Oh, Deb and ita, I'm not saying by any means I'm an expert at the definition. FWIW, I do think there is urban fantasy, too. I think of magical realism as being more subtle, is all. I would agree with sj that having a pervasive magical species (like vampires etc) takes it out of the realm of magical realism and into the realm of fantasy.

Magical realism seems usually dreamy to me--on the edges of reality rather than "in your face".

Woot Woot, erika!!!

I had a fantastic evening. A friend was stuck on a script she's writing for a training film, and she asked if I'd help her troubleshoot it.

My writing time has been sapped by the move and life in general, and my confidence has ebbed with every day I didn't get my pages done.

I was on fire tonight. I knew how to fix her trouble spots, and how to make suggestions without trying to take over her story. She left feeling unstuck and happy.

I might just have a future at this writing gig after all.

YAY Astarte!!!

Magical realism seems usually dreamy to me--on the edges of reality rather than "in your face".

This.

I think it depends on the magical realism - I don't find Alice Hoffman dreamy at all, whereas someone like Laura Esquivel, yes.

Your tastes and takes may vary. Which is why I am backing rapidly out of the conversation, which is beginning to feel like lit crit, and I've already lost one of my favourite threads permanently via that route.

I don't think I've ever tried to draw a line between magical realism and fantasy before; it's always seemed to me that it doesn't matter where something is set or what species the characters nominally are so long as they're in interesting situations and have clearly drawn personalities. For me, "magical realism" set in New York or ancient Greece is fantasy as much as "high fantasy" set in Middle Earth is fantasy, because I've never been to New York or ancient Greece any more than I've been to Middle Earth. And, actually, that extends to places I have been: one author's London will never be the London I've visited, whether they've written magic or simply the past, whether they're Gaimen or Dickens.

After all, Douglas Adam's Rickmansworth isn't my Rickmansworth; there are no small cafes in my Rickmansworth, much to my annoyance.

And personally, I'm unsure that trying to divide sci-fi from fantasy will ever be a productive exercise, and adding a third category of magical realism just seems to confuse the issue. So many of the good ones are always going to be the ones that don't fit the patterns neatly.

YMMV.

I've always found magic realism to be a subset of fantasy. Sometimes I can look at a work and and say "Yes. Realism. Check." Other times I look at the person calling it "magic realism" and say "It's okay. They may shun you for liking fantasy, but they won't kill you for it."

Thanks for the explanation! I thought that was how it was broken down, but I figured I'd ask experts. Realism is such an iffy term. After going to so many SCA events, a well-drawn medieval camping scene in a typical fantasy novel makes me go "Yep, been there, done that."

Does anyone else go through phases of *how* they can write? For the past several weeks I've been unable to do anything from scratch on the computer, ie, writing new stuff. Not even my lovely Palm was making the muse stop pouting. Finally, in frustration, I grabbed an old spiral notebook from the pile under my desk, pulled out a pen--and here come the words, just like back in the day twenty-five years ago, when I started all this.

My wrists aren't up to this, darn it.

"It's okay. They may shun you for liking fantasy, but they won't kill you for it."

Um, no. Sorry. I've heard that before, and, well, no. Not saying it can't apply, but stating loud and clear that it doesn't always. It sure as hell doesn't apply to me.

I wrote a very nice fable, that was essentially killed because bookstore owners - who simply can't put stuff on shelves, but must must must assign categories to it because apparently, readers can't function without the reassurance of labels, accurate or not - stuck it on fantasy shelves. Which apparently pissed off the people who want fantasy no end, because, hey, no high heroics! No dragons to be slain! No sign of any of the basics! You're messing with our trope! Evil! Someone grab Biter and Smite Her!

And then, with the book that followed? A nice little novel about a woman who deals with her midlife crisis and nasty divorce by manifesting a beautiful demigod and having sex with him all over Europe?

They did it again. And again, I got pissy letters from "true" fantasy readers.

Neither book was fantasy. If you need to label it, call it speculative fiction and be done with it.

I know what I call fantasy. See above listing, starting with the high heroics, throwing in, far too often, confused female characters whose strengths are all traditional male strengths: girls in codpieces. Add some species with mysterious and vaguely ominous-sounding names, stick in a place called MiddleDownLowerNether Balropia or something, et voila, you have the book that the True Believers who objected to both Plainsong and And The Put Out The Light cluttering up their fantasy shelves seemed to want. It's also the book that leaves me with Dorothy Parker's reaction: "Constant Reader fwowed up."

And yes, I really do feel strongly about. This is what I do for a living. I just write the damned things.

Connie, I have an odd split in the method: I tend to make notes by hand, spiral notebook. Notes on colour, texture, odd physical realities, quality of light, quirks. But all actual fiction is on the computer.