Token magical realism is a cheap trick - what say you?

Status
Not open for further replies.

backslashbaby

~~~~*~~~~
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
12,635
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NC
I just came across a thought-provoking piece, imho:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/boo...n-magic-realism-cheap-trick#start-of-comments

Token magical realism is a cheap trick

Occasional flourishes of the impossible in otherwise conventional stories have become a fashionable badge for novelists to announce 'I am serious'

I couldn't decide whether to post this here or in Interstices, but I think the 'otherwise conventional stories' works better here.

Thoughts? I'll reserve mine until I see if anyone is interested in the article :)
 

Maxinquaye

That cheeky buggerer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
1,032
Location
In your mind
Website
maxoneverything.wordpress.com
Honestly, if I was reading a book about a white american family and the son died and was recast later as Malcolm X I would throw the book across the room. It's not intellectualism, it's not realism. It may be magical, but it is also pretty trite. :)

I mean, it may be metafiction, where the writer suddenly intrudes on the story to question the story itself, or the fiction. But that's just akin to Stephen Spielberg stepping into the frame in ET saying "Haha, gents and ladies, we're not REALLY here to enjoy the story, or else you're really participating in an artifice." Which is antiintellectual and... trite. :)
 
Last edited:

sohalt

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Messages
1,725
Reaction score
392
Location
Austria
Website
notsosilentsister.tumblr.com
Which is antiintellectual and... trite.

It has been done by so many people by now that it has started to come across as a cheap trick, but why would it be anti-intellectual?

Drawing attention to the fictionality of your creation is like any other narrative device. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
 

Maxinquaye

That cheeky buggerer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
1,032
Location
In your mind
Website
maxoneverything.wordpress.com
Drawing attention to the fictionality of your creation is like any other narrative device. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

But that's it, isn't it? It is a writer saying to a reader that "this fictional narrative has no intrinsic value, and you and I both know that, so let's just burst the bubble and realise that what we're doing is a parlor game; a sleight of tricks. That's all".

In so doing, it removes all intellectual and emotional value o the work. And if that is removed, then what is the point?
 

sohalt

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Messages
1,725
Reaction score
392
Location
Austria
Website
notsosilentsister.tumblr.com
It might remove the emotional value of the work, certainly not the intellectual one. A realization of the potential lack of an intrinsic value of a narrative is some sort of intellectual achievement.

Existentialists for istance don't see any intrinsic value in anything (apart, maybe from the courage of relinquishing hope without succumbing to despair), but I wouldn't say they're anti-intellectual. (Well, a bit, in a sense that they are aware of the limitations of reason; but it's more about an irresolvable tension between reason and chaos, about trying to avoid misplaced hopes in reason as a means of salvation, not about dismissing reason entirely).
 

Chris P

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
22,617
Reaction score
7,298
Location
Wash., D.C. area
Drawing attention to the fictionality of your creation is like any other narrative device. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Comparing it to movies, it can be either seeing the boom mic in "Memoirs of a Geisha," and therefore sloppy, or the scene in "Top Secret" where the female lead says "It's like we're in some sort of bad B-movie" and then she and Val Kilmer stare into the camera for a few seconds, which was hilarious.

The difference, of course, is that the boom mic was truly sloppy and "Top Secret" was a spoof. Any literary technique can be used sloppily or usefully. If it reinforces the point, then all the better.

But for me, it would depend a lot on my expectations. To use the blogger's examples, I shouldn't be surprised to see it in Vonnegut but I should in Irving.
 

Kitty Pryde

i luv you giant bear statue
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
9,090
Reaction score
2,165
Location
Lost Angeles
I really like this blog post, questioning the use of magical elements in contemporary/literary novels: http://yuki-onna.livejournal.com/547777.html

If you center stage the weird shit, rather than using it as a fetching window treatment, then it's not Serious Literature. But what we're left with is a bunch of Literature that makes no sense because the authors are essentially operating a forklift they're not rated to handle. It's awesome! It goes up and down! It crushes things! Wheee! But if you don't read the manual, you end up with a messy factory, and everything is out of order and nothing makes sense. A novel should have its own internal system, its own logic, that coheres, that connects with itself. It should not be full of random incidents of magic that connect with nothing just because watching people grieve for three hundred pages is much harder to make interesting without ghosts or vampires. It feels lazy to me, intellectually lazy, to throw out scenes and leave them hanging, breaking all the rules of the world, with no explanation.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
I enjoy it.

But I don't mind full-on fantastical or simply fantastical part of works grounded more in reality. To me, it actually reflects reality more so than simple "realism." In my experience, reality is so often stranger than realistic fiction, so why not make fiction stranger to reflect that?

I do think using any tool without knowing why you're using it or without good reason is a terrible idea. Like anything else, elements of magical realism can be great, or it can come off as a cheap trick.

When I use elements of magical realism in an otherwise realistic story, it's because it directly reflects the mindset of the character(s) in question. Like everything else in a story, how I tell it is — more than anything — a portrayal of how my character sees the world and how my character tells the story. If something feels real for a character, it's going to become real in a story told from his or her perspective, regardless of whether it's real in the outside world of the story or not.

But that's it, isn't it? It is a writer saying to a reader that "this fictional narrative has no intrinsic value, and you and I both know that, so let's just burst the bubble and realise that what we're doing is a parlor game; a sleight of tricks. That's all".

In so doing, it removes all intellectual and emotional value o the work. And if that is removed, then what is the point?

That's just silly. Why does recognizing something as a fictional narrative remove emotional or intellectual value?

I love works that break the fourth wall. It doesn't remove me from the story. I already know I'm reading fiction. Why not play with that? If anything, it adds to it for me, since it leverages more tools.
 
Last edited:

backslashbaby

~~~~*~~~~
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
12,635
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NC
Y'all don't disappoint :)

Kitty, I adore that blog post! OMG, her language is priceless. And yes, exactly.

Except I will say that there is something I connect with in works that do not explain the rules. I don't know whether it's a love of metaphor or a heart made for Magical Realism, but not explaining can be so perfect.

It can also be trite and ridiculous. I like the way kuwisdlu explained it. I think I can tell when the author has the elements come to him organically.

As for metafiction? I'm not big on it, but I do think it is meant to explore something. The 4th wall is a bit different to me when it's an omni narrator, but that's been around so long I'm sure that's why it feels more natural. I do like that.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
I really like this blog post, questioning the use of magical elements in contemporary/literary novels: http://yuki-onna.livejournal.com/547777.html

If the magical or fantastical elements seem "random" or they "connect with nothing," then they shouldn't be used. I don't think it logically follows, however, that they must be explained, or that anything that doesn't have a rigorous magical system or "magic logic" is automatically "random."

A story can be internally consistent without needing to conform to a "system" of fantastic elements that are fully explained. What it comes down to is, if an element of the fantastic makes sense or feels right in the context of the story, without needing an explanation, why should it require one?
 
Last edited:

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
I think that tokenism is rife throughout genre fiction -- or at least all the genres I read. I read crime novels that don't really care about the crime, historical novels that have no concern for history, fantasy novels where the fantastical imagery is just icing on a vanilla adventure story, horror that's actually mainstream fiction with a slasher in it, thrillers that are titillating but not really thrilling. So why not magical realism in which the magic has no relevance to the story and is just there to decorate bland plot?

The sin here is not simply misuse of technique but a weak understanding of what the value of a genre is, and poor craft motivated by cynical me-toism. I don't think it's confined to magical realism. I endorse Kuw's comment, but would add the question: if you take the gratuitous genre gimmick out, is the story worth reading?

In most of the examples I've read, the gimmick is lipstick on a pig.
 

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
43,746
Reaction score
8,652
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.amazon.com
To me, it depends on the magical realism. If it's "token" in the truest sense just to say "hey!" then it's worthless. But if the magic/fantastical elements are integral to the story, and if it's believable (such as voodoo, ghosts, supernatural phenomena that actually may exist in the real world), then I don't see why it's a problem. How is it different than writers flocking to write Tolkeinesque epic fantasy or vampires with sparkles? Is it a fad? Maybe, but if it works, it works.

As for explanation... part of what makes it magical realism is that it doesn't need to be explained. It just is.
 
Last edited:

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
Everybody associates García Marquez with the term "magic realism", and rightly so. He's a genius and master at his writing craft.

If you want another truly fine example of an amalgam of fantasy/realism read the wonderful Nigerian writer Amos Tutuola (The Palm-Wine Drinkard, My Life in the Bush of Ghosts).

And certain older writers drifted into this territory before it really had a name. Joseph Conrad, on occasion, as in his famous short story "The Lagoon". And William Faulkner from time to time as well. Or the greatly under-appreciated pre-Beat experimentalist Kenneth Patchen, especially in The Journal of Albion Moonlight.

But, like any style of writing, practiced poorly and with self-aggrandizing intent, attempts at "magic realism" can be truly awful.
 

amkuska

Professional (Re)Writer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
203
Reaction score
18
Dang it. I feel so silly for asking but....what exactly is magical realism? >.<
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
Dang it. I feel so silly for asking but....what exactly is magical realism? >.<

Don't feel silly. It's at best a vaguely defined term, coined largely to accommodate the hypnotic and exotic semi-fables executed by Gabriel García Marquez, most notably the undeniable classic One Hundred Years of Solitude. In the context of Marquez, it refers to an amalgam of realism and fable. The term has been applied to several other South American writers, like Isabel Allende, Manuel Puig, and this year's Nobel Prize winner, Vargas Llosa. I've read some of their stuff and am not sure it apples as clearly to those, but I'll defer to more analytical critics on that score.

As I mentioned, the writer who seems to me closest to the atmosphere of García Marquez is the African writer Amos Tutuola. Go read some of either (you won't be worse for doing so) and you'll get a better feel for it.
 

Mac H.

Board Visitor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,812
Reaction score
406
I hated Salman Rushdie's book 'Satanic Verses' when the main character turned into a goat for no apparent reason.

Is this the kind of thing that 'magical realism' is about?

Mac
(It's odd because I love sci-fi - and am happy with characters changing species entirely if it make sense in the world of the story. But it just made no sense!)
 

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
43,746
Reaction score
8,652
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.amazon.com
If the magical or fantastical elements seem "random" or they "connect with nothing," then they shouldn't be used. I don't think it logically follows, however, that they must be explained, or that anything that doesn't have a rigorous magical system or "magic logic" is automatically "random."

A story can be internally consistent without needing to conform to a "system" of fantastic elements that are fully explained. What it comes down to is, if an element of the fantastic makes sense or feels right in the context of the story, without needing an explanation, why should it require one?

I believe you don't have to explain magical realism, and that's the beauty of it. It's not fantasy. It's supposed to be taken as real (at least by the characters). So if whether it's voodoo or magic or some kind of super power, it's integrated in the otherwise realistic settings.

Dang it. I feel so silly for asking but....what exactly is magical realism? >.<

As said above, magical realism is magic/paranormal stuff that happens in an otherwise realistic story. Say, ghosts in a Civil War story, or a woman who happens to make people fall in love in Like Water for Chocolate. Magical realism is often not explained -- it just is. But the story, if you take away the magic, is supposed to be realistic and set in realistic settings. In the real world, so to speak. As opposed to fantasy.

"Fable" may be a good term, although we must be careful. Again, it has to be realistic and not fantasy. I'd say a movie like Stranger than Fiction is magical realism, although some may call it a fantasy/fable. On the contrary, something like Being John Malkovich is fantasy.


I hated Salman Rushdie's book 'Satanic Verses' when the main character turned into a goat for no apparent reason.

Is this the kind of thing that 'magical realism' is about?

If it's for "no apparent" reason then it may be a bad use of magical realism. There should be at least some set up, foreshadowing, etc. For a character to transfigure without any set up or rhyme or reason would be considered bad. Out of the left field.
 
Last edited:

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
I hated Salman Rushdie's book 'Satanic Verses' when the main character turned into a goat for no apparent reason.

If it helps, I'll say that I find Salman Rushdie almost unreadable. How The Satanic Verses generated such ferocious controversy is beyond my comprehension. i think Rushdie is one of the most over-rated "literary" novelists of my lifetime. But I'll defer that judgment a bit, to people who may be more in tune with his cultural heritage.

I will recommend here another novelist who gives me the "feel" of something like "magic realism" (I actually don't much like the term), a kind of hypnotically addictive writing grounded in real life but carrying something exotically symbolic along as well:

The Trinidadian novelist Shiva Naipaul. He died young, aged 40, after producing about five novels. I've read two (Fireflies and The Chip-Chip Gatherers), and both were excellent. He was the younger brother of the more famous Trinidadian novelist V.S. Naipaul, winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in literature. I like Shiva's work better than that of his more illustrious brother.
 

lkp

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
1,263
Reaction score
256
Hmm. I am in the middle of writing a story that uses occasional elements of what one might call magical realism in an otherwise conventional story.

I am writing a historical novel about mostly real people. They lived in a time when their belief system was both Christian, and influenced by earlier, Indo-European beliefs. I am trying to present the world, events, natural phenomena from their eyes; not mine. Occasionally that involves magic. I wouldn't call that tokenism, and it is integral to my vision of this work.
 

LaceWing

Banned
Flounced
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
2,212
Reaction score
272
Location
all over the map
I've noticed two flavors of magical realism.

One leaves the world unchanged to the senses, but fiddles with the beliefs. So, in Chocolat, none of the events had to be credited to magical happenings. It's what happens in the thoughts of characters and readers. A Prayer For Owen Meany (as I recall) depended on belief in coincidence; others may think of this as a religious work, but I saw it as the psychological version of m.r.

100 Years of Solitude, which I no longer have a copy of . . . the most memorable scene was the gossip/life-blood of the village literally flowing through the streets. So, this version is what? Something to do with physically transforming a metaphor, making it literally real within the story world.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Something to do with physically transforming a metaphor, making it literally real within the story world.

This has long been my personal definition of magical realism: it's a story where the wall between what is metaphor and what is the "reality" of the story breaks down.
 

DeaK

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
1,085
Reaction score
176
For me, Hamlet is the best example of successful magic realism. Can we include it, even though it's drama?

Shakespeare opened with the ghost – I mean, can you get any cooler? In the novels I've read that had magic realism it seemed like the authors worked really hard to set up a realistic fictional world, only so they could pull it out from under me, and leave me that much more shocked.

That said, I like magic realism.
 

Jamesaritchie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
27,863
Reaction score
2,311
I think the opinion in that article is, at best, disingenuous, and really boils down to nothing more than personal taste, which he seems to lack. Tokenism is always in the eye of the beholder, and when you start trying to insert your own opinion of the writer's intentions, you've crossed over into magical realism yourself.

In this case, I don't think Harper has a the first clue about what magical realism even is, and certainly no clue why so many writers don't douse a novel with such events.

This is really a case of if you don't like writers who do this, don't read them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.