Robert: Sorry, I think I was a bit heavy-handed there. What I mean is that I sometimes think there is a bit of a subtext to this view of Magical Realist text that actually robs them of their literary merit. I don't think that you were doing it, but it does bug me. I think it is partly because tarring MR with the mysticism brush actually gives people who thin that SpecFic == bad, MR == automatically-better-because-it-is-slightly-beyond-our-ken more ammunition.
Robert> The 'but fantasy is real to those people' argument reminds me of an old Religious Education teacher who tried to convince her class (we were about 10 years ol, IIRC) that those silly rationalist types who claimed that parts of the Bible shouldn't be taken literally were wrong because PEOPLE DIDN'T THINK THE SAME WAY IN THE OLD DAYS - i.e. there was no such thing as metaphor in the Ancient World.
I have never seen any convincing evidence that supports this theory (although there is plenty against it) and I can't help but think that applying it to modern day people from other cultures is a tad patronising. It smacks a little too much of dark mutterings about 'noble savages' and 'simpler, primitive folk' for my liking.
Ah, fuggeddabboutit!
I actually did pick up on the fact that you meant 'books still to be published'. I don't agree with PNH that what everyone was doing was just trying to fannishly subdivide books into genres. If you had said 'What the world needs now is books about Dogs' then I think it would be perfectly ok to say 'hang on, there are already books about Dogs - look, here are White Fang and a Scooby Doo novelization' 'But surely that novelization doesn't count because Scooby isn't a real dog?' etc etc.
Sometimes subdivision is good - it lets you know when you have stopped eating your burger and have begun chewing on your hand. :)
Gosh. Maybe what the world needs now is for Patrick to go and have a lie down? :)
Maybe a link to the relevant bestseller lists (and prior knowledge that Author X writes for the pissed-off-liberal demographic) would have helped tame the pilpul reflexes.
Tom> "Which kinda begs the question -- why are conservative mysteries bestsellers?"
Dunno - but I always thought that the reason technothrillers tend to be written by right wing types is that they use the same 'Fear change!' tactics as conservative rhetoric to affect their audience.
re: Magical Realism - if it helps then I would say:
Jonathan Carroll = Magical Realism
Neil Gaiman = Genre Fantasy
(I love both writers, btw)
Magical Realism does tend to get run down by SpecFic fans as being a sort of ersatz fantasy where the writer lacks the moral fibre to step out of the closet and declare the love of elves and bogus feudalism that dare not write it's name.
There can be an element of that, but there are differences between the two styles - how overtly the fantastical elements intrude in the plot, as opposed into the inner experiences of the characters, for example.
Done badly, Magical Realism is just pretentiousness in a funny costume. Done badly, Fantasy is safety and coddling barely hidden behind shopworn magic.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 1 |
| 2003 | 6 |
Total: 7 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Stuart Houghton:
Show all comments by Stuart Houghton.