This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"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
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 is in fact an art movement. for those who disagree I direct you to www.art encyclopedia.com
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.
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)
"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.
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)
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
The author list should be edited into alphabetical order.
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)
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.
I really think René Magritte should be mentioned in this article. - MZ
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
Is it really appropriate to list Faulkner here? I have rarely seen his work fundamentally associated with the movement.
I seem to remember Mr Martel being called a magical realist, should his name be included? Pelegius 01:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Would Harry potter be considered magical realism?
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)
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
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)
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 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)
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)
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 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
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
is phallic imagery so prominent in magic ralism? (see article) --Melaen 11:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
etgothome 16 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etgothome (talk • contribs) 18:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
...should probably be added to the list Topk (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)