Magical Realism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Regan Leigh

Insomniac Writer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
1,847
Reaction score
569
Website
www.reganleigh.com
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

~~~~*~~~~
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
12,635
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NC
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

Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Location
Philadelphia
Beauty and MR

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

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
8,745
Reaction score
3,096
Location
Toronto, Canada
Website
www.adriennekress.com
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.
 

Zephronias

Oh God, I'm trapped in a text box!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
467
Reaction score
80
Location
S.J. California
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

Banned
Flounced
VPXI
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
896
Reaction score
112
Age
56
Location
Midwest
Website
remus-shepherd.livejournal.com
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

~~~~*~~~~
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
12,635
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NC
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

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Personally, I still prefer seeing magical realism as a story where the walls between metaphor and reality break down. Simple, straightforward, easy.
 

Toothpaste

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
8,745
Reaction score
3,096
Location
Toronto, Canada
Website
www.adriennekress.com
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

~~~~*~~~~
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
12,635
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NC
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

~~~~*~~~~
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
12,635
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NC
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

Banned
Flounced
VPXI
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
896
Reaction score
112
Age
56
Location
Midwest
Website
remus-shepherd.livejournal.com
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

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
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

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
8,745
Reaction score
3,096
Location
Toronto, Canada
Website
www.adriennekress.com
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 or genre in literature [1] in which 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
 
Last edited:

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
(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

Banned
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Messages
250
Reaction score
54
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

i luv you giant bear statue
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
9,090
Reaction score
2,165
Location
Lost Angeles
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

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
8,745
Reaction score
3,096
Location
Toronto, Canada
Website
www.adriennekress.com
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.
 
Last edited:

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
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

Banned
Flounced
VPXI
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
896
Reaction score
112
Age
56
Location
Midwest
Website
remus-shepherd.livejournal.com
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

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
8,745
Reaction score
3,096
Location
Toronto, Canada
Website
www.adriennekress.com
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 :) .
 
Last edited:

backslashbaby

~~~~*~~~~
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
12,635
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NC
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
 
Last edited:

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.