Definition: Magic Realism
John W. Oliver
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
Grey
In article <MPG.e40ac0ed...@news.earthlink.net>, Grey says...
> In article <33D6F904...@hooked.net>, John W. Oliver says...
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/
P Nielsen Hayden
>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.
I've used this term myself, but I've recently come to believe it's bullshit.
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.
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."
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Dan Goodman
>off the beaten path of what I normally write. So, I have been examining
>my market information carefully.
>
>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.
My opinion -- you need to know what the editors who say they buy Magic
Realism think it is. And that may be different for each editor, and they
may not be willing to explain further. Which probably means you'd have to
read what they publish, to know what they buy.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
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?"
miketotty
John W. Oliver wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
Just MHO,
Magical realism is yet another label. IIRC, it was originally applied to
the works of people like Gabriel Garcia Marquez (?) and other
Latin/South American writers.
I've always thought of it as more contemporary in form where the
magic/supernatural/extraordinary is subtly woven into the story. It's
not the focus and it is rarely seen or discussed.
This differs from traditional fantasy (in all it's subforms) in that in
fantasy the magic/unusual is at the heart of the story. As Del Rey
guidelines used to state "magic is a central element without which the
story cannot go forward."
--
miketotty
Infinite Edge (http://www.infinite-edge.com/~infedge)
ADP Alliance System (http://www.ADP-AllianceUS.com)
Balch & Bingham LLP (http://www.balch.com)
PMccutc103
My own view (and I invite corrections if those more read than I realize
that this is way off base) is that Magic Realism takes place in a
real-world mileau -- hence the "realism" part -- but that minor elements
of the spiritual or supernatural sometimes get weaved into the story --
hence the magic. Magic realist works have a kind of a lilting feel to
them, to my ears at least, if that descprition makes any sense at all.
So, in answer to faer...@juno.com (Grey)'s question:
>Field of Dreams and The Stand are "Magical Realism?"
I would say that _Field of Dreams_ is Magic Realism, but _The Stand_ is
science fantasy because it uses a science-fictional trope (TEOTWAWKI) with
supernatural elements tossed in.
________________________
Pete McCutchen
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
Stef Jones
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.
Like Water For Chocolate would seem to qualify. As appropriated by science
fiction and fantasy publishers, however, the term may have taken on a
different meaning.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
A Realist is someone who knows that when the other two clowns have finished
looking at the damned glass, he or she is going to have to wash it, dry it
and put it away! -- C. Burrell
Rachael M. Lininger
(quotes are at the end)
Dan G. is definitely right about going by what editors think. But if
you've already been published and your imagination can stretch, you
might try the same markets again, just for old time's sake.
However, since I just plowed through a college course on Latin
American novels, many of which were magically real (?), I'll add that
magic realism is one of those terms (like science fiction) that has
lots of fuzzy edges. Take everything I say with a tablespoon of salt
;).
Authors that are widely considered to be magic realists are Garcia
Marquez, Borges, Denoso, Esquivel, and Allende. There are m.r. writers
in the U.S., but I can't put my fingers on any names now. Faulkner
was a definite influence on the above--if you've read _The Hamlet,_
with some of its bizarre hyperbole, you'll see what I mean.
It is not fantasy, or urban fantasy (which is IMHO closer). The
fantastic elements are not necessary to the plot per se, but are
symbolic. The characters generally accept them without question (in
fact, characters in m.r. works generally accept a lot of weird things;
sometimes it can feel as though they're all sleepwalking--you mean you
didn't _notice_ that your mother's head has been in a hatbox in the
cellar for twenty-odd years? or that your daughter always has those
butterflies around her? or that half your town was massacred by the
banana company? etc). The reader is expected to accept things in the
same manner, which gives many m.r. works a metafictional edge.
(Broad generalization alert!) M.r. works were originally _in part_ a
method for self-expression in, shall we say, less than liberal
political climes. Putting his/her thoughts in a universe slightly
removed from our own helped distance an author from his/her
unfortunate opinions. This is not to say that the works are
necessarily political or didactic.
In general, m.r. writers get more respect than sf/f writers. It's a
Literary Movement. It's published in the mainstream, not the sf
ghetto, and is critically dissected by self-important academics in
ivory towers, like me. :) Not to mention a lot of m.r. writers were
backed by money from Cuba in the '60s (see: Boom literature), which is
why there are so many English translations. But that may also mean
that it's probably harder to get published in (no I don't know, this
is just supposition), _especially_ if what you've written is short
fiction. I don't know that there's an m.r. equivalent to Asimov's,
F&SF, etc.
The good stuff (from Latin America, at least):
Anything by Gabriel Garcia Marquez; I would recommend
_Innocent Erendira & Other Stories,_ _Of Love an Other Demons_ and, of
course, _One Hundred Years of Solitude._
_Like Water for Chocolate_ by Laura Esquivel.
_The House of Spirits_ by Isobel Allende.
_Pedro Paramo._
_Captain Pantoja and the Special Service_ by Mario Vargas
Llosa. Warning: this is extremely funny, but probably very offensive
to those who believe in Political Correctness.
Ain't college grand?
Best wishes!
Rachael
Rachael M. Lininger
lini...@virtu.sar.usf.edu
Editor of SForzando: The New College Magazine of Speculative Fiction
at http://www.sar.usf.edu/~lininger
On 24 Jul 1997, Dan Goodman wrote:
> In article <33D6F904...@hooked.net>,
> John W. Oliver <gry...@hooked.net> wrote:
> >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.
>
Daniel Hugh Nexon
In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.970724125458.20438B-100000@virtu>,
Rachael M. Lininger <lini...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> wrote:
>(Broad generalization alert!) M.r. works were originally _in part_ a
>method for self-expression in, shall we say, less than liberal
>political climes. Putting his/her thoughts in a universe slightly
>removed from our own helped distance an author from his/her
>unfortunate opinions. This is not to say that the works are
>necessarily political or didactic.
Oh, yeah, right. A lot of the 'magical realism' was concerned with
metaphors for the state of Latin American politics and culture
(_An Hundred Years of Solitude_, etc.). Interesting, because I bet
a lot of its popularity here had little to do with those themes.
One of my big regrets about not learning spanish is that I've heard
these works just *aren't* the same in translation.
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?
>
>
>
>
>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
PMccutc103
miketotty <to...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>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.
>
There is no way to know this. It is impossible to evaluate how good the
old-time greats would be compared to today's players for the simple reason
that the two groups played against a much different level of competition.
The fact that so-and-so batted .300 in 1935 by no means proves he could
do it today, because it is impossible to compare the level of pitching
faced by players in the two eras.
Further, in the old days, the "Major Leagues" were made up only of the
very best White American baseball players. When, in the wake of Jackie
Robinson, the Negro League players were integrated into the Majors, the
quality of competition rose dramatically. (Note that Negro League teams
more than held their own against the Majors in exhibitions.) Today, the
pool of potential players is even bigger, including Latin America, the
Carribean, even Japan.
And I'll tell you, when _I_ look at film of old-time baseball players, I
see a bunch of fat slow white guys. (Of course, to be fair, we have no
idea how those guys would have responded to modern training techniques.
Of course, the same is true of football as well.)
________________________
Pete McCutchen
R. Ventura
I think magic realism uses and expanded concept of what is
"real" to include religion, myth, magic, and other non-rational
aspects of the mental life.
Magic realism is usually associated with South American writers.
The book on everyone's list of magic realism seems to be
Gabriel Garcia Marquez - One Hundred Years of Solitude.
For short stories, I'd suggest Labyrinth - Jorge Luis Borges.
In tv land, I would consider Early Edition and Touched by An Angel
attempts at magic realism. In the movies off the top of my head
Groundhog Day comes to mind. I'm not saying these are masterpieces,
but Groundhog Day is a different kind of speculative fiction from
Independance Day and I think that difference is magic realism.
Rosemarie Ventura
aa...@freenet.buffalo.edu
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
miketotty
PMccutc103 wrote:
>
>
> There is no way to know this. It is impossible to evaluate how good the
> old-time greats would be compared to today's players for the simple reason
> that the two groups played against a much different level of competition.
> The fact that so-and-so batted .300 in 1935 by no means proves he could
> do it today, because it is impossible to compare the level of pitching
> faced by players in the two eras.
I've read any number of accounts that suggest that the great pitchers of
the past were equal to the great pitchers of today. Because it isn't
about specific physical characteristics. Some oldtime great pitchers
threw very hard. Perhaps as hard as the hardest throwers today, perhaps
not. But they certainly threw as hard as Greg Maddux, arguably one of
the greatest of all time.
MLB made the same point in 1961 when it refused to recognize Maris' 61
home runs because of expansion. They listed Ruth's 60 as the true record
and Maris' 61 with an asterix.
>
> Further, in the old days, the "Major Leagues" were made up only of the
> very best White American baseball players. When, in the wake of Jackie
> Robinson, the Negro League players were integrated into the Majors, the
> quality of competition rose dramatically. (Note that Negro League teams
> more than held their own against the Majors in exhibitions.) Today, the
> pool of potential players is even bigger, including Latin America, the
> Carribean, even Japan.
True, but I don't see that it means that baseball players from that era
weren't comparable to players today. In fact, I think to some extent
think it strengthens my argument. With the improvements in
science/training and the expanded player base, some records remain in
the 20s and 30s, some in the 40s and 50s, and so on. You don't see that
stratification of records in many sports, although basketball has it.
>
> And I'll tell you, when _I_ look at film of old-time baseball players, I
> see a bunch of fat slow white guys. (Of course, to be fair, we have no
> idea how those guys would have responded to modern training techniques.
> Of course, the same is true of football as well.)
Lou Gehrig, Ty Cobb, Joe Dimaggio, Mickey Mantle. These guys weren't fat
and slow. Sure Babe Ruth was fat and slow.
Fernando Valenzuela, Sid Fernandez, John Kruk ...To be honest, Tony
Gwynn is not a physcial speciman, though he is one of the greatest
hitters of all time.
That's really the point. Baseball involves a cluster of skills. Only
some of those skills are improved by exceptional physical conditioning.
You only have to be good at some of the skills to be an exceptional
player.
Dramatic improvement in training/medicine have still not given us more
than 50 HRs in a season, or a .400 average for a season.
miketotty
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.
Rich Horton
On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 11:47:11 -0500, miketotty <to...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>MLB made the same point in 1961 when it refused to recognize Maris' 61
>home runs because of expansion. They listed Ruth's 60 as the true record
>and Maris' 61 with an asterix.
I think the point MLB was making is that Maris' record was set in a
162 game season.
The whole issue of compariblity of eras is very compicated, and quite
interesting to some (like me), as well as very boring to , I would
guess, most. It's also about as far off-topic as I can imagine. <g>
But you have to take into account factors like:
1) length of season
2) night games
3) travel
4) innovations such as the slider and the split-finger pitch, as well
as pitches such as the spitter being outlawed, not to mention
"managerial" innovations such as more relief pitching and the 5-man
starting rotation
5) equipment changes such as astroturf, the lively ball (I mean the
one inroduced in about 1921, not the various rumors from recent
years), and significant changes in ballpark size.
6) expansion versus the increase in US population versus the increase
in the "pool" of players due to the lowering of the color line versus
the decrease in the "pool" of players due to the increase in
popularity of other sports.
7) conditioning improvements
8) many more ...
What won't do is pointing out records like Hornsby's .424 batting
average, or Ruth's 60 home runs, or Cobb's .367 batting average and
saying "See, those guys were =good=, present day players suck.",
because those records were set in prodoundly different conditions. The
question of comparability has been studied, by such a distinguished
scientist as Stephen Jay Gould, for one, and as I recall the best
conclusion reached was that the best players of any era were probably
roughly comparable to the best players of today, but the worst players
of today are =much better= than the worst players of the past. (And
that's why teh .400 average is so much harder to attain: the best
players can't fatten up on the worst pitchers as easily.) One study
suggested that Ty Cobb would have hit about.280 in the '70s, but with
vastly more home runs, and would still have had a Hall of Fame career.
>Lou Gehrig, Ty Cobb, Joe Dimaggio, Mickey Mantle. These guys weren't fat
>and slow. Sure Babe Ruth was fat and slow.
>
>
Ruth was fat, he's often described as surprisingly fast, thoough.
Sorry to natter on so long. Ob-rasfc: is it the steroids that make
present day SF writers so much better? <g,d&r>
Rich Horton
-- oh, and on the original topic of this thread: I claim no
understanding of what MR really is, but one thing I have heard many
times is that Jorge Luis Borges was =not= a magic realist: and his
stories (which I love) do not feel at all like Marquez' stories (which
I respect, but do not love). I think Borges is often lumped as a
Magic Realist because a) he came from South America, and b) his
stories had fantastical elements.
Rachael M. Lininger
Daniel Hugh Nexon (dh...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.970724125458.20438B-100000@virtu>,
>Rachael M. Lininger <lini...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> wrote:
>>(Broad generalization alert!) M.r. works were originally _in part_ a
>>method for self-expression in, shall we say, less than liberal
>>political climes. Putting his/her thoughts in a universe slightly
>>removed from our own helped distance an author from his/her
>>unfortunate opinions. This is not to say that the works are
>>necessarily political or didactic.
I should have added--and that makes it somewhat speculative fiction-y.
But because the works are not _driven_ by the "magic," it is not sf by
most people's definitions. It just sort of...happens. That's part of
what's so weird about it.
Sandy Flemming's post (which I lost somewhere...) was dead on target,
as far as I'm concerned. It had the spectrum:
adjective > simile > metaphor > surrealism
^m.r. goes about here
Very clear. I wish I'd said all that. :)
>Oh, yeah, right. A lot of the 'magical realism' was concerned with
>metaphors for the state of Latin American politics and culture
>(_An Hundred Years of Solitude_, etc.). Interesting, because I bet
>a lot of its popularity here had little to do with those themes.
Are you kidding? How many U.S. people know ANYTHING about politics and
culture in South America? Much less can appreciate them? I can't speak
for the rest of the m.r.-loving world, but I'd suspect that people are
ignorant everywhere. Including me, frankly.
However: making fun of the powers that be is enjoyable, whether you
know anything about them or not. The general idea does get across.
>One of my big regrets about not learning spanish is that I've heard
>these works just *aren't* the same in translation.
Absolutely. Your comment reminds me--when I recommended _Pedro
Paramo,_ I should have noted that the old translation is reputedly
rather...bad. Awful, in fact. My professor (who teaches both Spanish
lang. and lit.) used it once and couldn't understand why the entire
class hated the book until she actually looked at the English version.
She did not use it again until it was retranslated. The new
translation, though, is a marvelous read. I don't remember who did
what; look at the copyright dates for the translation. The later one
was in the last two or three years.
But everything loses something in translation. Not just the language
itself. Taking a work out of its original context--the time, the
place, whatever--reduces the number of connections it can make to real
life. Humor is especially hard, and m.r. is not always serious--the
prof had to explain various puns, etc. But that's also a part of its
value--you get to see through other people's eyes. Even if you miss
stuff. Lots of stuff. It's like being Doctor Watson; most of the time,
you don't even know what you're missing.
For example: _Captain Pantoja & the Special Servie,_ by Vargas Llosa,
was a satire of the Peruvian army in which a special corps of
prostitues is created (ranks and all) to service the troops.
Eventually, the civilians that had complained that the servicemen were
raping their wives and daughters began complaining that they
themselves didn't have equal access to the "specialists." We, the
naive, ivory-towered students, naturally assumed that this was a
metaphorical extension of various abuses within the Peruvian army.
Nope. It really happened. Not the way Vargas Llosa told it, but the
basic facts were true. It really changed how we perceived the novel.
>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
Don't we all?
Gary Farber
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
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?
PMccutc103
OK, now that we know, or don't know, as the case may be, what "magic
realism" is, what is "slipstream"?
Or am I merely hallucinating when I think I've heard this term used?
________________________
Pete McCutchen
Dan Goodman
In article <19970728012...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
PMccutc103 <pmccu...@aol.com> wrote:
>OK, now that we know, or don't know, as the case may be, what "magic
>realism" is, what is "slipstream"?
>
>Or am I merely hallucinating when I think I've heard this term used?
This may put me over my cynicism quota, but I think it has the same
meaning as "new and improved," "In the tradition of ____," and "simplified
tax code". That is, none.
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <5rgtam$ite$1...@darla.visi.com>, dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>In article <19970728012...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>PMccutc103 <pmccu...@aol.com> wrote:
>>OK, now that we know, or don't know, as the case may be, what "magic
>>realism" is, what is "slipstream"?
>>
>>Or am I merely hallucinating when I think I've heard this term used?
>
>This may put me over my cynicism quota, but I think it has the same
>meaning as "new and improved," "In the tradition of ____," and "simplified
>tax code". That is, none.
Nothing of the sort. "Slipstream" is a term coined by, I believe, Bruce
Sterling, to describe mainstream books that zip alongside the genre, like a
bicycle rider taking advantage of the wake of a bus. Books like John Calvin
Batchelor's THE BIRTH OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF ANTARCTICA or Ted Mooney's
EASY TRAVEL TO OTHER PLANETS.
The term has nothing to do with marketing hype, particularly, although I'm
sure some marketer somewhere has used it.
Ray Radlein
Rich Horton wrote:
>
> miketotty <to...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Lou Gehrig, Ty Cobb, Joe Dimaggio, Mickey Mantle. These guys weren't
> >fat and slow. Sure Babe Ruth was fat and slow.
> >
> Ruth was fat, he's often described as surprisingly fast, thoough.
True; and while he didn't have a rifle arm in the outfield, I have heard
more than one different contemporary point out that he never ever threw
to the wrong base or missed the cut-off man.
For that matter, most people don't remember that if he had stayed a
pitcher, he *still* would have made it into the Hall of Fame -- as a
pitcher. In fact, he may well still hold as many *pitching* records as
hitting ones.
- Ray R.
--
*********************************************************************
"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?"
"The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to RULE THE SEVAGRAM!"
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
*********************************************************************
Grey
In article <5rgv8q$b...@panix2.panix.com>, Gary Farber says...> : Nothing of the sort. "Slipstream" is a term coined by, I believe, Bruce
> : 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.
>
>
> 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.
Liz
In article <5rguco$q...@news1.panix.com>, P Nielsen Hayden
<p...@panix.com> writes
>The term has nothing to do with marketing hype, particularly, although I'm
>sure some marketer somewhere has used it.
Certainly Forbidden Planet bookshop in London - and probably others
elsewhere - has a section of shelving marked for it. Do believe I've
seen it as a category in some British publisher's catalogues. Can't
remember which, though.
Thomas R Scudder
Rich Horton (rrho...@concentric.net) postulated:
: Ruth was fat, he's often described as surprisingly fast, thoough.
Bear in mind that the newsreel pictures we see of Ruth are from his later
years. He was very athletic early in his career.
And anyway, it's not like being a bit pudgy renders you unable to play
the game today - see also Tony Gwynn.
("I'm not an athlete. I'm a baseball player" - John Kruk, paraphrased).
(In any case, feel free to wander over to rec.sport.baseball if you
really want to discuss this.)
--
Tom Scudder aka tom...@umich.edu <*> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~tomscud
|
I do not want 3 megs of SPAM | A Martian with a crumpled spear
I will not read it, Sam-I-am. | Is jamming tarts down my left ear.
| If I turn off my hearing aid,
Fear death by water. | Will I still taste the marmalade?
PMccutc103
"Rachael M. Lininger" <lini...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> wrote:
>Are you kidding? How many U.S. people know ANYTHING about politics and
>culture in South America? Much less can appreciate them? I can't speak
>for the rest of the m.r.-loving world, but I'd suspect that people are
>ignorant everywhere. Including me, frankly.
But most of the people who bother to read magic realism likely know more
than the average person about such matters -- just as the average reader
of sf likely knows more science than the average person. And you don't
have to know a lot to know that the midnight knock on the door is a Bad
Thing.
>
>However: making fun of the powers that be is enjoyable, whether you
>know anything about them or not. The general idea does get across.
Yes.
________________________
Pete McCutchen
miketotty
Rich Horton wrote:
>
>
> I think the point MLB was making is that Maris' record was set in a
> 162 game season.
You're right, my mistake.
> saying "See, those guys were =good=, present day players suck.",
Exactly.
> scientist as Stephen Jay Gould, for one, and as I recall the best
> conclusion reached was that the best players of any era were probably
> roughly comparable to the best players of today, but the worst players
> of today are =much better= than the worst players of the past. (And
I agree that this is true. This was my point. I don't think the same
would be said of any sport that has enjoyed any kind of longevity. Look
at the converse situation as well. Frank Thomas or Ke Griffey
transported into the 40s would have been great, but would either have
been enought to change the face of the game? How about Michael Jordan in
the 40s or 50s NBA? Wayne Gretzky in the NHL at that time? Think of
someone like LAwrence Taylor playing linebacker in the 40s NFL.
IMHO, the seamless nature of past and present in terms of legends of the
game, along with the status the sport enjoyed until the last 20 years,
makes it a ripe background for MR treatment.
--
miketotty
Infinite Edge (http://www.infinite-edge.com/~infedge)
ADP Alliance System (http://www.ADP-AllianceUS.com)
Balch & Bingham LLP (http://www.balch.com)
miketotty
Thomas R Scudder wrote:
>
>
> ("I'm not an athlete. I'm a baseball player" - John Kruk, paraphrased).
That's exactly the point. In baseball, unlike most other sports,
athleticism is valued, but not a requirement. Perfect spokesman too.
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.
Fred Welden
In article <Sb8b6CAH...@gila.demon.co.uk> Liz (L...@gila.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> In article <5rguco$q...@news1.panix.com>, P Nielsen Hayden
> <p...@panix.com> writes
> >The term has nothing to do with marketing hype, particularly, although I'm
> >sure some marketer somewhere has used it.
> Certainly Forbidden Planet bookshop in London - and probably others
> elsewhere - has a section of shelving marked for it. Do believe I've
> seen it as a category in some British publisher's catalogues. Can't
> remember which, though.
I'd be personally grateful if you can recall and list a few. I went
off and read Bruce Sterling's essay on Slipstream and was shocked,
shocked I say, to discover that many of my favorite titles are on his
list, and that someone besides me has identified that there is this
thing and given it a name. I wrote a novel that I'm pretty sure has
all the properties of slipstream back in 1988 and spent years getting
rejections that said "Great writing, but we don't publish science
fiction" or "Great writing, but we only publish science fiction"
before I gave up and set the ms aside.
Actually I tried to give up writing entirely, but that made me
thoroughly miserable, so I gave up the idea of getting published
instead.
Anyway, now that I know the name of the genre that dare not speak its
name, I'm going to have to figure out who's publishing new writers in
it and start flogging my work all over again. I would greatly
appreciate any pointers in the right direction.
--Fred | wel...@ntrnet.net http://www.ntrnet.net/~welden (mod. 16Jun97)
| We Dobonians date everything relative to the Big Bang, but
| usually we only use the two least significant digits.
Daniel Hugh Nexon
On 28 Jul 1997, PMccutc103 wrote:
> "Rachael M. Lininger" <lini...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> wrote:
>
> But most of the people who bother to read magic realism likely know more
> than the average person about such matters -- just as the average reader
> of sf likely knows more science than the average person. And you don't
> have to know a lot to know that the midnight knock on the door is a Bad
> Thing.
Maybe I'm wrong, but very little of the commentary in the South American
MR I've read is as blunt as all that; I'm not sure disliking
authoritarianism (don't most of us, anyway :) tells you all that much
about the type of commentary going on in, say, Marquez.
Rich Horton
On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:31:53 -0500, miketotty <to...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>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.
Ah, I think you are right about this. Though it seems (as a very
broad generalization) that baseball is more conducive to good fiction
period, not just MR.
Another reason for the "historicity" of baseball, I think, is that so
much of that history is recorded in easily understood, somewhat
comparable (era to era), numbers (stats). No other American sport
(and not Association Football either (maybe cricket? couldn't say)),
has such a set of numbers to record its history.
Rich Horton
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
Helen Kenyon
In article <2v9SnGA+...@gila.demon.co.uk>, Liz
<L...@gila.demon.co.uk> writes
>>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?
>>
>I think (and the emphasis here is on the _I_) that it would be fantasy:
>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.
>
>Liz
Just an aside, which is on-topic for any Brits reading, but
unfortunately won't mean anything to anyone else. Did you hear the
recent BBC comedy on Radio 4, The House of the Spirit Levels? I think I
would call that "Magic Realism meets the Brontes". It was the funniest
thing I've heard in a long, long time and had me laughing out loud.
Sigh. I wish I could write anything half so funny...
Helen
--
Helen Kenyon, Gwynedd, Wales * "Er gwaetha pawb a phopeth, ryn ni yma o hyd"
(Despite everything and everybody, we're still here.)
Home page http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: ken...@baradel.demon.co.uk
**Please remove NO-SPAM etc. from e-mail address if replying by mail**
Liz
In article <EBObMIAy...@baradel.demon.co.uk>, Helen Kenyon
<ken...@baradel.demon.co.uk.NO-SPAM-PLEASE-DELETE> writes
>
>Just an aside, which is on-topic for any Brits reading, but
>unfortunately won't mean anything to anyone else. Did you hear the
>recent BBC comedy on Radio 4, The House of the Spirit Levels? I think I
>would call that "Magic Realism meets the Brontes". It was the funniest
>thing I've heard in a long, long time and had me laughing out loud.
>Sigh. I wish I could write anything half so funny...
>
>Helen
<giggle> Unfortunately, I don't pay much attention to radio, so I missed
it. But it sounds a hoot.