Magic Realism
Irene Lea Tassie
Can anyone give me a definition or description of "magic realism"?
I've read at least one novel and several short stories which were
described as magic realism, but did not achieve an analysis. A
science fiction publisher is asking for short stories in several
genres, including magic realism and "fantastique" (as well as fantasy)
and I'm not sure what either term means. And I have a short story
which just *might* fit.
Thanks.
bill holston
I would say it is a book in which the fantastic exists alongside the
more realistic experiences. Works such a One Hundred Years of Solitude
by Marquez and Milagro Beanfield War, by Nichols are Examples. I have
not read the book, but the movie Like Water for Chocolate is, I think
another example. In the last book, the characters cry into batter for
a cake, causing all the guests to weep. Hope I'm not too far off and
hope it helps.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition for a
redress of grievances. U.S. Constitution Amendment I
Ondrea Heather Delio
> > Can anyone give me a definition or description of "magic realism"?
> I would say it is a book in which the fantastic exists alongside the
> more realistic experiences. Works such a One Hundred Years of Solitude
> by Marquez and Milagro Beanfield War, by Nichols are Examples. I have
> not read the book, but the movie Like Water for Chocolate is, I think
> another example.
Another frequently cited example is Isabel Allende's *House of Spirits*
(the book, not the movie). Essentially, magical realism is the
incorporation of fantastical elements into a realistic story - while
treating the fantastic elements like they are nothing out of the ordinary.
In *House of Spirits*, one of the characters is a mermaid w/ green hair.
In *Like Water for Chocolate*, food (rose petal chicken, wedding cake) has
magical qualities. The most important concept behind magical realism,
though, is that these magical-could-never-really-happen characters and
instances are, within the story, treated as feasible and normal
occurences.
-- ondrea
_ __,;;;/ To search for magic
,;( )_, )~\| Your heart must strain to see
;; // `--. What your eyes have missed.
' \\ |;
************
Ondrea Heather Delio \;;;,__ _
e-mail: ond...@nwu.edu |/~( ,_( );,
Northwestern University .--' \\ ;;
Radio/TV/Film Dept. ; | // '
dol...@coffey.com
Check HOW TO WRITE SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY by Orson Scott Card.
He explains how to magic realistic by setting up rules for it. For
instance, in HART'S HOPE, the price of magic was blood because it
contained life. The younger the life it was taken from, the stronger
the magic.
In the Deryni books by Katherine Kurtz, she has many magic rituals
which all follow the same kind of pattern. This lends realism to her
magic. Read CAMBER OF CULDI for an example.
In my own books, the magic is more psychic power generated by a
physical difference in some individuals. It's science, but looks like
magic to the uninformed, peasant class. Christopher Stasheff also
uses this technique in his warlock series. Try THE WARLOCK IN SPITE
OF HIMSELF.
The most important thing is to set up rules for your magic that you
can't violate. If there are limits, it's more believable.
tas...@octonet.com (Irene Lea Tassie) wrote:
> Can anyone give me a definition or description of "magic realism"?
Sandy Fleming
In article <4oq7m9$9...@news.tcd.net>, dol...@coffey.com writes
>The most important thing is to set up rules for your magic that you
>can't violate. If there are limits, it's more believable.
Is this meant to be on-topic? Magic realism isn't the same thing as
realistic magic.
--
Sandy Fleming
dol...@coffey.com
M Barnard
In article <4oq7m9$9...@news.tcd.net>, dol...@coffey.com wrote:
>Check HOW TO WRITE SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY by Orson Scott Card.
>He explains how to magic realistic by setting up rules for it.
Hi Doloryn...
I'd suggest that you read the other responses to this question. While your
answer is valuable for those attempting to write fantasy which uses magic, it
doesn't define the magic realism literary genre.
M
bar...@io.org - http://www.io.org/~barnard/web/barnard.htm -
"Old wood to burn! Old wine to drink! Old friends to trust!
Old authors to read!" Francis Bacon
bob armstrong
your magic was probably talking about writing in the fantasy genre in
such a way that readers will be willing to suspend disbelief about magic.
Magic realism is that genre, usually associated with Latin American
writers, in which there are unexplained magical elements in writing that
is otherwise realistic.
Bob Armstrong
rit...@bbs.cruzio.com
In article <4okhd5$c...@octo2.octonet.com>,
> Can anyone give me a definition or description of "magic realism"?
The "realism" in magical realism comes from an attention to the physical and
social landscape, and to the details of living (like shoelaces and toilet
seats and stuff). It's also a reference to the "socialist realism" style of
writing, which it developed out of (though a lot of current practitioners
might be surprised to learn that, as most of them never read any that they
knew to be that, am I clear? -- most people nowadays dimly think the phrase
"socialist realism" means it has a tractor in it somewhere).
The "magical" is pretty obvious, I guess. But what it isn't -- high fantasy,
"contemporary" fantasy, science fiction (hard or soft) -- is established
because:
the unusual things that happen, do not happen in the context of a
fantastic universe (except rarely, in such pieces as _Haroun and the Sea of
Stories_ which is only called magical realism because Salman Rushdie isn't a
fantasy writer (and the style is wrong for fantasy anyway) and because it
isn't currently popular to say a person is writing a fairy story): they happen
in the everyday world:
_but_ they do not happen because someone has invoked an otherworldly
force, or because there is a separate set of rules of magic which people
rarely learn -- this magic has always been around, and is part of the natural
world, and the writer describes it as if the surprising thing is that nobody
else has written it like that before:
_and_ usually at least some of the important characters in the book
also take this magic in stride.
Like other forms of writing, there is a kind of general
ideological direction that a salient group of its practitioners are going in,
maybe the biggest portion of them. I leave the definition of this to someone
else, because I can't for the life of me figure out how to say it, though I
can see it.
Lucy Kemnitzer
(does this help?)
bill holston
dav...@jdc.org.il (Davida Chazan) wrote:
>I say, wasn't that dol...@coffey.com who wrote:
>>:|>Is this meant to be on-topic? Magic realism isn't the same thing as
>>:|>realistic magic.
>>:|>--
>>:|I'm not sure I see the difference.
>But I do!
>Realistic Magic - the stuff Mr. David Cooperfield (not Dickens) does.
>Magic performed by real persons in the profession.
>Magic Realism - C.S. Lewis' Narnia stories - realistic characters who
>have magical experiences.
>Davida (where does that put Uri Geller - he's unreal) Chazan
>*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>"Life is like a box of Chocolates..."
> from 'Forrest Gump'
>*-*-*-*-*-*-*
David, Aren't C.S. Lewis Narnia tales a little different? His human
characters travel to a mythic kingdom where animals talk, and exist
along side other mythical creatures such as dwarfs and giants. His
human characters are realistic children, but there is nothing
"realistic" about their experiences. You make and interesting point
though.
bill holston
Anne E. Skove
Ondrea Heather Delio (ond...@nwu.edu) wrote:
: > > Can anyone give me a definition or description of "magic realism"?
: > I would say it is a book in which the fantastic exists alongside the
: > more realistic experiences. Works such a One Hundred Years of Solitude
: > by Marquez and Milagro Beanfield War, by Nichols are Examples. I have
: > not read the book, but the movie Like Water for Chocolate is, I think
: > another example.
: Another frequently cited example is Isabel Allende's *House of Spirits*
: (the book, not the movie). Essentially, magical realism is the
: incorporation of fantastical elements into a realistic story - while
: treating the fantastic elements like they are nothing out of the ordinary.
: In *House of Spirits*, one of the characters is a mermaid w/ green hair.
: In *Like Water for Chocolate*, food (rose petal chicken, wedding cake) has
: magical qualities. The most important concept behind magical realism,
: though, is that these magical-could-never-really-happen characters and
: instances are, within the story, treated as feasible and normal
: occurences.
I'm not a big SF/F reader, but this thread reminds me of Madeleine
L'Engle's books, where characters skip from planet to planet & then back
to raising kids & going on vacation (to California, not another
dimension---oops, well, whatever!) like it was nothing.
aes
: _ __,;;;/ To search for magic
delirium
On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Anne E. Skove wrote:
> Ondrea Heather Delio (ond...@nwu.edu) wrote:
> : > > Can anyone give me a definition or description of "magic realism"?
>
> : > I would say it is a book in which the fantastic exists alongside the
> : > more realistic experiences. Works such a One Hundred Years of Solitude
> : > by Marquez and Milagro Beanfield War, by Nichols are Examples. I have
> : > not read the book, but the movie Like Water for Chocolate is, I think
> : > another example.
>
> : Another frequently cited example is Isabel Allende's *House of Spirits*
> : (the book, not the movie). Essentially, magical realism is the
> : incorporation of fantastical elements into a realistic story - while
> : treating the fantastic elements like they are nothing out of the ordinary.
>
> : In *House of Spirits*, one of the characters is a mermaid w/ green hair.
> : In *Like Water for Chocolate*, food (rose petal chicken, wedding cake) has
> : magical qualities. The most important concept behind magical realism,
> : though, is that these magical-could-never-really-happen characters and
> : instances are, within the story, treated as feasible and normal
> : occurences.
>
> I'm not a big SF/F reader, but this thread reminds me of Madeleine
> L'Engle's books, where characters skip from planet to planet & then back
> to raising kids & going on vacation (to California, not another
> dimension---oops, well, whatever!) like it was nothing.
no. if it's SF/F, it's probably not MR. MR is heavier on the Realism
side, with just a little bit of Magic thrown in to make a point. MR is
usually literary, and the Magic is structurally needed. totally normal,
normal, normal people, days, lives, everything, but then just a bit of
something Comes Through and makes things beautiful without being Weird.
remember "A Portrait of Jenny"? young painter approached by Girl who
wants portrait, becomes older with each visit and eventually exits Stage
Left through the mist? or in Gilbert Hernandez' wonderful "Love and
Rockets" Heartbreak Soup/Palomar stories, which walk that MR line very
well: Luba and her sisters, swimming in the lake of a South American town
to which the sisters have never been before, come upon three statues, that
are them, looking the same as they do now. or another story, in which we
meet a young woman selling crucifixes at the market, who later takes a
stranger to the town out to the river, after he tells her that "friends
usually share a secret." she begins to catch the fish, and we learn that
inside the fish are the crucifixes she sells. in MR, you have to sell the
crosses, you know? responding to the magic as though it weren't. the
sense of wonder is much cooler, i think, because as the L'Engle kids are
flying through space, it's like, well, neat, but you can look into a river
and see fish and just wonder. does this make sense?
jacob
delirium - jac7...@bayou.uh.edu - http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1337/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
first we forgot where we planted those bulbs last year and then we
forgot that we'd planted at all. then we forgot what plants are
altogether and i blamed you... i tried to remember but i said,
"what's a flower?" you said, "i still love you." -dar
-------------------------------------------------------------------
rit...@bbs.cruzio.com
Davida's response only came up as a quote in bill's response to her, or I
wouldn't have done this in this way.
In article <4p1baq$l...@news-f.iadfw.net>,
sula...@airmail.net (bill holston) writes:
> dav...@jdc.org.il (Davida Chazan) wrote:
>
> >I say, wasn't that dol...@coffey.com who wrote:
>
> >>:|>Is this meant to be on-topic? Magic realism isn't the same thing as
> >>:|>realistic magic.
> >>:|>--
> >>:|I'm not sure I see the difference.
>
> >But I do!
>
> >Realistic Magic - the stuff Mr. David Cooperfield (not Dickens) does.
> >Magic performed by real persons in the profession.
>
> >Magic Realism - C.S. Lewis' Narnia stories - realistic characters who
> >have magical experiences.
C. S. Lewis did not write Magical Realism.. He wrote fantasy allegories.
There's no direct stylistic, content, or historical connection between
his work and the magical realist writers.
Lucy Kemnitzer
(I'm sure you can find plenty of indirect ones, though)
bill holston
rit...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:
<snip>
>> >But I do!
>>
>> >Realistic Magic - the stuff Mr. David Cooperfield (not Dickens) does.
>> >Magic performed by real persons in the profession.
>>
>> >Magic Realism - C.S. Lewis' Narnia stories - realistic characters who
>> >have magical experiences.
>C. S. Lewis did not write Magical Realism.. He wrote fantasy allegories.
>There's no direct stylistic, content, or historical connection between
>his work and the magical realist writers.
>Lucy Kemnitzer
>(I'm sure you can find plenty of indirect ones, though)
Sorry, but that's not my posting. I have since deleted it, but my
point was that I didn't think C.S.Lewis wrote MR, His characters
largely dwell in the mythical kingdom, with only periodic presence in
the "real world". I think the previous examples given by others
illust4rate the distinction well. Thanks, just wanted to make clear I
agree with your general point.
claguire
C.S. Lewis definitely wrote standard Fantasy. There were elements like
magic realism in the parts of the Narnia books that took place in this
world, but even those parts are too close to regular fantasy to be
considered Magic Realism.
Magic Realism is a movement in fiction that does borrow from allegorical
fantasy and folktales. The stories are set in a realistic, non-fantasy
setting, but some element of magic (usually related to folkloric beliefs)
is real.
This magic force, which I think of as like a mythic force, is natural to
that world, and thus some people complain that it makes extraordinary
events seem ordinary. Actually, this is the point. The magical evens are
NOT extraordinary in the context of the story. No more than the fact that
a jumbo jet can fly. The point of the magic in Magic Realism, is to
illuminate some aspect of the human condition, _specific to the realistic
culture depicted_. The purpose of general fantasy is broader, and the
magic and symbolism is less limited.
You could say that the Narnia books and Magic Realism are cousins--each
coming from a common ancestor. That ancestor is allegorical folklore.
Camille
Sandy Fleming
In article <4ovcf7$9...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, bob armstrong
<rarm...@acs.ucalgary.ca> writes
>your magic was probably talking about writing in the fantasy genre in
>such a way that readers will be willing to suspend disbelief about magic.
>Magic realism is that genre, usually associated with Latin American
>writers, in which there are unexplained magical elements in writing that
>is otherwise realistic.
David Lodge (I think it was) suggested that Magic Realism tended to
arise in writing about oppressive regimes, hence not only certain Latin
American authors but also Czech authors such as Milan Kundera. I'm not
sure I see why this should be unless it expresses a desire to be freed
from an oppressive day-to-day existence. Even so, the way Marquez &
Kundera use it doesn't particulary support this theory as far as I can
see.
In one of Kundera's books (I haven't read any, but David Lodge quotes it
and it was this passage that made the definition clear to me) the
communists are dancing in Wenceslas Square in Prague & as the onlookers
watch they begin to notice that the communists are dancing without their
feet touching the ground. Gradually they dance higher and higher until
they are dancing away over the rooftops. As I understand it, this is in
the middle of a realistic book, no explanation for the apparently
magical phenomenon is given, it's not even treated as magic but as
something that just happens as part of the story and making sense in the
context of the story.
It's as if the writer was writing a realistic book and found that he
needed to make the communists dance high for the sake of the story and
so said, "What the heck, it's fiction after all," and just wrote it how
he needed it without any explanation. And if the reader can see that it
has a definite function in getting the story told, then he won't need
any explanation beyond the fact that it serves the story's purposes
better than perfect realism could.
There's no source of magical power implied as in fantasy, horror, fairy
stories etc. It just happens because the writer feels that the gains in
departing from realism for a while offset the losses in terms of the
reader's suspension of disbelief.
Kafka's "Metamorphosis" might be a good example of Magic Realism
sustained for the entire length of a story.
--
Sandy Fleming
BillSlattery
A Portrait of Jenny! Yes it is certainly an example of magic realism.
Interesting how much better the form has gotten since then. I don't
think the movie made MR work but the Spaniards and S. Americans make it
just sing.
I don't see much of a connection between MR and SF. SF is relentlessly
lowbrow. MR isn't or at least the little I've read isn't.
M Barnard
In article <claguire-060...@pm166-24.dialip.mich.net>,
Okay, I managed to avoid most of the "This is genre/this is literature/this is
sf/this is dreck" wars, but I have to chime in here.
Standard fantasy is probably best represented by the average genre work on the
book shelves: okay word-smithing, little sub-text and an adolescent asthetic.
It's good entertainment for people who like that kind of thing, and that's
pretty much all it's supposed to be. _Sword of Shannara_ comes to mind.
Above average fantasy generally improves on most of those categories: good
word-work, sub-texts alive and well, and an aesthetic at or approaching adult.
It must remain good entertainment. Ursula K. Leguin and Charles de Lint's
work comes to mind.
Works with allegorical presence, such as most aspects of _Narnia_, _Animal
Farm_ and _Lord of the Rings_ are really another kind of beast, and probably
shouldn't be referred to as standard fantasy.
M (y opinion, of course)
M Barnard
In article <4p97mj$5...@alpha.pcix.com>,
BillSlattery <bil...@pop3.ios.com> wrote:
>I don't see much of a connection between MR and SF. SF is relentlessly
>lowbrow. MR isn't or at least the little I've read isn't.
>
How do you classify _Handmaid's Tale_ by Margaret Atwood? Or, for
that matter, Simmon's <?> _Halcyon_, Stephenson's _The Diamond Age_ or
Gibson's _Neuromancer_ trilogy?
I'd agree that there isn't much of a connection between MR and SF, but to drop
all SF to the level of its lowest-pulp-denominator is going a bit far.
For that matter, have you looked at the comparisons between fabulation in
main-stream fiction and magic realism?
M
Carl Henderson
>Can anyone give me a definition or description of "magic realism"?
>I've read at least one novel and several short stories which were
>described as magic realism, but did not achieve an analysis. A
>science fiction publisher is asking for short stories in several
>genres, including magic realism and "fantastique" (as well as fantasy)
>and I'm not sure what either term means.
It is all very simple. Critics and Literature Professors don't read fantasy
(you know--that juvenile, silly, elf and dragon stuff). Their years of
experience in flaying apart other people's work has taught them that fantasy
is paperback crap, read by nerdish, pimpley D&D players and overweight,
never-been-laid women with minimum wage jobs.
So when these Critics and Literature Professors happen to encounter a novel or
story that they really like (i.e., is literature), but includes fantastic
elements, such as gods, mermaids, witches--well it just _can't_ be fantasy.
After all they are people of taste, education, and discernement. They
wouldn't like it if it was fantasy. Therefore such a work must be something
else. Hence, magic realism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Henderson Just what part of "no law" don't you understand?
ca...@conline.com
Fuck the CDA!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
claguire
> In article <claguire-060...@pm166-24.dialip.mich.net>,
> clag...@alpha.lansing.cc.mi.us (claguire) wrote:
> >C.S. Lewis definitely wrote standard Fantasy.
>
> Okay, I managed to avoid most of the "This is genre/this is
literature/this is
> sf/this is dreck" wars, but I have to chime in here.
>
> Standard fantasy is probably best represented by the average genre work
on the
> book shelves: okay word-smithing, little sub-text and an adolescent
asthetic.
> It's good entertainment for people who like that kind of thing, and that's
> pretty much all it's supposed to be. _Sword of Shannara_ comes to mind.
>
> Above average fantasy generally improves on most of those categories: good
> word-work, sub-texts alive and well, and an aesthetic at or approaching
adult.
> It must remain good entertainment. Ursula K. Leguin and Charles de Lint's
> work comes to mind.
>
> Works with allegorical presence, such as most aspects of _Narnia_, _Animal
> Farm_ and _Lord of the Rings_ are really another kind of beast, and probably
> shouldn't be referred to as standard fantasy.
As a fantasy writer, I strongly object to your characterization of "good"
fantasy as being a different genre. ;-)
Seriously, I was speaking of category, not quality. Narnia, Animal Farm
and Lord of the Rings are all pretty dead set in the middle of their
genres. And in some sense, they ARE the standards, (although sometimes I
hope I never see another imitation of any of them). I was pointing out
that the Narnia books are definitely NOT Magic Realism. I wasn't saying
that was bad. Heck, a lot of things aren't magic realism.
Camille
m...@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
In article <DsJvz...@cruzio.com>, rit...@bbs.cruzio.com writes:
> Davida's response only came up as a quote in bill's response to her, or I
> wouldn't have done this in this way.
>
> In article <4p1baq$l...@news-f.iadfw.net>,
> sula...@airmail.net (bill holston) writes:
> > dav...@jdc.org.il (Davida Chazan) wrote:
> >
> > >I say, wasn't that dol...@coffey.com who wrote:
> >
> > >>:|>Is this meant to be on-topic? Magic realism isn't the same thing as
> > >>:|>realistic magic.
> > >>:|>--
> > >But I do!
> >
> > >Realistic Magic - the stuff Mr. David Cooperfield (not Dickens) does.
> > >Magic performed by real persons in the profession.
> >
> > >Magic Realism - C.S. Lewis' Narnia stories - realistic characters who
> > >have magical experiences.
>
> C. S. Lewis did not write Magical Realism.. He wrote fantasy allegories.
> There's no direct stylistic, content, or historical connection between
> his work and the magical realist writers.
>
> Lucy Kemnitzer
>
> (I'm sure you can find plenty of indirect ones, though)
Actually ... I think you'll find that in at least one place (_That Hideous
Strength_, when Merlin makes his appearance at the door, I _think_) wherein
Lewis writes of `Numenor'. I find it hard to believe that this was not a
reference to JRRT's `Numinor'. (Of course, I may have both spellings bolixed.)
And in a preface somewhere, he writes that `to learn more of Numenor, you
must go to my friend, Professor Tolkien.' (This is from memory; it could
be confused.)
Tolkien said that Lewis hadn't influenced him; Lewis said of Tolkien ``You
might as well try to influence a bandersnatch,'' admitting that Tolkien
had influence him quite heavily. (And not just in his writing. Read
_Surprised By Joy_, the last few chapters.)
--
(This man's opinions are his own.)
From mole-end Mark Terribile
m...@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
(Training and consulting in C, C++, UNIX, etc.)
Deck Deckert
BillSlattery wrote:
I don't see much of a connection between MR and SF.
SF is relentlessly lowbrow.
MR isn't or at least the little I've read isn't.
LOL!
Go get him, SF fans!
Deck
m...@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
In article <4p9es5$n...@news1.io.org>, bar...@io.org (M Barnard) writes:
...
> Works with allegorical presence, such as most aspects of _Narnia_, _Animal
> Farm_ and _Lord of the Rings_ are really another kind of beast, and probably
> shouldn't be referred to as standard fantasy.
JRRT would probably be very offended that you consider LOTR allegory; he
stated for the public record that he had disliked allegory from the day
he knew what it was.
M Barnard
In article <1996Jun8.1...@mole-end.matawan.nj.us>,
m...@mole-end.matawan.nj.us wrote:
>In article <4p9es5$n...@news1.io.org>, bar...@io.org (M Barnard) writes:
>
> ...
>> Works with allegorical presence, such as most aspects of _Narnia_, _Animal
>> Farm_ and _Lord of the Rings_ are really another kind of beast, and
probably
>> shouldn't be referred to as standard fantasy.
>
>JRRT would probably be very offended that you consider LOTR allegory; he
>stated for the public record that he had disliked allegory from the day
>he knew what it was.
So true. It's certainly less heavy-handed about it than _Animal Farm_, or for
that matter, most of C.S. Lewis' non-Narnia books. However, LOTR can be
successfully and easily read as allegory, whether Tolkien would like it or
not. Perhaps the best that can be said of it is that he didn't write an
intentional allegory.
Sandy Fleming
In article <4pcr0l$l...@news1.io.org>, M Barnard <bar...@io.org> writes
>So true. It's certainly less heavy-handed about it than _Animal Farm_, or for
>that matter, most of C.S. Lewis' non-Narnia books. However, LOTR can be
>successfully and easily read as allegory, whether Tolkien would like it or
>not. Perhaps the best that can be said of it is that he didn't write an
>intentional allegory.
Yes, I've always felt this. In reading Tolkien's introduction and how he
says he doesn't write allegory, I felt like saying "Methinks he protests
too much".
--
Sandy Fleming
Bob Pastorio
BillSlattery <bil...@pop3.ios.com>, good old BS, wrote:
>I don't see much of a connection between MR and SF. SF is relentlessly
>lowbrow. MR isn't or at least the little I've read isn't.
Billy, Billy, Billy. Please. I'm just speaking to you off on the
side here to tell you to brace yourself. I'm only doing this for you;
you believe that? This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you.
Well, it's pretty clear you aren't a regular reader of SF. Probably,
somewhere in your youth a few short years back, you were told that SF
would rot your brain. Some English teacher with leather elbow patches
on his tweed jacket. Let's just call him Mr. Taproot. You were told
that SF is cheap junky stuff. The teacher used a lot of big words to
tell you that. So you didn't read any but had a nice, clean opinion
ready to trot out when needed, like in your post.
MR is an area you explain you haven't read much. So see if I have
this right: You haven't read much SF and you haven't read much MR.
You don't see any real correlation. You do have well-formed
opinions, though. That about sum it up?
Pick up your crayon and write these names down:
Watt-Evans, Larry (sure, go ahead and call him that. He likes to be
called Larry)
Webster, Bud.
That's enough for today. You'll find their posts in this group and
their writing in SF mags and your neighborhood bookstore. Tomorrow,
when your lips are rested, we'll look at more writers' names.
Bob(you can't say you don't like it until after you taste it. That's
my rule with my four-year-old daughter.)Pastorio
Acer
bill holston wrote:
>
> dav...@jdc.org.il (Davida Chazan) wrote:
>
> >I say, wasn't that dol...@coffey.com who wrote:
>
> >>:|>Is this meant to be on-topic? Magic realism isn't the same thing as
> >>:|>realistic magic.
> >>:|>--
> >>:|I'm not sure I see the difference.
> >Realistic Magic - the stuff Mr. David Cooperfield (not Dickens) does.
> >Magic performed by real persons in the profession.
> >Magic Realism - C.S. Lewis' Narnia stories - realistic characters who
> >have magical experiences.
Ahhh. As a magic buff, I would say that "realistic magic" is magic that
takes place in a "normal" world without magic, like Diane Duanes series
"So You Want To Be A Wizard" and "Magic Realism" is in a world where
magic is everyday stuff, where everyone has/does magic.
--
@cer
Proud Mac User!!
Andrew Kelly
BillSlattery <bil...@pop3.ios.com>, good old BS, wrote:
>>I don't see much of a connection between MR and SF. SF is relentlessly
>>lowbrow. MR isn't or at least the little I've read isn't.
<fabulous post containing the following gems reluctantly snipped>
> Some English teacher with leather elbow patches
>on his tweed jacket. Let's just call him Mr. Taproot.
>Pick up your crayon and write these names down:
> Tomorrow,
>when your lips are rested,
>Bob(you can't say you don't like it until after you taste it. That's
>my rule with my four-year-old daughter.)Pastorio
Bob, please tell me where you live
so I'll know which way to face when I pray.
--
----------------------------------------------------
--Andrew-- | I seen a dog fall down once
Berlin Germany
Lisanne
In article <31BADA...@aol.com>, Acer <thea...@aol.com> writes
Sounds about right to me!
Lisanne
***************************************************************
Reality is the crutch for those who can't face Science Fiction
***************************************************************