One student wrote in her response to One Hundred Years of Solitude and magical realism: "All of the uses of magical realism cause us to create either a stonger or weaker bond to the book. It also causes us to remember that this is a piece of fictional writing. It only causes me to keep thinking that it is not real and that it could never happen." What advantages and effects does this constant reminder of the book's fictionality provide? Review the overview of magical realism by Lindsey Moore linked as "Magical Realism" at right. What does Moore mean by "irony regarding author's perspective"? Discuss these and other questions from class: written history and pictures in the novel, for instance, if the irony question dries up.
We will discuss your interpretive questions next class period.
83 comments:
i see 'irony regarding author's perspective' in magic realism/"One Hundred Years of Solitude" as implication in the text of how the author sees the world.
whenever we analyze "One Hundred Years of Solitude" during class and compare it to other things, what we conclude (assuming that it's a sound analyzation) from the novel is the author's perception of the world/that idea that came from our analyzation/conlusion
when reading this novel, i've seen a lot of religious similes. the names of the characters are mostly of saints and have a meaning that reflects their part in the novel. i could see a comparison between the novel's plot and original sin, and a kind of need for God to guide the people of Macondo in the right when they lost their memory.
i also thought that the banana strike was how the author perceived the workers' strikes and unions in America, but really, from Sir Francis Drake's attack on Riohachi to the Liberals vs. Conservatives war to the banana strike (all of these really occurred in Colombian history by the way; the banana strike is known as the Banana Strike Massacre of 1928), marquez gave his input of how he saw these events in the novel.
how amazing is that?
___________________________________
did you know that Gabriel García Márquez's life changed after reading The Metamorphosis?
I think elly makes a great point. Marquez talks of real-life events (i.e. the banana massacre and Drake's attack on Riohachi) while at the same time including elements of fiction and warped reality. This IS Magical Realism. I believe that Marquez uses magical realism to show his opinions on such events that have happened in history and his opinion on differents subjects in general. While we can say that his use of magical realism causes us to think that the book is not real or that it could never happen, I believe that one of the biggest things about how we see the book is how we see the events being described from his perspective. We create a stonger bond to the book if we share the same opinion as Marquez on the subjects being addressed. For instance if we agree with Marquez's depiction of the banana strike and how it relates to the banana massacre then we would probably develop a stronger bond with the book. Now, Marquez could have simply shown his opinion in a nonfiction book and simply laid his thoughts out there pretaining to the Bible and other things of that sort, but he chooses to use magical realism.
My question now is "Why would Marquez use magical realism (besides the fact that it is a way for us to create a bond with the book) in order to express his opinions? Why not just write a non-fiction book?
I think the book's ever-present fictionality makes it really MEAN something, and emphasizes the themes and the aforementioned 'opinions' in the novel, if that makes sense. The fictionality and the magical realism cause you to look for things that you know are there somewhere, because you think 'There's got to be a reason for Marquez including all this stuff.' A nonfiction book is usually a strict presentation of facts, whereas the magical elements in this novel, as elly and david said, keep the reader attached to the book.
In regards to Moore's piece on magical realism, I think she is saying that the author (and maybe also the narrator) must be significantly detached from the story in order for the magical elements to really work for the reader, and so that the magic doesn't dissolve 'into simple folk belief or complete fantasy.'
i saw marquez's use of magical realism as a way to relate us, as outside readers, to the narrator. we accept or understand the facts of the book, but are somewhat amused by the insensible statements of "reality" in macondo. i guess this could be a way to keep the reader attached to the book, if we are reading something that is written from our own perspective, it is much easier to connect with the book. the magical realism provides a manner in which to appreciate the author's ability to differentiate between fiction and reality, which is obviously likewise to our own, and in striking contrast to that of the characters in the book.
this definitely aligns with tylers analyzation of moore's piece on magical realism. the author, or narrator, as well as the readers, are very much detached from the characters. there is a divide between the two groups because of the ability or inability to identify fiction and reality. the author, or narrator, emphasizes the characters inability to do so in attempt to get us to better understand what is really happening and why.
THIS IS SARA MORRIS...
An advantage to the magical realism in enhancing the novel is that it allows for something dry to have a sense of fantasy and something completly different from our lives to occur. It allows for a type of escape/attatchment to the book, yet still keeps realistic aspects that people can relate to. Such as in the banana strike...we learn about strikes and such in history, yet Marquez takes it to a whole other level when he makes people oblivious to the massacre and strike that just occurred. The author also seems to keep an irony towards the magical realism so that we feel the characters are experiencing something, as well as us...and not just some random author guy.
-Sara Morris
the author's use of magical realism and, as tyler said, "ever-present fictionality" act as "loop-holes" which allow the reader to connect a "magical TRUTH" to the town's "fictional" - almost absurd - points of view. this gives the reader a sense of "choice" or "opinion" about the town and its inhabitants. i dont mean to repeat what tyler said, but it is apparent that the all aspects of fiction and magical realism must be removed from the narrator and the other characters in the novel - if the characters ARE aware of the fiction vs. reality mindset, the book would be a spiraling hurricane of nothing-ness which leads to an endless abyss of confusion in which the reader furiously throws a book to the ground and says, "WHAT THE..." "WAS THAT!?!?"
I agree with tyler in that the books fictionality emphasizes the fact that we arent in the book and are just readers.Moore is saying that the author must keep a distance from the "magical" world but at the same time respect it. Kenzie is correct in that the author must be detached fromed the characters but at the same time bring the author in.
Magical Realism enhances the novel because it makes the reader more interested in what is going on. If you were just going to talk about the families in the town of Macondo being incestuous(which could really happen) it wouldn't be interesting without the incorporation of animalistic features on the humans once they were born which is the Magical Realism. Comparing nonfiction books to fiction books: Wouldn't you rather read a fiction book that has a cool "magical" story instead of reading a nonfiction book about boring stuff?
I agree with David Hibbard. Without these "loopholes," i would be more confused. Fact and magical realism have to be connected somehow because the two are complete opposites. I believe it (magical realism) not only acts as a loophole but as a connector. It connects facts and magical realism, it connects the author's life to out life, and it connects events in Mexican history to events in American history...ex. the banana strike in Colombia to the Pullman strike in the U.S.
-Sara Morris
in my opinion the magical realism throws me off when i read the book. it makes me think twice and reread over what i have previously read. but, this is probably exactly what marquez wanted. when the reader rereads the passage it makes them think twice about what they already know and connect it to real life. (ex. everyone connecting the banana strike to a strike learned about in history) i do however agree with the student who said the comment in the first question: that magical realism either gives the reader a weaker or stonger bond to the book. in my case it gives me a weaker bond to the book because some people do not have the ability to take in that magical information and connect it to real life. (me)
I agree with Sara. Magical Realism allows for an escape from the realism of the book and makes the story more interesting by causing us to constantly remember that the book is a work of fiction. we know that it could never happen in real life.
Although earlier I said that Magical Realism enhances the novel for the better, I also agree with Lindsey in that Magical Realism throws the reader(me) off and makes me think twice about what is going on. This affects the novel because some people may become too aggravated with the fact that they cannot understand what is going on that, like David said, they throw the book down furiously and think "What the...was that?"
Do you think that Marquez does this for a reason? Or does he take joy in the fact that we get frustrated?
How about a little concrete something from the novel?
magical realism within this book is the author's perception of something.
it's kind of like the opinion section of a newspaper (you guys, i just got back from a 3 day journalism convention - journalism is the only thing on my mind at the moment.). you have articles based on fact and the writer's view. the reader, in agreement or disagreement with the story, reacts.
with "100 Years of Solitude" and magical realism, the story is the novel, the writer's opinion and workds the author's perception and fictionality of the work. i feel that knowing that this piece if fictional, even though based on true events, gives a more indepth look at how people/the author viewed these events. it provides different perceptions instead of one general 'this happened. it was bad' to a more 'this happened. it was dreadful.'
i honestly don't see a 'bond' the reader shares with the book, but instead interest in what the author's saying. i'm particularly interested in what marquez sees in his world.
I think that Marquez does infact want us to get frustrated. I can only take so much. So after I read it, and have a good cry, I go back and try to look deeper into the reading. It makes me think of Beloved, and how Morrison intentionally tries to confuse the reader. Oh yes. I remember talking about that with Mrs. Dawson. So yes, David. I think Marquez certainly DOES do this for a reason. Maybe he isn't taking joy in our struggle...but he is trying to help us...in a cruel way...
He is trying to help us by making us "think twice" as others have said.
"Magical realism is characterized by two conflicting perspectives, one based on a rational view of reality and the other on the acceptance of the supernatural as prosaic reality."
maybe marquez is just showing us his rational view of this cruel world.
he's experienced horrible events in his life which is implicated in this novel.
i doubt he takes joy in showing us his view of the tragedy in the banana massacre incident in the book, but maybe he's like those war veterans who just want to share their pain and tell what really happened that the government/the them hides from people.
What advantages does magical realism provide? Well, to go along with previous statements, it allows readers to be drawn into the story. They are not bored with realist ideas, and things that are already common to them. Basically, the story is interesting to the reader. Marquez enables the reader to gain "a more deep and true reality than conventional realist techniques would illustrate." With a constant reminder of the book's fictionality, one can go much deeper into the text, and enjoy it. Magical realism can be the key factor that keeps us reaching back for more.
I think the use of Magical Realism Just bring us closer to the novel. It like were reading this book where all these things seem like they could happen but we know they never will. I think it's kind of like not just imagining macondo but actually living in the imagination.
i think that marquez just wants to torment us, especially me. going along with elly's definition, i do think that there are two "conflicting perspectives" in the book, i just can't figure out what they are. i think they are what really happens in the book and what really doesnt, but dont hold me to that. i just cant figure out why marquez would fuse the the real things with the fake things into one book?? anybody understand what im saying or am i just retarded??
I dont understand this two perspective thing... Is it like two of them within the book or is it supposed to be the author's perspective and then the readers perspective... I really dont know right now, Im going to sleep
alright jess, mabye i can clear it up for you even though i'm probably the last person you would want to do that. but anyways, i kinda thought of it as the story happenings and the happening happenings in "The Things They Carried." (i know i should underline that but i dont know how on this blog, sorry mr.koon)but i still dont know why marquez would do that without even hinting to the reader that some stuff is fake and some stuff is not, atleast o'brien did that, geez marquez.
it's more implying the author's perception in a different viewpoint. for example, marquez puts his perception of certain events into a story thats not completely true.
Just to add to the original question of magical realism in the book and what I noticed, Ice, a regular object to most people was seen as extraordinary and JAB could see a future city built of ice in his mind. However, when a magic carpet flew by his window, he ignored it and kept on working on his science and other works brought about by Melquiades. We would be amazed to see a real flying carpet and want to know how it's flying and so on. This shows that it is still a fictional story. The effect of this type of reminder kind of makes us think about why they wouldn't want to know what we would in that situation. It makes it a lot more interesting as well.
alright, so, when i pick up a novel i am not looking to read about a life and story just like my own. books are an escape for most people, the farthest we as human beings will ever get from this great big world. magical realism is one technique that allows for a sense of "escape" from everyday life. and in order to fully escape the author has to delve so far into fantasy that we truly escape, however keep the reader involved by giving him/her something to connect to. personally i believe that "magical realism" is an oxy-moron in every sense of the word, but it has to be, for that is the very thing that draws readers into the novel, however at the same time allows them to escape into a world far away from their own. and i agree with the people who say that Marquez is trying to confuse us, but not in the negative sense of the word. i would say he is forcing the reader to abandon all things that they know so that he can direct them into a world where fantasy mixes with reality, and there are no set rules or guidelines. ANYTHING GOES.....
"Inventive, amusing, magnetic, sad, and alive...brimming with truth, compassion, and a lyrical magic that strikes the soul - this novel is a masterpiece in the art of fiction."
Although these seemingly general statements on the back of the book can be said about almost any fictional novel, they each specifically support and describe the magical elements in the novel, thus emphasizing everyone's keeping-the-reader-attached/interested concept. Without the magic, the novel could never be called "a masterpiece in the art of fiction" and may have never even been published.
So one of Alex's dichotomies is between "real things" and "fake things." The word 'fake' seems to have a negative connotation in our society, but words like "fantastic" and "magical" seem positive in relation to the novel, once again corroborating the ideas of holding the interest of the reader and of encompassing the book's themes and meanings. And yes I do understand what you're saying and no I don't think you're retarded...
I agree with Tyler. Without the magic in the book, it wouldn't be nearly as interesting and many people never would have heard of it.
The magical realism used makes certain events of the book stand out when they need to.
i have noticed that at certain points in the novel the magical event seems to be placed to contrast the ordinary and somewhat boring scene that surrounds it
I think that the constant reminder of the books fictionality enhances the novel because it takes something that is reality and turns it into something that could never in our lives occur. Marquez incorporates these things in the book to make the book more interesting and make us somehow connect to the reality parts of it. I think that the magical elements of the book allow us to think beyond what really is reality and can sometimes trick you into thinking maybe what is happening may happen on day..if that makes any sense at all
and i think i just contradicted myself so yeah sorry
i definitely agree with hannah. i don't think marquez is trying to be mean or cruel with his confusing explanations or descriptions, i think he's trying to force the reader outside of their normal pattern of thought. the whole concept of magical realism is to intertwine fact and fiction, to mold them together into some sort of "mock-reality" that is really hard to grasp. but in doing this, he leaves us no choice but to go back to the basics of reason. why couldn't magic carpets be real? why couldn't we make a city out of ice? it makes you imagine. in the end, we still know that none of that stuff could possibly be real, so we remain on the same level of knowledge as the author or narrator, but we have forced ourselves into the perspective of thought of the characters...which definitely helps us to better understand the book.
Well i think that the fictionality of the book gives leway for us to interpret our own perspectives on the novel. It enhances it because if we know its fiction, its easier to picture and relate to the novel because we get over the fact that its not reality and could never happen. On the other hand, its sometimes harder for us to relate to, like Hannah said books are used as an escape for people. I think it's easier to relate to a fictional novel because perhaps you don't want to know that your actually still in reality.
I think the fictionality in this books shows us Marquez's perspective. The crazy events such as the insomnia plague, to me, shows that Marquez thinks that we think these events will never happen when in reality they have...just in a different way. I also think the fictionality shows Marquez's perspective on the events, people, etc. By interpreting the story, we are somewhat enlightened to the reality. Just like when we talked about in class that Melquiades was somewhat the person who kept the town in order. To me, Melquiades is like God. I think when we interpret the crazy fiction, we also uncover the reality hidden behind it.
i agree with sarah. Marquez obviously wouldnt put the magical realism within the covers of the novel for no apparent reason. maybe he is trying to get us to read the words and connect them to reality. he slowly reveals truth and reality within the concept of magical realism itself. the fictionality most defnantly influences the magical realism in the text.
lindsey and sarah seem on the right track. if marquez didnt want magical realism to hold some heart behind it, he wouldn't have made it such a huge aspect of the novel. the central theme is magical realism, and it probably is used for a number of different things, all depending on how it is viewed. to me, i see it as a great way to keep a reader involved, seeing as how the entire book is so weird.
Building off of what Tyler said at the beginning, magical realism seems to only have an effect if the author stays away from the story.
Marquez seems almost as if an all-knowing, overseeing figure in the novel.
Think, how many times are nonfiction books written in 1st or 2nd person?... Not too many. Most, if not all, are written in 3rd person. And we see these nonfiction books as being very real and believable, no matter what the topic is.
It is the same with OHYOS. As it is written in 3rd person and Marquez "keeps an ironic distance away from the magical world view", as Moore states, we can see Marquez 's presence in the story, yet we see him as staying away from it and intervening. This makes the "magic" more "real".
And as we don't see Marquez intervening in the story, this helps to eliminate our view on his bias, which in turn causes us to believe that this is not just some made-up story, but something that seems so real that we feel that we can almost feel it (of course with the help of Marquez's imagery of course, but that's another topic).
Kenzilee writes: "none of that stuff could possibly be real, so we remain on the same level of knowledge as the author or narrator, but we have forced ourselves into the perspective of thought of the characters." I believe she is writing about the "irony regarding authorial perspective." There is a GAP -- an IRONIC GAP -- between the author's perspective and the characters' perspectives. We share the author's view, for the most part.
Involve the text -- use some real language from the book in support of your assertions. The conversation should point us back to the book in some way.
Graham, do you think Melquiades' interventions stand in for the author's interventions?
I feel a little different than most people here. I feel that the introduction of magical realism pushes me away as a reader. Like a dog in an electric fence, u get hit over and over again with this sense that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY this could happen. how can this story be when anything can happen, and for no reason (at least not discernable to the reader). i feel that Marquez can make up whatever he wants, with the characters being able to do as they please, how can yu truly take something away from the story.
I think that marquez uses magical realism so that you can put the puzzle together yourself. It helps the reader to feel like they are a part of the One Hundred years of solitude like the Buendia family.I think that the reader is really trying to make the reader think out side of the box. He wants you to do this so that you think about the way because you know that its not real so that way you feel like there is some other point beyond what he is saying.
In response to John's comment, the reason magical realism in the novel is capable of forming a stronger bond with the reader is the multiple events produce a wide variety of conflicts; any reader can find a conflict to relate to despite its fictional elements. Therefore, the strength of magical realism is that it is applicable to a variety of situations. Examples include Love Triangles such as the one involving (Pietro, Amaranta, + Rebeca), War stories through Aureliano's experiences, Simply, and Tragedies: Remedios, Aureoliano Jose). Simply, there's something in this book for almost everyone. However, one element of magical realism continues to create an void or gap of knowledge in the plot of OHYOS, the lack of a sequential number based existence of time. With this element, characters such as Ursula seem to live almost forever.
to start with i completly agree with the response to the persons paper. use of magical does what the student says. heh. i think the effect is kind of distracting because it doesnt allow me to get involved into the book becuase i feel like i am being told that hey this cant happen so i always get out or the rythem while reading it.
i kind of understand where katie is coming from with it gets you out of the rhythm but isnt that what its ment to do? Dont you think that Marquez is trying to disturb you to get a response, he wants you to see things from his eyes because the only person who should fully understand what was going on would be Melquiades who played the role of the omnipresent being.
I just finished the book (at eleven o’clock after a soccer game, we won 6-0 no biggy) and it’s the kind of thing that makes you go, “Man I wish I knew that all along”. I feel like if I knew the whole thing was pre-recorded, I could have made some better connections. But I of course am too lazy to read it all again. Magical realism is really revealed in the ending. The end is really cool and shows how Marquez based the ENTIRE novel around magical realism. It is everywhere, it is EVERYTHING. I also started to think about Melquiades, and his role. He is a manifestation of magical realism, and I think he also is supposed to be Marquez. They both write the book if you think about it. Marquez writes OHYOS, but Melquiades writes the past, present, and future of the Buendia family, which is the same thing. Also, they both start with M’s. Dead giveaway, Melquiades is Marquez. Another huge aspect of magical realism.
with what alexk said i think that Marquez thinks that his readers will kind of just mesh whats real and what is not into one. although some of us dont, obviously. O'Brien uses his truths and lies to make us understand becuase the subject is never able to be fully understood. but in this novel its completly different i believe. the "lies" in this story are unbelievable and improbable, if not impossible. like Marquez's flying carpets, thats never going to happen no matter where you live, unless its space, but in O'Brien's "lies" he is still telling a part truth that we are just told not to believe but we can because it is very probable to happen.
sorry to post back to back but i just saw what was said above and wanted to comment on it.
To answer your question mr. koon, i do think that melquiades can be the voice of marquez as his own character. he is the writer of this book, and apparently so is melquiades. i think this claim is somewhat marquez announcing that he had actually been butting into the story instead of the fictional character, melquiades. for what reason would he need to create a character to include his voice in the novel? well, graham is right. a novel based off magical realism is more believable in a 3rd person perspective, whereas if marquez were to include himself and change the perspective to 1st person, then we may wonder if he is just trying to sell some idea of a fictional world we know is not true. it also fits better for melquiades to return in the novel rather than some random narrator.
Okay this comment is somehow going to go away from the orgianl question but i have a question of my own. Theres a part near the end of the book where it says the characters fear the future. I'm trying to figure out Marque'z point is by always talking and writing about the past and memories. Also, if the familie's lives have been recorded all this time, why does the past keep interupting the future in a cycle?
But can a reader truely relate to an inexplicable happening in the novel that has no boundaries, no limits, no laws? we live in a world bound by limits and laws (gravity, morals, judicial law, etc.)all of our moral stories (think biblical, and even the stories you heard when you were young) were based off following the rules and guidelines. i feel that with no guidelines, it is easy to sympathize, but not to empathize.
While thinking about your question while I was reading, Mr. Koon, I started to develop some insight on similarities between Melquiades and Marquez.
Just as Melquiades brings magic into Macondo, Marquez brings magic into OHYOS. Without Melquiades influence and intervention in Macondo, the novel wouldn't have had the same effect. Melquiades seems to have much control over Macondo, whether he brings a magical remedy for insomnia or some other new technology, he almost characterizes Macondo itself.
Marquez obviously has control over everything that happens in the novel, obviously, as he is the author, but he incorporates magical elements into the novel just as Melquiades brings magic to Macondo.
So to kind of go in the other direction of my first reply, Marquez proves to be almost a hidden character in the novel. And discovering this adds to the novel more magical realism. And also, it seems to add a little bit of symbolic metafiction. Now I have more of an understanding of Moore's explanation about irony and the author's perspective because I didn't think about the relationship between Melquiades and Marquez.
well even tho our world is bound by laws i do not believe that it is impossible for us to empathize. everyone has moments where it seems to them that they are defying the laws of nature, doing something totaly extraordinary. skydiving, deep sea diving, bunji jumpin. all of these are ways of people doin something crazy and living from it, a way for them to break free if but for a moment from normality.
it is because of things like that that i believe we can empathize withn them
In response to Denzel's comment about being able to defy the laws of nature, one isn't actually defying any laws of anture or physics by bungie jumping, sky diving, or deep sea diving. Everything in this world has a logical explanation, other then religion, which can't be proved and can therefore be considered "magical."
I tend to agree, with john and kevin, we can't relate to any events that are not bound by laws and boudaries because we live in a world where mankind has a need for uniformaty and structure, we all have some sort of moral guidelines we go by and without these we wouldn't have identity because we are defined by how others see us and how we perform actions based on our moral guidelines. I think I kind of went off topic. sorry
well to get back to the initial question, i think that advantages of the constant reminder of fiction helps us to be able to take a few steps back and look at the novel the same way we sat back and looked at the magical realisim pictures. the reminders enable us to look at the entire work and notice certain parts that might be more important and meaningful than other parts. it helps us to keep from become completely wrapped up in certain individual events by themselves and begin to look for patterns and "deeper meanings" throughout the entire work. nonfiction leaves little to no room for imagination and interpretation... the constant reminders that the work is ficiton are also reminders to look for different meanings and interpretations.
with what john said about "a reader(being able to) truly relate to an inexplicable happening in the novel that has no boundaries, no limits, no laws" this is what like i think makes the biggest strech for the reader. its like what i said about the carpets we know it cant happen so when we read our mind kind of fights itself in order to descide if we believe this or we just blow it off like this is a bunch of crap. and with what kevin and david said about denzels comment on how the world we live in defying what we believe to be the norm or things that we know cant happen, we know they can happen though because we have seent hem happen. so in our society you can strech what we think/ know to be true but in the book you cant becuase you dont live in that place and have that previous knowledge. you can only apply what you know in your world to what we read in the world that has been created. its off topic ish but yeah.
I completely agree with you Katie. It is almost as if we've been made to erase thoughts of "insanity" from our minds such as flying carpets when we come in contact with them in our reading. Has it gotten to the point that we are unable to "make-believe" things in old age that it almost hard for us to imagine possiblilities. In OYS Marquez puts you in a state of mind that allows you to know something is not quite what it seems without actually spelling it out to you. Magic or no magic this novel is opening your mind to what you've already learned and making you question whether agree with your prior knowledge anymore because of exposure to some many questionable things.
I think that the biggest benefit of magical realism is the ability to use it for exaggeration. In OHYOS, (sounds like yet another thing that is yogurt-coated) Marquez could have said that the massacre was forgotten. OR, he could have made a several year rain wash away all evidence of the massacre, like he did. It makes the re.. um, me think that the massacre is as forgotten as forgotten gets.
Also magical realism is used to glorify technology. If Jose Arcadio Buendia, who sees specters, thinks that ice is a great invention, then it makes the r.. me reevaluate the greatness of ice.
i agree with tim about the ice thing...marquez takes a regular item such as ice and presents it in a way that makes me question everything i know about it. i guess marquez makes his point of magical realism several times in the novel when evryday happening are given a special little twist which makes them "magical" we talked about in class how marquez kind of throws the idea of magical realism in your face while you are reading the novel i know i deffinatly felt this way. even though i wanted to fully emerse myself in what marquez was trying to say my tie to reality never fully let me go...
I think Mr. Lorow has a point with the sensationalism of a certain advance in technology or something of the sort. To go back to previous discussion in class, I think the creation of a memory loss almost serves as a memory enhancement device to me. The event sticks out, so therefore, the magical realism sensationalism strikes again. The emphasis of the m.r. becomes ever clearer to me.(thinking outloud)
To attribute to the idea of the sensationalism of magical realism I'd like to cite the differences in the reaction of the people of Macondo to the tribe of Melquiades and the gypsy tribe after his supposed death. A distinction between technology and magic is drawn as Jose Arcadio Buendia is unimpressed by the magic carpet while he is entranced by the telescope, magnet, and ice. It is a matter of perspective, I believe the purpose of displaying this sensationalism is to attribute to the allegory of the country of Colombia in this novel. Magic could possibly represent the old values and technology the new morals and ideas. The train for example brings further connection to the outside world, which brings the banana plantation which ultimately leads to the fall of the house of Buendia which is the allegory for Colombia as the nations state becomes more unstable from imperialistic ideals and influence.
Good observation Kevin. The train coming to Macondo did bring about a fall in the Buenida household that changed their views of society. This goes back to history being a cyclical thing, and is it just me or does this book almost define that events in history is repetitive in a way that we don't even notice it? An example I found in the OYS was at the end when Aureliano II was going through the documents of Melquiades and realizing that most of the things that had happened in those documents were happening to him right then. Weird, huh?
It does seem obvious that Macondo is in a cycle, but Marquez does more than just recall the events that happened. He uses magical realism to make the events mean something by exaggerating the points that he is trying to get across.
Also, like Angela said, the magical realism pushes the reader to look deeper into the story to see the points he is trying to convey. Marquez isn't malicious, he just wants use to explicate his writings like we are right now. We are bending to Marquez's wishes...
I agree with Tim, Marquez uses magical realism to make exaggerate our thoughts, almost changing my outlook of the whole book. As you read you discover things that twist your perception of the story. Macondo is in a cycle and we are twisting to his wishes.
Knowing that OHYOS is a work of fiction causes me to not see it as being important, because I know that nothing in the book is real. This raises a question, in my mind. If someone grew up never knowing the difference between fiction and nonfiction, would they read the book the same way as someone who did? Or if an extremley gullable person was told that OHYOS was a non-fictional work, would they still read and think about it the same?
I think that the way the book keeps reminding us of its fictonality has more advatages than disadvatages. This is because if you read a book that wavers between fiction and reality then you dont allow yourself to get into the book all the way, you keep having to remind yourself that its not real. in a good fiction book, you can immerse yourself and get lost in the book. instead of seeing it in a fitional perspective you'll see it like a totally seperate world, and therefore enjoy it more without constantly reminding yourself its fiction
I think that the reason Marques uses magical realism is to remind me that the book is fiction. THe novel contains many realistic aspects, but the fact that those aspects contain a piece of "imagination" allows us to take their our twist on the novel.
I agree Kinsey. You bring up a good point this allows us to interpret the book differently because we dont know what the author is "really" trying to say.
this is morgan
wow allison and kinsey, i completely agree, but i think this is why i'm so lost when im reading the book and things become so confusing.
Yea, this may be why you are so confused... but about the different perspective issue, this is true because every reader may have a different view on why Marques chooses to include, "gypsies" and "flying carpets" in the town of Macondo.
this is morgan,
yeah i see your point, everyone can have a different view of any story. but i think this opens the book up to different events that test your judgement as to whether to believe the story and if it's legit.
Cmon, ladies. Turn up the mental volume. Look at the sentence about Jose Arcadio fearing that people would fade away as his image stayed on the daguerreotype. Read it, really, and discuss it with some THINKing. Posting just for the grade is not happy.
There is obvioulsy an element of fear going on in this passage as we can clearly see in the text. Not only fear for Jose Arcadio, but for Ursala as well. I think this somehow goes with what we were talking of in class today with the issue of knowing. If we know something and understand it then we less likely to fear it. And so we can see that as technology is being introduced, (in this case the daguerrotype) that fear is begining to arise in both Jose Arcadio and Ursala. So I believe that we can add another aspect along with proof that comes with the subject of knowing and that is fear which I'm sure is found in other passages in the book. I think that the fear that Jose Arcadio has is the same thing we have been talking about with photographs, photographs are defenite, and cannot be changed, they don't record history or motion or emotion or imagination, they are finite. This is what Jose Arcadio is afraid of. The finite, the defenite, he is afraid of reality, which is what Macondo eventually becomes.
I think Marquez obviously uses magical realism as an ecscape but I tend to agree with John. I'm not to fond of it. The book has a minute amount of reality and is completly made up of magical realism. For some people it may provide an advantage because it allows you to get lost within the story and it intrigues you because it allows you to break the boundaries and rules of normality, but for me, not so much. I have a weaker bond to the book I don't necessarily think it's Marquez's use of magical realism as to why but it is a small factor.
Well, now reading Angela's comment i do agree. Having Magical realism allows people to percive the story the way they want too. It also allows for many different interpretations. Each reader can connect with something whether it's a character or a certain event everyone has a "focus" or a question about what they just read. Marquez may use this so you are able to look at the book in its entirety and connect the questions you have to the book as a whole.
I agree with you Marrisa. IOt does breaks the normality of things which cause to think "out of the box" as Mr. Koon would say. To me the book shows the uniqueness of each reader and how people one subject many different. Marquez has helped to expand my mind and veiw his writings at many different veiwpoints.
i completly agree with what david said about the fear being invovled. i think it is almsot all about the fear of being a memory. as we talked about in class its more the idea that a persons acutal personality wouldn't be remeber but just their shell. i think that ursala is scared because she doesnt want to be remembered wrongly and then feel stupid(dumb way to explain but) beucase all the furture generations would see is what she looked lihe they would never remember what she stood for and how she lived.
in my opinion, i think magical realism throws me off also. when they start involving the magical realsism into the novel it throws off my perspective of what is happening in the novel. So because it throws me off it makes me have to think harder and reread alot of the passages to try and figure out what is actually happenning. above, when lindsey said that she thinks this is something Marquez did this on purpose, i totally understand where she is coming from in the sense that if you reread the passages, you get more out of it and think harder or out of the box on a level where you actually pull something out of the novel other then just the words that are on the page.
i also think that when you reread a passage you look for imagery and literary elements that stick in your memory. memory is a huge theme in this novel and magical realism and literary elements are put in the novel to enhance the memory and give an outside viewpoint of memory.
Post a Comment