Magic Realism's Mirror Image

"It was inevitable: the scent of bitter almonds always reminded him of the fate of unrequited love." is not what you would expect from a book listed on Oprah's book club. As one turns the pages of Love in the Time of Cholera, one can only be reminded that this book is on the list and the famous author, best known for the classic, One Hundred Years of Solitude, does not fret over this promotion by Oprah. Not that we have anything against Oprah's choices, but many classic authors of a certain caliber tend to shy away from her.

But Gabriel Garcia Marquez does not shy away from publicity. His style known as magic realism has been debated, analyzed, argued, and considered as controversial as innovative, hence the Nobel Prize award. His book Love in the Time of Cholera could hold sway in such a prize as well.

The language is simply beautiful, eloquent, and casts one in another time, place, and tastes like a ripe fruit plucked from the heart of South America. However, it falls short in the measure of a "great" book. Who am I to say what is great or not? Tis true, yet the book really does fall short. It has such a great introduction and it seems to lead you to that path. However, by page 50 you find yourself lost in the trance of love, but missing the better half, depth. What is love so free with no depth? That is Love in the Time of Cholera. Beautiful to read, but it does not move like a Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens.

The answer is that Marquez is so involved with his magic realism that one does not find an inch of tragedy, even when we are faced with the death of the starting character, Dr. Urbino. One does not feel an inkling for him, which I find amazing.

So what's the theory? Well, the movie Adaptation discusses this theme and the core problem with writing a story. Novice writers tend to write themselves into the story. It is hard not to, one feels so strongly for oneself. What not? Many great authors do write a facet of themselves into the story. However, I tend to believe Marquez wrote himself completely into the story and that this is the core of magic realism. One projects themselves in the background of a mirror, soon, we can't make head or tails of which one is real.

The Backside of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand

What does it mean to be a revolutionary today?

For the past month, I have watched Zizek's various discussions on this topic and even ventured to read his book, "In Defense of Lost Causes". And yet after this inundation of media and information in the brain, I am still struggling with this question and what the hell Zizek is saying half the time.

I do have to admit there have been brief lapses of epiphany, where I find my self grasping the "dialectic" and his method of materialism. Then I read other blogs and blown away by some pedantic professor take on Zizek (often what they say is cumbersome and after spending a great deal of the last few years studying Marx, Hegel, and Kant, it is boorish, I mean, really, can you see one of these professors inciting a revolution in the first place? Were Che, Stalin, Marx, not that they are model revolutionists more like totalitarians, professors? No revolution was ever taken down by logical ramifications. Gulag, guillotine, yes. Logical, empirical, pragamatic musings, no.

On one of these clear days or lapses, I find myself thinking about Zizek's discussion of Wendy Brown's premise of the democratic paradox, which says that , "a democracy needs a permanent influx of anti-democractic self-questioning in order to remain a living democracy." I think there is a kernal of truth here that Brown and Zizek have unmasked. I am all for the democractic institution and yet, I have thought these thoughts before, that America can only exist as the beacon and the only beacon of democracy. What is this so?

As many philosophers have known, democracy quoted by Zizek (Spinoza and Tocqueville) is inchoate, simply empty without any philosphical underpinning and without any infrastructure. It exists only to dissipate power, I think. Our founding fathers, I believe, understood one thing, that a whole lot of power corrupts and they were witnesses of this. If they can divide power into three different branches they maybe they thought this could be accomplished. But who would've thought that somewhere in the future, banks and greedy executives could concentrate all this power and instead of Adam Smith's invisible hand, you get the invisible slap and mind you, that is the backside of the hand.

Regulatory powers are important in a society. The SEC does have a function to protect it citizens from sinister forces that wear a tie and suit. However, with some empowerment and real change organizations have no effect or influence on society. What we get is not anarchy, but the breakdown of institutions. Zizek knows this and understands this paradox. Minor revolutions or changes are really nothing. They sum to zero in the macro environment. Major ones change all of society. Imagine cultural revolution, Stalin, Marx. What is one to do?

This is one reason there is a need for the understanding of what it is means to be a revolutionary. Gandhi and Martin Luther King promoted it. In today's society, we need to make the message simple and not pedantic. Change is needed, real change -AX