So I hate to be the squeaky wheel, but this page is using a really broad, and not entirely accurate definition of Magical Realism and, as a result, contains a lot of examples of works that don't actually fit into the literary genre as it is properly understood in academic circles.
There are two big thing contributors to this page need to keep in mind:
1.) "Genre" as it's used in cases like this is less synonymous with how genre is typically understood on this site and is more akin to what would typically be considered an artistic movement. Works of Magical Realism are not grouped together because they tick off tropes a, b, c and d; but because their creators drew upon similar influences in creating these works, or were in turn directly influenced by other Magical Realist creators.
This is also why Magical Realism is generally considered a more "literary" genre than things like High Fantasy or Sword and Sorcery: This isn't necessarily a commentary on the artistic merit or quality of the work, but an acknowledgement of the fact that the genre was an outgrowth of the existing Realist literary genre, and the progenitors of the genre were influenced primarily by works of Realism rather than works of traditional fantasy.
2.) The Magical Realism genre is largely one that originated in Third World, impoverished and otherwise not traditionally "Western" cultures, and this is in turn reflected in how the fantastical elements in these works are treated. "Fantasy" as a type of genre fiction, is largely an originally Western creation, so a creator trying to label a traditional fantasy work as Magical Realism because it contains elements of the mundane blended with the fantastic, but without drawing on any of the actual cultural or literary influences of Magical Realism, would not be an example of this genre.
For a better explanation of the concepts I'm talking about I recommend giving this article a read-through: https://www.tor.com/2008/10/23/magicrealism/
To give an example using some of the existing entries: The comic book Love and Rockets is a perfectly valid example of the genre as its creators drew direct inspiration from major works of Magical Realist literature and incorporated this into their work. A large number of the Anime and Manga examples like Death Note, Detective Conan and Axis Powers Hetalia would not be valid examples as, though they contain some elements that are commonly present in Magical Realism, their creators had no connection to other creators or works within the genre (To my knowledge at least, if someone has a link to an interview where Gosho Aoyama professes the deep influence Gabriel García Márquez had on his work I'll gladly retract).
[deleted]
Edited by PrincessPandaTrope Content Warning: My posts may involve my actions dealing with R-rated or Not Safe for Work content. Same for my edit history.
While the Tor article is pretty good at explaining what Magic Realism is, I'd say the term can be used both to refer to the actual literary movement that began in Latin America, and to works that came before and after and that share similarities with it. So I don't agree with excluding works just because they're not explicitly a part of the literary movement.
I'd also take slight exception with the Tor article reserving it to cultures that are impoverished or Third World or non-Western. There are German writers that fall squarely in the genre, like Gunter Grass. What REALLY defines Magic Realism, in my not so humble opinion are four things:
1) Surreal fantastic elements (as opposed to systematic fantastic elements that are a hallmark of traditional fantasy). This is superbly explained in the Tor article.
2) These surreal elements are enmeshed into everyday life in a way that can't easily be separated or isolated. So Alice in Wonderland, despite featuring surreal fantasy, is NOT Magic Realism, as there is a clear demarcation between the ordinary world and Wonderland.
3) People react to the fantastic elements with acceptance, so it resembles dream logic. No one is awed or astounded or tries to investigate them.
4) The fantastic elements take place in tales of societal trauma, so that the "irrationatility" of the fantastic elements is no less irrational than the realistic elements. The Tor article touches on this by claiming life in Colombia, for instance, is chaotic and insecure and "mad" in a way that, say, life in Canada is not. I see where he is coming from, but this is slightly patronizing. Western societies also can go "mad": Gunter Grass used Magic Realism to deal with the madness of Nazism. The key here is that irrationality and insecurity can happen in First World societies too.
Edited by renenarciso2
Would music videos count as magic realism? If so, what are some good examples?
When you're not the father, It's a great big surprise. Thats-a-Maury.
[=#BoomSilverTheVampire4Lyfe=]
Doesn't magic realism incorporate magical elements to make a point about reality, which may be why it's called magic realism? This is why this trope article has been annoying me from the beginning. I think instances of "fantastic elements treated as normal" should be categorized as Mundane Fantastic.
Content Warning: My posts may involve my actions dealing with R-rated or Not Safe for Work content. Same for my edit history.
Quoted from the article
"Also a helpful guideline (again, just a guideline, not a rule): with fantasy, often a character finds out the Broken Masquerade. However, everybody is the protagonist in their own story; what about the random Muggle who saw something really strange, but never gets an explanation? Well, that Muggle just got the point of view in Magical Realism. There may very well be vampires and wizards doing what they do, but the Masquerade is upheld. What's a Muggle to do after seeing a guy Immune to Bullets? Well, go about his life and do his thing of course. After all, magic doesn't exist, right? This is the essence of this genre."
Ok uh. There are no hard and fast rules about Magical Realism, just like any genre. Genre's shift, take on new meaning, aquire and discard tropes over time. I understand this. They're difficult to pin down (I've taken a couple of classes on genre, yes entire classes on just genre). Yet this paragraph really does go against the general (literary) study of the genre of Magical Realism. One of the hallmarks of the genre is that events are genuinely believed and accepted. There are books about how it's primarily limited to cultures which believe in the supernatural (ie: NOT AMERICANS, or Europeans for that matter or anyone fully immersed in sciencism).
To say it bluntly, there are people who honestly believe that events in 100 Years of Solitude are REAL. To them it's not fiction. This is why magical realism was once believed to be a purely South American phenomenon because only that culture really believes in it; although Gabriel Garcia Marquez knows he bends the truth in his writing, it's still a cultural belief in the supernatural that he comes from. Marquez even talks about how his grandmother used to tell him stories exactly like those told in 100 Years of Solitude and he had to write the book as if he also believed.
We also accept many works by people with history of voodoo culture (such as African Americans) as being capable of writing Magical Realism because their culture isn't very far separated from the honest belief in the supernatural. As are some southeast asian cultures and countries like Japan (I think it would be awesome to write a book detailing the connection between Magical Realism and anime). Of course a writer who only believes in science can write however they want and examples of Magical Realism from ordinary writers from Europe and the United States are starting to be seen.
So to include a paragraph like the above is, in my opinion OPPOSED to the concept of Magical Realism. Unless everyone believes in what's going on around them it breaks the illusion. If a 'muggle' as it were, saw something extraordinary and questioned 'how did that happen?' it's no longer magical realism.
Neither the narrator, nor the characters, should ever contradict the magic.
Hide / Show Replies
Yeah, I'm a bit concerned about this. It appears that TV Tropes has isolated a narrow sub-genre of urban fantasy and slapped the label of Magic Realism onto it, getting just about everything that actually applies to Magic Realism wrong.
Take the "rule of thumb" that is given, vampires in New York:
- "If the cover gets blown and the protagonists spend a lot of time with vampires, either taking evil ones down, incorporating them into romance stories, etc. it's Urban Fantasy."
Fine so far.
- "If a cop's partner is very pale, very strong, generally acts odd, and come to think of it, he's never been seen in daylight, but the story focuses primarily on just a Police Procedural or the interpersonal relationships, it's Magical Realism."
NO. That is still Urban Fantasy, it is just Urban Fantasy of a subtler variety. The author feels like being cute, so the fantastic elements come in small details that the reader can either pick up on or miss, depending on how much attention they are paying.
- "If the cop just goes through his life as a cop, but his partner is a vampire, is greeted with "Hi, Mr. vampire!" by cheerful little children in the street, and casually drinks blood in plain sight out of transfusion packs during coffee breaks, it's a case of Mundane Fantastic."
THIS is the closest the article gets to actually describing Magic Realism. The fantastic elements are SO MUCH a natural part of the world of the novel, that it is as though the author doesn't even expect the reader to find them strange. It is more about Tone than anything else:
In a fantasy novel, a woman spontaneously ascending to heaven while hanging laundry is presented as something that, while possible in the novel's particular setting, is still a striking image that the reader should take notice of. When it happens in One Hundred Years of Solitude, Garcia Marquez just moves on to the next paragraph. After all, what did you expect? Such things happen all the time.
This article: [http://www.tor.com/blogs/2008/10/magicrealism] and comment number 7 below it, by the article's author, may help with the distinction.
As it stands, Magic Realism article needs to be completely rewritten, and some sort of rewrite/merge/purge needs to be done between it and the Mundane Fantastic article. Unfortunately, both are pretty entrenched, with a huge number of examples in each, so it will be a big job.
Agreed. The defining feature of magical realism is that there are wide open holes in the wall between reality and metaphor. Some events are presented normally, some are exaggerated beyond realism, and some are wholly symbolized, but they're all presented as ordinary events.
¿Que pasó que pasó vamos 'ay?
The Batman: The Animated Series examples do not hold up, at least not in The Ventriloquist example. If you watch the episode carefully it's impossible for the dummy to be a demonic toy. Not only Batman manage to imitate his voice using ventriloquism, he also is actually seen by Scarface when he enters the dummy's room and the toy opens the eyes (as a reflex after Batman touches it) and even so the puppet never says "Hey, Dummy, Batman was here" when the Ventriloquist enters the room. Even more the actual Batcomputer shows the waves of the sound moving with Batman's recording showing two voices when the Ventriloquist speaks (which is not impossible, we all have two groups of vocal cords, Tibetan Lamas learn the trick to using them both and have "two voices") but when the dummy "speaks" only one wave of sound is shown.
Edited by Luppercus
Would Miracle on 34th Street or Welcome to Night Vale count?
Edited by VanHohenheimOfXerxes
I don't think the Corona Beer example counts. It's just a way for them to say that drinking their beer will make you feel like you're on a beach no matter where you are.
Here's something: I was just served this name as a Captcha of sorts.
Clarification: The magical events in "magical realism" are fraught with symbolic significance.
The "magic" of the setting is not usually controlled by its characters. It is not really a technological solution for the characters. It's an phenomenon in their world that acts as a symbolic shorthand for the psychology and development of the characters. To the audience, it appears fantastic, but it's purpose in the plot isn't simply the novelty factor.
M. Night's Shamalan's "The Village" is an excellent example. The monsters in the movie are literally thought to be supernatural abominations who inexplicably attack the village. They are spoken of in hushed tones and people hide when they're out-and-about. Everybody acts and believes as if this "magic" were real. It's indicative of their superstitious and fearfully primitive worldview. It's only at the end that it's revealed that the monsters were really just the elders in rubber masks who were running a conspiracy. It's all an illusion.
The "unmasking" isn't necessary since the whole point is that the magical thing going on can be taken literally for the purposes of the narrative. (And the whole scenario was probably a metaphor to drive home a bit of political commentary on Shamalan's part.)
Let me explain by another example. If a woman is a Christian who believes in angels, then a story about her would literally include all the events where miracles, angels and Satan are literally true to her and interact with her. It is *actually* an explanation that if she is tempted then Satan would literally show up to bargain with her. God would literally speak to her or perhaps an angel my pop on by to have tea. Usually, these events will punctuate some significant evolution of her character or otherwise reveal her mentality. It isn't really important whether *you* believe these things, so much as that it is an accepted part of *her* story.
In Kafka's Metamorphosis, we accept the protagonist's transformation as literally real. But it also acts as a metaphor for a terminal disease, deformity or stigma which is being hidden away by a family who is too embarrassed to let him out into polite company. It's about the decay of a man who is dying by inches — both socially and psychologically.
Edited by 24.107.19.44
I'd like to add this story as an example but I'm not sure if it fits or not. Can someone else confirm for me?
Before the 20th Century, Latin American Literary Classics were usually examples of Naturalism, which is completely the opposite of Magical Realism- it's about focusing on stark reality to the point of showing life as a Crapsack World. Should this be mentioned in the article?
Tweaked the paragraph on the rule "to distinguish magic realism from fantasy," since settings in which magic "just happens" are quite common in older fantasy works. Hence, I thought it was more apt to say that this rule distinguishes magic realism from other types of fantasy (i.e., types in which magic does not just happen).
While the Tor article mentioned by The Phantomofthe Butt is pretty good at explaining what Magic Realism is, I'd say the term can be used both to refer to the actual literary movement that began in Latin America, and to works that came before and after and that share similarities with it. So I don't agree with excluding works just because they're not explicitly a part of the literary movement.
I'd also take slight exception with the Tor article reserving it to cultures that are impoverished or Third World or non-Western. There are German writers that fall squarely in the genre, like Gunter Grass. What REALLY defines Magic Realism, in my not so humble opinion are four things:
1) Surreal fantastic elements (as opposed to systematic fantastic elements that are a hallmark of traditional fantasy). This is superbly explained in the Tor article.
2) These surreal elements are enmeshed into everyday life in a way that can't easily be separated or isolated. So Alice in Wonderland, despite featuring surreal fantasy, is NOT Magic Realism, as there is a clear demarcation between the ordinary world and Wonderland.
3) People react to the fantastic elements with acceptance, so it resembles dream logic. No one is awed or astounded or tries to investigate them.
4) The fantastic elements take place in tales of societal trauma, so that the "irrationatility" of the fantastic elements is no less irrational than the realistic elements. The Tor article touches on this by claiming life in Colombia, for instance, is chaotic and insecure and "mad" in a way that, say, life in Canada is not. I see where he is coming from, but this is slightly patronizing. Western societies also can go "mad": Gunter Grass used Magic Realism to deal with the madness of Nazism. The key here is that irrationality and insecurity can happen in First World societies too.
Edited by renenarciso2