Skip to main content

It's Not Fantasy, It's "Magical Realism"


As you probably remember (if you're in Mr. Starace's class at least), Ms. Heitz semi-recently gave us this article explaining what magical realism is and how it differs from fantasy. As I read it, I became more and more irritated, finally deciding that I needed to write something demonstrating how it is emblematic of a significant problem in how those who analyze literature view certain genres. Luckily, I have a blog where there is a possibility that someone might actually read my rant on the subject, so here are my thoughts on why magical realism is not a distinct literary genre, but a category of fantasy literature.

Literary critics, wanting to feel more discerning than the average reader, are loath to ascribe literary merit to popular "genre fiction": fantasy, science fiction, mystery, horror, etc. They were thus presented with a conundrum when a new style of writing arose in Latin America. It was full of supernatural elements, and thus fit the standard definition of fantasy, but the critics actually liked it. However, they couldn't possibly admit to liking fantasy, so a new genre was created: "magical realism." In order to justify this distinction, the literary world asserted that while the supernatural elements in fantasy were purely speculative, if those same elements appeared in magical realism they were actually just representations of reality. The article we received in World Literature contains a particularly obvious example of this, when the author states, "If there is a ghost in a story of magical realism, the ghost is not a fantasy element but a manifestation of the reality of people who believe in ghosts and have 'real' experiences of ghosts." In other words, for the purposes of magical realism ghosts are real, but if a ghost appears in a work deemed to be fantasy it is not real. In addition to my annoyance at this double standard, I take issue with the author's apparent belief that reality is defined by people's experiences. Ghosts do not actually exist, and the fact that some people think they do does not make a book about ghosts "realism," just as Lord of the Rings would not suddenly become realistic if I had a hallucination of a hobbit and decided that such creatures actually exist.

I will conclude with an example: magic (which I feel compelled to remind the reader is not, in fact, real) is much more present in The House of the Spirits than in A Song of Ice and Fire, yet the former is considered "realism" while the latter is relegated to the dustbin of "speculative fantasy." Both are basically about life in a certain historical period and place (20th century Chile and medieval Britain, respectively) and both include supernatural characters and events. Thus, I ask you: What precisely makes them so different as to belong to entirely separate literary genres?
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Unconventional = Good

Anyone who analyzes enough entertainment media quickly begins to notice a few patterns. Every story has a (usually white and male) protagonist who, along with his band of supporting characters, faces some kind of conflict, defeats the villain, and lives happily ever after. This is (an oversimplified summary of) the Hero's Journey, that pervasive force which consigns so many stories to the dustbin of sameness. This common theme makes all media somewhat similar, but within specific genres there are many more of these similarities, so much so that one quickly realizes that the vast majority of stories are just a bunch of prefabricated parts assembled in a predictable order with a new coat of paint slapped on to trick people into thinking its something different. For evidence of this, I direct you to go to  TV Tropes , an incredible database of fictional tropes (common elements found in many different pieces of media). Once you're there, find the page of a movie you like and scroll...
1 comment
Read more

An Objection to Merchants of Cool

I generally found Merchants of Cool  to be quite insightful, but on one point I found it rather hyperbolic. One of the experts interviewed as part of the documentary compared American teens to Africa and the corporations marketing to them to European imperialists. The essential problem with this analogy is that modern teens can choose not to be exploited. The inhabitants of Africa could not simply decide to not be affected by Western conquest, but to a degree we can choose to do exactly that. The mook will always exist as a stereotype in media marketed to teenagers, but I can (and do) choose not to watch that media. (In my case this really isn't even that difficult, as I find the kind of media inhabited by mooks to be quite boring). Likewise, the fact that what is fashionable is chosen by a few large corporations doesn't really matter to someone (like me) whose clothing decisions don't factor in what's "cool" on any given day. It's certainly possible to be...
Post a Comment
Read more

Exult

What phoenix of fire and wires empowered our minds and sent forth our brains and imagination? Moloch! Civilization! Science! Beauty! Networks connecting, letters illuminating! Medicines sweeping away plague! Children safe in their laughter! People celebrating in the parks! Moloch! Moloch! Wonder of Moloch! Moloch who touches the stars! Moloch who sunders the atom! Moloch who banishes the darkness! Moloch who brings peace untold! Moloch who gave you a roof! Moloch who fed you, Moloch who clothed you, Moloch who taught you! Moloch whose memory gives us your thoughts! Moloch who caught your words from the very air and handed them through time! Moloch whose mind is pure humanity! Moloch whose blood is flowing words! Moloch whose eyes are a billion curious questions! Moloch whose cities shelter the artist! Moloch whose farms sustain the wonderer! Moloch who stands before Death, and strives against it, and drives the spectre back! Moloch who knits the nations! Moloch who slips the...
Post a Comment
Read more