I don't write it. Creating some form of reality is hard enough for me without trying to transcend it. But I did like Catch 22 and Little Big Man is one of my favorite movies. Do they combine elements of both?

[backslashbaby]

Oooh, Little Big Man is new to me! Awesome.

I read satire like Voltaire and those wonderful old essays of the day. And Swift. Then Heller. I grew up on MASH ;)

Then Marquez and Allende, etc. got me into MR.

There are obvious political critiques/satire in MR, but I haven't read any that are meant to be funny through and through [Or are they?]

I think Ruv's quote: "The magic in MR isn't whimsy so much as hyperbole" is how my mind combined the two so heavily. Or Swift's tales, maybe.

In any case, glad to hear you think the idea is a winner! Me, too :D I don't know which to call it, so I call it MR Satire for now :)

[MMcQuown]

I'm glad I saw this thread pop up! I was at a loss for explaining my WIP a few months ago. After doing some research, I finally realized I had a Magic Realism piece.

BUT after reading this thread...well, I'm confused again. LOL Oh, well. I'll just keep writing and let someone else tell me what it is later!

To paraphrase an infamous quotation: "Write them all -- the Publisher will know his own."

[Joanna]

Is Ben Okri's The Famished Road Magical Realism or Surrealist writing? The content is incredibly political without being politicised. And incidentally, is there possibly a distinct subset of magical realism characterised by the story unfolding through the eyes of a child, or at least, as in The Tin Drum a character who seems infantile to all around them.

[backslashbaby]

Is Ben Okri's The Famished Road Magical Realism or Surrealist writing? The content is incredibly political without being politicised. And incidentally, is there possibly a distinct subset of magical realism characterised by the story unfolding through the eyes of a child, or at least, as in The Tin Drum a character who seems infantile to all around them.

I would say that Okri's work would be the most perfect example of MR if it didn't get so surreal ;) Seriously, I think it's both. It gets kind of waaaay out there for a bit long compared to the usual 'realism' in MR, but too many elements are perfect MR to say it's not. It's perfect :)

I like the idea of a child-magic subset of MR, but I have a hard time telling if anyone is agreeing on subsets. On one hand, there are great dissertations and academic essays on MR that I've read, and on the other folks still argue whether it even exists as a genre ;)

[Layla Nahar]

hmm - wouldn't shows like Bewitched, The Flying Nun, & The Ghost and Mrs Muir &c count as magical realism?

I've always wondered what magical realism actually is - I think I've read very few magical realism books. But, looking at this thread, it *seems* to me that the real distinguishing factor is that MR is void of the world-building excercise. Thus the 'realism'. Its this world, this plane. Just happens to be something else here.

[backslashbaby]

Its this world, this plane. Just happens to be something else here.
__________________


That sounds spot-on to me :) There are elements of anti-colonialism and social/political things that used to mark it much more, imho, but that might be going away from what I'm gathering with newer MR.

Okri, for example, is speaking with a such an African voice, using African folklore but not questioning it, that I say 'Aha! MR!'

Other examples that are less folkloric + political stump me more.

[Joanna]

Thanks for the response, I agree about the subsets/genre probs, as it is a category defined by individualism, writers aren't following the supposed rules for adult fiction set in our world. I have to disagree about Okri, but glad you are a fan :) The surrealism you encounter in The Famished Road all dovetails into the culture specific worldview of its African characters, (spirits, totemic personalities, fetishes, sympathetic magic) and doesn't to my recollection draw on the alien, random, incongruous or absurd elements which I associate with the surreal. I know the dream-like sequences could be percieved as surreal in affect, but not I feel in their content. They are more reminiscent of perceptive shifts, neurological or epileptic fugues that are our cultures way of explaining the spiritual experiences in indigenous cultures, like possession.
Is altered consciousness always synonymous with the surreal?
What do you make of the link between violence and surrealism, and is there as much MR depicted violence?

sorry to throw the dissertation at you, I should warn you to duck next time.:scared:

[blacbird]

Much like "minimalism", which is indelibly linked with Raymond Carver, "magic realism" is a term more-or-less coined to describe the fiction of Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Beyond that, I don't consider it a very useful box in which to stuff anyone else's fiction.

caw

[backslashbaby]

Thanks for the response, I agree about the subsets/genre probs, as it is a category defined by individualism, writers aren't following the supposed rules for adult fiction set in our world. I have to disagree about Okri, but glad you are a fan :) The surrealism you encounter in The Famished Road all dovetails into the culture specific worldview of its African characters, (spirits, totemic personalities, fetishes, sympathetic magic) and doesn't to my recollection draw on the alien, random, incongruous or absurd elements which I associate with the surreal. I know the dream-like sequences could be percieved as surreal in affect, but not I feel in their content. They are more reminiscent of perceptive shifts, neurological or epileptic fugues that are our cultures way of explaining the spiritual experiences in indigenous cultures, like possession.
Is altered consciousness always synonymous with the surreal?


What do you make of the link between violence and surrealism, and is there as much MR depicted violence?

sorry to throw the dissertation at you, I should warn you to duck next time.:scared:

No, I love this kind of discussion! I'm better at reading about it, mind you. I think you have a great point above about the surrealism. I don;t know nearly enough about what constitutes surrealism, actually. I do think the 'magic' in MR - the 'surreal' elements - has specifically themed meanings even if it appears absurd to the reader.

I found a great quote:


Borges never particularly objected to the term[magical realist], but Cortazar, the author of the short story "Blow Up," which was made into a beautiful film by Michelangelo Antonioni, screamed. What Anglophone critics failed to acknowledge, Cortazar said, was that the "magical" elements of his stories were not magical but rather were political. In one of Cortazar’s stories, "Bestiary," there is a tiger roaming through the house. North American critics said, How marvelous! How magical! and sought psychological interpretations. As Cortazar pointed out, his story was (almost) literally accurate: the secret police of the junta lurked in everyone’s homes because dime-dropping informers, in Argentina at that time, were a dime a dozen. But Anglophones, particularly Americans, prefer to erase unpleasant truths in favor of a fairy-tale fantasy, and this, said Cortazar, is the continuation of colonialism by other means.

http://www.curledup.com/brodiesr.htm

That also ties nicely into the violence question. I don't know about violence and surrealism actually (I'd love to hear about it), but MR explores so much violence that it's important to note that the magic is very often about real-life atrocities. In MR, the magic never saves them from the violence or despair, btw. At best it just raises different choices for the poor characters. The most commonly-known example I can think of is Beloved.

But for the traditional South American kind, check out this article:

http://www.maximsnews.com/biosilvanapaternostro.htm


I would like to thank Gregory, Kara and Susanna for inviting me to come to Los Angeles and talk to you about Colombia, the country of my birth, a country that has been at war for at least the last 40 years, the country that I left when I was 15, and the country where my family still lives. We all know of Colombia as the birthplace of Garcia Marquez and magical realism. Well, I was born right there in the land of what literature critics like to call magical realism. But on the north coast of Colombia where I was born, sometimes things happen that can be as absurd as the events that unfold in his novels in which bullets turn corners and women levitate.

I grew up believing that if I swam in the ocean on Good Friday I would turn into a fish. My nanny, a young woman from the countryside, said it with such belief—that who was I to test the waters?

Magical realism is perfectly suited to a country like Colombia, where the truth is often so terrible and unspeakable that it needs to be told as if it were a fantasy. In fact, much of what you read in Garcia Marquez’ books is something that has happened or he has heard has happened. Marquez said that to write magical realism one has to become a journalist in Colombia. Garcia Marquez, a journalist before he was a novelist, transcribes Colombia's daily life.


Yet although these stories are the basis for beautiful literature, life in Colombia is not quite as beautiful. In the first sentence of Chronicle of A Death Foretold, Santiago Nassar is told his killers are looking for him—they had told everyone that they were going to kill him. In fact something quite similar happened to a distant member of my family....



I forget who said it, but I always loved the quote: "the sacred and the profane are part of the same ooze." That feels very MR to me :)

I'm going to squeeze in one quote from Rushdie that explains a bit about his thoughts on MR, mostly in response to Blacbird's comments. I know very many people don't recognize MR as a genre that is real and can grow, but there is something there, I think [obviously ;)].


"El realismo magical, magical realism, at least as practiced by Marquez, is a development out of Surrealism that expresses a genuinely 'Third World' consciousness. It deals with what Naipul has called 'half-made' societies, in which the impossibly old struggles against the appallingly new."


That's enough for now. Sorry about the rambling manner!

[SarahMacManus]

I think identifying the difference between fantasy and mr as similar to that between adventure fiction and literary fiction is pretty spot on.

Good recent example is Neil Gaiman's American Gods, although there is an "adventure", the real plot is Shadow dealing with his wife's betrayal and finding his backbone.

[Joanna]

Thanks ever so much for thse qouotes \baby

[NewKidOldKid]

I don't think anybody can't beat Julio Cortazar when it comes to magical realism. His book Hopscotch is simply a masterpiece but he also has a lot of other, less-known books, that are equally amazing.

[finnisempty]

Interesting thread. I have a better understanding of magical realism.

[Bushdoctor]

I don't think anybody can't beat Julio Cortazar when it comes to magical realism. His book Hopscotch is simply a masterpiece but he also has a lot of other, less-known books, that are equally amazing.

I have to say Salman Rushdie is the king of this genre

[finnisempty]

I'm surprised no one mentioned The Obscene Bird of Night by Jose Donoso. He's my intro to this ever elusive genre and a outstanding one.

[wysewomon]

I've always felt that if you're a white American guy, then it's probably fantasy. If you're brown, a woman or from another country, then it's Magical Realism. ;)

Of course, that still doesn't account for Emma Bull.

WW

[Kitty Pryde]

I've always felt that if you're a white American guy, then it's probably fantasy. If you're brown, a woman or from another country, then it's Magical Realism. ;)

Of course, that still doesn't account for Emma Bull.

WW

So no brown people or women or not-Americans write fantasy? That would be shocking news to an awful lot of us. I'm going to go ahead and call shenanigans.

[wysewomon]

So no brown people or women or not-Americans write fantasy? That would be shocking news to an awful lot of us. I'm going to go ahead and call shenanigans.


Oops, that didn't come out quite the way I meant it. Well, it was four in the morning...

WW

[Liosse de Velishaf]

Oops, that didn't come out quite the way I meant it. Well, it was four in the morning...

WW


That's no excuse! lol


There's certainly a correlation between certain demographics and Magical Realism, which is often strictly defined as a certain subset of works by hispanic/latino authors, but it's more of a cultural rather than racial issue.

[maxmordon]

I've always felt that if you're a white American guy, then it's probably fantasy. If you're brown, a woman or from another country, then it's Magical Realism. ;)

WW

Heh, I am not brown but technically ethnic, does that count? :P

[the_Unknown]

'Magical Realism' has been around in folk tales and gossip since forever. The whole 'brown people' thing is that folk tales went out of style a long time ago in Western Civilization. Every now and then there is something of a revival though.

The problem with Magical Realism is that it gives your story more of a tall-tale/gossipy feel. I think it starts to get old fast (like Shyamalan movies). In my mind it is the opposite of explaining everything in your story, but neither extreme is best for fiction.

[Kitty Pryde]

'Magical Realism' has been around in folk tales and gossip since forever. The whole 'brown people' thing is that folk tales went out of style a long time ago in Western Civilization. Every now and then there is something of a revival though.

The problem with Magical Realism is that it gives your story more of a tall-tale/gossipy feel. I think it starts to get old fast (like Shyamalan movies). In my mind it is the opposite of explaining everything in your story, but neither extreme is best for fiction.

-Magical realism is not the same as a folk tale.
-I don't really understand the assumption that 'brown people' and 'Western Civilization' are mutually exclusive.
-Folk tales are alive and well in 'Western Civilization'. Have you ever heard of an urban legend?
-Magic realism is not really tall tale like or gossipy.

[backslashbaby]

Originally Posted by the_Unknown http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4648235#post4648235)
'Magical Realism' has been around in folk tales and gossip since forever. The whole 'brown people' thing is that folk tales went out of style a long time ago in Western Civilization. Every now and then there is something of a revival though.

The problem with Magical Realism is that it gives your story more of a tall-tale/gossipy feel. I think it starts to get old fast (like Shyamalan movies). In my mind it is the opposite of explaining everything in your story, but neither extreme is best for fiction.

-Magical realism is not the same as a folk tale.
-I don't really understand the assumption that 'brown people' and 'Western Civilization' are mutually exclusive.
-Folk tales are alive and well in 'Western Civilization'. Have you ever heard of an urban legend?
-Magic realism is not really tall tale like or gossipy.

I have to agree with TU more on this, actually. MR is [most?] often from the folk tales of the region, or it uses the same elements and suspension of disbelief that the local folk tales do.

The colonized West (etc) really does have more magic than the Colonial West.

I agree that folk tales are still somewhat alive in the West :)

I think MR is often very tall-tale like. It's the sort of thing where narrative exaggeration meets a culture that already believes in a little magic, imho.

When your grandfather tells a story about a river turning to blood, as a child you straight-out believe it; and as an adult you know it's more of a tall tale. But you also know that something magical quite possibly happened :)

[kuwisdelu]

'Magical Realism' has been around in folk tales and gossip since forever. The whole 'brown people' thing is that folk tales went out of style a long time ago in Western Civilization. Every now and then there is something of a revival though.

The problem with Magical Realism is that it gives your story more of a tall-tale/gossipy feel. I think it starts to get old fast (like Shyamalan movies). In my mind it is the opposite of explaining everything in your story, but neither extreme is best for fiction.

:Headbang:

No.

[the_Unknown]

-Magical realism is not the same as a folk tale.
-I don't really understand the assumption that 'brown people' and 'Western Civilization' are mutually exclusive.
-Folk tales are alive and well in 'Western Civilization'. Have you ever heard of an urban legend?
-Magic realism is not really tall tale like or gossipy.

1) No one said this. You assumed so because you did not comprehend?

2) Yes because whenever I open a book on Western Civilization I'm reading mostly about 'brown people' and their achievements. BTW, did you know that books on plumbing and computers are 'not mutually exclusive'? I just thought I'd inform you.

3) Right because all of the biggest stories are urban myths. Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean, Star Wars, Titanic, Twilight, Back to the Future, and of course my favorite, WW2.

4) Have you read any 'Magical Realism'? Have you read any tall tales or legends?

Let's review:
"If you can explain it, then it's not 'magical realism'."
- Mexican critic, Luis Leal

Tall Tale:

"Bunyan's birth was strange, as it took three storks to carry the infant (ordinarily, one stork could carry several babies and drop them off at their parents' homes)."

Magical Realism:

"Úrsula Iguarán's uncle was born with a pig's tail."

Tall Tale:

"Paul and Babe the Blue Ox, dug the Grand Canyon when he dragged his axe behind him."

Magical Realism:

"Colombia's economy shrinks and grows with Aureliano Segundo's belly."

Tall Tale:

"When Bunyan was old enough to clap and laugh, the vibration broke every window in the house."

Magical Realism:

"As soon as Aureliano Buendía learned to speak, everything he said came true."

And it goes on and on...

:Headbang:

No.

What a carefully crafted post. Just another marvel of the 7+ thousand of them, right?

[Regan Leigh]

:popcorn:

[backslashbaby]

:Headbang:

No.

Lol; I have the best article on this debate somewhere, but I didn't feel like searching for ages. I think you convinced me that my instincts were right ;) :)

I really would like to hear what's so 'no' about it.

I think he/she's right! :) There are examples that don't sound folksy or tall-tale like, of course, but I think the Latino MRs and Gunter Grass and the African MRs always remind me of them.

[Shadow_Ferret]

*gets a headache trying to figure out what magic realism is*

Why must we splinter genres so!

[backslashbaby]

*gets a headache trying to figure out what magic realism is*

Why must we splinter genres so!

:) I think it's easier to see if you just read a lot of it (or watch certain movies, actually). It's almost a flavor. And how do you describe a flavor?

I do think it's pretty distinct, but it reminds me of stories my mom's family and my Guatamalen teacher told when I was young, and I miss it. (There is a political edge very, very often that wasn't in those stories -- not actual regimes. But you knew why my Native American grandfather always wore a knife, you know?)

[That said, I don't know if my WIP is MR any more. I can't decide if the magic is too matter-of-fact (how, in MR?) or not matter-of-fact enough. But something is off. Oh, well... new genre, lol :)]

[badducky]

At the rsik of imploding the fabric of spacetime, I agree with ShadowFerret.

[kuwisdelu]

The simplest way I can think of to put the difference is that in "tall tales" the tallness/magic/exaggerated elements are essentially the story. In magical realism, the magical elements are more or less used as a narrative technique to further the real story.

[backslashbaby]

The simplest way I can think of to put the difference is that in "tall tales" the tallness/magic/exaggerated elements are essentially the story. In magical realism, the magical elements are more or less used as a narrative technique to further the real story.

Well, that is very true, yes, imho. Some crucial plot events are often shown with the exaggeration, but nobody is supposed to be impressed by the amazing aspects because they are amazing.

The story still isn't about this amazing magical person because he's magical, exactly. Everyone could know somebody like that is the feeling I get. True.

[kuwisdelu]

Well, that is very true, yes, imho. Some crucial plot events are often shown with the exaggeration, but nobody is supposed to be impressed by the amazing aspects because they are amazing.

The story still isn't about this amazing magical person because he's magical, exactly. Everyone could know somebody like that is the feeling I get. True.

Yep.

If someone tells a big fish story, the story is about the big fish and how big it is. Without the fish being so big, the story wouldn't matter at all, and no one would care.

If Hemingway had described the fish in The Old Man and the Sea as slowly growing into the size of a whale, it would still be the same story, though, because it's about more than just the fish.

[lcastle]

I posted an interview today with Jennifer Cervantes (Tortilla Sun) and her agent, Laurie McLean (of Larsen Pomada Ligterary Agents), on the topic "Is Magical Realism Fantasy?" The blog is geared toward writers and readers of YA & MG fantasy.

http://community.livejournal.com/enchantedinkpot/46866.html

[backslashbaby]

Thank you! Tortilla Sun sounds very interesting, and I'm enjoying the discussion very much.

I don't have $80 to plunk down on an authoritative text about the ordinary in MR, but that is a specific subject that interests me terribly nowadays, and I've been studying. Yes, the ordinary is what's more strange (ice, for instance) in MR. Magic is practically boring :)

That's a huge theme in my WIP, so I love any discussion of it :) ;)

xxxxxx on February 24th, 2010 07:21 pm (UTC)
Re: Magic realisim

"I read or heard, that in magic realism the surreal magical elements are portrayed as a normal part of life, and the normal events in life are the unexpected bizarre elements."

I think this is one of the best definitions I've heard yet! I'm going to run it by my mother-in-law, who's a professor of Latin American literature and has made many failed attempts to explain magic realism to me in the past...

http://community.livejournal.com/enchantedinkpot/46866.html

[kuwisdelu]

One of my personal definitions of magical realism is a story where the difference between metaphor and reality breaks down.

[Dawnstorm]

For example, in Tortilla Sun, the wind whispers to Izzy (to her it is startling since she is not a member of the village) but to the villagers, it is an acceptable element in their world and as normal as the tree swaying in the wind.

To her it is startling, see?

The villagers have no need for magical realism. It's just real.

A scientist would call it fantasy.

But Izzy may have to live in both worlds and construct a single biography for herself.

It's very often about identity. The coming-home motif isn't rare. There are often main characters who struggle to live in a world where different people try to define what's real, and the main characters often struggle against the need to take sides. Not respect enough for the elders, and distrustful of lunatic asylums.

I tend to think that the basic principle of magic realism is that - however we determine what's real - we all storify our lives.

Is magical realism fantasy? No, but the terms aren't mutually exclusive. What happens a lot in non-MR fantasy is the "instrumentalisation" of magic. A bit like technology, but minus the mass production. Magic is often the playground of power. Who casts the more powerful spell? What God comes out victorious? How do we slay vampires?

Magic Realism tends to treat the magical elements as unique instead. Rather than an instrument to achieve an end, or an element that hinders or helps you, it's an aspect of the world to deal with. It is a miracle. It is unsual. But that it is unusual is quite normal. Or differently put: you don't expect miracles to grow on miracle trees (which you can plant), but you do expect to encounter one or two, occasionally. And don't you miss them.

I think what MR needs most is nice word for half-breed, mongrel, bastard. ;)

[MMcQuown]

After reading all that has been discussed, I am left with the feeling that MR parallels the art movement known as Surrealism. Things are simply presented as a given, to be taken for what they are and internalised for what they mean to the perceiver.

[backslashbaby]

After reading all that has been discussed, I am left with the feeling that MR parallels the art movement known as Surrealism. Things are simply presented as a given, to be taken for what they are and internalised for what they mean to the perceiver.

Surrealism is the one I find hard to separate from MR; I agree. Of course, if it's entirely surreal there isn't the 'realism' part of MR, so that's easy.

But if something has surreal elements, I think that's hard. It might need themes of the Other, or identity, to be MR, I think. Or maybe culture/society in a more general way.

[juniper]

Just stumbled upon this thread and wow, it's rocked my world. Made my head hurt some. Has definitely made me think. I'll be looking for some of the novels mentioned.

How nice to find people who discuss literature. So glad I was directed to AW.

[LordMoogi]

See, the problem I have with Magic Realism is that the definitions for the term seem to me to be quite subjective. I've seen every MR trope mentioned in this thread used in stories that are marketed as normal fantasy. And this passage irks me, since I've read a lot of 'fantasy' works that do exactly as it states:

It's possible to read magical realism as fantasy, just as it's possible to dismiss people who believe in witches as primitives or fools. But the literature at its best invites the reader to compassionately experience the world as many of our fellow human beings see it.

And I've read MR in the fashion described, and I still see it as fantasy. Go figure.

So, how, if you don't mind me asking, does MR count as a separate genre from fantasy? I can understand thinking of MR as a form of fantasy, but I fail to see a justification for viewing it as a separate variety of storytelling in its own right.

I admit to being heavily biased against the genre, as my first experience with it was from reading extremely snobby and condescending comments from a critic comparing it to 'normal' fantasy (For me, nothing makes an artist or critic lose respect faster than being a snob.). This left a very sour taste in my mouth, and I've since been predisposed to think of MR as 'fantasy for people who don't like fantasy'. Much of my experience with MR fans since then has been fairly negative as well, with many of them launching into self-righteous rants about how 'fantasy has no literary merit' and so forth.

But I want to change my opinion on the genre, which is why I'm asking you guys, who I have seen thus far to be civil and not condescending, to weigh in on this. I doubt I'll become a fan of Magic Realism, but I'd like to at least have a better perspective on it.

[Regan Leigh]

See, the problem I have with Magic Realism is that the definitions for the term seem to me to be quite subjective. I've seen every MR trope mentioned in this thread used in stories that are marketed as normal fantasy. And this passage irks me, since I've read a lot of 'fantasy' works that do exactly as it states:



And I've read MR in the fashion described, and I still see it as fantasy. Go figure.

So, how, if you don't mind me asking, does MR count as a separate genre from fantasy? I can understand thinking of MR as a form of fantasy, but I fail to see a justification for viewing it as a separate variety of storytelling in its own right.

I admit to being heavily biased against the genre, as my first experience with it was from reading extremely snobby and condescending comments from a critic comparing it to 'normal' fantasy (For me, nothing makes an artist or critic lose respect faster than being a snob.). This left a very sour taste in my mouth, and I've since been predisposed to think of MR as 'fantasy for people who don't like fantasy'. Much of my experience with MR fans since then has been fairly negative as well, with many of them launching into self-righteous rants about how 'fantasy has no literary merit' and so forth.

But I want to change my opinion on the genre, which is why I'm asking you guys, who I have seen thus far to be civil and not condescending, to weigh in on this. I doubt I'll become a fan of Magic Realism, but I'd like to at least have a better perspective on it.


It's been a while since I read this thread, and maybe I should skim it again. But one rule I've kept in my head is that magic realism does not usually create it's own world. It has magical elements that are weaved into a normal setting and these elements just are... not explained and not questioned. Usually. I think.

:D I'm very interested in magic realism, but I don't have a good grasp on it myself. Hopefully the more knowledgeable can break it down better. But I think we both would benefit from a re-read of this thread. :)

[backslashbaby]

That's usually pretty key, Regan.

It is different from fantasy, I think, but is it a subset of fantasy? I'd say sure.

I could see it either way, actually, because of the reasons for the fantastic being included; you could say the difference in motivation makes them quite different.

But they both share fantastic elements, so grouping them is cool, too, as far as I'm concerned.

[MMcQuown]

From all the posts so far, it would seem that MR, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder. Most things in life are to some degree subjective, and even hard fact is often subject to interpretation. As a culture, we have this compelling need to categorize things, to put them into neat little boxes. As writers, one of the things we need to do is shake things out of those little boxes. Any kind of fantasy hinges on breaking down the line between the subjective and the objective, and it is inherent in a lot of drama. A case in point is 'Bones,' where Brennan's insistence on trying to see everything from an objective scientific viewpoint always clashes with Booth and Angela's subjective response to human interaction. Both the drama and the humor arise from this juxtaposition. Brennan in the novels is a very different, more socially integrated character, but also a recovering alcoholic. Since Reich is also a series producer, I assume she is OK with the offset in the character. A bit of fun, actually, to have the opportunity to explore her own work in a different light. Anyway -- my point was that it is nearly impossible to create a hard definition for MR, because it seems by its nature to be subjective. Back to the blind men and the elephant!

[Toothpaste]

Nope. MR is actually a very clearly defined genre which I have already explained earlier in this thread. Just because people have opinions on the genre, doesn't mean it doesn't have its own set of rules.

[veinglory]

Quite.

[LordMoogi]

Thanks for helping clear things up for me, guys. I'm still not hugely fond of MR, but at least I understand it more. :)

[Zephronias]

I think the best description (at least, most easily understood) one has to be the entry on TvTropes.

The breakdown was:


"Say there's vampires in New York.

If the cover gets blown and the protagonists spend a lot of time with vampires, either taking evil ones down, incorporating them into romance stories, etc. it's Urban Fantasy.
If for example a cop's partner is very pale, acts in a generally odd way, and come to think of it, he's never been seen in daylight, but the story focuses primarily on just the relationship between the cop and his partner or something equally mundane, it's Magical Realism.
If the cop just goes through his life as a cop, but his partner is a vampire, is greeted with "Hi, Mr. vampire!" by cheerful little children in the street, and casually drinks blood in plain sight out of transfusion packs during coffee breaks, it's Mundane Fantastic."


Is it the most accurate? Probably not, but it is an easy rule of thumb sort of guideline for a fairly blurry genre..

[RemusShepherd]

I hope y'all don't mind if I ramble a little. This thread has sparked an insight for me, and it's not very coherent yet, but putting it down and having people pick it apart will help.

It seems to me that Magical Realism uses fantastical tropes with no substance; that is, it links to the symbology of fantasy tropes without connecting them to the tropes' actual meaning.

Example: A vampire is pale, evil, and hates sunlight and garlic. Someone who is pale, evil, and hates sunlight and garlic that is *not* a vampire (or not explicitly shown to be one) fits right into Magical Realism.

So Magical Realism uses the symbology of fantasy, without explicit connection to the meaning behind those symbols. This gives it a frisson effect -- your forebrain knows that the world is one way, but your hindbrain is triggering on symbols that tell you the world is something else, and you are never given information that validates either worldview. It's like detailing an entire world by only describing the negative space around it. That sounds like a cool effect.

Furthermore, this indicates that tropes are not atomic! They can, at minimum, be deconstructed into symbol and substance. That gives us a mechanism for remixing tropes. Since the substance is what matters, you can swap out the symbols and come up with a new expression of an old trope. Example: The Twilight vampires took the substance (vampires) and swapped out the symbols (sunlight, evil).

Note that you probably can't keep the symbols and swap the substance. At worst, it's a cheap twist. ("He's not a vampire, just a guy in a rubber mask!") At best...you get Magical Realism. From this perspective, Magical Realism is the antithesis of a remixed trope. It is a genre created via an unmixed deconstruction of a trope.

I'm not sure if all this makes sense to anyone else, but I think it fills a useful slot in the toolkit of my mind, at least.

[backslashbaby]

I like that a lot. Especially this:

So Magical Realism uses the symbology of fantasy, without explicit connection to the meaning behind those symbols. This gives it a frisson effect -- your forebrain knows that the world is one way, but your hindbrain is triggering on symbols that tell you the world is something else, and you are never given information that validates either worldview. It's like detailing an entire world by only describing the negative space around it. That sounds like a cool effect.

It's such a twisted effect, but relatively subtle, that I think that's why I enjoy using it, yes :)

[kuwisdelu]

Personally, I still prefer seeing magical realism as a story where the walls between metaphor and reality break down. Simple, straightforward, easy.

[Toothpaste]

It seems to me that Magical Realism uses fantastical tropes with no substance; that is, it links to the symbology of fantasy tropes without connecting them to the tropes' actual meaning.

Example: A vampire is pale, evil, and hates sunlight and garlic. Someone who is pale, evil, and hates sunlight and garlic that is *not* a vampire (or not explicitly shown to be one) fits right into Magical Realism.



Actually no. That's not the case at all. In Magical Realism you will have *real* vampires, *real* ghosts, etc. The interactions with these creatures can be the metaphor itself (the concept of Magical Realism I guess is one big metaphor), but it isn't just some guy who's pale that people call a vampire, it's an actual vampire interacting with people.

[backslashbaby]

Actually no. That's not the case at all. In Magical Realism you will have *real* vampires, *real* ghosts, etc. The interactions with these creatures can be the metaphor itself (the concept of Magical Realism I guess is one big metaphor), but it isn't just some guy who's pale that people call a vampire, it's an actual vampire interacting with people.

Agreed, except for the 'explicitly stated' part. It was an old man with enormous wings in one of my favorite stories :) Was he an angel? If not an angel, what was he? I wonder how he came to be there (although Marquez isn't any help there)?

It's just another cool layer to play with, imho. But it doesn't imply that he was definitely not an angel for any reason.

[backslashbaby]

God I love that story :) I can't resist:

On the third day of rain they had killed so many crabs inside the house that Pelayo had to cross his drenched courtyard and throw them into the sea, because the newborn child had a temperature all night and they thought it was due to the stench. The world had been sad since Tuesday. Sea and sky were a single ash-gray thing and the sands of the beach, which on March nights glimmered like powdered light, had become a stew of mud and rotten shellfish. The light was so weak at noon that when Pelayo was coming back to the house after throwing away the crabs, it was hard for him to see what it was that was moving and groaning in the rear of the courtyard. He had to go very close to see that it was an old man, a very old man, lying face down in the mud, who, in spite of his tremendous efforts, couldn't get up, impeded by his enormous wings.


Frightened by that nightmare, Pelayo ran to get Elisenda, his wife, who was putting compresses on the sick child, and he took her to the rear of the courtyard. They both looked at the fallen body with a mute stupor. He was dressed like a ragpicker. There were only a few faded hairs left on his bald skull and very few teeth in his mouth, and his pitiful condition of a drenched great-grandfather took away and sense of grandeur he might have had. His huge buzzard wings, dirty and half-plucked were forever entangled in the mud. They looked at him so long and so closely that Pelayo and Elisenda very soon overcame their surprise and in the end found him familiar. Then they dared speak to him, and he answered in an incomprehensible dialect with a strong sailor's voice. That was how they skipped over the inconvenience of the wings and quite intelligently concluded that he was a lonely castaway from some foreign ship wrecked by the storm. And yet, they called in a neighbor woman who knew everything about life and death to see him, and all she needed was one look to show them their mistake.


"He's an angel," she told them. "He must have been coming for the child, but the poor fellow is so old that the rain knocked him down."


On the following day everyone knew that a flesh-and-blood angel was held captive in Pelayo's house. Against the judgment of the wise neighbor woman, for whom angels in those times were the fugitive survivors of a spiritual conspiracy, they did not have the heart to club him to death....


http://salvoblue.homestead.com/wings.html

[RemusShepherd]

Actually no. That's not the case at all. In Magical Realism you will have *real* vampires, *real* ghosts, etc. The interactions with these creatures can be the metaphor itself (the concept of Magical Realism I guess is one big metaphor), but it isn't just some guy who's pale that people call a vampire, it's an actual vampire interacting with people.

But by other definitions given in this thread -- ones that I agree with more than yours, incidentally -- that would be Urban Fantasy.

As I said, I was just noodling. It gave me an insight; your mileage may vary. :)

[kuwisdelu]

But by other definitions given in this thread -- ones that I agree with more than yours, incidentally -- that would be Urban Fantasy.

Not necessarily. Not by my preferred definition, anyway. ;)

But by my definition, something can be both urban fantasy and magical realism. :)

I see magical realism as more a style and device than a different genre.

[Toothpaste]

But by other definitions given in this thread -- ones that I agree with more than yours, incidentally -- that would be Urban Fantasy.

As I said, I was just noodling. It gave me an insight; your mileage may vary. :)


But . . . your definition is not an accurate definition, I'm sorry. This isn't a subjective situation. I think people want to make Magical Realism suit whatever it is that they want it to be, but the fact is it is a real genre and can be defined in a straightfoward fashion.

And no, my definition is very much not Urban Fantasy (and thus I strongly disagree with kuwisdelu who says it can be both, in my experience the very nature of Magical Realism is totally opposite to that of Urban Fantasy, but I agree that with any genres lines can be blurred and crossed), which suggests to me you haven't actually read my posts in this thread as I have addressed that fine line multiple times in my posts. Had you also read this entire thread you would have noticed that almost all posts of subsequent definitions in this thread agree with my posts (you did read all my other posts in this thread too right?), they just expand on the question further and postulate interesting theories, still grounded in the same definition (with the odd person jumping in confused seeking some clarification).

At any rate, this is what Magical Realism is:

Magical realism is an aesthetic style (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aesthetic_style&action=edit&redlink=1) or genre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre) in literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature) [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_realism#cite_note-0) in which magical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical) elements are blended into a realistic atmosphere in order to access a deeper understanding of reality. These magical elements are explained like normal occurrences that are presented in a straightforward manner which allows the "real" and the "fantastic" to be accepted in the same stream of thought.



Thus you need actual magical elements (not your supposed metaphorical ones, which again I'll note that no one else has postulated in this thread but you, so to say you agree with other definitions just not mine is a bit odd as no one else has suggested what you have) in order for them to be blended into a realistic atmosphere.

And just for fun, let me repost what I've said about the difference between Urban Fantasy and Magical Realism (I can't believe I'm doing this again):

If there is an explanation offered to the existence of the magical character, then it's speculative (ie Urban Fantasy). If there isn't, it's magical realism. More importantly if the point of the story has nothing to do with the "magical" elements, that too makes it magical realism.

I know that then brings up a host of clarification questions, but this simple definition is the basis that works for me.

Urban fantasy: in new york, a guy has a friend who is a faery. The reason this guy has a friend who is a faery is that a rift one day opened up in his apartment connecting the faery world with our reality, and she hasn't been able to get home since.

Magical realism: in new york, a guy has a friend who is a faery. This faery is also the head of publicity for the publishing firm he runs.

Magical Realism supports a world where everything is exactly as it is now, a world where having a fae as a friend ought to be considered odd because this is the normal world, not any of the above suggested settings. But no one considers them odd. I'll also postulate that the "magical" elements of Magical Realism are rarely the point of the plot. We aren't watching an epic battle between werewolves and vampires, we are watching the story of John Smith who's wife just left him and who is trying to figure out if he should quit his job at the bank and travel the world. For advice he turns to his faery buddy who tells him, "Hey I dunno man, can you afford it?" His faery buddy isn't going to help him magically, he isn't going to send him to a magic world, he's just some dude who's his friend.

If there is any explanation offered. Any at all. Even if it comes from the conceit of the novel itself, that is not magical realism.

Think Family Guy. Brian is a dog. He behaves like a dog, he doesn't like the vacuum cleaner and goes to the washroom on the lawn. He also talks. Is an alcoholic. And dates human women. In fact, he has a human son. And no one bats an eyelash. No one comments. We aren't in some parallel world where all animals can talk. We are most distinctly still on our Earth. And yet, Brian is what he is.


Last but not least. I write Magical Realism. I know it pretty darn well my friend. So for you to casually dismiss the definition I have offered as if it is somehow a subjective matter and to say, "Nope sorry, but mine's right" without a shred of evidence is insulting. To then say what I've defined is Urban Fantasy when I have spent most of this thread explaining the difference is also kind of laughable.

Now I know my argument must hold no sway with you as you can so easily dismiss my well researched words, but in case you do decide maybe I know a little bit about what I'm talking about, here's a blog post I wrote a while ago about Magical Realism with further definitions that expand the rules of Magical Realism to encompass more than just the issue of magical creatures, there's a whole host of other elements like authorial reticence, and ironic distance (uh, these definitions aren't just mine btw, they come from other sources) that support what I've been saying in this thread: http://ididntchoosethis.blogspot.com/2007/12/magical-realism.html

[kuwisdelu]

(and thus I strongly disagree with kuwisdelu who says it can be both, in my experience the very nature of Magical Realism is totally opposite to that of Urban Fantasy).

Out of curiosity, do you think of "literary fiction" as an aesthetic style or as a genre? I think of it as a style more than a genre, in the same way I think of magical realism as more of a style, because it applies to the way the story is told more so than the content of the story. I do agree that their inherent aims of magical realism vs. urban fantasy are very different.

Hmm. I did bring up metaphors too, in a different way, but that's simply because I think using the term "magic" in defining magical realism can become confusing. I think actually applying my definition in specific situations basically leads your definition. I just get hesitant around the word "magic."

[wrinkles]

To Toothpaste: It's obvious you have given a lot of thought to this and have very strong feelings about it, and I certainly respect that. However, in my opinion, a story told from the viewpoint of a child can't be magical realism. It might also be valid to say that everything a child perceives about the world is magical realism. But I believe that what we are discussing is a worldview that must first be grounded in the realistic, in the most fundamental use of that word, and once this is achieved, allows for discernment of the magical. Sort of like you have to know the rules before breaking them. And children don't yet know the rules, so they can't break them, or put another way, are always breaking them.

And this isn't directed at you, but as for surrealism, in my opinion it isn't close to magical realism, in fact, I think it is probably the polar opposite.

[Kitty Pryde]

To Toothpaste: It's obvious you have given a lot of thought to this and have very strong feelings about it, and I certainly respect that. However, in my opinion, a story told from the viewpoint of a child can't be magical realism. It might also be valid to say that everything a child perceives about the world is magical realism. But I believe that what we are discussing is a worldview that must first be grounded in the realistic, in the most fundamental use of that word, and once this is achieved, allows for discernment of the magical. Sort of like you have to know the rules before breaking them. And children don't yet know the rules, so they can't break them, or put another way, are always breaking them.


Children are way less dumb than you seem to think they are! The average kid knows what's real and what's not. The average real kid age 10-12 knows with a lot of certainty that vampires aren't real. Why can't an average kid in a MR setting know that vampires are an everyday boring part of life?

[Toothpaste]

Out of curiosity, do you think of "literary fiction" as an aesthetic style or as a genre? I think of it as a style more than a genre, in the same way I think of magical realism as more of a style, because it applies to the way the story is told more so than the content of the story. I do agree that their inherent aims of magical realism vs. urban fantasy are very different.




There is no question that "literary fiction" is a genre. It is defined as one, agents specifically ask to represent such work, and there are contests just for that kind of writing. However one can also refer to an idea of fiction that is literary, that is more of an aesthetic style. But you can't deny it exists as a genre, because it quite clearly does.

The same goes for Magical Realism. I think what confuses people is they take the two words literally and apply their own definition to it. It is best to look at the term Magical Realism in and of itself as being meaningless, just as a name is meaningless. We could call it instead "Bob". And "Bob" has a certain set of rules (just like any other genre has rules).

But there can be those who want to describe something as magically real, using it as a descriptor than as a genre heading. Does that make sense?

Wrinkles - while you say it isn't directed at me, the inclusion of the children aspect clearly references the fact that I said I write Magical Realism and I write children's novels. I see what you mean, that the way a child looks at the world might be more fantastic than an adult, but in specific reference to me you are wrong. The reason I say this is because my world isn't as seen through the eyes of a child. It is as seen through an adult narrator telling us what he/she is observing about a child. And the world that Alex lives in is a Magically Real place. It's the normal world, with normal technologies, and then suddenly you have a magical timeless train for which I offer no explanation nor does Alex react in any other way than thinking, "I need to get off this train". We have a talking octopus in a world where every other animal is a normal animal, and again no one finds the fact that there's this giant talking octopus in a pub weird, they are merely frustrated that he's drunk and stormed off set. This world would exist from any character's perspective within the story, it isn't an interpretation from the child's point of view. And in fact, I get many adults who find the story frustrating as they see it set in a normal world, then suddenly there's weird stuff that isn't explained and well that doesn't make any sense.

I also wrote the piece with authorial distance and a sense of irony (in fact I set out to write what I called "a satire for children", mocking the conventions of the adult world, and I did it with the help of the inclusion of the fantastical). And while it is possible to argue I am not exactly the person intended to be defined as a Magical Realist author, I am most definitely one. I have always preferred the lack of explanation for the fantastic, and put this into my adult works as well.


ETA: I also want to add that not all children's novels are magically realistic. I'd argue that some of what Roald Dahl wrote was done in such a fashion (especially Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), but Harry Potter, Percy Jackson etc, those are straight up fantasy novels where it is discovered that in the world there is something magical and an explanation of what this magic is and how it shares the normal world is made. Remember the difference is the explanation (in its simplest definition), the second there is an explanation as to how something isn't the norm, it is no longer magically realistic.

[kuwisdelu]

However, in my opinion, a story told from the viewpoint of a child can't be magical realism.

Umm. Huh??

There is no question that "literary fiction" is a genre. It is defined as one, agents specifically ask to represent such work, and there are contests just for that kind of writing. However one can also refer to an idea of fiction that is literary, that is more of an aesthetic style. But you can't deny it exists as a genre, because it quite clearly does.

The same goes for Magical Realism. I think what confuses people is they take the two words literally and apply their own definition to it. It is best to look at the term Magical Realism in and of itself as being meaningless, just as a name is meaningless. We could call it instead "Bob". And "Bob" has a certain set of rules (just like any other genre has rules).

But there can be those who want to describe something as magically real, using it as a descriptor than as a genre heading. Does that make sense?

I don't deny that either are treated as genres.

I just don't see them as such.

Nonetheless, when I query, I still know I must refer to my "genre" as literary fiction, since there isn't really anything else to call it.

In any case, I'm not here to debate whether literary fiction should be considered a genre or not. I've already learned to agree to disagree on that. :)

As far as everything else goes, I think we're in agreement.

I definitely use magical realism in my writing. But it isn't nearly enough in the forefront that I would call my writing magical realism in the genre sense of the word. Only in the aesthetic style sense of the word.

[RemusShepherd]

But . . . your definition is not an accurate definition, I'm sorry. This isn't a subjective situation.

Well, see, I disagree with that. I think there is a subjective component to this. A little subjectivity is normal in genre definitions. Example: Faster-than-light travel -- is that science fiction or fantasy?

Last but not least. I write Magical Realism. I know it pretty darn well my friend. So for you to casually dismiss the definition I have offered as if it is somehow a subjective matter and to say, "Nope sorry, but mine's right" without a shred of evidence is insulting. To then say what I've defined is Urban Fantasy when I have spent most of this thread explaining the difference is also kind of laughable.

I read what you wrote previously. There was no need to repost it. I just disagree with you. I do not wish to insult you, but you seem to be insulted by my disagreement, and I don't know what to do about that.

I'll certainly agree that you have the credentials to arbitrate this discussion, but I've disagreed with authorities before, especially when those authorities quote their definitions from Wikipedia.

Maybe it will help if I outline the problems I have with your definition. One, you're inconsistent.

This is a thematic definition:
Magical realism is an aesthetic style or genre in literature [1] in which magical elements are blended into a realistic atmosphere in order to access a deeper understanding of reality.

This is a plot mechanics definition:
If there is an explanation offered to the existence of the magical character, then it's speculative (ie Urban Fantasy). If there isn't, it's magical realism. More importantly if the point of the story has nothing to do with the "magical" elements, that too makes it magical realism.

I'm willing to believe that the actual definition has to include both thematic and plot elements, but it seems unnecessary.

Second, your definition leaves out a lot of story designs. The story with the guy who might be a vampire but it's never proven? In your view that's just straight literary fiction. But I've always seen stories like that grouped together and included with magical realism. So your dictates disagree with my limited experience.

On the other hand, you are some sort of authority, so I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I had some insights, I've offered my opinions (which I feel encapsulate your position), and I've pointed out flaws in your opinions with the intent of helping you refine them. I'm out. Have fun.

[Toothpaste]

Le sigh.

Thanks for your magnanimous help. Though I don't see where you pointed out the flaws in my opinions (ie facts).

Since you're out I suppose there's no use me asking how my definitions are inconsistent. The thematic definition is one which clearly states that the magical has to be in the real, thus a guy who is pale and hates garlic but isn't a vampire isn't a magical element. I will say that your initial definition of this creature as being not vampire as opposed to your new one (yup you changed the parameters of your argument) which says that there is an uncertainty if he is one or not, can possibly make the character one from a Magical Fantasy book I suppose (though it would still depend). But initially you said that the character wasn't a vampire, just had the qualities and was more of a metaphor for a vampire as opposed to there being a possibility he actually was one.

The second definition I offered yes was structural. What's wrong with that? With offering two co-existing and perfectly compatible meanings? In any event it was a subset definition based on your accusation that what I was describing was Urban Fantasy. I was explaining to you why I was clearly not. Besides which, pointing out that the magical element isn't explained in Magical Realism, while a technical device, also has an effect that promotes the thematic definition. In fact how else is one supposed to achieve thematic ends without actually doing something technically. Heck the act of creating a sentence is a technical process.

So look at that, I was doing two separate things answering two separate questions, using two different elements that are all a part of Magical Realism (which you yourself admit you are willing to believe, but why you think it's unnecessary that there are many elements not just one over arching one I have no idea - there are always many elements that make up a whole).

Hey here are some other elements to Magical Realism (from the article (http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/MagicalRealism.html) I quote in my blog which I'm sure you didn't read by Lesley Moore):

Hybridity—Magical realists incorporate many techniques that have been linked to post-colonialism, with hybridity being a primary feature. Specifically, magical realism is illustrated in the inharmonious arenas of such opposites as urban and rural, and Western and indigenous. The plots of magical realist works involve issues of borders, mixing, and change. Authors establish these plots to reveal a crucial purpose of magical realism: a more deep and true reality than conventional realist techniques would illustrate.

Irony Regarding Author’s Perspective—The writer must have ironic distance from the magical world view for the realism not to be compromised. Simultaneously, the writer must strongly respect the magic, or else the magic dissolves into simple folk belief or complete fantasy, split from the real instead of synchronized with it. The term "magic" relates to the fact that the point of view that the text depicts explicitly is not adopted according to the implied world view of the author. As Gonzales Echevarria expresses, the act of distancing oneself from the beliefs held by a certain social group makes it impossible to be thought of as a representative of that society.

Authorial Reticence—Authorial reticence refers to the lack of clear opinions about the accuracy of events and the credibility of the world views expressed by the characters in the text. This technique promotes acceptance in magical realism. In magical realism, the simple act of explaining the supernatural would eradicate its position of equality regarding a person’s conventional view of reality. Because it would then be less valid, the supernatural world would be discarded as false testimony.

The Supernatural and Natural—In magical realism, the supernatural is not displayed as questionable. While the reader realizes that the rational and irrational are opposite and conflicting polarities, they are not disconcerted because the supernatural is integrated within the norms of perception of the narrator and characters in the fictional world.



I appreciate your need to argue with people who have some authority on a subject, I've read enough threads to know that this is your default setting, to automatically assume you know best and that others are invariably in the wrong, especially for some illogical reason, if they have any kind of authority (like agents).

And let me be clear, I am not insulted by you disagreeing with me, I am insulted by the manner with which you do it. The fact that you toss up little digs (pointing out my use of a wiki quote, when had you gone to my blog, you would have found many other sources of a more reliable nature), magnanimously telling me the only reason you are engaging me is to help me, all that comes across as condescending and dismissive.

But whatever, you're "out". Which is awesome. And I am having fun, thank you :) .

[backslashbaby]

I think the debate is very interesting. I do think there may be elements that lead readers to wonder what is real and what is not real. I think it is by design in some MR works (like The Very Old Man With Enormous Wings*). It's not a full-on mundane mystery or anything, just another layer of storytelling, imho.

Authorial Reticence—Authorial reticence refers to the lack of clear opinions about the accuracy of events and the credibility of the world views expressed by the characters in the text. This technique promotes acceptance in magical realism. In magical realism, the simple act of explaining the supernatural would eradicate its position of equality regarding a person’s conventional view of reality. Because it would then be less valid, the supernatural world would be discarded as false testimony.


That ^^^ makes sense why you'd see it often enough, imho.

In any case, if an MR reader wonders whether the magic is something else, I don't think that diminishes the experience. The point is to play with those elements for various reasons, and some of that play may involve provoking disbelief for parts of the story.


ETA* - like thw wise neighbor who knows that angels eat mothballs. Now c'mon. We're supposed to know she's full of it, methinks ;) :D

[kuwisdelu]

Re: the "lack of explanation" of "magical" elements — from my reading, this does not necessarily mean there is really no explanation whatsoever regarding the magical elements. Moreso that that explanation is not a justification for their existence.

[wrinkles]

Toothpaste - It was the last comment about surrealism that wasn't directed to you. The rest was.

[wrinkles]

Children are way less dumb than you seem to think they are! The average kid knows what's real and what's not. The average real kid age 10-12 knows with a lot of certainty that vampires aren't real. Why can't an average kid in a MR setting know that vampires are an everyday boring part of life?

Nowhere in my post did I say children were dumb, and unless you're a 10-12 year old kid yourself, I don't think you can know with certainty what they believe. And no, you don't know more about children than I do.

[Toothpaste]

Toothpaste - It was the last comment about surrealism that wasn't directed to you. The rest was.

Well then, there you go :) . So I'm glad I responded then.

[egoodlett]

It seems to me that Magical Realism uses fantastical tropes with no substance; that is, it links to the symbology of fantasy tropes without connecting them to the tropes' actual meaning.

This statement wounds me <.< But I think it's in reaction to someone else's definition of magical realism using a vampire metaphor, which also wounds me, so I'm not blaming you >.>
But... Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Jeanette Winterson, Laura Esquivel, oh my god, I dare you to find anything vaguely resembling a "trope" in their work. *flails*
... Sorry, I had to butt in <.<

[wrinkles]

I agree with backslashbaby, if I understand what she is saying. The differing opinions of various characters in an MR story regarding magical, or strange, or unexplained events, and the way their opinions or perceptions change over time, can add significantly to the story.

And as for explanations, authorial explanation or justification would be problematic, but characters can explain, or accept, or ignore as they please without affecting the underlying magical reality of the story. And, for me, the uncertainty created in the mind of the reader by the different reactions and explanations of the characters at various times, is what gives MR its power. Especially if those perceptions and explanations are all equally valid in a realistic world.

Toothpaste - Am I right in assuming that you disagree, and by your definition not even the characters should question the reality of the magical in an MR story?

[Toothpaste]

Toothpaste - Am I right in assuming that you disagree, and by your definition not even the characters should question the reality of the magical in an MR story?

I think that the idea behind magical realism is that in questioning the reason behind the magical element (whether it is a character or narrator), you are bringing attention to the fact that it is the "other". And from everything I have read, that then takes away the natural acceptance of the other.

However I think there is still room for characters to make observations about the supernatural, to draw conclusions, but these conclusions are not meant to speak to a universal truth of the situation. There is no absolute knowledge of what the magical is. Nor do they question, as you put it, the "reality of the magical". Rather the situation is accepted as real, and some theories might be postulated as to how they wound up in the situation. To question the reality, removes the authority of the supernatural.

Unlike Urban Fantasy which will explain why, say, angels are in New York, how it is the time of the apocalypse or whatever, and the entire story is about how crazy it is that there are angels in the first place, a story like the one backslashbaby posted uses the appearance of an angel as a catalyst to reveal the individual personalities in the community, to reflect back on society. It isn't a story about an angel, but about a catalyst for the other people in the story. Nor, you will notice, is there any explanation of why there is an angel at all, just simply that now the community must deal with the presence of one. He is treated almost as if he is an injured bird. There is no shock and awe that he is with them, but a general sense of fear of otherness, in the same way one might react to a criminal living in the shed.

It's all very matter of fact, the magic of the moment never dwelt on. And more importantly it isn't the magic that matters.

So yes, I can agree that characters can make a degree of explanation, but dwelling on the magic makes it less so. And, is also simply beside the point.

I further want to add that of course I believe that there are degrees to everything, that there will definitely be some elements in one author's magical realism tale that won't be in another's. I am not a fan of absolutes, so things like "always" and "never" don't sit well with me. My plan all along with this thread was try to shed some light on a genre that is often miscategorised and also misrepresented. Because the ideas behind it are a bit tricky, I think some people wish to say that it therefore makes it impossible to define (or as some seem to think, subject to whatever definition they feel like giving to it). But that isn't the case. It's just a little more difficult to understand than some genres, it doesn't mean there isn't understanding eventually to be had. That's all.

[wrinkles]

I appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject. I share it. When I sit down to write, Magical Realism (at least as I define it) is what results. It would be very difficult for me not to write that way. I suspect, though, that you and other MR purists (no offense intended) would not grant me the use of that term. I think the term Fabulist might also apply, but MR is the way I think of it, and I'm stubborn that way.

So here is the situation from my last manuscript. My protaganist breaks up a crime that should have made him a hero, but to do it he performed a feat that could not be rationally explained. By real-world standards it was impossible, yet he did it. So the police do not believe him, and end up concluding he was a part of the crime, and all his family and friends end up believing it too, so his life is ruined.

So this questioning, disbelief, and subsequent negative consequences I'm assuming take this out of the MR category, or genre, for you.

[RemusShepherd]

It seems to me that Magical Realism uses fantastical tropes with no substance; that is, it links to the symbology of fantasy tropes without connecting them to the tropes' actual meaning.

This statement wounds me <.< But I think it's in reaction to someone else's definition of magical realism using a vampire metaphor, which also wounds me, so I'm not blaming you >.>
But... Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Jeanette Winterson, Laura Esquivel, oh my god, I dare you to find anything vaguely resembling a "trope" in their work. *flails*
... Sorry, I had to butt in <.<

I was away for the weekend. Still not involving myself in the main argument in the thread, but I wanted to console your wounded ego. :)

By 'substance' of a trope I mean its root nature. Cut out the essential bits of a trope and you're left with symbology that can be reconnected to new things. I am not saying there are tropes there. I'm saying that symbology of existing tropes is being repurposed for new, exciting things.

So when Marquez lifts a girl into the sky -- the symbology of ascendance -- it's not because she has suddenly become a saint, it's because she hit the peak of innocence while folding laundry. When Winterson has a girl accused of demonic possession, using the symbology of willfullness, disobedience, and sexual liberation, it's not because she's evil, it's only because she has made a clear-eyed decision to be a lesbian. When Esquivel has a character affect everyone around her with her cooking, it's not because she's a witch flinging around love potions, it's only because she's an excellent cook who is driven to seduce the young man she's cooking for.

But let me stress, again, that this is only a theory of mine. I'm just curious about how human psychology interacts with tropes, and speculating that there's a link there to the genre of magical realism. I could be wrong about all of it. And I don't mean to offend you or anyone else; I dearly hope this explanation hasn't wounded you any more. :)

[Torrain]

Children are way less dumb than you seem to think they are! The average kid knows what's real and what's not. The average real kid age 10-12 knows with a lot of certainty that vampires aren't real. Why can't an average kid in a MR setting know that vampires are an everyday boring part of life?

*ponders* The example actually struck a chord with me, and made me think of another description I'd heard somewhere--of how if an adult in modern generic North America insists in a panic that they've seen a vampire then we call for medical assistance, but if there's a six-year-old in the same situation, we don't think they're crazy. We will try to calm them down, and possibly explain they are wrong, but we don't think they're crazy.

Maybe it's not what a ten- or twelve-year-old knows, but what a six-year-old is allowed to know; the blending of the fantastic with the real, and both accepted as the truth of the world--the framework in which events are to be dealt with?

L&c,
F

[Kitty Pryde]

I have a question for all you smart folks. Given: an author who creates a detailed world somewhat like our own world but populated with assorted fantasy creatures of her choice fighting crime or making mayhem or working at Starbucks or whatever, and a plot set in said world.

If, in the writing of the actual story, she explains all the details of vampire self-governance, and the fifteen magical rituals that made all badgers sentient and talkative, and the particulars of the ancient pact between the werebunnies and the ghostfoxes, and exactly what a Wendigo is and is not capable of, and explain once and for all the mystery of where mermaids keep their naughty bits...is that urban fantasy?

And if she writes the exact same story but explains none of this, and assumes it is all normal goings-on, only revealing the stuffs that pertain to the action as it happens...is that magical realism?

I've just been pondering and I would love to get your opinions! :)

[wrinkles]

I have a question for all you smart folks. Given: an author who creates a detailed world somewhat like our own world but populated with assorted fantasy creatures of her choice fighting crime or making mayhem or working at Starbucks or whatever, and a plot set in said world.

If, in the writing of the actual story, she explains all the details of vampire self-governance, and the fifteen magical rituals that made all badgers sentient and talkative, and the particulars of the ancient pact between the werebunnies and the ghostfoxes, and exactly what a Wendigo is and is not capable of, and explain once and for all the mystery of where mermaids keep their naughty bits...is that urban fantasy?

And if she writes the exact same story but explains none of this, and assumes it is all normal goings-on, only revealing the stuffs that pertain to the action as it happens...is that magical realism?

I've just been pondering and I would love to get your opinions! :)

I got your ponderings right here.