> contrast, I had thought that the key if not the principal > distinguishing element of magical realism must be its basis in a > certain social or sociological viewpoint behind the narrative and > frequent roots in folklore outside of the dominant Western > culture. Otherwise, the simple journey into a make-believe > netherworld where magic is a possibility is a standard Hollywood > genre. (I don't mean magic as basic wish-fulfillment, but > embodied in such manifestations as guardian angels, flying > carpets, etc.) For instance, is there a difference between Field > of Dreams and Heaven Can Wait vs. The Thief of Bagdad or The > Jungle Book and Lost Horizon? I fail to see it. Magical realism I > would think, by its very nature and commitment to a political > perspective, must remain almost entirely out of the realm of > mainstream production, generally precluding the Hollywood genre > of "fantasy". I think this is (for me) a very important aspect of the generic problems raised by magical realism. Essentially I agree with you, as I understand you to be saying that MR cannot be defined formally alone--although formal elements are necessarily present for a work to be defined as magical realism. On the other hand, nor can it be defined much more easily by referring to content--although certain subject matters, generally revolving around the home, for example, are familiar in many such works. This seems to leave us suggesting that magical realism must be defined by a certain political "commitment"--as you suggest--but that seems to be very shaky ground from which to begin an analysis. If magical realism (and here I over-simplify, of course) is to be judged on the basis of a "party line", then it seems closer to *socialist* realism than anything else. Besides, how exactly would you compare the political views (even given they are self-evident) of, say, Allende's _House of the Spirits_, Rushdie's _Satanic Verses_ or Kundera's _Unbearable Lightness_. Compare the gender politics of each, for example. More evidently, each comes out of a very different social and political context (although much magical realism can loosely be defined as "postcolonial" there are many postcolonialisms) so how could we presume identity of strategy? Here I am using literary examples, because they seem somewhat less problematic in terms of identification than cinematic ones. But, supposing some of the films I have suggested are magical realist, how would one go about comparing the political viewpoints of _Wings of Desire_, _Miracle in Milan_ or _Like Water for Chocolate_? At the same time, clearly any genre is problematic at some point, but here I think that magical realism raises more problems than most. > These are just some initial reactions to what I find to be a > fascinating question in a discussion that has provided some very > worthwhile ideas to contemplate. > Brian Taves, Motion Picture Division > Library of Congress > Tavesmail.loc.gov > Jon University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee [log in to unmask]