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

Do We Really Want the Trump Administration Censoring the Media?

MissRepresentation was an excellent documentary. Before watching it, I was already aware of many of the problems with the representation of women in media which it illuminates, but I was still impressed at how comprehensive and powerful its argument was. However, I disagree with the film on one major point: I do not think that media content should be further regulated by the government or any other organization, even with the purpose of reducing the objectification of women. To see why this kind of regulation could be so problematic, it is helpful to look at the history of media censorship in the United States. From 1930 to 1968, almost all American movies were produced under the  Motion Picture Production Code , a set of rules governing what could be shown onscreen. The rules were intended to safeguard public virtue by eliminating immoral content from the media and were created by the film industry itself to preempt government regulation. While the idea of such a code may seem l...
5 comments
Read more

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

Narrowcasting on Youtube

The discussion of narrowcasting we had in class reminded me of this fascinating video on the surprisingly complex process which determines what ad you see when you click on a video on Youtube. The short version is this: In the millisecond between you clicking the video and the ad playing, Youtube's algorithms analyze the video (looking at its title, views, comments, etc.) and analyze you (trying to determine your age, gender, location, etc. based on your watch history) and then give those pieces of information to the algorithms of the advertisers, which have been programmed to target certain kinds of videos and specific viewer demographics. The advertiser algorithms then hold an auction to determine what commercial you see when the video loads. While this process is certainly useful for Youtube, advertisers and content creators, it has some disturbing implications. If you and someone else watch the exact same video, you may well see completely different ads. This, as with all ...
2 comments
Read more