Jump to content

Talk:Magical realism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Magic Realism & Surrealism

"However, magical realism is a separate and distinct movement from surrealism.": this presumes that surrealism is a literary movement; it is not. --Daniel C. Boyer

I think that the contributor who added that sentence was probably intending to dispel any confusion between magic realism and surrealism, rather than intending to suggest anything particular about surrealism, which of course was a multi-disciplinary movement born out of a completely different context than magic realism. Maybe the sentence should be reworded... probably to make it clear that while surrealism and magic realism may seem superficially similar, they are in fact quite different. - Cobra libre 00:59, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
A few notes:
  • Magical realism isn't necessarily just a literary movement and surrealism did include a lot of literature. In fact, most of the Parisian artists produced paintings and photographs with the idea that it would be published in journals where the primary features would be poetry and essays.
  • Cobra, you note that surrealism and magical realism were born out of two completely different contexts... while I tend to agree with this statement, the argument could be made that they are extremely related. Alejo Carpentier, one of the classics of the Latin American MR movement, was of French and Russian descent and spent most of his "formative period" in France with the surrealists. In his preface to The Kingdom of this World he asserts that magical realism had no connection whatsoever to his educational background or surrealism and that instead it was just inherent in the geography of Latin America waiting to be written. Of course, this is the kind of nonsense that Andre Breton himself would spew, because we all know that texts aren't exotic animals hidden among the flora waiting to be "discovered." The influence of surrealism on him in particular was extreme, but the movement as a whole was popular in Latin America and other magical realists, such as Miguel Angel Asturias, were also involved in it.
So all of this considered, we need to figure out a way to unproblematically include surrealism in the article while making the difference between the two movements clear, as well as the nature of the two movements in term of media. - Leyanese 19:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Societies

Love the "specific ring into a particular volcano" line!

The following paragraph could be clearer: "Note that magic realism often arises in societies with repressive, authoritarian, or totalitarian governments, and may represent an accommodation to a severely dangerous form of political reality. On the other hand, magic realism has spread beyond these confines." Is this referring to fictional societies, fiction trends within real societies, or what? --Suitov

Magic Realism is not referring to fictional societies or fictional trends within real societies. Literary Magic Realism originated out of Latin America, which is historically infused with totalitarian governments, and by Latin American authors, who have had to live under these regimes. -ML

Magic Realism/Art Movement

Magic Realism is in fact an art movement. for those who disagree I direct you to www.art encyclopedia.com

Films

In this paragraph:

A minority of theorists, such as Wendy B. Faris, argue that certain films, such as The Witches of Eastwick and Field of Dreams could be described as magical realist, but the term is still primarily used to describe literature. However, if one accepts movies as a possible medium for magic realism, one should have a look at many of the movies of Tim Burton (The Nightmare Before Christmas, Big Fish) or David Lynch (Mulholland Drive, Wild At Heart). Other examples: La cité des enfants perdus, What Dreams May Come, Adaptation and Being John Malkovich.

These following movies (listed above) are BASED ON BOOKS: The Witches of Eastwick, Field of Dreams and What Dreams May Come.

It's also silly to wonder if movies can be magical realist, esp if it's based on books that are magical realist books.

Very sensible. Edit away, why don't you? --Wetman 17:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment I've removed some films that are improperly described as magic realism. "The Nightmare Before Christmas" is fantasy, far from the realistic setting implied by magical realism. And even with in broadest sense of "magic," such as simply being otherworldly or eerie, Wes Anderson's films and "Adaptation" still lack any magical or fantastic elements (one may argue an improbable element to these films, but there is not a magical one). Also moved "Wild at Heart" (though I'm not entirely comfortable with this film's inclusion here either) so it is in the parenthetical of Lynch's other films. -Gheorghe Zamfir 23:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Approval Thanks to user Zamfir for removing fantastic and macabre films. The essential quality, as I see it, to magical realism is that the reader/viewer/audience must always be left with the mundane interpretation being a convenient option. Tom Lougheed 02:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"Like Water for Chocolate"(Como Agua Para Chocolate) was adapted as a film in 1992 by Alfonso Arau. In 2000, Arau directed a farcical comedy that might also be considered magical realism called "Picking Up the Pieces." "Henry Fool" (Hal Hartley, 1998) and "The Cooler" (Wayne Kramer, 2004) are examples of films I think would qualify as magical realism.

What about Solaris, or The Butterfly Effect, or Eternal Sunshine? Sean Quixote 05:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And the Milagro Beanfield War 166.109.124.231 15:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And The Time of the Gypsies? Absolutely! Rhinoracer 07:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Television

I think it might be useful, if we are exploring where we find magical realism in other forms of media, to explore its usage in television drama. I have always considered Lost to be a great example (I'll be using it right alongside Marquez in my AP Literature class this year). On the island, you have realistic events surrounded by magical -- sometimes outright, sometime ambiguous -- occurences. Anyone care to comment? --ScooterDMan

Should be listed?

The author list should be edited into alphabetical order.

Neil Gaiman

Would Neil Gaiman's work be considered too fantastical? I'm thinking of novels like Neverwhere or Anansi Boys rather than the all-out fantasy of Stardust and The Sandman.Snowgrouse (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If, and only if, someone has specifically referenced him as "magic realism," as I can imagine most reviewers will likely side with Pratchett and call him fantasy (or are guilty of being too polite). - BalthCat (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nikolaj Gogol

Surely Gogol is one of the earliest writers who could be thought of as a Magic Realist. 'The Nose' describes a man who wakes up to find his nose is missing. 'The Overcoat' describes a man who has his coat stolen and dies of grief - and then haunts St. Petersburg. 'Diary of a Madman' is about a man who thinks he is his the King of Spain and hears dogs on the streets of St. Petersburg talking to each other. He wrote in the first half of the 19th century. - Ali Cullen

I'm not too sure about Diary of a Madman- after all, it is his gradual descent into madness that results in his hearing dogs etc. There is a physical explanation offered for these experiences.

Gogol is a surrealist and satirist. Simply because something weird happens doesn't make it "magic realism"--the weirdness of the nose detaching is a main point of the story, for example, where in the world something like of 100 Years of Solitude it seems perfectly within reason (if rare) for someone to have a pig's tail. Magic Realism should be limited to 20th-century writers, primarily those incorporating Latin American traditions and story-telling techniques. Shakespeare also shouldn't be here, as his fantastic work is based within traditional realms of European fantasy and legend.

If you were going to add Gogol, add Kafka too. But the list is far too eclectic as it is. --Jbmurray 12:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

René Magritte

I really think René Magritte should be mentioned in this article. - MZ

I could very well be wrong, but I don't think that Magritte is typically associated with magic realism; as the article indicates, magic realism is generally considered a literary style. I could see how Magritte and other surrealists could be considered in some ways a forerunner to magic realism in the visual arts, however. (See also the terse note at the end of this article about magic realism's lack of connection to surrealism.) - Cobra libre 00:59, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
I have seen Magritte mentioned in connection with both surrealist and magical realist painting. I'm going to add a section on MR painting in particular to clarify that issue, and then later I'll come back when I have more time (if no one else does it first) to rewrite the first paragraph to make it explicit that we're referring to the literary movement and to distinguish it from other movements such as surrealist literature. - Leyanese 19:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

José Saramago

I wonder if José Saramago might also be listed as a magic realist author. Each of his novels I have read, Blindness, The Gospel According To Jesus Christ, and The Double, uses an unexplained magical element to reveal profound truths about society, culture, and humanity. Another contemporary author I would also propose including is George Saunders. - MH

I also believe that José Saramago should be included in this cathegory of realism: in all his novels that I've read ["Baltasar and Blimunda", "the Gospel according to Jesus Christ", "Blindness", "Seeing" (in English)] there are fantastic elements inserted in a real world, that are not questioned by the characters from that real world, and are not explained in the end of the story, at least according to the "realistic" patterns. In my opinion, his literary style is quite close to the style of Gabriel Garcia Marques in "One Hundred Years of Solitude". - AFB

Faulkner as magical realist?

Is it really appropriate to list Faulkner here? I have rarely seen his work fundamentally associated with the movement.

I'd second this. I can see how Faulkner would influence magical realist authors, particularly with his prose style, but I really think its quite inappropriate to list him as a magical realist author, especially when considered that his books do not contain fantastic elements.
I'd third it, and am removing it from the article pending a good citation to the contrary... --Dvyost 13:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi guys, in general terms I agree that most of Faulkner's work would not be classified as being magical-realist, however the book "Absalom, Absalom" can be. There are articles that sustain this, as in "Magical Realism: Theory, History and Community". etgothome

Yann Martel

I seem to remember Mr Martel being called a magical realist, should his name be included? Pelegius 01:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

His name is included on the list of authors. Gheorghe Zamfir 06:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
He does not appear in the article at the moment. Laura Esquivel and Salman Rushdie are also rather surprising absences. --Richard Clegg 17:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Would Harry potter be considered magical realism?

Harry Potter is pretty solidly fantasy, rather than magic realism.Gheorghe Zamfir 09:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I love Harry Potter, but this question is hilarious. Nice of you to give a serious answer, Gheorghe. Hermitage 11:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Not to disparage this series, or its fans, but no I do not think HP should be considered Magical Realism for the following reasons: Although one of the concerns of Magical Realism is to erase or make the boundaries between genres opaque, the Harry Potter series is surely firm footed in the realm of genre fiction, not literary fiction; also, to be fair, it is neither Realism (with a big R) or realism (with a little r). Xbobbyheadx 12:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Rob Gonsalves

Should Canadian artist Rob Gonsalves not be added to the list of magical realist painters? He strikes me as being a truly outstanding contemporary example of the magic realist school. GSH 20:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Louis de Bernieres

I would have thought that de Bernieres' Latin American novels, were clearly magical realist, but he is not included on the list - Irene Orr 11 March 2006

They're a pastiche of magic realism. --Jbmurray 12:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel De Bernieres' Latin American novels, The War of Don Emmanuel's Nether Parts (1990), Señor Vivo and the Coca Lord (1991) and The Troublesome Offspring of Cardinal Guzman (1992), each of which was heavily influenced by South American literature, particularly 'magic realism', well qualify as majic realism in their own right. (newuser Dec 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.93.113 (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Jamie and Gilbert Hernandez

Love and Rockets is a very realistic comic book with magical portrayals of its characters and story lines. There are more magical realism comic book writers out there.

Kundera???

Kundera is currently listed, but I'm not sure that this is correct. Can anyone provide a fairly solid citation supporting the claim that Kundera is a magical realist? I would be more ready to classify him as an "existentialist", but then again I'm not a literary theorist by any means. Hermitage 03:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that Most of Kundera's writing would not be considered as magic realism, but "The Book of Laughter and Forgetting" is and is cited in one of the main published books to deal with the theory of this literary genre. I've read about it in "Magical Realism: Theory, History and Community". etgothome
It's been awhile since I read that, but I do remember it having some kind of magical or semi-magical elements... I remember one of the main characters getting trapped in some land of children, or something. Anyway, I guess it doesn't matter; please feel free to keep him on the list if you prefer. Hermitage 11:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hubert Lampo

Hubert Lampo, who died yesterday, was the most important representative of Magic realism in the Dutch language area. His main work, 'De komst van Joachim Stiller' deals with the silent return of Jesus Christ in this world. A movie of his book has been made in 1976 ([imdb]) and the book predates Marquez' first writing by 2 years. (Lampo started writing in WOII ('43). He should be mentioned in the main article. bsod 01:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde ?

This concept of "magic realism" is new to me me, but by reading its definition, it seems to me that The Portrait of Dorian Gray matches it. Am I right ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.36.171 (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think The Portrait of Dorian Gray definitely highlights the fantastic and makes it real. It is also highly adept at social criticism. However, I think it would be a bit anachronistic to consider this one. I say this because I think one of the most important aspects of Magical Realism is that it is a byproduct of the twentieth-century, and that being so, is a way for us to understand the time and place of these MR creations. Reading The Portrait of Dorian Gray as MR would not enhance it, but probably hinder or disfigure its understanding and appreciation. Xbobbyheadx 12:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Marvellous American Reality"

I think it would be a good idea to look into the definition of what we are referring to as "magic realism." Magic realism is not the combination of the real and the magical (i.e. false) but rather it is a genre written from the perspective of cultures which are not wholey hindered by the intellectual trappings of logic and science. The ghosts, duppies, and inexplicable happenings are not added to the texts as unreal or magical, but rather, just another factor of the inexplicable in this largely inexplicable reality of ours. A more appropriate title would be Marvellous American Reality, as it is referred to by many of the authors and critics from within South America and the Caribbean where much of the writing is done. Rather than the implication of falsehood, present in the term "magical realism," "Marvellous American Reality" suggests that the text is being created in the American space--a realm whose inhabitants have not yet been blinded to the marvellous by the scientific need for explanation. On many levels, there is the inherent commentary in this genre that logic, is in fact, not god (which many of us Western thinkers seem to believe it is). These texts present realities which simply cannot be explained within the limitations of logic and science. What must be understood when discussing this genre is that the marvellous events, which many of us who are more heavily influenced by Western European philosophy would rule out from the real, are a feature of life experienced almost regularly by the vast majority of people in the source cultures. While we (myself very much included), may not have knowingly experienced the marvellous in our own lives, there are those who have and it is an ego-centric injustice for us to try to explain their experiences into the imagined/conjured/false. CwH

What a load of crock! Beerathon 10:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

On further thought I want to revoke the "American" from the title I suggested. Marvellous reality is no more American than apple pie (which is actually actually English). I think its just a natural opposition, between intuition and logic. People will probably disagree with me on this, but in this case intuition is not simply what you make up in place of what you do not understand, but rather, the human attempt at understanding those things which cannot be understood; not by logic anyway. Remember logic was made to understand the universe, the universe was not made to follow logic. Just a thought. CwH

While it is true that what I've read does suggest that the "magic" element of magic realism can be explained away, but isn't, there are genuinely magical events in some of them, such as the Plague of Insomnia in A Hundred Years of Solitude, or the blood that flows up the curb in the same book (I think?) - T.N

Magical realism?

I agree with most of CwH comments. I am from Latin American and I never heard of this terminology until I moved to the U.S. I would like to say that defining genres is like defining all the possible colors from red to yellow. There is simply not a black and white style or genre; they are “all” gray, some darker and some lighter. When it comes to magical realism as CwH previously said, sometimes there is no logic at all to be found, but I would like to add that the author may create a new “logic(s)” that becomes a prevalent rule in the book. I personally think there is an explanation to the birth of “magical realism”. The religious aspect of Catholic tradition with the Latin American superstitious society of the early and mid 1900s came into conflict with the scientific and philosophical revolutions of the 1800s to modern times. The struggle to create a world in which there is not an open logic or simply not logic at all gave birth to magical realism. By giving my personal opinion obviously this should not be taken as a “truth”; even less as the opinions of any Latin Americans that might and most likely have a different view. --72.229.123.174 04:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)RexNecros


phallic

is phallic imagery so prominent in magic ralism? (see article) --Melaen 11:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you make an effort to look for the stuff, EVERYTHING can be an object of "phallic imagery," no matter how short on actual sexual references the story is in other respects. A sword? Obviously a penis in disguise. A tower? Same thing. Wands and Staves? Sure, why not, but my, you gotta have a short one. Everything that is long and slender resembles a phallus to some people, and if it is the subject of some quest so much the better, another reason for critics to consider the author sexually insecure.
Really, it's bunk. The whole list isn't much more than a number of factoids that could fit nearly all books of fiction ever written, if you interprete long enough. This is no more a defined genre than newspaper horoscopes actually describe you accurately. --84.186.177.33 02:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not magical realism is a "defined genre" in our opinions is irrelevant. It is often studied as a separate genre in academia and sometimes described as a separate genre by booksellers. Wikipedia would be remiss if it did not acknowledge that reality. Leyanese 17:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Author List

I really think we should move the author list to its own page now. The problem is, how to we succintly and accurately name that page? Leyanese 17:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. A long list like this is almost always the sign of a poor article. Lists become magnets that attract more and more inappropriate, non-notable, or self-promotional material.--76.81.164.27 03:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Music section needs some examples

The music section could really use some fleshing out, and especially some examples of artists who have employed magic realism in their work. As it is now the section tells you very little about what magic realism in music actually is. Magnus Bakken 12:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have doubts that magical realism as a musical style is even notable. If it is notable, a verifiable source should be given.--76.81.164.27 03:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh

This is such a bad article, it's hard to know where to start. At the very least, however, I propose that the "Elements" section seems to refer almost exclusively to literature, and should be merged with the "common features" section under "Literature," which at present duplicates it. (Meanwhile, more could be done on the features of magical realist art.) The history of the genre could be much improved, too. And I concur with the proposal to move the list of authors and works to a separate page... or indeed delete it altogether, as this list rather duplicates Category:Magic realism novels. If there's agreement on some of these proposals, I can get going on them. --Jbmurray 12:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Yep, definitely - also, the characteristics that were pointed out were only really relevant to literature, as MR in Art is "a whole different kettle of fish" so as to say. The history needs to be improved + it re-iterates a lot of which is in the intro. Maybe intro should be more minimalistic.
... I wanted to point out that what is intersting about the list is that other magical realism enthusiasts are adding their favourite authors - and sometimes : it takes the eclectic knowledge of the one person to enrich general knowledge.
... maybe the MR authors and texts can be merged, too. What do you think? etgothome
Well, the list is certainly eclectic. Perhaps in some ways that's an advantage, in a "if you liked this novel, you might also like this other one" kind of way. But I'm not sure it's very encyclopedic. If anything, it merely exposes what a loose category "magic realism" soon becomes.
While we're at it, is it really true that it was Uslar Pietri who first applied the term to literature? There's no mention of that fact on his page, and I don't remember ever hearing it myself. --Jbmurray 09:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I have been reviewing the article again the comments given and agree that the list was over-grown. I made sure the entries were added into the categories so that others' contributions weren't lost and cropped it to some of the better-known authors and works. About Uslar Pietri, he is mentioned in the literary criticism, but the date given is too early as it refers to the writing of the book, rather than when the term got used... will investigate further. etgothome

Many more problems

This article is un-referenced, and as such, is just so much original thought. Even if the editors are knowledgeable on this topic (who can tell?), they cannot cite them selves as the source, they must cite a reliable, published source (WP:ATT). Also the image used in this article (Image:Parkes-The Summitt.JPG) has the wrong tag. "promotional" tag is only for comment on "person(s), product, event, or subject in question", must be from a press kit (must have evidence of such), and must provide a source of the image and copyright information. A tag for art criticism would be something like a "Non-free 2D art" tag. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. Saying that Apocalypse Now is magic realism seems fatuous, but moreover, it is original research which is against WP policy - unless a cite can be provided, it doesn't matter what any editor thinks - it needs to be described as magical realism by an external source in order to be included here.139.48.25.61 (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I will try to find the referneces to the main sections in this article, under Literature, and the emergence of the term. Much of the information can be found in books on literary criticism, notably: Magical Realism: Theory, History, Community. Lois Parkinson Zamora and Wendy B. Faris, eds. Duke Univ. Press, 1995. I will find out more. etgothome 12 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.158.3.141 (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The introduction to the page and History section need to have a clean up due to repetition. Also the list in the Literature section seems to have become very long; and I cannot find refernces to some of the mentioned texts as being described in terms of this genre - will investigate further.

etgothome 16 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etgothome (talk • contribs) 18:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Carlos Castañeda

...should probably be added to the list Topk (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fantasy or Magical Realism?

The article does not really help in defining what magical realism is. I still can't see what the real difference between Fantasy and Magical Realism is. ALL the listed archetypes of this so-called Magic Realism can also be attributed to hundreds of Fantasy and even SciFi works and authors.--Ernestlake (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because it is a poor essay of an article - notice the lack of cites! The POV of the main editor seems to be that any fantasy with quality is MR. I've started tagging parts as uncited, then i'll start removing.Yobmod (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What, if anything, differentiates Magic realism from its off-shoot: Urban fantasy? If nothing significant, the Urban fantasy entry should be updated to mention it's just a flavor of Magic realism, and this entry should at least mention Urban fantasy as a form of Magic realism. --Mechphisto (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Urban fantasy has existed for much longer for a start! So if any were an offshoot, it is the other way around.Yobmod (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Really?! Magical realism is the acceptance of magical elements within contemporary reality, a style which has been around (depending on how slippery you want to get with the definition) several decades to a century or more. Urban fantasy is a recent development that evolved from a merging post-colonial fantasy with...urbanization (gasp!) --Mechphisto (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
And urbanisation occured with industrialisation in the early 1800s. You think urbanisation happened in the last decade? Urban fantasies have existed since cities have, particularly in short stories, check out Kiplings fantasy anthologies, written more than a hundred years ago Eg. Mark of the Beast.Yobmod (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
...and Franz Kafka... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.42.1 (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Magic realism is not a genre, but type or style of writing, "school" of writing, generation of writers in Latin America. Hence, it's not fantasy nor urban fantasy; genre is one and style another category. Hence half of this discussion (is Gaiman magic realism i.e.) is out of place and many authors of fantastic prose are put here only because their work has elements of fantastic and magic mood in it... Tomsak (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Lists

None of the lists (books, films, artists) have a single reference to back them up. No-one changed this when a fact tagged them a while back. I've now gone through and deleted entries that made no mention of magic realism at all on the subject's page. The remainder have been fact tagged, as wikipedia calling them magic realists is not sufficient. This has made the article nicely shorter and easier to read.Yobmod (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Image on page

I'm confused as to how the main image on the page fits the description of "magical realism" at all. The subjects in it are fantastic, but there isn't any sort of "normal" setting. Unless someone can back it up, I'd say it could potentially be misleading.Clockwrist (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Magic realism art has essentially nothing to do with the literature. The realism here is just about the texture and, er, stuff. ie.It is a realistically painted unreal thing.Yobmod (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the article's definition, magical realism in art is supposed to be "a return to mundane subjects as opposed to fantastical ones." Clockwrist (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there are at least two different uses of the term "magic realism" in visual art. The original meaning, as described by Roh, who supposedly coined the very term "magic realism" in 1925, referred to a kind of super-intense realism, without magical elements or fantastic subject matter. The image here does not seem to qualify as magic realism by this definition. The second use of the term 'magical realism' is a sort of realism that encompasses unrealistic elements. It seems to be inspired by the literary 'magic realism' of Garcia Marques, in which mundane reality veers into distortions that are impossible. The picture here doesn't even seem to fit this literary model. It is quite frankly a piece of fantasy art. Or is all fantasy art also "magic realism"? MdArtLover (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now removed it, as the artist is no longer listed on this page as working in this genre, and his wikipeida article does not give a source for him being magical realist (and even if it does, that doesn't show that this particular image is).Yobmod (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Works / authors / artistsawaiting sourcing that indicates they are examples of Magic Realism

Pulled from the article per WP:V, please feel free to provide a reliable source and return them to the article proper. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

writers


visual artists

In cinema Alejandro Jodorowsky's three films can be described as magic realism.

Agree with removal. I added the tags, and checked each article for sources (completely removing those that didn't even claim to be magic realist). None had them then, and no-one is interested in finding them.Yobmod (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added Michael Parkes to the list. Multiple sources (including the artist himself) describe his work as magic realism. --Elonka 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Borges and Magic Realism

Please do not be presumptuous in removing uncited material. Checking out the truth of the statement by trying to find a source that either supports or disproves the assertion is more constructive. Before removing something, check to see if you can find a citation yourself. And anyway, it's obvious that you cannot be even moderately knowledgeable about magic realism in literature, or you would know that Jose Luis Borges was a leading (and according to many sources, the leading) writer in the genre. In fact, it's almost impossible to graduate from high school (at least in the USA) without learning this at some point.

I know, I know: it's better if all statements in an article are accompanied by citations, but, lord, how can you not know that Borges was a leading magic realist? If you don't know even that, what business do you have removing mention of him from an article about magic realism? If you know so little on the subject, why do you presume to go slashing and burning through the article? Please have a little humility and tread more lightly.

I put Borges back in, and in support of this, I provided a link to one of the zillion possible supporting citations instantly available to anyone who bothers to do a simple Google search (Google book searches are particularly helpful, FYO). MdArtLover (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Borges was still in there. And he is not a "leading magic realist", his work pre-dates the movement, and the invention of the term. And i didn't delete it as first resort, the article was tagged for months. And the sentence refers to the Latin American Boom ("With the success of the Boom, the work of a previous generation of writers gained access to a new and expanded public. These precursors include Jorge Luis Borges..." is therein) not magic realism. And you formatted the citation wrongly. And i have had to remove it as you linked to a search engine, the only mention of magic realism on the page being the search term you typed. Please review WP:Verify and WP:RS. moved this to apporpriate talk page.Yobmod (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I linked to an image of a page in a book. The link takes one directly to the scanned image of the page. The text on the page exactly states that Borges was the leading magic realist.
And the fact that the term "magic realism" may have come later than the earliest Borges works that are now universally considered to be quintessential examples of magic realism in no way detracts from the fact that Borges WAS a magic realist.
Was Bach not a "baroque" composer because he didn't call his music "baroque music"? Your reasoning is ridiculous. But in fact your reasoning is so ridiculous that I see there is no point in arguing with you. Bye. MdArtLover (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing, just pointing out your source was not a reliable source according to policy: you linked here [[1]], which is the cover of a non-fiction book about doctors. There are sources for borges being a precursor and influence on magic realism and the Latin american boom.Yobmod (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, an odd thing has happened, according to my research. "Magic [or magical] realism", with reference to these Latin American writers, apparently entered lit crit with the publication of a very influential 1955 essay by critic Angel Flores. Flores himself held up Borges as the prime example of what he was calling magic realism. But a funny thing has happened (apparently in the years since I was in school - here I'm dating myself, I know). Subsequent critical convention has adopted Flores's term, but disagreed with his designation of Borges as an example of it, much less as the prime example of it. I confess I was not aware of this, and it conflicts with my own apparently antiquated education. Here is an essay that describes the critical situation:
"While 'magic realism' and 'marvellous realism' refer to somewhat different phenomena, a new term 'magical realism' emerged in literary criticism in the 1950s, influenced by a 1955 essay by the critic Angel Flores. ... Flores emphasised the European precursors of what he termed the modern Latin American 'magical realists' such as Jorge Luis Borges', Rubén Darío and Julio Cortázar, who all combined fantastic and realist elements in their work..... Flores suggested that Borges ...was the pathfinder and moving spirit of this new Latin American magical realism. However, while Borges is recognised as a founding father of modern Latin American literature, his work is now seen as a precursor to magical realism rather than magical realist itself...." [2]
OK, so I wasn't aware of this redesignation. But here's what I propose: shouldn't the article at least mention that the term M. R. as a literary designation originated with the Flores essay, and that Flores considered Borges to be the prime example of it? After all, Flores is the one who came up with the very notion of a Latin American literary "magic realism". Or is my source inaccurate on this matter? MdArtLover (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Useful source on line

Magic Realism, edited by Zamora and Faris, is at Google Books. It contains foundational essays by Roh, Guenther, Carpentier, Flores, Leal (not the interview I quoted), Channady, and Simpkins, among other things (some already cited in the article). Limited preview only, but if people take different parts, I think a lot of citeneeded tags can be removed and a lot can be clarified. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Is it crucial to the genre of "magical realism" (as usually conceived and demarcated) that the "magic" be of a certain type? For example, 19th century occult interests like Spiritualism or Theosophy, as opposed to the type of magic found in the Twilight or Left Behind series.

Article lead sentence falsely gives the literary definition as the general definition

The opening sentence of this article gives the literary definition as the general definition. Magic realism as defined here flatly contradicts Franz Roh's definition of the term in visual art. MdArtLover (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magical_realism/Archive_1&oldid=1240463149"