definition of magic realism
we...@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
I'm trying to decide if a book I'm reviewing could be described
as magic realism. Is there an established definition? Is there
a date before which the genre wasn't defined? This book was written
in 1964.
--
Wendy E. Betts Please, Laurel Records, let us use
Editor, The Web "The Web". C'mon!
we...@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us -Crow T. Robot
Mark McWiggins
>I'm trying to decide if a book I'm reviewing could be described
>as magic realism. Is there an established definition? Is there
>a date before which the genre wasn't defined? This book was written
>in 1964.
It's like the judge said about pornography; you can't define it, but
you'll know it when you experience it.
--
Mark McWiggins Hermes & Associates +1 206 632 1905 (24 hrs.)
ma...@hermes.com Box 31356, Seattle WA 98103 +1 206 632 1738 (fax)
Janet M. Lafler
>I'm trying to decide if a book I'm reviewing could be described
>as magic realism. Is there an established definition? Is there
>a date before which the genre wasn't defined? This book was written
>in 1964.
I don't know about any official definitions, but I'll give you my
personal definition. Magic realism is fiction in which no distinction
is made between the real and the fantastic, in which "everyday" and
"fantastic" events are described in such a way as to make them fit
together seamlessly.
In both realism and fantasy (at least genre fantasy) there is usually
quite a rigid distinction between the real and the fantasic, though this
separation may be implied only by the fact that the story is set in a
made-up world. Even in fantasies set in contemporary urban settings,
the magic usually intrudes onto ordinary life in a way that surprises
and confuses the mortal characters.
Of course, if you apply this definition to various works of fiction,
you'll end up putting some books into different categories than they
ordinarily inhabit.
One of the reasons I like this definition is that I think it points
out the most important distinction between genre fantasy and magic
realism; fantasy assumes the cleavage between the natural and the
supernatural, which is traceable to the "scientific revolution." Magic
realism doesn't. I think that fantasy is a counterpart to realism,
while magic realism is in many ways opposite to both; I disagree
strongly with those who call magic realism a form of fantasy.
As for the history of the category, I don't know if the term predates
1964; but if you like my definition, you could argue that a great deal
of written and oral literature going back to the dawn of time is magic
realism.
/Janet
--
Send mail to: ja...@netcom.com
Watch this space.
Andrew Dinn
>
>I don't know about any official definitions, but I'll give you my
>personal definition. Magic realism is fiction in which no distinction
>is made between the real and the fantastic, in which "everyday" and
>"fantastic" events are described in such a way as to make them fit
>together seamlessly.
>
>In both realism and fantasy (at least genre fantasy) there is usually
>quite a rigid distinction between the real and the fantasic, though this
>separation may be implied only by the fact that the story is set in a
>made-up world. Even in fantasies set in contemporary urban settings,
>the magic usually intrudes onto ordinary life in a way that surprises
>and confuses the mortal characters.
I really like this distinction and would add to it as follows. Fantasy
and realism both strive very hard to establish their credentials by
filling out the details of their fantasy or reality and this is the
root of the rigidity you mention. One of the things which magic
realism does is to present the magic in a low key way. It talks its
way straight into the magic as though it were quite straightforward
and there is no need for vast quantities of explanation to make it
credible.
>One of the reasons I like this definition is that I think it points
>out the most important distinction between genre fantasy and magic
>realism; fantasy assumes the cleavage between the natural and the
>supernatural, which is traceable to the "scientific revolution." Magic
>realism doesn't. I think that fantasy is a counterpart to realism,
>while magic realism is in many ways opposite to both; I disagree
>strongly with those who call magic realism a form of fantasy.
>
>As for the history of the category, I don't know if the term predates
>1964; but if you like my definition, you could argue that a great deal
>of written and oral literature going back to the dawn of time is magic
>realism.
In fact fantasy is obsessed with this `cleavage' just as much as
realism is obsessed with the `natural'. The great thing about magic
realism is that, like most fairy-tales and oral literature, it is so
obsessed with telling a good story well that it doesn't concern itself
with `reality'.
Anyone want to make a case for the Gormenghast trilogy being magic
realism? (especially Titus Alone!)
Andrew Dinn
-----------
there is no map / and a compass / wouldn't help at all
Clifford O. Thompson
|> In article <janetCH...@netcom.com> ja...@netcom.com (Janet M. Lafler) writes:
|> >
|> >I don't know about any official definitions, but I'll give you my
|> >personal definition. Magic realism is fiction in which no distinction
|> >is made between the real and the fantastic, in which "everyday" and
|> >"fantastic" events are described in such a way as to make them fit
|> >together seamlessly.
|> >
|> >In both realism and fantasy (at least genre fantasy) there is usually
|> >quite a rigid distinction between the real and the fantasic, though this
|> >separation may be implied only by the fact that the story is set in a
|> >made-up world. Even in fantasies set in contemporary urban settings,
|> >the magic usually intrudes onto ordinary life in a way that surprises
|> >and confuses the mortal characters.
|>
|> I really like this distinction and would add to it as follows. Fantasy
|> and realism both strive very hard to establish their credentials by
|> filling out the details of their fantasy or reality and this is the
|> root of the rigidity you mention. One of the things which magic
|> realism does is to present the magic in a low key way. It talks its
|> way straight into the magic as though it were quite straightforward
|> and there is no need for vast quantities of explanation to make it
|> credible.
I would narrow this a bit, and say that magic realism eliminates arm-waving
and circle drawing. You could easily have a book that treats all of the
flash we associate with fantasy as a given, yet does not fit into the
category of magic realism ("The Worm Ouroboros" comes to mind, also "The
House on the Borderland). Maybe what you're calling magic needs to be
omnipresent, subtle, and somewhat wild, as compared to the ceremonial,
thelemic thundercracking so readily found in genre fantasy.
|>
|> >One of the reasons I like this definition is that I think it points
|> >out the most important distinction between genre fantasy and magic
|> >realism; fantasy assumes the cleavage between the natural and the
|> >supernatural, which is traceable to the "scientific revolution." Magic
|> >realism doesn't. I think that fantasy is a counterpart to realism,
|> >while magic realism is in many ways opposite to both; I disagree
|> >strongly with those who call magic realism a form of fantasy.
|> >
|> >As for the history of the category, I don't know if the term predates
|> >1964; but if you like my definition, you could argue that a great deal
|> >of written and oral literature going back to the dawn of time is magic
|> >realism.
|>
|> In fact fantasy is obsessed with this `cleavage' just as much as
|> realism is obsessed with the `natural'. The great thing about magic
|> realism is that, like most fairy-tales and oral literature, it is so
|> obsessed with telling a good story well that it doesn't concern itself
|> with `reality'.
|>
|> Anyone want to make a case for the Gormenghast trilogy being magic
|> realism? (especially Titus Alone!)
I would agree with fantastic realism, but I'm not sure about labelling it
as magic realism. On the other hand, it's been a long time since I read the
trilogy, and I do recall that Titus Alone was quite different from the
preceeding two books.
|>
|>
|> Andrew Dinn
|> -----------
|> there is no map / and a compass / wouldn't help at all
Cliff
YOX
thing about m.r. to me is that (as hinted at in the orig. post) the
characters, in an historically realistic setting, are not shocked or
astounded by the (to us) "magical" occurrences. The point is not that
magic happens in Marquez's Macondo; the point is that the ten
thousand Buendias are not (or, are not very) amazed or surprised
by it. BTW, wasn't 100 Years of Solitude pubb'd in English in 1963?
Is that the point of origin of the term?
--YOX
Jeremy Wechsler
> |> In article <janetCH...@netcom.com> ja...@netcom.com (Janet M. Lafler) writes:
> |> >
> |> >I don't know about any official definitions, but I'll give you my
> |> >personal definition. Magic realism is fiction in which no distinction
> |> >is made between the real and the fantastic, in which "everyday" and
> |> >"fantastic" events are described in such a way as to make them fit
> |> >together seamlessly.
> |> >
> |> >In both realism and fantasy (at least genre fantasy) there is usually
> |> >quite a rigid distinction between the real and the fantasic, though this
> |> >separation may be implied only by the fact that the story is set in a
> |> >made-up world. Even in fantasies set in contemporary urban settings,
> |> >the magic usually intrudes onto ordinary life in a way that surprises
> |> >and confuses the mortal characters.
> |>
Janet,
I might further refine your definition: in works of magical realism, it is
the ROLE of magic that is substantially altered from works of fantasy.
While I agree unreservedly that the distinction between the real and the
fantastic is blurred and indistinct, the "magical" element is a by-product
of the characters' relationship to reality. The characters' lives,
philosophies and psychology is hyper-extenuated to the point where the
invisible is made concrete. In magical realism, spells aren't cast as an
act of ritualised magic, but out an emotional need and desire so strong
that it warps the "real". Acting as an extension of the characters'
relationships to each other and themselves, the fantastic is so much a
characteristic of the realities of the situation that the distinction
between the two is blurred permanently.
I am the artistic director of a theatre company that specializes in the
production of works of magical realism, myth and fantasy in Chicago. I
eagerly snap up any discussion of this fascinating body of literature as
well as favorite recommendations. Please feel free to post to this board
or e-mail me with any thoughts on this matter, since I find the literary
criticism of magical realism needlessly lifeless.
Thanks,
Jeremy.