/lit/ - Literature

>Deep&Edgy

>Deep&Edgy

One is the mexican version of the other

>>1405654
u forgot to

>Deep&Edgy

Guys I am just trying to comprehend the difference between

"this is a negro, he has telepathy" MAGIC REALISM

"this is a negro, he has telepathy" SCI FI/ FANTASY

Fantasy involves worlds, such as the Middle Earth of Tolkien's works, which exist separate from our own reality. These worlds operate by often-times similar rules, yes, but ultimately have a set of primary functions within them that clearly provide a means of discerning them from our own.
Magic Realism however takes worlds which function as our own does, such as the basic tenements of Garcia Marquez's Colombian settings. Within these worlds, however, small but incredible things occur. These occurrences (people living extraordinarily long lives, for example) are treated as commonplace alongside the banal mundane aspects of everyday human existence. The merits of the two do not, ultimately, come down to arguments of literary merit or worth, but instead to the functions of the worlds themselves.
Of course, because these definitions are based, in large part, on a degree of subjectivity, the line between the two may become blurred. If you're having trouble discerning between one or the other, try to imagine the characters of the novel living within a real-world setting. Frodo or Jose Arcadio. In both novels there are some bizarre occurrences, yes, and neither one pretends to be the actual real world itself, but Tolkien's Middle Earth is more a vehicle for the existence of his characters, where as Marquez's Macondo is an allegorical Colombia, a direct stand-in for the real, and presents a very realistic outlook.

Also, stop same fagging your >Deep&Edgy
It's not funny, and you're not being clever, as there is a pretty standard and understood distinction between the two literary forms.

>>1405658
>>1405669
puppy reporting

do you suck on his titties tybrax or what ?

>>1405675
> Fantasy involves worlds, such as the Middle Earth of Tolkien's works, which exist separate from our own reality. These worlds operate by often-times similar rules, yes, but ultimately have a set of primary functions within them that clearly provide a means of discerning them from our own.
But this is untrue. Not all fantasy takes place in an engineered, alternate world.

I'd agree with that works that are considered magic realism perhaps share a stylistic sense and an approach to the fantastical elements, but I still don't think it necessitates an entirely new genre instead of it being a separate, defined subgenre.

"this is a negro, he teleported my TV to a pawn shop" MAGIC REALISM

"this is a negro, he has a job" SCI FI/ FANTASY

>Derp&Edgy

>>1405675
>Fantasy involves worlds, such as the Middle Earth of Tolkien's works, which exist separate from our own reality. These worlds operate by often-times similar rules, yes, but ultimately have a set of primary functions within them that clearly provide a means of discerning them from our own.
It's like there really was not a single ontological question ever raised by postmodernist fiction ever

Don't really want 2 get into all of that though it will just lead nowhere

Is the Nigger with telepathy using his powers to find some watermelon? Then it's magical REALISM

>>1405694
You're right, not all of the worlds of fantasy works are alternate worlds (even though, and especially when viewing the classic fantasy novel, this tends to be more the rule than the exception), but the do offer literary worlds whose primary functions are to exist outside of the reliable and objective idea of reality, are they not? Whether it be modern urban fantasy, or classic, swords and sorcery fantasy, all fantasy works present a world where reality takes second place to the fantastic, hence their title. These are the separate functions of the worlds which I mentioned earlier, and I didn't properly or coherently voice that, sorry.

The variance then comes in the idea that Magical Realist works are centered instead in the objective reality, the presentation of the modern real, and the elements of folk and fantasy which are found throughout them are not meant to take the forefront of the narrative, but instead to function as though they were tenants of the realms of reality that the rest of the novel itself functions by.

Again, it's a tricky distinction, but one that exists beyond the idea of Deep&Edgy, and one that I think is clear enough for the two to be separate genres, albeit closely linked ones. Each borrows from the other and from other genres to craft their narratives and their deeper literary allegories, and that's what makes them both so fascinating.

I am, again, not trying to make any argument pertaining to literary worth or merit, as each genre presents a number of varied and brilliant stories (and their fair share of trash, as well), but instead to focus primarily on the literary functions which separate them both. I can, ultimately, see and understand your position that one is a sub-genre of the other, but their functions are too varied for me to agree with that, personally.

>>1405676
d&e doesn't have tits.

>>1405721
lrn2anatomy, fgt

>>1405700

Confirmed for not knowing what the fuck he's talking about.

It's all fantastical. To those who think it deserves a "subgenre" instead of an "entire" genre, congrats, that's what it is. But those qualifiers are meaningless.

>>1405728
no, you don't know what the word means alot.

>>1405733
Are you talking about birds?
And it's "a lot."

>>1405720
Thank you for the comprehensive response. If I read your post correctly, you argue the distinction is a question of intent, yes? I happen to disagree with your specific conclusion, but as you recognize the diverging point, I think it is fair enough as it is.

>>1405742
>And it's "a lot."
ok i was just checking how retarded/nostalgiafag you are. obviously both by a large degree.

>>1405756

That was my first post to you. I like how you called me a nostalgiafag, though, that was a nice touch. Very apropos.