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

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

Why SpaceX Gives Me Hope

Falcon Heavy boosters landing after helping to launch Starman Over the past year or so, I have gradually become what could be accurately described as a SpaceX fan. Not only that, I have discovered that Elon Musk’s rocketry company possesses a surprisingly extensive fandom. SpaceX has an active subreddit with hundreds of thousands of members, and its orbital launches can draw millions of viewers on YouTube . So, what is it that has given a private spaceflight corporation the sort of following typically reserved for TV shows and sports teams? I can't fully answer this question in the broad, societal sense, but I can analyze what makes SpaceX so inspiring to me personally. First, it's useful to understand why I find space exploration in general so interesting and important. One factor is that establishing a human presence outside of Earth is vital to our species' long-term survival. Relying on a single fragile planet to house all of humanity is a risky choice in a w...
2 comments
Read more

Media Blog Reflection

Looking back on this blog and Critical Thinking as a whole, I can see that I have gained a lot from this assignment, though perhaps not in the expected areas. My understanding of media has not changed too greatly, as much of what I learned about it I already knew to some degree. This may come in part from attending a Waldorf inspired school and having parents who are quite aware of the problems media can pose. I do have a more complete picture of how advertising works than I did before the semester, but I don't think this class has or will cause me to significantly change the way I interact with media. However, I believe this blog was quite important in approving my writing ability. It gave me a chance to practice a style of writing (namely casual persuasive writing) which I have greatly enjoyed reading in the past and frequently employ verbally but have not really tried writing in. Not only that, but it provided an excellent example of how a school assignment can actually be enjoy...
Post a Comment
Read more