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

Why You Should Watch Steven Universe

(Originally written for the McClatchy High School Feminist Coalition zine) In the first episode of Steven Universe , the primary conflict faced by the titular character is that his favorite brand of ice cream sandwich has been discontinued. By the most recent, he and his allies are confronting the ruthless dictator of a galaxy-spanning empire. Along the way, the show demonstrates creative animation, intricate worldbuilding, deeply complex characters, excellent music, and the best plot twists I have ever encountered. However, Steven Universe may be most innovative in how it approaches gender. The show’s high proportion of female characters is the most obvious manifestation of this, but even its male characters usually invert or critique conventionally gendered expectations. Before delving into those subversions, a summary of the show’s premise: Steven Universe is a Cartoon Network show created by Rebecca Sugar about a group of magical aliens called the Crystal Gems who defend ...
1 comment
Read more

The Mediocre Gatsby

The best protagonist I have yet to encounter in any work of fiction is a character named Taylor Hebert from a web serial called Worm . An introverted teenager with the ability to telepathically control bugs, she becomes a supervillain fairly early on and proceeds to commit a wide variety of morally questionable acts over the course of the story, inflicting unnecessary harm in her desire to seem intimidating and eventually killing several people in an ultimately unjustified bout of rage. However, despite all this Taylor remains a sympathetic and even sincerely relatable character. While her actions are often extreme, they are always performed in service to sympathetic goals, backed by understandable reasoning. The reader can imagine themselves making the same decisions if they were placed in the same situation. The same cannot be said of Jay Gatsby, protagonist of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gatsby . His behavior systematically eliminates his appeal to the reader, lessening th...
1 comment
Read more

How Not to Make an Audience Care

I recently watched Thor: Ragnarok , the latest in Marvel's seemingly endless torrent of superhero comedy/action movies. While I generally enjoyed it (at least compared to other films in the same genre), I found myself rather bored during many of the scenes which were intended to be the most dramatic. The movie puts an enormous amount of effort into epic music, gratuitous explosions, and intricately animated fight sequences, but many of its action scenes just felt like something to be waited through until something more interesting happened. In fact, I think you could cut out a solid 10 minutes of absurdly acrobatic duels and massacring of minions and the film would't actually lose anything of value. Now, I should say that I am not bored by all action scenes. For example, Mad Max: Fury Road  managed managed to keep me on the edge of my seat, and that movie is probably around 50% giant explosions. So what exactly did Thor: Ragnarok lack? After a fair amount of thought, I have...
Post a Comment
Read more