Discussion: Magical Realism

[stinglikeabee]

scififanatic and I were discussing magical realism yesterday at a Denny's. Wait, it's not important that we were at a chain diner. Or is it? What if I said it was a Denny's that served as a portal to an alternate universe where our server was a violet plumed rooster who scratched thin symbols into the trembling ground, and strutted off as a thick green beanstalk shot through the markings, producing jug-sized pitchers for our mimosas?

Actually, I had a Zinfandel.

So. Our discussion could be detailed as such:

a) What is magical realism?

b) What distinguishes magical realism?

c) Who gets to use the term magical realism?

Read my writeup of our attempts to answer these questions under the cut:



Disclaimer: IANALS (I am not a literature scholar). I read pulp fiction, the kind with half-naked, sultry temptresses with guns or seducing poor schmucks on the cover. Also, I enjoy (because I'm a masochist) mainstream superhero comics. This ain't gonna be anything that's fit for reprinting in a journal, let me tell ya upfront.

a) What is magical realism?

Fuck me, I don't know. And you know, I don't think there's any shame in admitting that. In our discussion we were loss for a concrete definition for what is considered magical realism. And scififanatic had said she had an unsatisfying discussion with a writer about the label as neither could agree on what it entailed. PS S is way more scholarly than I am. It seems like 'magical realism' is a trendy label used by publishers and agents to sell books, and really no one ought to be surprised there's such confusion as to what it is.

With much ignorance, I said I felt it was something exclusive to writing, but according to Wikipedia (that bastion of truthiness and factual understanding) it term was first used by an art critic to describe a painting style that is very realistic (something called Neue Sachlichkei, or New Objectivity).

I think parlance hit it closer to the mark. When I explained the trouble we had, she asked whether magical realism was a Latin American tradition, rather than a stylistic form. Wikipedia notes the term was first applied to works from the region. It even throws in a few cutesy quotes such as one from Gene Wolfe, "Magic realism is fantasy written by people who speak Spanish". Aw. However most of what we (in the US anyhow) know of magic realism are the translations of these Spanish-language works. Can we really know the spirit of the tradition when language is a barrier? That answer may be buried in obscure discussions when the term is now being used to describe English literature, such as Toni Morrison's works.

But damnit, I hear you cry, give me a definition! Alright, I'll give it the old college try: magical realism are works that involve realities that are as much influenced by myth and fantasty as confined by the recognisable rules we live by. How was that? I think critic Luis Leal says it best when he says, "if you can explain it, then it's not magical realism". You'll know when you read it if it's magical realism. Not satisfied? Feel free to give me your own definition :)

ETA: i_may_need_meds offers a definition she heard elsewhere that sounds perfect: It's a novel where the unexplained fantasy elements are treated as something normal and not as something extraordinary.

b) What distinguishes magical realism?

See previous paragraph. This was a tough one. Where to draw the line between fantasy and magical realism? Or surrealism? You get the drift. Plus, since the term originally referred to paintings, can there be an equivalent in cinema? Shit, I had thought frantically at this point, where does it end? Make the definition too narrow and you may miss out on spectacular works deserving of more acclaim. Make it too broad and all of a sudden the Harry Potter series is included.

scififanatic and I began throwing around suggestions of what we thought conformed to the magical realism ideals, in hopes of finding a common thread. Here's a partial list, and I thank triestine for her help in giving us Eastern European examples:

Novels
The Enchantress of Florence, Salman Rushdie
One Hundred Years of Solitude, Gabriel Garcia Marquez (broke my own rule, I know, grumble grumble)
The House of the Spirits, Isabel Allende (btw how disappointing was the movie adaptation?)
Like Water for Chocolate, Laura Esquivel
The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana, Umberto Eco
Master and Margarita, Mikhail Bulgakov
Fama o biciklistima (The Fuss/Rumours About Cyclists), Svetislav Basara
Journal on the Minotaur, Dragan Orlović
The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, Junot Diaz
The Passion, Jeanette Winterson (thanks, roguecatwoman!)
Tropic of Orange, Karen Tei Yamashita (thanks, smittenly!)

Sorry, S! I've forgotten some of the examples we had. If anyone has a rec, please comment and I'll add them to the list. The goal would be not to judge other books by what we've compiled but to see why they are termed magical realism.

Also: the movie Pan's Labyrinth. Gothic fantasy, or would it fit comfortably in the above list?

c) Who gets to use the term magical realism?

I want to be a snob and say it's all a marketing gimmick. A good story is a good story, full stop. Yeah, but if that were the case I wouldn't get all riled up about people calling Frank Miller's Sin City 'noir'.

Uh oh, I hear you say, her and Frank Miller again. This is not going to end well.

Let's use another example, then. Years ago JK Rowling said in a Time magazine article that she didn't realise after the first Potter book that it was a fantasy novel. Terry Pratchett countered that by saying, "I would have thought that the wizards, witches, trolls, unicorns, hidden worlds... would have given her a clue?" When my friend heard of this, she was fuming and wondered whether Rowling realised that not only had she written a fantasy, the series was part of the sci-fi world too. My reaction to the entire thing: a shrug and a witty remark to change the subject (I believe it was about a beaver and a dam). In retrospect I'm kinda iffy on the Potter series as science fiction, but I'll leave it to those more learned than I.

Obviously we readers grow very attached to the labels, and become very vocal if we think something is miscategorised by publishers. The book Coraline, S and I agreed, was distinctly gothic and straddled the line between fantasy and horror. Amazon.com's review even called it a fairy tale. But my recollection was that it was marketed as a Young Adult novel. I was then quite surprised at last year's Comic-Con to hear that people in their twenties were excited for the movie, thinking it would only attract the attention of teens. When I asked my Neil Gaiman-obsessed friend what she would call the book, her voice did not falter when she said simply 'fantasy'. Many would agree with her.

But what if an author/agent/publisher/Paula from marketing sincerely believes their work belongs in a certain section? Like Twilight in fantasy, when many believe it ought to be in the compost bin har de har har (remember to recycle kids!). Who is right, the source of the text or the readers? scififanatic thinks it's all right for someone to claim her novel is say, light magical realism or whatever, but they had better be prepared to defend their position when a reader brings forth a challenge. Then roses fall from the sky, a choir booms a hymn of the impending apocalypse, and a sword is pulled from within the Rose Bride -- okay, no, it won't be anything like out of Revolutionary Girl Utena. Unless you claim your work is noir and I find out it's because the comic is all in black and white and Wolverine has switchblades instead of razors for claws. Then it's on bitches!

Point is, as a writer you have to be careful about the expectations readers may have with the certain terms. Especially with something like magical realism that's still fresh and new to our North American palates.

That's... pretty much all that comes to mind from our hours-long talk about magical realism. I hope some/any of this blather has inspired anyone to go and pick up a book from the list, or even google the term. Or at the very least, now have some very interesting material to make fun of me with.

Comments

[i-may-need-meds.livejournal.com]

I once read a definition for magical realism that went something like this:

It's a novel where the unexplained fantasy elements are treated as something normal and not as something extraordinary.

It will probably fail the encompass all the magical realism novels certainly. Master and Margarita for examples doesn't seem to fit, I think. Not without some massive argumentation and goal post moving at least. And I only saw the Like Water for Chocolate movie, but I don't remember any semi fantastic elements there. But then again I don't recall what the movie was about either.

Still, it does remove the usual fantasy epics and stuff like Harry Potter, where the secret war between the secret special people that the normals are not even ware of is by definition not something normal.

Another, simpler definition of course is: Fantasy for people who wouldn't be caught dead with a book with a dragon on the cover.

[stinglikeabee.livejournal.com]

It's a novel where the unexplained fantasy elements are treated as something normal and not as something extraordinary.

YES. I'll have to steal that for the post :)

I haven't read Master and Margarita, but I have read Like Water For Chocolate. There are plenty of similarities with Chocolat (also a novel turn film), except I find LWFC with its doomed romance to be funnier and more moving than the story of a mysterious chocolatier. Food becomes a conduit for expressing or releasing desires. Characters in LWFC break down in tears, affected by the grief embued in a dish prepared by the main character. In Chocolat, a taster is taken back to a secret memory of his past by a bite of an innocuous looking piece of confectionery. And once desire has taken hold, all sorts of strange, fantastic things begin to occur to the characters. For instance, the ending of LWFC is one of those things you are sure can't happen in reality (woman eats candles and somehow by thinking of her dead lover manages to spark them within her and burn her home down?) but it's written so convincingly 'normal' that you put down the book and look suspiciously at candles for months. Alas the movie adaptations ruin this kind of artistic miracles by turning the solemn into something cute and harmless, as if to say, look it's a charming little witch casting spells to make people fall in love, tee hee! I love Juliette Binoche, but that movie made me want to drink something fierce.

Also, that simple definition is the perfect comeback for those who think there's a huge difference between fantasy and magical realism. Why the attitude that magical realism is high art whereas fantasy, with its geeky elves and subcultures, is amateurish in comparison?

[i-may-need-meds.livejournal.com]

> I haven't read Master and Margarita

In M&M the devil and his court visit Stalinist Moscow and hijinks ensue. I suppose it is treated as normal by the writer, who doesn't feel the need to explain why this is happening, and it needs no explanation of course. But the characters in the book do not react as if this is normal; for them it is extraordinary.

The definition is vague that way because then you have to argue about how normal you think the writer is treating the fantastic elements.

And then we go back to "You'll know it when you see it!"

> Why the attitude that magical realism is high art whereas fantasy, with its geeky elves and subcultures, is amateurish in comparison?

Well, I think it is because they tend to have different goals. The goal for Magical Realism writers is to write something literary and artistic. The goal for Fantasy writers, mostly, is to write an adventure. Nothing stops an adventure from being art, but it's not the goal for most writers, so it is less common.

[stinglikeabee.livejournal.com]

In M&M the devil and his court visit Stalinist Moscow and hijinks ensue. I suppose it is treated as normal by the writer, who doesn't feel the need to explain why this is happening, and it needs no explanation of course.

Heh, that's exactly what I thought when reading your description.

The goal for Magical Realism writers is to write something literary and artistic. The goal for Fantasy writers, mostly, is to write an adventure. Nothing stops an adventure from being art, but it's not the goal for most writers, so it is less common.

Hmm, good point. I hadn't thought of it in terms of adventure versus art. I pay more attention to tone and style than I do plot, so this explains why in my mind it's very similar.

OT What is Doom doing in your icon? I keep thinking he's about to smash a poor puppy's head in.

[roguecatwoman.livejournal.com]

How about The Passion by Jeanette Winterson?

And you have reminded me of a few on your list I always wanted to check out and never got around to (plus some I never heard of!). Thanks! =)

[stinglikeabee.livejournal.com]

Ah, never heard of that one! I'll add that to the list. Now that I think of it, I didn't add Junot Diaz to the list either! Ooh, that was careless of me.

Hee, I'm glad to read people are responding to something even as boring sounding as this discussion of magical realism.

[smittenly.livejournal.com]

I like this post! Yours are always so thought-provoking, and I'm saving this one to re-read.

Magical realism has cropped up for me in my studies, of course, and I would add Karen Tei Yamashita's Tropic of Orange to the list. It's an interesting novel based in L.A./Mexico, though I wouldn't say it's a favorite.

[stinglikeabee.livejournal.com]

Heh, it was a lot of fun to hash out comparisons and definitions over a late lunch and all I'm glad someone's enjoying the ramblings just as much as I did :)

Being a business major, I barely even touched contemporary Asian American literature :/ I'm adding Tropic of Orange and will be looking for her works at the bookstore. Thanks for the rec!

[scififanatic.livejournal.com]

This was such an awesome post!!!

You actually elevated our conversation--I'm always learning from you! :)

I think bringing up the nexus between different cultures and this genre of literature is important, lest writers venture into cultural appropriation before understanding the implications of their actions. As you explained, this art is not rooted in North American history.

I also like Leal's simple definition: if you can explain it, then it's not magical realism

Also, I am so not scholarly. :D I've got more of a curiosity. :)

[stinglikeabee.livejournal.com]

Aww, thank you!

As you explained, this art is not rooted in North American history.

Right! And is it really a Latin American tradition? It was used to describe certain works at first and sure, it's become a genre dominated by Latin American writers but there's a whole world of literature in Europe and Asia that may fit the magical realism definition that we don't know about.

Also, I am so not scholarly. :D I've got more of a curiosity. :)

Same here :)