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?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Song of Ice and Fire: Storytelling as Worldbuilding

This post is part of a series which I hope to write in the relatively near future, documenting pieces of entertainment media which I currently view as significant influences on the way I view what makes a story good. Beyond simply serving as writing practice, the purpose of these is largely so that in future years I can look back and laugh at the things I thought were so important when I was in high school (or be shocked by my prognosticative powers, I suppose, though that seems less likely). I'm putting the series here for the moment because it fits in fairly well with some of the media blog posts I did for Mr. Starace and doing so reduces the number of places I'll need to look to find my past writings in the future. Anyway, on to A Song of Ice and Fire (which [just in case someone else is reading this] is the low-magic fantasy epic by George R. R. Martin which was adapted into the HBO show Game of Thrones. ) The primary reason why A Song of Ice and Fire (which I will hence...

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 ...

Two Very Different Takes on the GOP Tax Bill

The Senate's Republican majority recently passed a bill which would dramatically overhaul the American tax code; on this fact everyone seems to agree. However, the varying language used by different news media outlets reveals that despite their pretensions of objectivity they have directly opposed opinions on the bill's merit. For example, the word choice of  Fox News' article  on the subject is quite supportive of the legislation. The headline is resoundingly positive, including words like "victorious" and "confident" and speaking of "avoiding shutdown." It goes on to quote a number of Republican politicians who voted for or otherwise supported the bill, without including any opposing viewpoint. In fact, the only reference to Democrats in the article is a segment about how Republican concerns that they would attempt a government shutdown in protest of the bill were averted. Throughout this, word choice remains consistently positive, with t...