Davies & magical realism
Richard Sutherland
>
> Msg-ID: <2ipdpf$9...@news.u.washington.edu>
> Posted: 2 Feb 1994 23:42:39 GMT
>
> Org. : University of Washington
>
> Hi,
>
> I really loved Richardson Davies' "Fifth Business" and I'm
> wondering if that book would be classified as magical realism?
> Or is it just magical?
>
> Thanks much,
> Nancy
>
What's really magical is how easily Robertson became transposed to
Richardson.
Rita M. Rouvalis
Nancy McGough <nan...@ii.com> wrote:
>Thanks for a thoughtful response (unlike the person who said
>"I'd classify it as literature" as if classifying something
>as literature precludes it being magical realism). I'm curious
>how others define magical realism.
I usually think of it as literature that treats contemporary myth as if it
were reality.
Mark Taranto
Nancy McGough <nan...@ii.com> writes:
> hla...@panix.com (Arthur Hlavaty) writes:
[Interesting points about Magical Realism deleted]
> Thanks for a thoughtful response (unlike the person who said
> "I'd classify it as literature" as if classifying something
> as literature precludes it being magical realism). I'm curious
> how others define magical realism.
Perhaps you would have found me more helpful had you answered my
question:
I'm curious as to why you might ask this. Sure, there is
slight of hand, but real magic?
I thought that by classifying it as literature, rather than saying
"Yes -- it is M. R." that I was being clear that I didn't think FIFTH
BUSINESS is magical Realism. I understand that the two descriptions
can overlap. Certainly, my question should have been a clear signal
that I don't think it M.R.
I don't see FIFTH BUSINESS as being any more magical or unreal than
most other works of fiction. Granted, some of Davies other works have
elements of magic in them. Perhaps I'm forgetting something in FIFTH
BUSINESS.
I find it a bit odd that you made a snotty comment about me not being
helpful, when you don't even give me the courtesy of responding to my
question. Is it your impression that we are here solely to help you?
Mark
Michel Vachon
In a previous article, nan...@ii.com (Nancy McGough) says:
>hla...@panix.com (Arthur Hlavaty) writes:
>> Some people say that magic realism is fantasy or sf written in
>>Spanish. My preferred definition is something like "fiction that treats,
>>with realism of presentation, cultural ideas that are not acceptable to a
>>strictly scientific-materials viewpoint. By that definition, Robertson
>>Davies's books would be magic realism.
>I'm curious how others define magical realism.
>
Most magical realists seem to have a more political goals than Davies.
It is not just that they reject the a culturally accepted realism; they
invent a new realism which gives them a new freedom to redefine
themselves in terms other than those of their oppressors.
That just can't be the case with Roberston Davies who is very much
a member of the dominant group in his home province. He was born
rich -- his family owned a major daily newspaper -- and has always
enjoyed close connections with the most powerful members of
Canada's literary establishment.
That said he is to be commended because Fifth Business represents
an attempt to on the part of the dominant culture to reach out to an
oppressed culture, in this case Catholicism (please note: this applies
to Ontario, Canada only. I know that Catholics are the oppressors in
other parts of the world. But in Ontario Catholics were for a long time
actively persecuted by a group called the Loyal Orange Order. The
orangemen claimed to be interested in religious freedom but there is
no evidence that they ever defended any freedom but their own. They
are now for all intents and purposes defunct, and good riddance too.)
I think you could make a powerful argument that Davies and the
magical realists have similar goals and that it is more than a
coincidence that they both use of magical elements. But calling
Davies a magical realist risks making the term too broad -- would
you want to call Peter Rabbit magical realism?
--
Michel Vachon af783 You do trust me, don't you?
Phone (819) 281-7543 Yes, of course you do -- Francis Urqhuart
Mark Taranto
I'd like to apologize to Nancy McGough for responding to what I took
as a snotty comment. I see now, that it was probably not intended as
one, and would probably have been avoided had I been more clear in my
original response.
Mark
Nancy McGough
>Perhaps you would have found me more helpful had you answered my
>question:
>
> I'm curious as to why you might ask this. Sure, there is
> slight of hand, but real magic?
>
>
>I thought that by classifying it as literature, rather than saying
>"Yes -- it is M. R." that I was being clear that I didn't think FIFTH
>BUSINESS is magical Realism. I understand that the two descriptions
>can overlap. Certainly, my question should have been a clear signal
>that I don't think it M.R.
>
>I don't see FIFTH BUSINESS as being any more magical or unreal than
>most other works of fiction. Granted, some of Davies other works have
>elements of magic in them. Perhaps I'm forgetting something in FIFTH
>BUSINESS.
>
>I find it a bit odd that you made a snotty comment about me not being
>helpful, when you don't even give me the courtesy of responding to my
>question. Is it your impression that we are here solely to help you?
The reason that I didn't respond was because I interpreted
your response as saying something like "You idiot, why would
you think that?". I certainly don't think you're here solely
to help me - the majority of articles I post are trying to
help other people. Here in r.a.b. I feel fairly insecure
about posting because I haven't formally studied literature
much at all (most of my formal studies have been in math,
science, and CS) and it's only in the last couple years that
I've started reading much literature (and I'm a slow reader
so I haven't covered a lot of ground).
In answer to your question about why I would think FB might
be MR - it has an other-worldly, spiritual quality that kind
of reminds me of the movie "Like Water for Chocolate" and
the book "One Hundred Years of Solitude" (which I only read
half of). These are my only 2 experiences with MR (that I
know of).
Thanks,
Nancy