Magic Realism vs. Fantasy
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <ux3ei1s...@jach.hawaii.edu>,
Frossie <fro...@jach.hawaii.edu> wrote:
>
>jeme...@shell3.ba.best.com (Jonathan Evans) writes:
>
>> You know, I've heard Stephen Brust say the same thing - "magic realism
>> is just fantasy sold to the mainstream" and I still don't buy it.
>>
>> I hesitate to try and put my finger on the difference, but....the kind
>> of regimented, heirarchical, alternate-world, magic-as-tool feel you
>> get from Brust or Hodgell is nothing like the fever-dream sequences
>> from, say, Okri's THE FAMISHED ROAD.
>>
>> Anyone want to try and defend "magic realism == fantasy"?
>
No--but I'll take a crack at defining the difference as I see it.
I've read rather little magic realism. That should make the job easier.
>I'll defend any position you want, as long as I'm allowed to disagree
>with myself afterwards :-)
>
>I don't think magic realism and fantasy *identical*. However, I do
>regard magic realism as fantasy (in some cases) along certain
>stylistic and thematic lines which indeed happen to make it more
>palatable to a mainstream litarary audience. In this, I have no
>problem agreeing with Brust's quote.
>
>If you found Borges' _Library_ in the next issue of F&SF,
>would you blink twice?
>
I wouldn't blink, but I wouldn't feel as though it's their usual
thing.
On the other hand, I wouldn't exactly call Borge's "Library"
(that's the one with all possible books, right?) magical
realism, either.
Imho, magical realism is mostly fiction set in consensus reality,
but with non-logical intrusions of fantasy. I've heard one defintion
of magical realism which requires that all the fantastic elements
be explainable as dreams, hallucinations, lies, etc. I'm not sure
that this is sound. I've read a magical realist novel in which the
main character is a centaur. There's no good explanation of why
there should only be one centaur (apparently) in the world, but
unless I missed something, the guy was quite literally and physically
a centaur.
>To be more precise, I believe "magic realism" is mostly a description
>of style whereas "fantasy" is mostly a description of content. They
>need not overlap, but they often do.
I suppose that Kotzwinkle's _The Bear Went Over the Mountain_
counts as magical realism. A bear steals a manuscript, and is able to
imitate being human well enough to become a best-selling author. The
original writer becomes more and more bearlike. This is a world where
that happens--but there's no hint that this is the sort of
world where that sort of thing *usually* happens.
I'm probably talking about a continuum here. The Rachel Pollack
books seem more like fantasy to me because everyone in them
knows that fantastic events are happening, and there's an effort
to show how such a world would work.
Would those who are into such things care to say whether they
consider _Resume with Monsters_ to be magical realism? (_Resume
with Monsters_ is about Lovecraftian monsters vs. the horrors
of modern employment--it's pretty good.)
--
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
November '97 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Glen Engel-Cox
> >jeme...@shell3.ba.best.com (Jonathan Evans) writes:
> >
> >> You know, I've heard Stephen Brust say the same thing - "magic realism
> >> is just fantasy sold to the mainstream" and I still don't buy it.
> >>
> >> I hesitate to try and put my finger on the difference, but....the kind
> >> of regimented, heirarchical, alternate-world, magic-as-tool feel you
> >> get from Brust or Hodgell is nothing like the fever-dream sequences
> >> from, say, Okri's THE FAMISHED ROAD.
> >>
> >> Anyone want to try and defend "magic realism == fantasy"?
I think it all depends on how you classify fantasy. Personally, I call
all novels fantasy, and then start subgenrefication from there.
John Clute and Peter Nicholls have done the best at trying to establish
what the different subgenres are in their encyclopedias of Fantasy and
Science Fiction. I found their categories interesting, because they add
Surrealism and Fantastical to the mix.
glen
--
Sites to SF Site <http://www.sfsite.com>
look for: Home Page <http://www.netcom.com/~mrwrite/>
First Impressions <http://www.sfsite.com/fi/>
Alexandria Digital Literature <http://www.alexlit.com/>
Rich Horton
On 4 Feb 1998 07:54:50 -0500, nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy
Lebovitz) wrote:
>On the other hand, I wouldn't exactly call Borge's "Library"
>(that's the one with all possible books, right?) magical
>realism, either.
I don't think Borges is a Magical Realist. People who call him one
are following Wolfe's definition: "Magical Realism is Fantasy written
in Spanish."
One might note that (I have heard: I may be wrong) the first
appearance of Borges' fiction in the US was in F&SF. (And in fact,
the translation of "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote" which
appears in _Ficciones_ is by Anthony Boucher. Though, while I think
"Pierre Menard" is one of Borges' best stories, it isn't very
fantastical.)
Someone asked for examples of MR authors. The canonical examples are
Latin American (hence Wolfe's definition I cited above, with which I
disagree): Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Manuel Puig, Mario Vargas Llosa,
Laura Esquivel. A European author who might qualify is Milan Kundera.
--
Rich Horton
Homepage: www.sff.net/people/richard.horton (new reviews of: _H.M.S. Surprise,
by Patrick O'Brian; and _The Stone Canal_, by Ken MacLeod.)
Rich Horton
>John Clute and Peter Nicholls have done the best at trying to establish
>what the different subgenres are in their encyclopedias of Fantasy and
>Science Fiction. I found their categories interesting, because they add
>Surrealism and Fantastical to the mix.
Another category they add is that of the "Fabulation", which they
allow might include in a "big tent" of sorts all kind of "Mainstream"
SF: they list Absurdist SF, Fictionality [???], Magical Realizm,
Slipstream, and Surfiction [is this a name for Surrealist Fiction?].
In their terms (really Clute's terms), as I see it, a Fabulation,
unlike genre SF (including Fantasy), does not accept that there might
be a rational or consistent explanation for whatever odd events occur:
in Clute's words: "a Fabulation is any story which challenges the two
main assumptions of genre SF: that the world can be seen; and that it
can be told." Of course, say I, these two assumptions are also
central to mimetic realist fiction.
Anton Sherwood
Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@universe.digex.net> writes
: Imho, magical realism is mostly fiction set in consensus reality,
: but with non-logical intrusions of fantasy. I've heard one defintion
: of magical realism which requires that all the fantastic elements
: be explainable as dreams, hallucinations, lies, etc. I'm not sure
: that this is sound. I've read a magical realist novel in which the
: main character is a centaur. There's no good explanation of why
: there should only be one centaur (apparently) in the world, but
: unless I missed something, the guy was quite literally and
: physically a centaur.
If you mean Updike, I think the central figure lives in several worlds
at once: in our world, where he's a thoroughly human schoolteacher,
*and* in the world of the gods, where he's a centaur. But that's just
an impression of something I read for school and disliked, twenty-odd
years ago.
How about _Hamlet_ and _Macbeth_ and _Njals Saga_, each of which is
realistic except for the occasional ghost or seer?
--
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher at netcom point com
"How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <dasherEo...@netcom.com>,
Anton Sherwood <das...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@universe.digex.net> writes
>: Imho, magical realism is mostly fiction set in consensus reality,
>: but with non-logical intrusions of fantasy. I've heard one defintion
>: of magical realism which requires that all the fantastic elements
>: be explainable as dreams, hallucinations, lies, etc. I'm not sure
>: that this is sound. I've read a magical realist novel in which the
>: main character is a centaur. There's no good explanation of why
>: there should only be one centaur (apparently) in the world, but
>: unless I missed something, the guy was quite literally and
>: physically a centaur.
>
>If you mean Updike, I think the central figure lives in several worlds
>at once: in our world, where he's a thoroughly human schoolteacher,
>*and* in the world of the gods, where he's a centaur. But that's just
>an impression of something I read for school and disliked, twenty-odd
>years ago.
No, the author had a Spanish name.
>How about _Hamlet_ and _Macbeth_ and _Njals Saga_, each of which is
>realistic except for the occasional ghost or seer?
>
Interesting point. They don't *feel* like what I'm calling magic
realism--lets see if it's possible to pin down why. Imho, in magic
realism, the characters don't notice that there's anything unusual
about the fantastic elements.
Glen Engel-Cox
Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
That's always been my contention for magic realism, as well. This
differs from fantasy in that the setting looks and feels like our
"reality" (quote marks care of Vladimir), but things are just a little
off and the characters don't feel it odd.
obBook: Jonathan Carroll's FROM THE TEETH OF ANGELS, where the
characters seem to take talking to Death in stride
glen
--
Sites to SF Site <http://www.sfsite.com>
look for: First Impressions <http://www.sfsite.com/fi/>
Home Page <http://www.sff.net/people/engel-cox/>