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 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
.