Magical Realism??

For example, if you and a friend are sipping coffee, and you say, "Oh bother, looks like there's a pesky unicorn nibbling my flowers," and your friend replies "Maybe you need a new scarecrow. Did you catch American Idol last night?" We aren't used to seeing unicorns around the gardens (no matter how much some might want to ) so you would expect a little excitement, but instead you and your friend just accept it. Other than the unicorn, the story is very realistic.
That's magical realism. For actual definitions, try here: http://www.public.asu.edu/~aarios/resourcebank/definitions/


Two very popular and, IMO, amazing magical realism writers are Gabriel Garcia Marquez (author of One Hundred Years of Solitude) and Laura Esquivel (Like Water for Chocolate). You should definitely check them out! I think it is an accepted genre, and I believe that a lot of it comes from Latin America, but it's becoming increasingly popular from other cultures. Now, this is just me going by what I remember learning in college, so don't take my word for it. There will be someone along soon that can answer better than me.

"Dandelion Wine" - Ray Bradbury's consummate magical realism story. In fact, much of his work has a magical realism feel to it, especially all of those that occur in the "Greentown Illinois" setting.

For me, the 'magic' of magical realism is best left undefined. Sometimes we are left to wonder if the magic IS 'real' - or some sort of imaginative or hallucinogenic perception of the protagonists. "Midnight in Paris" - the most recent Woody Allen film is a good example.

I suppose you might say it's a subset of 'fantasy'. Which is where you will often find such books in a bookstore.

Another good magical realism author is Haruki Murakami.

I wouldn't call it a subset of fantasy at all. It's its own genre or technique.

My own definition of magical realism is a world in which the wall between metaphor and the reality of the story breaks down. Trying to explain it in terms of magic always tends to leave people confused between magical realism and fantasy. I prefer to think of it in terms of the intersection between metaphor and reality. It is possible to for a magical realist story not to include any magic or traditional "fantasy" elements at all.

kuwisdelu said:

Another good magical realism author is Haruki Murakami.

I wouldn't call it a subset of fantasy at all. It's its own genre or technique.

My own definition of magical realism is a world in which the wall between metaphor and the reality of the story breaks down. Trying to explain it in terms of magic always tends to leave people confused between magical realism and fantasy. I prefer to think of it in terms of the intersection between metaphor and reality. It is possible to for a magical realist story not to include any magic or traditional "fantasy" elements at all.

Click to expand...

I think that's a fair description - Which is exactly why I pointed to Bradbury's work. The entire novel Dandelion Wine is a metaphor.

Still, you'll find these books most likely shelved under the "Fantasy" section. Perhaps one day there will be a "Magical Realism" section - but I wouldn't hold out for it.

WriteKnight said:

Still, you'll find these books most likely shelved under the "Fantasy" section. Perhaps one day there will be a "Magical Realism" section - but I wouldn't hold out for it.

Click to expand...

Hmm. That's not been my experience, but maybe we're just thinking of different authors. I read more Murakami, Marquez, Borges, etc., who are all shelved in the vanilla "Literature" section. If an author happens to also write sci-fi or fantasy, like Bradbury, I would guess that's why they're shelved there.

kuwisdelu said:

Another good magical realism author is Haruki Murakami.

I wouldn't call it a subset of fantasy at all. It's its own genre or technique.

My own definition of magical realism is a world in which the wall between metaphor and the reality of the story breaks down. Trying to explain it in terms of magic always tends to leave people confused between magical realism and fantasy. I prefer to think of it in terms of the intersection between metaphor and reality. It is possible to for a magical realist story not to include any magic or traditional "fantasy" elements at all.

Click to expand...

I'd like to hear more about your ideas here. They're more complex than mine so I'd like to learn more about the metaphorical aspect.

I think of magical realism in more simplistic terms, as the example greenbookworm gave. Magical (to the reader) elements that are taken for granted by the characters. Such as the neighbor being a nice guy and oh yeah, he's a centaur so when we go to concerts together, I take the horse trailer.

juniper said:

I think of magical realism in more simplistic terms, as the example greenbookworm gave. Magical (to the reader) elements that are taken for granted by the characters. Such as the neighbor being a nice guy and oh yeah, he's a centaur so when we go to concerts together, I take the horse trailer.

Click to expand...

Well, here's what I think is a pretty good example from an anime I'm currently watching called Mawaru Penguindrum.

In the anime, there is a place called the "Child Broiler" where children go when they are no longer wanted, abandoned, and want to disappear from this world, where they are then set on a conveyor belt and shredded into pieces to become "invisible".

Now despite some other elements of magic elsewhere in the story (which are irrelevant to this particular example), it's quite clear the story is set in our present-day, urban, realistic world. For the most part (disregarding certain major exceptions for the main characters), the world in the story operates without magic or anything that would be extraordinarily out-of-place in our own world, and functions more or less according the rules and conventions of our reality.

However, according to the rules of our reality (and therefore, the general world of the story), the idea of a physical place such as a "Child Broiler" that shreds unwanted children to pieces so they can become invisible actually existing is ridiculous. No such place exists. However, in the world of the story, it's established as a physical place, that really does exist, in which action takes place.

There is nothing overtly "magical" about this "Child Broiler." Nonetheless, it's something that would be out of place in our world. In the reality we know, it's not something that would physically exist. However, despite the world in the story for-the-most-part functioning and resembling our own world, it's simply accepted as a part of the world in the story.

Now what is the function of this "Child Broiler"? It's metaphor. It may be representative of an orphanage, a foster home, abusive parents, or simply loneliness and isolation. In a non-magical-realism story, a character might imagine such a place as the "Child Broiler" as a metaphor for how he feels, to describe the extent to which he is in despair, is lonely, and how much he wants to give up. In magical realism story, it's not metaphor. It's what is. Events and development actually take place there, even though, rationally, its existence makes no more sense in the world of the story than in our own world. Yet because it makes sense metaphorically, emotionally, spiritually, it exists. There is no clear line between metaphor and reality.

The actions that take place between characters in the "Child Broiler" are clearly a metaphor for the internal struggles of accepting oneself and coping with loneliness and abandonment, the struggles of making connections with other people despite feeling completely unwanted by the world, and trying to save others who feel the same way. But because it is a magical realism story, even though it's a metaphor, these metaphoric events and actions actually take place in the world of the story.

It's a natural consequence of the postmodernist idea that perspective shapes the reality. In magical realism, this idea can become entirely literal. Because sometimes metaphors, analogies, abstractions can be more real than vague and imperfect reality.

So it's not just that your neighbor is a centaur. It's not just that everyone takes it for granted that he's a centaur. Why is he a centaur? Because despite growing up enjoying the convenience and plenitude of modern life and being spoiled by consumer culture, his family is from the forest. They grew up tilling the earth and living amongst nature. He has not been home since he was born. He has taken in the modern world, become a part of it. But as the weight of consumerism and civilization slowly grow upon his shoulders, and his comfortable life in the city feels increasingly suffocating, he finds himself trapped between the desire to be among the comforts of civilization and all of its accomplishments and to return to nature and find what he might have lost. Struggling to determine the direction of his heart, these thoughts continue pressing on him until one day he wakes up as a centaur, a liminal being caught between the natures of civilized man and the untamed wild, struggling to find his identity.

I always love your take on MR, kuwisdelu!

kuwisdelu said:

So it's not just that your neighbor is a centaur. It's not just that everyone takes it for granted that he's a centaur. Why is he a centaur? Because despite growing up enjoying the convenience and plenitude of modern life and being spoiled by consumer culture, his family is from the forest. They grew up tilling the earth and living amongst nature. He has not been home since he was born. He has taken in the modern world, become a part of it. But as the weight of consumerism and civilization slowly grow upon his shoulders, and his comfortable life in the city feels increasingly suffocating, he finds himself trapped between the desire to be among the comforts of civilization and all of its accomplishments and to return to nature and find what he might have lost. Struggling to determine the direction of his heart, these thoughts continue pressing on him until one day he wakes up as a centaur, a liminal being caught between the natures of civilized man and the untamed wild, struggling to find his identity.

Click to expand...

Ok, I've been thinking about this since you posted, and understand (I think) what you mean, but I wonder -

How does this fit into a novel? I mean, if I'm writing a little urban fantasy with some magical realism, there's no way I'm putting that much backstory into it. And the centaur himself may not even realize all that about him. He was just born a centaur, his mom was a centaur, his dad was human (or centaur), maybe his sister is or isn't a centaur ... he just is what he is, no questions asked.

Interesting to think about all of this, and see how it relates to society and all, and wonderful to know all about your characters, but as far as the actual writing of the story ...

Your version of my centaur - and magical realism - sounds more Kafka-esque than some other takes I've heard. A man, previously a human, one day wakes up as a cockroach.

Go ahead, tell me more, if you have the time and inclination.

And now I'm thinking I want to write a story about my neighbor the centaur. It was just an example before but now sounds rather cool.

What's the magical realism in yours? Sometimes it helps to discuss the stories individually.

[Y'all can read a magical realism flash piece of mine in the new AW anthology coming out in a few days, btw At least I hope it's good MR. I've never discussed the MR aspects of it with anyone, but I see it that way.]

juniper said:

Ok, I've been thinking about this since you posted, and understand (I think) what you mean, but I wonder -

How does this fit into a novel? I mean, if I'm writing a little urban fantasy with some magical realism, there's no way I'm putting that much backstory into it. And the centaur himself may not even realize all that about him. He was just born a centaur, his mom was a centaur, his dad was human (or centaur), maybe his sister is or isn't a centaur ... he just is what he is, no questions asked.

Click to expand...

If he's really just a centaur and that's all there is to it, I'd consider that just straight-up urban fantasy and not magical realism.

The "blind acceptance / lack of rules of magic" definition of magical realism has never quite worked for me, because I think it emphasizes the wrong things, and isn't always accurate. I suspect it came about because magical realism doesn't have the same kind of magical rules that traditional fantasy tends to set up, in which the author develops a system and methodology to the fantasy and it must remain internally consistent with that system. In magical realism, the rules are not decided in that way; things have to make emotional or metaphorical sense; they need not follow any other consistency. In short, the "blind acceptance / lack of rules" thing is often a trait of magical realism, but it's not enough alone to call it magical realism because of it.

My example was just an example. The real question is still why is your character a centaur? Is it because you just wanted to make him a centaur and there is no other reason that can be inferred from the story? That's not magical realism. Is it because of some magical or scientific happenstance that is consistent with the magical or scientific rules within your story's universe? That's not magical realism, just straight-up fantasy or science fiction. Is it because something about his character or the story that means it just makes sense for him to be a centaur? Then you might have some magical realism on your hands.

Just having something magical, supernatural, or otherwise out-of-place without justifying or acknowledging it is not enough to make a story magic realism.

Magical Realism is just one of those terms... When I first heard about:

kuwisdelu said:

My own definition of magical realism is a world in which the wall between metaphor and the reality of the story breaks down.

Click to expand...

from you, it sounded quite plausible. But with your latest posts, here, I'm starting to have doubts.

The thing is: I can't bring myself to view Penguindrum as magical realism; it's a surrealist fantasy. That the child broiler, for example, has such an easily identifiable metaphorical significance undermindes the methods of realism, for me. That is: rather than having something happen in world I am to take as real, you create an environment, where the epistemological status of the entire world is in flux: your realistic fantasies rely on suspension of disbelief; but Penguin Drum relies on a tension between realism and its outlandish aspects. (This is also supported by the penguins: the cutesy anime penguins are contrasted with exceptionally real-looking penguins in the penguin house.)

To me, if I could easily tell why the centaur is a centaur, that would distance the character from reality into a "author made" world. Depending on how it's handled I'd get a "moralistic fantasy" or a "surrealist fantasy". To me, "magical realism" is "realist fantasy", though. The centaur really is just a centaur, and that is that. Actually, the centaur isn't a centaur, but a man with horse attributes (or a horse with man-attributes) whom some may call centaur because of their cultural preconceptions.

Characters may well attach metaphoric significance to the "centaur", but other characters might consider them rude for doing this. The narrative needs to stay neutral on this, though. If it takes a position, that would undermine the "realism" part of "magical realism". The South American method was to bombard you with images - some of them consistent with what we know, some of them not - until you lose your bearings and all sounds plausible. Love in the Time of Cholera (Marquez) has only two "magical" occurances I can think of: an opera singing parrot, and a growing doll. None of these are central to the narrative, though both are important at their respective stages. If these occurances have metaphoric significance, they're no different from any of the other non-magical occurances/items in this book.

In the end, I really think it shouldn't matter whether you're writing "magical realism" or not, as long as you know what you want to do. For example, many people think Salman Rushdie writes magical realism; Rushdie himself doesn't (putting himself more into the surrealist corner). Does it really matter?

My hypothesis is that - if you're setting out to write "magical realism" - you end up chasing a will'o'the wisp. (Except if you stubbornly refuse to accept any other definitions - then you'll write what you think is magical realism and don't care when others disagree, because they're wrong anyway.)

Dawnstorm said:

The thing is: I can't bring myself to view Penguindrum as magical realism; it's a surrealist fantasy. That the child broiler, for example, has such an easily identifiable metaphorical significance undermindes the methods of realism, for me. That is: rather than having something happen in world I am to take as real, you create an environment, where the epistemological status of the entire world is in flux: your realistic fantasies rely on suspension of disbelief; but Penguin Drum relies on a tension between realism and its outlandish aspects. (This is also supported by the penguins: the cutesy anime penguins are contrasted with exceptionally real-looking penguins in the penguin house.)p

Click to expand...

From my perspective, having and making use of tension between the realist and fantastical aspects of the world isn't out of place in magic realism at all. As I said, I think the idea that magic realism is magic realism because the fantasy elements are ignored or considered ordinary is a very poorly conceived definition that doesn't always work.

To me, if I could easily tell why the centaur is a centaur, that would distance the character from reality into a "author made" world. Depending on how it's handled I'd get a "moralistic fantasy" or a "surrealist fantasy". To me, "magical realism" is "realist fantasy", though. The centaur really is just a centaur, and that is that. Actually, the centaur isn't a centaur, but a man with horse attributes (or a horse with man-attributes) whom some may call centaur because of their cultural preconceptions.

Click to expand...

If there's really no other purpose, I would call that straight-up urban fantasy. The beautiful thing about metaphor and novels is that, if properly constructed, they can mean many things to many people. I gave an example of one possible interpretation. Depending how one writes about the centaur, I may be justified in my interpretation, but someone may be able to imagine a completely separate interpretation that makes just as much sense to them. It needn't be deterministic, but I would say there ought to be something there past the surface motivating it that makes some kind of metaphorical or emotional sense -- though what that is may vary from person to person -- but if there is nothing there, then it's just fantasy.

Characters may well attach metaphoric significance to the "centaur", but other characters might consider them rude for doing this. The narrative needs to stay neutral on this, though. If it takes a position, that would undermine the "realism" part of "magical realism".

Click to expand...

I agree. Well, I would say the author should attempt to remain neutral rather than the narrative. Meanings needn't be deterministic. I'm not talking about a simple allegory, though some of my examples have taken that form because it's easier to explain, but it need never be limited to that. Usually, it isn't.

The South American method was to bombard you with images - some of them consistent with what we know, some of them not - until you lose your bearings and all sounds plausible. Love in the Time of Cholera (Marquez) has only two "magical" occurances I can think of: an opera singing parrot, and a growing doll. None of these are central to the narrative, though both are important at their respective stages. If these occurances have metaphoric significance, they're no different from any of the other non-magical occurances/items in this book.

In the end, I really think it shouldn't matter whether you're writing "magical realism" or not, as long as you know what you want to do. For example, many people think Salman Rushdie writes magical realism; Rushdie himself doesn't (putting himself more into the surrealist corner). Does it really matter?

My hypothesis is that - if you're setting out to write "magical realism" - you end up chasing a will'o'the wisp. (Except if you stubbornly refuse to accept any other definitions - then you'll write what you think is magical realism and don't care when others disagree, because they're wrong anyway.)

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say there is any line between magical realism and surrealism. There's plenty of overlap. Writing a surrealistic magical realism story is no different from writing, say, a historical sci-fi novel. There is confusion because when people look at magic realism, they tend to take the words "magic" and "realism" too literally.

What magic realism is is still a subject of scholarly and academic debate. I merely present my own interpretation, and what it means to me.

ETA: Hmm, it occurs to me that a distinction should be made between what the characters accept and what the reader is supposed to accept. And perhaps even what the text accepts of itself.

kuwisdelu said:

Depending how one writes about the centaur, I may be justified in my interpretation, but someone may be able to imagine a completely separate interpretation that makes just as much sense to them. It needn't be deterministic, but I would say there ought to be something there past the surface motivating it that makes some kind of metaphorical or emotional sense -- though what that is may vary from person to person -- but if there is nothing there, then it's just fantasy.

Click to expand...

So how would *you* write about the centaur to make it magical realism as opposed to urban fantasy?

The urban fantasies I've read (currently it's Stacia Kane's City of Ghosts, book 3 in her series) doesn't include characters like centaurs. The magical creatures are specially-endowed humans, witches, spirits, ghosts, etc. It's today's world but with the extra dimension of magic powers.

So I wouldn't consider a book with centaurs and other mythical creatures to be urban fantasy at all, but just fantasy. But, maybe my definition of urban fantasy is too narrow.

kuwisdelu said:

From my perspective, having and making use of tension between the realist and fantastical aspects of the world isn't out of place in magic realism at all. As I said, I think the idea that magic realism is magic realism because the fantasy elements are ignored or considered ordinary is a very poorly conceived definition that doesn't always work.

Click to expand...

Tension between realist and fantastical is fine, but Penguindrum goes beyond that. For example, do you really think the people in that fictional setting look to 75 % like paper cut-outs, devoid of any features? Is that a realist method of presentation, or are they telling us - in a sort of pictorial metaphor - that these are people who will never amount to anything? Note that the surrealist portrayal, here, pertains to mundane, every-day people. They're certainly real; but their portrayal is - in all likelihood - not accurate. A realist method provides a sense of ontological security; what you see is real. That doesn't mean you can't play with that - but Penguindrum undermines that at a very basic level. "Real" simply doesn't matter any more.

If there's really no other purpose, I would call that straight-up urban fantasy. The beautiful thing about metaphor and novels is that, if properly constructed, they can mean many things to many people. I gave an example of one possible interpretation. Depending how one writes about the centaur, I may be justified in my interpretation, but someone may be able to imagine a completely separate interpretation that makes just as much sense to them. It needn't be deterministic, but I would say there ought to be something there past the surface motivating it that makes some kind of metaphorical or emotional sense -- though what that is may vary from person to person -- but if there is nothing there, then it's just fantasy.

Click to expand...

Not sure about that. On the one hand, I could easily give a metaphoric reading of, say, Lord of the Rings, assigning a metaphorical meaning to the difference between elf/orc/dwarf/hobbit/man. To me, the lack of any meaning beyond what's there on the page, makes the difference between fantasy and gratuitious fantasy, not magical realism and fantasy.

On the other hand, a metaphor is a comparison, and the vehicle of that comparison needn't be fantastic at all. Let's say, my neighbour is a mail man. I feel he always behaves sort of mail-manly, so I tell him to take off his mail-man uniform, for once. If I take that literally, I could write a story about a mail man who always wears his uniform. The only time he doesn't is when he's in the process of changing into a freshly washed one. (Mail-man uniform under the shower; mail-man uniform in bed, on the beach, during medical examinations...)

I agree. Well, I would say the author should attempt to remain neutral rather than the narrative.

Click to expand...

True. A personalised narrator might well take a position.

What magic realism is is still a subject of scholarly and academic debate. I merely present my own interpretation, and what it means to me.

Click to expand...

One problem I have is that "magical realism" isn't a term I would use describing anything. The scholarly and academic debate isn't helpful when it comes to fantasy, as they don't generally acknowledge that fantasy exists. You have romances (in the older sense of tales of "high adventure"), you science fiction, and you have surrealism. You don't have fantasy (some scholars may use the term, but I haven't come across them often).

Another problem I have is that, when it comes to magical realism, "belief" is an issue. We don't all start out with the same concept on what's fantastical. I sometimes imagine "magical realism" as a diplomatic centre between world-views. But that's not helpful when it comes to identifying formal criteria.

ETA: Hmm, it occurs to me that a distinction should be made between what the characters accept and what the reader is supposed to accept. And perhaps even what the text accepts of itself.

Click to expand...

Yep. Note the title of a Marquez story: "A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings". The word "angel" falls for the first time in the third paragraph; after a description that is not at all fitting the angelic stereotype.

Dawnstorm said:

Tension between realist and fantastical is fine, but Penguindrum goes beyond that. For example, do you really think the people in that fictional setting look to 75 % like paper cut-outs, devoid of any features? Is that a realist method of presentation, or are they telling us - in a sort of pictorial metaphor - that these are people who will never amount to anything? Note that the surrealist portrayal, here, pertains to mundane, every-day people. They're certainly real; but their portrayal is - in all likelihood - not accurate. A realist method provides a sense of ontological security; what you see is real. That doesn't mean you can't play with that - but Penguindrum undermines that at a very basic level. "Real" simply doesn't matter any more.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that Penguindrum isn't surrealist. I think it mixes elements from both — at least in the way I perceive the two genres or elements.

I think the way you're using the world "real" and "realism" in your argument falls into the same category of people taking those terms too literally when applied to either magic realism or surrealism.

In any case, I would say the strengths of magic realism come from inserting the fantastic into the mundane and familiar in order to create a new reality that may be familiar yet strange, but ultimately more real than what we recognize as reality; the strengths of surrealism come from attempting to achieve the exact same thing, but instead by utterly replacing the mundane and familiar with a new fantastic and unfamiliar reality which may be more real or accurate to our internal thoughts, feelings, and struggles than true reality.

They are methods that take different approaches in achieving similar goals. However, I don't think they can't be mixed. IMO, I see elements of both. For example, the penguins themselves I see as a magic realism element, as they are "magic" creatures placed into the context of ordinary life. Sequences like "Seizon senryoku!" are entirely surrealist, and are new realities entirely cutoff from the as-we-recognize-it reality. Sequences like the hell train and the child broiler aren't as simple to characterize, and I would argue that they are both elements of magic realism and surrealism, as they are both entirely new and strange realities in their own right, that act as a stand-in for the psychological struggles of the characters that completely replaces the "as-we-know-it" reality, yet they also function and interact with the world that we recognize as similar to our own, which was a striking thing to me, and made them even more effective (to me) by combining elements from both genres.

Not sure about that. On the one hand, I could easily give a metaphoric reading of, say, Lord of the Rings, assigning a metaphorical meaning to the difference between elf/orc/dwarf/hobbit/man. To me, the lack of any meaning beyond what's there on the page, makes the difference between fantasy and gratuitious fantasy, not magical realism and fantasy.

Click to expand...

The problem there, I think, is that elfves, dwarves, man, etc... they are races of people. If they are representative of anything, I think it would be very difficult to argue in a story in which they exist as a race of unique individuals, that they exist as a metaphor.

Furthermore, the internal logic of the story is generally consistent as a high fantasy story. A reading of it that is entirely coherent without considering metaphorical justifications at all would make perfect sense. There are ways it can be read deep beyond the surface, because it makes sense within that world.

With both magical realism and surrealism, that need not be the case. Readings of such stories must necessarily consider more metaphorical explanations, because a shallow reading of the story just doesn't make any fucking sense. Trying to explain them in a logical sense doesn't work, because they don't operate on a logical level, but on a more emotional, metaphorical, thoughtful level. Whereas explaining traditional fantasy in a logical way is possible, because the logic is usually set up in that world as a system of rules, from which emerge certain consistencies.

On the other hand, a metaphor is a comparison, and the vehicle of that comparison needn't be fantastic at all. Let's say, my neighbour is a mail man. I feel he always behaves sort of mail-manly, so I tell him to take off his mail-man uniform, for once. If I take that literally, I could write a story about a mail man who always wears his uniform. The only time he doesn't is when he's in the process of changing into a freshly washed one. (Mail-man uniform under the shower; mail-man uniform in bed, on the beach, during medical examinations...)

Click to expand...

I agree. That's why I said magical realism need not necessarily contain "magic" or traditional "fantasy" elements. I would consider a story such as you described to be have strong elements of magical realism.

...

One problem I have is that "magical realism" isn't a term I would use describing anything. The scholarly and academic debate isn't helpful when it comes to fantasy, as they don't generally acknowledge that fantasy exists. You have romances (in the older sense of tales of "high adventure"), you science fiction, and you have surrealism. You don't have fantasy (some scholars may use the term, but I haven't come across them often).

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why it would need to be helpful when it comes to fantasy.

For me, I kind of have to use it to describe stuff, as magic realism is basically my favorite genre, so it would be difficult to describe it any other way.

kuwisdelu said:

...but ultimately more real than what we recognize as reality...

Click to expand...

It's phrases like these that tend to stump me. That may sound like a minor quibble, but it's always my downfall. Just when I think I grasp what people are saying, along comes something like this and I get confused again.

It's important, because it comes back in what follows, albeit in diluted form:

the strengths of surrealism come from attempting to achieve the exact same thing, but instead by utterly replacing the mundane and familiar with a new fantastic and unfamiliar reality which may be more real or accurate to our internal thoughts, feelings, and struggles than true reality.

Click to expand...

It's not that I think you're wrong. It's not even that I feel differently. It's that I can't make sense of that part. And I feel I'd need to, to get at your bigger point.

However, I don't think they can't be mixed. IMO, I see elements of both. For example, the penguins themselves I see as a magic realism element, as they are "magic" creatures placed into the context of ordinary life. Sequences like "Seizon senryoku!" are entirely surrealist, and are new realities entirely cutoff from the as-we-recognize-it reality. Sequences like the hell train and the child broiler aren't as simple to characterize, and I would argue that they are both elements of magic realism and surrealism, as they are both entirely new and strange realities in their own right, that act as a stand-in for the psychological struggles of the characters that completely replaces the "as-we-know-it" reality, yet they also function and interact with the world that we recognize as similar to our own, which was a striking thing to me, and made them even more effective (to me) by combining elements from both genres.

Click to expand...

Now, this makes a lot of sense, and I can see where you come from. But for me (and here I am not giving an "objective analysis", but I'm trying to describe how the show works for me) it doesn't play out like that. It's complicated and I don't have the time for a detailed analysis, but to me the show doesn't portray a consistent ontology. It's a meta-fictional game with interesting thematic results. It's a denial of realism (magical or otherwise).

With both magical realism and surrealism, that need not be the case. Readings of such stories must necessarily consider more metaphorical explanations, because a shallow reading of the story just doesn't make any fucking sense. Trying to explain them in a logical sense doesn't work, because they don't operate on a logical level, but on a more emotional, metaphorical, thoughtful level. Whereas explaining traditional fantasy in a logical way is possible, because the logic is usually set up in that world as a system of rules, from which emerge certain consistencies.

Click to expand...

Hm, let me see if I can summarise this:

Basically, the "magical" elements in a work of fantasy function like "thought experiment", in which you set up a situation and where it takes you. [The metaphorical level is setting-external.]

In a magically realist world, the "magical" elements function as a breaching experiment, in which you change certain aspects of the daily routine to show up its arbitrariness. [The metaphorical level is setting-internal.]

Would that work? (It's something I could live with; except maybe that I have a broader view of fantasy.)

I agree. That's why I said magical realism need not necessarily contain "magic" or traditional "fantasy" elements. I would consider a story such as you described to be have strong elements of magical realism.

Click to expand...

Gotcha. I think I do understand at least something, then.

I'm not sure why it would need to be helpful when it comes to fantasy.

Click to expand...

Well, for me to use a term it would have to integrate with the other words I do use. I use fantasy, but I don't use "magical realism" at all, unless when I talk about how others use that. This probably means that I subsume much of magical realism under fantasy, and that would naturally make me disagree with you when you make a distinction.

Thus it would be interesting what genre theorists have to say on the topic. The answer is: very little to nothing. I find plenty about "the fantastic" (which has more in common with the distinction romance/novel than with anything I recognise as "fantasy"), science fiction, and surrealism.

Note, that I very rarely talk about genre-classification, in any case. Back before this sub-forum was created, I said that I didn't want this sub-forum, but that I would come here if it was created, because I like that sort of stuff. My fears have largely come to pass: these days, this sub-forum is mostly a genre-disambiguation station.

For me, I kind of have to use it to describe stuff, as magic realism is basically my favorite genre, so it would be difficult to describe it any other way.

Click to expand...

Except that when lots of people use the term differently, what it communicates isn't a description so much as a confusion. I have no problem following your defition as far as I understand it; on this board, there's also Toothpaste's to bear in mind. My own fuzzy understanding is what I have to compare this to, and then if I try to integrate this... It's like fighting the hydra: at some point the hydra, weighed down by too many heads, will no longer be able to move. [Take that literally for a work of magical realism. ]

ETA: Off to watch the latest ep of Penguindrum.

Literary fiction in which people speak, act, and feel as they do in real life and experience magic that is unexplained, i.e., the nuts and bolts or "system" behind the magic isn't given a second thought. Better thought of as magic REALISM rather than MAGIC realism because the more mundane stuff takes precedence over the mystical stuff.

It's the same in novels as it is in film. Think of Guillermo Del Toro's The Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth in print.

richcapo said:

because the more mundane stuff takes precedence over the mystical stuff.

Click to expand...

I would frame is as that the mystical stuff is motivated by the mundane stuff rather than the other way around; the "magic" is emergent from the story, rather than the story being emergent from the magic.