Talk:Hallucinatory realism

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as having no substantive content, because... (your reason here) --24.13.243.252 (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hallucinatory realism is the manner of writing made famous by Chinese Nobel laureate Mo Yan. When announcing that Mo Yan was the recipient of the 2012 Nobel Prize in Literature, the Swedish Academy stated that he was a writer whose work "with hallucinatory realism merges folk tales, history and the contemporary".[1][2][3] Swedish Academy head Peter Englund said, "He has such a damn unique way of writing. If you read half a page of Mo Yan you immediately recognise it as him".[4] His style is a "mix of realism and the uncanny ... his handling of the slippage between reality and surreality is the most deft, the most painful".[5] [edit]

Please note that this has already been prodded and declined. There are two books cited, dating from 1981 and 1983, which indicate this a not a term that has appeared overnight with Mo Yan's Nobel Prize. Attempts to delete it have now been contested by multiple users, therefore neither a speedy nor a prod are appropriate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.29 (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a term that has appeared overnight with Mo Yan's Nobel Prize. Simply citing two sources that say "hallucinatory realism" does not mean that they are relevant to what the article is actually about, which is "the manner of writing made famous by Chinese Nobel laureate Mo Yan". Even if they were added into the article with relevant in-line citations (which they are not), they do not describe "the manner of writing made famous by Chinese Nobel laureate Mo Yan". If this term was notable, this would have been listed as a significant element in the style section of his page and correctly cited as a genre that has existed prior. He is the only contributor to this "genre", which is actually described as "the manner of writing made famous by Chinese Nobel laureate Mo Yan". In this case, he is necessarily the only contributor to his own manner of writing that he "made famous" simply by receiving the Nobel Prize in Literature. 8ty3hree (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Case in point: I still have absolutely no clue on what "hallucinatory realism" is and cannot find any phrase to define it without saying "Mo Yan". Please amend the article so that is isn't so intrinsically linked to the author and establish it as a style of writing that is not specific to him. Otherwise, this should be deleted. 8ty3hree (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There are books from 1981 and 1983 mentioned. They refer to this topic in their titles. Mo Yan is not mentioned in these titles. "If this term was notable, this would have been listed as a significant element in the style section of his page and correctly cited as a genre that has existed prior." There is no obligation for correct citation use. It may be desired for aesthetic purposes and for an FA but, as long as the citations are on the page, them being disordered is not reason for deletion, certainly not several attempts to speedy or prod. Please read WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. That it has been made famous by Mo Yan is not a reason for deletion either, jut as deleting magic realism because Gabriel García Márquez made it famous would not be appropriate. That he made it famous is not an indication that he is the only practitioner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.29 (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning books without telling us what they actually say with in-line citations warrants the tag. WP:NOTCOMPULSORY is not an excuse to remove valid tags so that others won't be able to improve what you cannot. This is not your article, even though you are the main contributor. You are not the only person who can edit this article. Cleanup tags serve to help the article and the encyclopedia itself. 8ty3hree (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not the "main contributor", I did some cleanup on Mo Yan in general. This was created by User:Karmela so please consult them on why they created it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.29 (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

And I doubt very much that a "notability" tag is exclusively to invite others to improve it. Or that a "too many quotations" tag is appropriate for a stub article with one quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.29 (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There are three (3) quotes. The body paragraph consists mostly of quotes which do not necessarily talk about hallucinatory realism but of Mo Yan's writing as received by the media. This is more suited for a section in the Mo Yan page rather than necessitating a whole new page whose (current) content is already adequately described in the Mo Yan article. The notability tag remains as this could have some valuable information if proven to be notable and not just a coincidental usage of the word "hallucinatory" as Roscelese pointed out below. 8ty3hree (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

As there are no proper citations for the existence of other contributors to the hallucinatory realism genre, the notability remains dubious as the style of this single author has not proven itself to necessitate another page. 8ty3hree (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, users who have provided other sources. We'll have to look at them and see if they actually refer to a genre of writing (like magical realism) or if they coincidentally use the word "hallucinatory" to describe these authors' realism. A source that connected Mo Yan with the other writers could also be helpful. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

• Removing all irrelevant quotes, as they referred only to Mo Yan's writing style and did not provide any information whatsoever about hallucinatory realism.
  • "with hallucinatory realism merges folk tales, history and the contemporary" — Does not describe the topic but it does say that he uses it. Citations kept and added to intro.
  • "He has such a damn unique way of writing. If you read half a page of Mo Yan you immediately recognise it as him" — Explicitly refers to Mo Yan. Also does not describe his writing other than that it is unique.
  • "mix of realism and the uncanny ... alternating between harsh realism and surrealism... his handling of the slippage between reality and surreality is the most deft, the most painful" — Again, it refers to his writing style. Hallucinatory realism is only an aspect of his writing style in addition to the other qualities ascribed to him by Englund.
• Removing the faulty third-party interpretation of Englund's quote by IST in the definition. "with hallucinatory realism merges folk tales, history and the contemporary" does not imply that hallucinatory realism is a blending of folk tales, history, and contemporary China, but only his means to do so. The use of allegory to compare Jesus to a sheep likewise does not make the definition of allegory "comparing Jesus to a sheep".
• Removing the last statement that was uncited.

This cleanup does not remove or add any information actually relevant to the literary style of hallucinatory realism. This article still gives no definition for the topic, other than that it is a literary genre and that it is used by Mo Yan.

I am hoping that the two external links (in the even slighter hope that anyone would be willing to find them) will provide a greater clarity about what hallucinatory realism actually implies. I am giving this phrase a chance at being a legitimate genre, provided it can be proved as such.

Before significantly altering my changes, please give valid counterpoints to the above. 8ty3hree (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The removal of the Nobel citation seems a step too far. Considering it is the moment that hallucinatory realism made it into the mainstream in western media. And that it is a Nobel citation - after all it's not any old writer who wins the Nobel Prize. It is not some small, provincial award. It is a big moment in the history of hallucinatory realism, regardless of whether your opinion of it ranks alongside the tooth fairy or the easter bunny. In fact, especially if your opinion of it ranks alongside the tooth fairy or the easter bunny. You've made it plain that you've never even heard of it before now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.29 (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Tell me anyone who's even heard of it before now. That's because it was nonexistent before now and only exists because of a Swede's descriptor being taken as a separate literary genre by Karmela and the "In the news" suggestion discussion. Googling for books that have hallucinatory realism in its title only proves that those two words have been used together to describe something. Describe what? Is it the literary style or genre that the article proposes it to be? I don't believe any Wikipedian who has edited these pages actually knows what those books say other than a preview page. I cannot search for a book with "Ronald Reagan" in its title to prove that Reagan was president. Common knowledge disregarded, I need to find out what the book says. Does it say he was president? Then yes, I can write an article saying he was president.

The stardom of the term "hallucinatory realism" is irrelevant to its inclusion. It did not exist. I cannot create an article about the Mexican language simply because Bush used the term (I seriously doubt he was referring to Nahuatl). But he's the president! Something being said to exist does not make it so.

Please do as I suggested, mine for information that says hallucinatory realism is not just a typo or neologism by Mr. Englund. 8ty3hree (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You think he made it up this morning? There are books from 1981 and 1983 that show he didn't. What more do you want? Is this some kind of joke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.29 (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Something being said to exist does not make it so. But it does not even need to exist to be on Wikipedia. It just needs to be verifiable. Fictional characters don't exist. But they're all over Wikipedia. If reliable sources are covering it then it is perfectly entitled to exist without someone coming along and demanding that it meet their own personal standard.

"I cannot search for a book with "Ronald Reagan" in its title to prove that Reagan was president." Your reasoning is flawed. Why would you need to prove he was president? You would just need to prove he was Reagan. Just like the books are there to help people understand that hallucinatory realism is hallucinatory realism. They are not there to help people understand that hallucinatory realism is a rabbit or a dog or any other random thing like a president.

I hesitate to say this but you seem blind and deaf beyond reason to the fact that the article cites two books from 1981 and 1983. How then could it have only existed since this morning? That is paradoxical, my friend. Please explain how something that was around in the 1980s can be created one October morning in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.29 (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps existence is the wrong term. However, I cannot say that Oblivious conscientious anti-objectionism should be an article as it is unheard of. My point is that reliable sources are not saying that it exists, but that it does not exist as a literary term. Was it used as a literary term? Is it a literary term that has previously existed?

X is X. I do not need Wikipedia to tell me that X is X. You're saying that the page should say: "Hallucinatory realism is hallucinatory realism." No. It needs to be defined instead of its existence being verified as itself, which can be done for anything in existence. Do you think that nothing should be deleted because it exists? Say so.

I am fully aware that two books from 1981 and 1983 say "hallucinatory realism." It does not, however, say that the "hallucinatory realism" they refer to is the same as being discussed here. Therefore, the "hallucinatory realism" from the 80s is not necessarily the "hallucinatory realism" of Mo. I cannot take a 1800s paper referring to a "George W." and immediately assume that it was talking about George W. Bush. 8ty3hree (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You ask if it a literary term that has previously existed then mention the two books from 1981 and 1983. The answer is before you. How many types of hallucinatory realism do you think there are? Remember the article is titled "Hallucinatory realism", not "Hallucinatory realism in the works of Mo Yan." It refers to hallucinatory realism in general. And I do not think that "nothing should be deleted because it exists." I do however, like many others, think nothing that is reliably sourced and compliant with wikipedia policy should be deleted because one person is of the opinion that it is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.29 (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

And no definition? Even though you've removed two thirds of the article on the basis of your own opinion it still manages to define itself as "an aesthetic style or genre of fiction". What do you want? You can't expect a featured article to materialise out of nowhere. Wikipedia is not compulsory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.29 (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"my own opinion" is outlined above, if you'd care to read it and tell me what is wrong about it instead of simply saying that it is "my own opinion". Of course it is my own opinion! I would not have anyone else's. But that opinion is rooted in facts that I have posted above.

That term, I do not believe you know what it means. WP:NOTCOMPULSORY means that an editor is not required to edit Wikipedia. Are you telling me to stop editing Wikipedia?

I am struggling to keep it civil right now, and it would be easier on the article if you were to do the same. 8ty3hree (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do try to be civil. Losing one's head can cause all sorts of unnecessary tension. There is nothing wrong with having your opinion on a talk page but applying it to the main space is inappropriate. You can't chop and change things just because you feel like it, removing a reference here or there, wiping out entire articles as you go. I meant it is not compulsory for others to turn it into an FA at a moment's notice to meet your personal requirements. Stubs and red links are part and parcel of the project. Wikipedia has many other stubs too. You can help by expanding them. So no, that is not telling you to stop editing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.29 (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I am being civil. I am not applying opinion to the mainspace. I am using logic to make conclusions about quotes that are not suitable for inclusion in this article. Please read what I said before telling me that it's my opinion. Here, I'll copy it for you:

• "with hallucinatory realism merges folk tales, history and the contemporary" — Does not describe the topic but it does say that he uses it. Citations kept and added to intro.
• "He has such a damn unique way of writing. If you read half a page of Mo Yan you immediately recognise it as him" — Explicitly refers to Mo Yan. Also does not describe his writing other than that it is unique.
• "mix of realism and the uncanny ... alternating between harsh realism and surrealism... his handling of the slippage between reality and surreality is the most deft, the most painful" — Again, it refers to his writing style. Hallucinatory realism is only an aspect of his writing style in addition to the other qualities ascribed to him by Englund.

Tell me what part of my analysis is incorrect. 8ty3hree (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(Technically, I am applying opinion to the mainspace. Anyone who edits Wikipedia necessarily applies their own opinion. It is their opinion to change a part of the article for whatever reason, but this is an opinion that is necessary for interaction. This is all I have to say about opinion, and real discussion exists in many other places on the internet, but here it is irrelevant.) 8ty3hree (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I merely objected to the removal of the Nobel citation. You don't seem to realise how significant the Nobel Prize is in international terms. It is not some local award. And if anything it is informing people like you of something you had never heard of this morning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.29 (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding that you think the Mo Yan is the only writer mentioned in the context of hallucinatory realism? It seems you think so. I would hope it is not necessary to point out that the sources have also linked such names as Peter Weiss and Tomi Ungerer with it (as far back as 1981 and 1983 coincidentally, or perhaps it was this morning - I don't really understand your methods of judging time?) and are both linked with it at the bottom of the article. That the article is not in a perfect state is no reason to propose deletion, much less a speedy one. Hallucinatory realism is ultimately an abstract term. You don't have to believe in it. But your lack of belief does not make it any less valid a topic for an encyclopedia that relies on verifiability and reliable sources. I disagree that this is the correct use of the notability tag. We might as well go round tagging every stub with it at that rate (too short, no potential. but what about all these books and different writers? no good, still too short). Anyway, I don't see what more I can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.29 (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You are not comprehending this at all. Please re-read what I said. 8ty3hree 198.228.200.148 (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"I merely objected to the removal of the Nobel citation." --- I'm not sure why this should be mentioned in the article at all. After all, it was the author who got the Nobel, not this alleged genre, so what's the relevance there? Idontcareanymore (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Magic realism

It has been suggested that this article be merged into Magic realism. I think that is an acceptable suggestion. Hallucinatory realism could be a redirect to magic realism. Karmela (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. Hallucinatory realism is not a genre, and the writers mentioned in the article lack connection with magic realism (and with each other). Smetanahue (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

@Karmela. Are there sources showing a connection between the two? There would need to be sources showing they are similar or the same. I don't think it's a good idea to merge something with something it may not even be connected to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.74 (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"Mo Yan's literary works mostly belong to the magic realism genre"[1]

Mo Yan is frequently compared to Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Kafka, Günter Grass, William Faulkner and Charles Dickens [2]

One thing have they common: magical realism (Gabriel Garcia Marquez:themodernword; Kafka:worldlitonline PDF, Günter Grass:cambridge, William Faulkner:Magical Realism: Theory, History, Community)

Mo Yan, Can Xue and others[3] are well known representatives of a chinese magic realism.

Karmela (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

What is hallucinatory realism?

If it is not a genre, it is a term of notability by the Nobel price anyway. How would you define it? This article could be a good place to collect information about it.

In hallucinatory realism are reality and subjectivity indistinguishable, and, according to Joy Press, hallucinatory realism makes imaginary universes feel concrete and believable.

The term hallucinatory realism has previously been used by different critics to describe works by the writers Peter Weiss, Tomi Ungerer, Pasolini's film "The Gospel According to St Matthew" and to describe "My Life as a Fake" of Peter Carey, and a novel of Kevin Baker.

Karmela (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's just realism with an adjective in front of it. I doubt it's meant as a classification in any of those sources, just a description of the particular work. I checked the Joy Press article, and it talks about "a hallucinatory realism" rather than hallucinatory realism as a concept, so I really think this article should be deleted. Smetanahue (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Magic realism is also just realism with an adjective in front of it. Speculative fiction is just fiction with an adjective in front of it. Horror fiction is just fiction with an adjective in front of it. You might as well just merge "novella" into "novel" because they look alike and because the "LA" at the end is unnecessary or something. These are just terms with no basis in reality that not everyone may agree on but they've been used by critics in reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.74 (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Magic realism and speculative fiction are well-established, well-defined names of a moment and a genre respectively, with lots of coverage in magazines and academic discourse. There is nothing of that sort on hallucinatory realism, just quotations from reviews of unrelated works. Smetanahue (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Some other descriptions from Nobel motivations which shouldn't have articles either:

• 1986: "who in a wide cultural perspective and with poetic overtones fashions the drama of existence"
• 1999: "whose frolicsome black fables portray the forgotten face of history"
• 2008: "author of new departures, poetic adventure and sensual ecstasy, explorer of a humanity beyond and below the reigning civilization" Smetanahue (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my point. The phrase simply being used does not merit it as a whole new genre that Englund decided to limelight for some strange, spontaneous Swedish reason. This shouldn't even exist. 198.228.200.33 (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the term originated in the Germanic countries in the 70s. It may have specific implication unfamiliar to English readers. That would explain why the Nobel committee (or Englund) chose HR over MR, there is some tradition of use. The article needs a literary expert from Sweden or Germany. Who can we find? If the article is deleted, it will never get an expert. Maybe if we look at the Swedish/German Wikipedia how they are editing on this phrase for the Nobel announcement. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Swedish Wikipedia links him to "magisk realism", which I am assuming is magic realism. The "hallucinatorisk skärpa" in the quote is not linked. Here is the German wiki page for magic realism. 8ty3hree (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Swedish Wikipedia only says that his works have been compared to magic realism, not that they are magic realism (I know because I wrote that article). Smetanahue (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Official press releases

The term occurs in four version of the five official press releases (english, french, geman, spanish), however in the Swedish version, the term used is instead "hallucinatorisk skärpa" ("hallucinatory sharpness").

The official announcement of this year was only in two languages, Swedish and English: video.

Karmela (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please help

I have found some references to improve the article Hallucinatory realism. Karmela (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• As genre: For some of the sequences in LOTE, the notion of 'hallucinatory realism' seems appropriate... in a film of this kind raises questions not dissimilar to those raised about the 'poetic realism' of 1930s documentary

• The book above has references due to the term "hallucinatory realism"

• Bergman's conception of Strindberg's play was in fact reminiscent of Alf Sjöberg's approach in his film version of Fröken Julie in the late 1940s when he saw the drama as a dreamplay, a form of 'hallucinatory realism'.

• Connection to the magic realism (Garcia Marquez the best known of magic realism) and hallucinatory realism: For his part, Angel Rama speaks of a "hallucinatory realism" in "Garcia Marquez: Un novelista de la violencia," Nueve asedios a Garcia Marquez, ed. Mario Benedetti (Santiago: Editorial Universitaria, 1972).

Karmela (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

These are all good sources, thank you for finding them. Source 1 says "The notion of 'hallucinatory realism' seems appropriate". That clearly is in reference to a preexisting concept, since it calls it a "notion", puts it in quotes, and then fails to define what the notion might be (assumes the reader knows). Source 2 seems to be in reference to source 1. Source 3 it's unclear who is using the term, Bergman or Steene. Either way, the term is used in quotes which is a way to signify an existing concept. Source 4 further confirms the use of this term among literary critics as a concept. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Would you please insert the references abovde in the article with an appropriate text? My english is poor, could somebody please help? Karmela (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the appropriate text would be since the wording in these sources is so pithy, and specific to one work of art. They could be added as examples of use but we already have a lot. They are good finds nonetheless. Maybe someone else has an idea? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to Twentieth Century Art

The article seems to hinge on the definition in The Oxford Companion to Twentieth Century Art. However when I go to the Google Books page for the book and search on "hallucinatory realism" nothing comes up. But when Google Book searching the full quoted definition, one can find it quoted in this book (South Atlantic review: the publication of the South Atlantic ... - Volume 54, Issues 1-2 - Page 44) with a cite to "Osborne 529". So, it looks legit. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I can find the citat here:

The Oxford companion to twentieth-century art - Harold Osborne - Google Books

Oxford University Press, 1988

Page 158:

http://books.google.hu/books?id=OpdYAAAAYAAJ&q=%22hallucinatory+realism%22#search_anchor

Karmela (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That appears to be the 1988 edition; the definition is supposedly in the 1981 edition on page 529. I can't see it in the 88 edition. It would contain the exact phrase: "a realism which does not depict an external reality since the subjects realistically depicted belong to the realm of dream or fantasy". Ok I have access to JSTOR and confirmed through "Order in Disorder: Surrealism and Oliver Twist" (pg. 44) that the definition is accurate, it quotes Osborne using the same definition in our article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

German sources

• From page 174. of Delisle 2001:

B. Lindner:Halluzinatorischer Realismus, S. 183, verweist mit seinem Titel auf zwei Ausdrücke, die zwar die Darstellungsmethoden des Textes und nicht die Wahrnehmungsmethoden des Ich beschreiben, die ihnen aber sehr nahe stehen: "Halluzinatorischer Realismus: das ist der Versuch, Vergangenes in dokumentarischer Faktizität und Ästhetischer Wirklichkeitssteigerung gegenwärtig zu machen."

Karmela (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this the same Lindner paper we already have in translated version? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the same Lindner paper, but another citat. The text in my translation (I am sorry, my mother tong is neither german, nor english):

~ Lindner:Hallucinatory realism refers with its title on two expressions that describe the indeed the presentation methods of the text and not the perception methods of the ego, however they are very close to them: Hallucinatory realism: this is the attempt to make the bygone present with a documentary factuality and at an Esthetic enhancement of the realness.

So erörtert unter anderem Burkhardt Lindner unter dem Terminus „Halluzinatorischer Realismus“ die Romantrilogie „Die Ästhetik des Widerstands“ (1972-1980) von Peter Weiss. Der Terminus kann auch für die obengenannten Dokumentarstücke gelten, die als eine Vorstufe für die Romantrilogie angesehen werden; to the same paper,

~ among others Burkhardt Lindner discussed the trilogy "The Aesthetics of Resistance" (1972-1980) by Peter Weiss under the term „hallucinatory realism“. The term can also apply to the above documentary pieces, which are regarded as a precursor for the trilogy

Der "halluzinatorische Realismus" (Burkhardt Lindner) in der ästhetischen Konstruktion des Textes wird ausgeprägter noch als an der Ich-Figur an den Obsessionen Stahlmanns und auch Heilmanns gestaltet.

~ The "hallucinatory realism" (Burkhardt Lindner) in the aesthetic construction of the text becomes even more pronounced, as ...

Karmela (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dream-state definition

Most of the definitions and contextual uses of hallucinatory realism refer to a dream-state. This is probably what sets it apart from magical realism (which could mean many things, including just fantasy). "Hallucinatory" is what one experiences while dreaming or induced-dreaming (drugs), what seems real becomes not-real and vice verse. Most of the sources refer to "dream" in some fashion, seems to be the common thread. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hindustan Times

Here is an article with some jokes about "hallucinatory realism":

• Manas Chakravarty (October 13, 2012). "Hallucinatory realism". Hindustan Times. "it's interesting that he's been awarded the prize for what the Nobel committee calls 'hallucinatory realism'. I mean, what was he smoking?"

Karmela (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Templates

I've been tinkering with this in preview-mode, but it's not working for me. Hopefully someone more skilled than I can help. There are two templates mentioning the AfD discussions for this article; however they both link to the same discussion. The "October 15th" template should link to the second AfD nomination. Also, I think it would look better and make for easier referencing if both AfD discussions were noted in the same template, or at least two templates nextt to one-another. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Added Template:Old AfD multi -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)