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 - It was the last comment about surrealism that wasn't directed to you. The rest was.
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.
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?
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 <.<
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?
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 say keep it simple: Literary fiction featuring magic.
The inclusion of magic makes it fantasy
Unless you have a thing about genre....
Quote from Terry Prachett: magic realism "is like a polite way of saying you write fantasy" (Gene Wolf said they call it magical realism if it's written in Spanish" IIRC)
Magical realism is fantasy - it just gets called by a silly name so people don;t have to admit they are reading fantasy. It may hve a different flavour - but it is still fantasy. It has fantastical elements. Simples
Indeed, it's literary fiction.Unless you have a thing about genre....
Magical realism is fantasy - it just gets called by a silly name so people don;t have to admit they are reading fantasy. It may hve a different flavour - but it is still fantasy. It has fantastical elements. Simples
They don't have simple definitions, because there are always exceptions, and because very few stories truly stick to one genre, and because they are always being redefined and tested.
I had this argument with a prof about Tom Robbins' book JITTERBUG PERFUME', which features many fantasy tropes (ancient Greek gods come to life, immortal protagonists, magic perfume, a journey to the land of the dead, etc.) but was advertised as contemporary fiction or magic realism when it came out. Same with some of Umberto Eco's work.
Heh - I was just having a bit of grump, having been bitten too much by the lit (and sometimes mainstream) crowd claiming something that is fairly clearly fantasy, isn't, because if it was fantasy it'd be 'genre crap' and then they wouldn't read/write it.
As you say, many stories don't fit in one genre, but to me, all these little sub-sub-genres seem a bit silly. I mean, all you really need to do is signpost to the reader what sort of book it is - that's the purpose of the genre label, so readers can find the sort of book they are after. When people start getting cute about it (yes I know it has dragons/time travel/death as a character/immortals in it, but it's not fantasy, honest!) it gets on my pecs. I'd rather have a bit of honesty about it all. *sighs theatrically*
Robbins is great, but there is no realism to his work whether it features magic or not, so I wouldn't list him as an author of magical realism. Neither would I list Kafka as a magical realist, because his work is so surreal.
I
Hey no, I hear you. I probably come from the opposite position to be honest. I've seen too many people looking for fantasy in 100-Years of Solitude, and finishing the book with disappointment. It's a great novel, but not everyone will like it just because of the fantastical elements. While someone coming from Fuentes or Calvino or Gunter Grass will probably love it.
Yes, but I think many people who are coming from, for instance, American Gods, and looking for something similar, would be be unhappy with Tom Robbins or Franz Kafka. Or if they did like it, they would like it for different reasons. And at the end of the day, that is why we separate them. Sure they share some characteristics, but the style is so clearly different that they shouldn't be lumped together. Readers are often dumb. They think the reason why they like Lord of the Rings is elves and magic, but really they liked it for the pacing, plotting, characters, voice, and feeling, the other stuff too, but less so.