Definition: Magic Realism
Grey
In article <MPG.e40ac0ed...@news.earthlink.net>, Grey says...
> In article <33D6F904...@hooked.net>, John W. Oliver says...
> > I am presently looking at markets for some fiction I wrote, and it is
> > off the beaten path of what I normally write. So, I have been examining
> > my market information carefully.
> >
> > One of the categories in Writer's Digest's Science Fiction & Fantasy
> > Writer's Sourcebook (I normally look through Gila Queen's, but I figured
> > I would check all of my options) is Magic Realism.
> >
> > I've heard of this before, and I believe I might have even read a bit.
> > However, I'm trying to put together a more solid definition than any of
> > my guesses. Basically, I'm wondering what it is, and names of some
> > stories/novels that is considered to be this form.
> >
> > If I've got the wrong group, point me to the right one. After my weeks
> > of lurking, I've gathered that this group deals with the process and
> > mechanics of writing the most.
> >
> > John W. Oliver
> > gry...@hooked.net
I've been asking around about this as well... some of the responses I got
were far flung (read: incomprehensible).
Although I don't have any real answers for you from experience, I'll
share some of the better answers I got..
One: Magical Realism is standard fiction with a bit of magic to spice.
Two: Magical Realism is Modern Day Drama centered around people who
perform magic.
Three: Like Water For Chocolate is a good example of Magical Realism.
But I found a "Concise" Definition ;-)
Source: Bryn Mawr English guide.
"A form of horror or fantasy making use of paranormal powers. Often with
contemporary settings."
"Magical realism argues for the erasure of a variety of hard borders--
between characters, the natural and the supernatural, the explicable and
inexplicable, and in some cases between cultures. As a result, it also
allows for the remapping of a variety of social geographies."
"We might finally come to call magical realism a literature of new world
transubstantiation, where thoughts can become reality, the supernatural
the quotidian, and the "reality" of the once-marginalized more fantastic
than the descriptions of those who claimed to have "discovered" them."
"Art Critic Franz Roh coined the term in 1925 when describing a certain
art form... Not sure if it has any connection to the Literary form or
not..."
--
Grey -- Occasional Jackass
Occasionally Welcome on #Authors
http://www.bright.net/~fawnn01/authors/authors.htm
Reluctant Channel Manager for #Artist
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/4235/
Grey
In article <5r7e0v$h...@news1.panix.com>, P Nielsen Hayden says...
> In article <33D6F904...@hooked.net>, "John W. Oliver" <gry...@hooked.net> wrote:
>
> >One of the categories in Writer's Digest's Science Fiction & Fantasy
> >Writer's Sourcebook (I normally look through Gila Queen's, but I figured
> >I would check all of my options) is Magic Realism.
> >
> >I've heard of this before, and I believe I might have even read a bit.
> >However, I'm trying to put together a more solid definition than any of
> >my guesses. Basically, I'm wondering what it is, and names of some
> >stories/novels that is considered to be this form.
>
>
> In the real world, "magic realism," applied to fiction, describes a particular
> style of mimetic storytelling most associated with Latin American writers like
> Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Characteristics of this style include a willingness
> to indulge flashes of the implicit fantastic. There may be magic and the
> miraculous, but it's subtle.
>
> In the SF and fantasy genres, however, "magic realism" has come to be a
> copywriter's term for any work of fantasy with a setting or concerns separate
> from the conventional dragons, swords, wizards, and warriors of post-Tolkien,
> post-Conan, post D&D literary wallpaper.
Literary Wallpaper... I like that ;-)
>
> As such, it's a lazy shorthand way of saying "no, honest, this stuff is
> actually good." Most of the stuff it gets applied to has little or no
> resemblance to what a normal reader from outside the genre would consider
> "magic realism."
Stupid Questions:
So a "Magical Realealistic" novel, in the traditional description, can be
any novel in any Genre OTHER than Fantasy or Horror in which Magic is a
minor element?
Field of Dreams and The Stand are "Magical Realism?"
Daniel Hugh Nexon
In article <y75TibAa$21z...@gila.demon.co.uk>,
Liz <L...@gila.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I think (she says, trying to be coherent) that a defining factor is the
>way that ordinary people interact with the magical elements: the world
>isn't changed by its presence, and there's no attempt to rationalise or
>explain it, except in terms of the psychology of the person witnessing
>it or participating in it. The magic is just part of everyday life - a
>life we would otherwise recognise as mainstream - and no-one questions
>it (which would probably let out your examples above). It's the very
>opposite of any fantasy (genre or not) where the fantastical or magical
>elements are presented as being part of any kind of system (whether
>ritual, sympathetic or dealing with spirits) I am trying to think of a
>good example of this, but my brain appears to have gone on vacation...
This strikes me as a pretty good defintion, although I would emphasize the
psychological role that the fantastic plays in MR. In some books I would
classify as MR (the trillion Latin American novels, or so) this is exactly
right: the fantastical just is. In others, e.g. Robert McCammon's _Boy's
Life_ (yeah, yeah, Southern Gothic, I know) the fantastical has a kind
of indeterminent place, floating between the real and the not real, but
then intruding as the real once in a while. I think (and I may be talking
about of my ___, here), MR, in its current incarnation, began as a kind
of Latin American Romanticism: moving the connection between the natural
world and the individual that the Germans saw through Geist into a
particular regional idiom.
I wasn't aware that MR had become a catch-phrase in fantasy; that's kind
of a disappointment, frankly. But I do suppose there are similarities:
both genres attempt to recapture a human connectedness with nature and
the "environment" (in a broad sense) which is distinctly anti-
enlightenment. I guess the "New Ageification" of MR was inevitable,
though.
BTW, my wife, who works in the publishing industry, asserts that old-style
magical realism is a dead duck right now: the market is so saturated that
editors won't even touch new manuscripts. Is this true.
Regards, Dan | http://www.columbia.edu/~dhn2 (new and improved!)
"As it turned out, [the German missionary] was defrauded. Once the
Livonians were in possession of their new castles, they reverted to
paganism." --R. Bartlett, _The Making of Europe_, p.73
Liz
In article <MPG.e40ea64e...@news.earthlink.net>, Grey
<faer...@juno.com> writes
>Stupid Questions:
>
>So a "Magical Realealistic" novel, in the traditional description, can be
>any novel in any Genre OTHER than Fantasy or Horror in which Magic is a
>minor element?
>
>Field of Dreams and The Stand are "Magical Realism?"
>
>
>
>--
>Grey -- Occasional Jackass
Not such a stupid question!
I think (she says, trying to be coherent) that a defining factor is the
way that ordinary people interact with the magical elements: the world
isn't changed by its presence, and there's no attempt to rationalise or
explain it, except in terms of the psychology of the person witnessing
it or participating in it. The magic is just part of everyday life - a
life we would otherwise recognise as mainstream - and no-one questions
it (which would probably let out your examples above). It's the very
opposite of any fantasy (genre or not) where the fantastical or magical
elements are presented as being part of any kind of system (whether
ritual, sympathetic or dealing with spirits) I am trying to think of a
good example of this, but my brain appears to have gone on vacation...
best,
Liz
PS of course, I bet 15 people will now come up with "canon" examples of
magical realism that don't fit the above description.
--
L...@gila.demon.co.uk
Editor, Odyssey; fiction editor, Valkyrie; chair, Milford Workshop
Odyssey Magazine home page - http://members.aol.com/bjeapes/odyssey
Milford pro sf writers' workshop - http://members.aol.com/bjeapes/milford
miketotty
Ray Radlein wrote:
>
> Grey wrote:
> >
> > Field of Dreams and The Stand are "Magical Realism?"
>
> "Shoeless Joe"). For that matter, I would also say "yes" to several
The Stand definitely isn't MR. First, it isn't a contemporary/everyday
setting. Second, the plot is driven by the supernatural.
Field of Dreams is harder. I wouldn't call it MR, because the fantasy
elements are so central to the plot. In fact, they are the primary
conflict devices as well as the vehicle for resolution. That doesn't fit
with my characterization of the fantasy elements being everyday,
smallish and incidental (though not irrelevant) to the story.
> baseball resonates in a way amenable to Magic Realism, whereas football
> and basketbal don't seem to.
IMHO,
Because it is such a part of the fabric of american life for more than
century. The heroes of the game have a mythic quality, much more so than
the other sports. And more than anything, the game is essentially the
same for almost 100 years. Today's heroes would have been great players
in the 30s. And vice versa. No other sport (not even football/soccer)
can really claim that.
mike
Liz
In article <33DA1F...@earthlink.net>, miketotty
<to...@earthlink.net> writes
>Today's heroes would have been great players
>in the 30s. And vice versa. No other sport (not even football/soccer)
>can really claim that.
I think this might feel different to you if you were British - or
German, or Brazilian.
Liz
miketotty
Liz wrote:
>
>
> I think this might feel different to you if you were British - or
> German, or Brazilian.
IMHO, I don't think so. I've seen the old films of the great teams of
the 30s and 40s. And I'm not claiming that there weren't great players
then. Now I don't have a tremendous historical knowledge of football
from that time. But IMHO, you could draw a line in the late 50s/early
60s and say that the game elevated. IMHO, Pele and Beckenbaur (sic) set
new standards for physicality and artistry. If you asked most fans to
fill out there all-time team, I think you would find few who would reach
back past this era.
In baseball in America, nearly every fan would have one or more players
on their lists from 20s and 30s.
I would attribute much of this to the advances in sports medicine and
training. The atheletes today are _much_ faster, stronger, physical
specimens than in the 30s and 40s. In baseball, that just isn't as
significant. There were great players in basketball and Am. football in
the 30s and 40s, but few would contend that they would compete equally
with the stars of today.
mike
Sandy Fleming
>setting. Second, the plot is driven by the supernatural.
Yes, this is getting to the heart of the confusion prevalent in the
understanding of the term "Magic Realism" - it doesn't involve horror,
the supernatural, nor even magic! It's an unfortunate choice of phrase,
and I often feel that perhaps something like "unrealism", "anti-realism"
or "arealism" would have been better.
Confusion tends to arise from assuming that the term refers to a
subgenre when in fact it refers to a figure of speech.
I tend to think of descriptive figures of speech as lying on a scale
like this (where I've used "adjective" as a blanket term for any sort of
qualifying word or phrase):
adjective -> simile -> metaphor -> surrealism.
Each arrow takes us further from the reality being described and closer
to the authorial construction being used to describe it: adjectives are
straightforward linguistic conventions (red petals fell), simile gains
more descriptive power by making a comparison (petals fell like drops of
blood), metaphor gains still more by making an identification (drops of
blood fell from the dying flowers) and surrealism by treating the
metaphor as the subject of the fiction and ignoring the reality that
gave rise to it (drops of blood fell and congealed on the wet paving).
Surrealism, of course, has a dreamlike quality, because dreams are
themselves a free and personal interpretation of reality. This doesn't
mean that if you write down your dreams you'll be writing surrealism!
On this scale magic realism comes somewhere between metaphor and
surrealism - it may have the fantastical quality of surrealism, but not
so much so that the connection with reality is completely lost.
Needless to say (I hope!) these are not things you should try too hard
to deliberately impose on your fiction. The further along the scale you
go the more you risk sounding ridiculous or obscure. The rule of thumb
is, practice it in your private writing, but only use it in your
published writing when it comes naturally to it.
But it's an unfortunate choice of term, no more magic than the "pathetic
fallacy" is a fallacy. Or pathetic, unless you overdo it!
--
Sandy Fleming
Liz
In article <33DA7E...@earthlink.net>, miketotty
<to...@earthlink.net> writes
I am definitely not into the game enough to be able to talk about the
history of it. However, I wasn't really talking about the history
angle, so much as how deeply embedded it is in the national psyche,
which is not, actually, anything related to historicity. And I don't
think _that's_ something any American can talk about - or any Brit about
Brazil for example, either. This entire thing strikes me as yet another
"of course, there's something about things that happen in the US that
make them qualitatively different from anything that happens, or can
happen, anywhere else in the entire world" - even when we're talking
about a sport that is very minor in the US and very major in a large
chunk of the rest of the world.
Grey
In article <jLiXetA5...@gila.demon.co.uk>, Liz says...
> I am definitely not into the game enough to be able to talk about the
> history of it. However, I wasn't really talking about the history
> angle, so much as how deeply embedded it is in the national psyche,
> which is not, actually, anything related to historicity. And I don't
> think _that's_ something any American can talk about - or any Brit about
> Brazil for example, either. This entire thing strikes me as yet another
> "of course, there's something about things that happen in the US that
> make them qualitatively different from anything that happens, or can
> happen, anywhere else in the entire world"
It kinda is the truth, the U.S. Being a Microcosm of the World. The
residents of 49 states have the same thing to say about California, which
is the US in Microcosm.
> - even when we're talking
> about a sport that is very minor in the US and very major in a large
> chunk of the rest of the world.
How did we get here from "Magical Realism?"
--
Grey -- Occasional Jackass
faer...@juno.com (automatic reply disabled with no-spam)
Occasionally Welcome on #Authors
http://www.bright.net/~fawnn01/authors/authors.htm
Reluctant Channel Manager for #Artist
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/4235/
Un-PC Zen Question:
If a man speaks in a forest, and there is no woman present, is he still
wrong?
Grey
In article <5rgv8q$b...@panix2.panix.com>, Gary Farber says...
> In <5rguco$q...@news1.panix.com> P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
> [. . .]
> : Nothing of the sort. "Slipstream" is a term coined by, I believe, Bruce
> : Sterling, to describe mainstream books that zip alongside the genre, like a
> : bicycle rider taking advantage of the wake of a bus. Books like John Calvin
> : Batchelor's THE BIRTH OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF ANTARCTICA or Ted Mooney's
> : EASY TRAVEL TO OTHER PLANETS.
>
> http://gopher.well.sf.ca.us:70/0/Publications/authors/Sterling/Catscan_Stuff/catscan_five.txt
>
> You're welcome.
>
> Brighter folk will read all of Bruce's stuff, and some will even pursue
> the rest of the "authors" stuff there (not that it's all true and
> brilliant, of course).
>
> I guess I do need to get my own sent of links up on my own page.
> --
> -- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
> Copyright 1997 Brooklyn, NY, USA
>
Hey...
I read the post at that URL... very interesting reading, and I tend to
agree with most of it except for one thing.
Sterling seems to ignore the fact that we're living science fiction right
now as we speak. Granted, much of what is now called Science Fiction is
Pie in the Sky Fantasy Escapism... (Star Trek may or may not be
responsible for that). But so what?
Right now there may be a serious lack of vision on the part of writers,
but it's also true that right now everything is so in flux that it's very
difficult to predict anything that hasn't already been through the ringer
a dozen or more times.
Nobody seems to have anything new to add to Hard Core Science Fiction
that hasn't already been said.
I don't much mind this current trend of "Mindless" Science Fantasy/Space
Opera. Sooner or later someone is gonna write something very amazing
after finding out how boring it has all become, and Science Fiction will
have a rebirth. Be Patient, my friends.
miketotty
Liz wrote:
>
>
> I am definitely not into the game enough to be able to talk about the
> history of it. However, I wasn't really talking about the history
> angle, so much as how deeply embedded it is in the national psyche,
I was talking specifically about the historicity of baseball as a reason
why it is more conducive to MR. Primarily because of the
"transferrability" of great players from era to era.
> which is not, actually, anything related to historicity. And I don't
> think _that's_ something any American can talk about - or any Brit about
> Brazil for example, either. This entire thing strikes me as yet another
> "of course, there's something about things that happen in the US that
> make them qualitatively different from anything that happens, or can
> happen, anywhere else in the entire world" - even when we're talking
> about a sport that is very minor in the US and very major in a large
> chunk of the rest of the world.
I think you are mining meaning I hadn't planted. I'll be happy to
discuss ways that football is qualitatively different in the rest of the
world, especially when it comes to national pride and competition among
nations. This is somethign that Americans only experience during the
Olympics (at least on a large scale).
My basic premise is that the advances in modern sports medicine,
training and conditioning have made the atheletes of the last few
decades far superior physically to those in the first half of the
century. For this reason, in sports that focus on speed, strength,
stamina and conditioning, it is harder to see the former athletes as
being competitive with today's athlete.
Baseball is one of a handful of sports where these gross physical skills
are not the primary ingredient for success. Very fat, very slow guys can
be great baseball players.
IMHO, it is not hard for most to see the legends of the past stepping in
and being legends today. This seamless blending of old and new and the
This combined with the fact that baseball is an integral part of the
national fabric for this century, allows the game to take on a mythic
quality that is a ripe setting for magical realism.
I don't pretend to understand British or Brazilian way of thinking. I
don't have the cultural reference. Football could take on a mythic
quality for any number of reasons, especially given the way the sport
evokes so much passion and national pride. There is no sport even
remotely comparable in the US and this is our loss.
--
miketotty
Infinite Edge (http://www.infinite-edge.com/~infedge)
ADP Alliance System (http://www.ADP-AllianceUS.com)
Balch & Bingham LLP (http://www.balch.com)
Grey
In article <y75TibAa$21z...@gila.demon.co.uk>, Liz says...
> Not such a stupid question!
>
> I think (she says, trying to be coherent) that a defining factor is the
> way that ordinary people interact with the magical elements: the world
> isn't changed by its presence, and there's no attempt to rationalise or
> explain it, except in terms of the psychology of the person witnessing
> it or participating in it. The magic is just part of everyday life - a
> life we would otherwise recognise as mainstream - and no-one questions
> it (which would probably let out your examples above). It's the very
> opposite of any fantasy (genre or not) where the fantastical or magical
> elements are presented as being part of any kind of system (whether
> ritual, sympathetic or dealing with spirits) I am trying to think of a
> good example of this, but my brain appears to have gone on vacation...
Okay... but where is the line crossed from the point of view of the
narator? When does it become Fantasy?
For instance... Say I write a romance novel about a guy and a girl and
the guy wants the girl and the girl really wants him too, but something
is in the way, and he or she goes to a witch for some herbal stuff out of
desperation or whatever, not quite believing in it and it works, and they
live happily ever after... is that MR or Fantasy?
In the above example, if it is MR, what element is it missing that would
make it fantasy and vice versa?
--
Grey -- Annoying and Repulsive by order of Queen Jenna Thomas-McKie
Liz
In article <MPG.e4b4f2d5...@news.earthlink.net>, Grey
<faeros0...@juno.com> writes
>In article <y75TibAa$21z...@gila.demon.co.uk>, Liz says...
>
>> Not such a stupid question!
>>
>> I think (she says, trying to be coherent) that a defining factor is the
>> way that ordinary people interact with the magical elements: the world
>> isn't changed by its presence, and there's no attempt to rationalise or
>> explain it, except in terms of the psychology of the person witnessing
>> it or participating in it. The magic is just part of everyday life - a
>> life we would otherwise recognise as mainstream - and no-one questions
>> it (which would probably let out your examples above). It's the very
>> opposite of any fantasy (genre or not) where the fantastical or magical
>> elements are presented as being part of any kind of system (whether
>> ritual, sympathetic or dealing with spirits) I am trying to think of a
>> good example of this, but my brain appears to have gone on vacation...
>
>
>Okay... but where is the line crossed from the point of view of the
>narator? When does it become Fantasy?
>
>For instance... Say I write a romance novel about a guy and a girl and
>the guy wants the girl and the girl really wants him too, but something
>is in the way, and he or she goes to a witch for some herbal stuff out of
>desperation or whatever, not quite believing in it and it works, and they
>live happily ever after... is that MR or Fantasy?
>
>In the above example, if it is MR, what element is it missing that would
>make it fantasy and vice versa?
>
the visit to the witch would give a _cause_ to the magic that seems to
be missing in most MR. In MR, I would guess that amazing things would
happen, and that they might be caused in some metaphorical way by the
_need_ of the lovers. Also, the particular things that happened might
well be metaphors either for their love or for their states of mind or
whatever.
Grey
In article <aQH5xAAk...@fleimin.demon.co.uk>, Sandy Fleming says...
I've never seen it described that way.
> Needless to say (I hope!) these are not things you should try too hard
> to deliberately impose on your fiction. The further along the scale you
> go the more you risk sounding ridiculous or obscure. The rule of thumb
> is, practice it in your private writing, but only use it in your
> published writing when it comes naturally to it.
As it stands, I'm just trying to figure this thing out as a reader rather
than a writer. I just want to know what everyone is talking about.
> But it's an unfortunate choice of term, no more magic than the "pathetic
> fallacy" is a fallacy. Or pathetic, unless you overdo it!
Okay... Americans (in the U.S.) tend to OVER-CATAGORIZE E-VER-Y-THING!...
it is true. Americans seem to like to have a catch prase to define what
they are talking about so they don't have to explain everything over and
over again. Maybe it's our inhearant lazyness.
--
Grey -- Occasionally Drunk