Magical realism is shit.
literally only a lazy plot device to legitimize a narrative that offers nothing other than the shitty surrealism.
Prove me wrong
how would you achieve a better result but with "effort"?
gr8 db8 m8
> Salman Rushdie
> shitty surrealism
kek
Either you are a cynic and lack any suspension of disbelief or you have such shit taste you can't even appreciate the level of beauty and complexity in the S.V. writing
>>7385600
second this. it's enjoyable, but in general just
feels like filler material that doesn't really add
anything substantial to a narrative.
take 100 years of solitude: a story about history
repeating itself, and the inevitability of fate,
really doesn't need ghosts, men with giant
dicks nor flying carpets convey its point
> regular story
> insert appearance from random giraffe
> magic realism lol
yes, coehlo, i'm looking at you. one more giraffe and you're out of here.
>>7385600
Read Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie - that proves you wrong.
>magic realism
>plot device
>surrealism
yawn
come back when you know what words mean
>Fiction is shit.
>literally only a lazy plot device to legitimize a narrative that offers nothing other than the shitty fictionalization.
>prove me wrong
You're wrong because you believe that the point of writing is anything other than the expression of ideas through storytelling. Even non-fiction books utilize it to talk about real-world events.
Reality is indeterminate at best, may as well exploit that for clarity of message.
>>7387375
I suppose the point of writing, if you're an author, is to be good enough to get published, read, or paid. Maybe all three.
If I'm going to invest my time as a reader with a fiction author, the story better have been written with my interest in mind, not to stroke the author's ego.
>>7388524
>If I'm going to invest my time as a reader with a fiction author, the story better have been written with my interest in mind
protip: no one cares in the least if you read their shit or not. especially not authors. your interests are irrelevant. if they align with what the author wrote, cool. if not, no one cares. you not liking something isn't a legitimate basis for criticism.
>>7388551
>you not liking something isn't a legitimate basis for criticism
>criticism
It's like you think there's a platonic ideal of a book, which all critics will use to objectively critique a novel.
Do all critics judge a work of fiction identically? No? Then subjective opinion must be involved.
I appreciate magical surrealism, by the way.
>>7390685
>I think fun is a relevant thing.
>>7390705
>I thin fun isn't a relevant thing.
the depiction of human truths made strange, mysterious, and laden with an ambiguous power.
in context it was a major shift aesthetically from post-war gloom. maybe now it is not as vibrant to a modern reader but magic realism revitalized the novel.
>>7390463
>magical surrealism
>subjective opinion
get back to Literature 101 undergrad
Magical realism annoys me as an aesthetic, but I have seen it justify its purpose before.
Other times, it has been pretentious. It strikes me as a de rigeur method for literary writers to cheat, using fantasy writer tools, without breaking the fashionable expectations of literary critics. If a work is boring, or tonally obscure, or just not interesting - throw in a bit of magic! It'll make your themes more obvious, and throw the reader for a loop! But, instead of just writing a fantasy novel - pull back at the last second, so the reader gets the juicy privilege of WONDERING whether the magic was metaphor, or if it really happened!!!! ------ fuck that. That's lazy.
But Salman Rushdie isn't guilty of this, and you're a buffoon for saying otherwise.
>>7390714
>I'm a worthless pleb.
>>7390925
>get back to Literature 101 undergrad
Not everyone who passes through this board is a lit major whose conception of what constitutes great literature is contained in the course syllabus.
I'm gonna guess my copy of One Hundred Years of Solitude is older than you are.
>>7391455
>you have to be a worthless pleb to enjoy fun
I'd rather not be a patrician in that case.
>>7391455
If being a partrician isn't enjoyable for you then you have no reason to be a patrician. It serves no practical purpose. You're better off doing what you enjoy than forcing yourself to be miserable in an attempt to seem smart, because what you actually accomplish is the opposite.
Maybe play online video games, you'll get along better with innane mic spammers who hate everything than you will with people who actually enjoy reading literature.
>>7391455
>Thinking patrician literature should be boring.
Dude, Homer.
>>7385600
Actually, the real and "surreal" (I would still call it magical) are mostly in a dialectical relationship with one another, not cancelling each other out. This is definitely the case for Midnight's Children and 100 Years of Solitude.
What is magical realism anyway?
What is the difference from fantasy?
Are those monogotari animays magical realism or not?
>>7392452
dude, the unvierse man wow
>>7393234
Not a refutation. It's not even an attempt at one.
>>7392452
I didn't say that it should be boring, I'm saying that it's orthogonal to being great literature.
>>7391749
did you just say that because your copy of a book is older than someone they have no ability to critique it? most people's copies of books that came out in the 60s are going to be older than people commenting on an online forum
>>7393865
This kid is why I support abortion
