dragons from a magic realism perspective

[Writersmirror]

Mmh... Magic is science we don’t understand! You won’t believe it but scientists say that the "dragons" in the mythology were caused by dinosaur skeletons. The people hadn't known dinosaurs: so, they created the dragons as a"logical" explanation.

 

[Northern Knight]

hey guys long long long long time

I'm surprised I remembered my password here actually, so you've probably all guessed I've started writing again, well more like started redefining my world a bit more seriously and have come a cross a "within world" conflict

I love the idea of a dragon, or rather a fire breathing carnivourous, fear inducing, naturally weaponised, naturally armoured, obstacle on a battle field but from a biological/evolutionary point of view it just doesn't make sense, which I've come to believe is most important with world building

essentially the concept of a creature that has an elemental breath, as a means of attack/defense, (i.e. a fire/flame breath/spit, much easier than a cryogenic breath from a real world biological/evolutionary point of view), would actually only make sense if said creature was sessile

allow me to explain:
a creature lower down on the food chain would evolve some form of defence: irritants/poisons, muscles for stamina or speed, horns/claws, clubbed/spiked tail and/or herd behaviour
an apex predator would evolve some form of offensive and counter offensive: teeth and claws probably number 1 then poison immunity, muscles to match their prey, exceptional hunting ability or ferociousness or pack behaviour
a powerful "weapon" like an elemental breath essentially closes the need for any of the above, closes the need for even movement

hence an elemental breath could actually only evolve in a creature that was sessile, its quite foreign from "accepted" concept of creatures breathing fire in the mainstream but makes the most sense biologically or evolution

your thought?

Speaking as neither an evolutionary, nor a biological scientist, but simply as a writer that believes in realism, fire breathing dragons could have evolved due to environmental influences. If for instance a primary reptile species finds itself living within a ring of volcanoes where susceptibility to heat will mean extinction, then it is logical to surmise a genetic aberration which favours resistance to extreme heat may take place early on in the species.

Later on in its development, it might also be that prey in such a geographically difficult area might only be avian. Again logically the reptile would develop the means by which to catch these creatures i.e. flight. This might start out as some sort of skin flap to help them glide from the sharp cliffs of the volcanoes, but progress to where the forelimbs specialize into a bat like physiology, thus becoming a flying reptile. As it was said within this thread, two separate glands in the creatures' cheeks may have developed acid like venom to help predigest this food. Over time, that acid may have undergone another aberration whereby it changed to a flammable liquid when mixed together or with oxygen/nitrogen in the atmosphere. This could have occured due to the sulfuric atmosphere of their living environment, where a species develops similar features to its' habitat.

This flame inducing venom would play greatly in the favour of the males trying to dominate other males and thus ensure mating and offspring. As this new dominant fire breathing species becomes the dominant species, we may also see that , like humans, eating cooked meat might enlargen their brains. Over time these creatures might grow larger and more intelligent, seeking larger and larger prey outside their evolutionary habitat, thus becoming large enough to migrate vast distances in search of larger food stock such as herds of buffalo, or mastodon...

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

From a magical realism perspective the dragons don't have to be realistic, they don't have to make sense in any evolutionary sense. Magical realism is about magic—unexplained, unexpected—intruding on the real world and no one looks for scientific answers. They just react to the situation itself. To explain the dragon in realistic terms would make the story something quite other than magical realism.

The moment you try to rationalize them in any way you have switched to some other genre entirely.

 

[Northern Knight]

From a magical realism perspective the dragons don't have to be realistic, they don't have to make sense in any evolutionary sense. Magical realism is about magic—unexplained, unexpected—intruding on the real world and no one looks for scientific answers. They just react to the situation itself. To explain the dragon in realistic terms would make the story something quite other than magical realism.

The moment you try to rationalize them in any way you have switched to some other genre entirely.

There are two major forms of fantasy, high fantasy and low fantasy. Tolkien being high, and Martin being low. The best form of world building in my opinion contains a mix of both. Mystery should be revealed where it is important to keep the reader from misunderstanding important elements of your world, but retained where your story benefits most from touching the edge of the unknown.

I think you are correct when you say from a magical realism perspective the "reader" does not need the explanation of how dragons came to be. The essence of the mystery behind why they exist is part of the wonder of the story. Having said that, as a writer, I believe it is important to understand how that magic works in a practical sense. Even in fantasy world building, your magic and other elements of your story must follow a set of logical guidelines. After all, if you cannot believe something, how do you expect your readers to accept it?

You as the writer need to fully understand those guidelines, or in this case, how dragons evolved and/or function, in order to realistically and consistently portray them to the reader. If you do not set and follow certain guidelines for each character or element of your story, the reader will subconsciously - or worse consciously - notice inconsistency in your story telling. They will either find it difficult to follow, or worse, dismiss it, preferring to read something else...

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

There are two major forms of fantasy, high fantasy and low fantasy.

You are speaking in terms of genre fantasy. Magical realism is more a type of literary fiction, of less interest, perhaps to fantasy readers in the English-speaking world, but with a large following in other countries, and some following even in the US, Canada, and the UK.

I am afraid that in starting this thread the original poster misunderstood the term magical realism, and so sent those who have participated in the discussion perhaps in the direction he wanted, but not in any direction that would allow them to understand the term better, or to understand publishers who say that they are looking for magical realism to publish.

Speaking as an editor, I would give much the same kind of advice that you would to any of my writers who were writing standard genre fantasy (and have given that or similar advice many times), so I have no disagreement with what you say as far as that goes, but I would not give that same advice to any writer who aspired to write and publish magical realism.

There is so much misunderstanding of what that term means on this site and others like it, I think it would be helpful to many aspiring writers to clarify our use of that and other terms, so that when they are ready to submit their work, they submit it to the markets that are actually looking for the type of thing they write, and don't submit to markets that are actually looking for something very different.

 

[Northern Knight]

You are speaking in terms of genre fantasy. Magical realism is more a type of literary fiction, of less interest, perhaps to fantasy readers in the English-speaking world, but with a large following in other countries, and some following even in the US, Canada, and the UK.

I am afraid that in starting this thread the original poster misunderstood the term magical realism, and so sent those who have participated in the discussion perhaps in the direction he wanted, but not in any direction that would allow them to understand the term better, or to understand publishers who say that they are looking for magical realism to publish.

Speaking as an editor, I would give much the same kind of advice that you would to any of my writers who were writing standard genre fantasy (and have given that or similar advice many times), so I have no disagreement with what you say as far as that goes, but I would not give that same advice to any writer who aspired to write and publish magical realism.

There is so much misunderstanding of what that term means on this site and others like it, I think it would be helpful to many aspiring writers to clarify our use of that and other terms, so that when they are ready to submit their work, they submit it to the markets that are actually looking for the type of thing they write, and don't submit to markets that are actually looking for something very different.

I agree that these terms need to be fully defined. I think in respect to what you are saying the terms High Fantasy, Low Fantasy, and Magical Realism, could all be classified as both sub-genres of fantasy, and terms for the type of magic portrayed in a story. "Reign of Fire" in which dragons are unleashed on a modern earth could be logically classified as Magical Realism. It takes place in a real world setting, while explaining the essence of the dragons abilities, so Margical realism could also be used to describe the form of magic in the story...

 

[sknox]

Magical realism is more along the lines of Ray Bradbury's stories. Or Robert McCammon's Boy's Life. Or the early practitioners, Jorge Luis Borges and Gabriel Garcia Marquez. It doesn't lie along the axis of high to low fantasy, but sits separately and at an angle. A most peculiar angle.

 

[Vertigo]

Magical realism is more along the lines of Ray Bradbury's stories. Or Robert McCammon's Boy's Life. Or the early practitioners, Jorge Luis Borges and Gabriel Garcia Marquez. It doesn't lie along the axis of high to low fantasy, but sits separately and at an angle. A most peculiar angle.

I have loved pretty much all of the magical realism books I have read. My take on it is that it really has nothing to do with fantasy even remotely. My feeling is that the 'magical' aspects of such books are pretty much always allegorical. Reflecting the magical nature of life, love, nature, community, history or whatever the theme of the book is. I don't feel that it is meant to be literal in the way that magic in a fantasy story is. It is also usually much more subtle, very often hinting at magic rather than presenting it in full view. Consequently if a dragon suddenly appeared in a magical realism book I, and I think many others, would be very surprised indeed. Unless it was somehow more a suggestion of a dragon rather than an actual dragon flying through the sky emitting great tongues of flame.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I think you mean realistic magic rather than magic realism, since one of the advantages of magical realism is that things are not logically explained or rationalized. The author drops something wondrous into an otherwise realistic and mundane setting and then explores how the characters react to it. It's more about the characters—about the human condition—than about how the magic works.

But as for your dragon, asher, it seems to me is that first the dragons must have evolved to not self-incinerate due to such internal combustion, long before the ability to generate fire evolved. For if it had not been so, the first dragon to be born with the ability to breathe fire would have died an early and grisly death. So the first thing to do if you want your dragons to obey natural laws, is to figure out how that would have been an advantageous mutation to pass on even before they became fire-breathing dragons.

I agree that it wouldn't be magical realism. The dragons wouldn't only not be explained; they probably wouldn't be a focus. The mechanics of dragons wouldn't be explored.

 

[Peeling]

Your theory has a weak point. The gases in the intestinal tract are usually release through rectum. I've yet to see a dragon shooting fire from his ass )

Terry Pratchett did it; can't remember which book off the top of my head.

 

[JimC]

"pterosaur could have a wingspan of ten or eleven metres - not, admittedly, big as a house, but comparing nicely with a horse, if not a great big one ton beast. Taking off from a level surface must have been a massive effort"

Largest known were azdarchoid with about ten meter span. They were able to achieve that span due to specializations in their deltopectoral crest.

Comparison would be more giraffe-like, albeit with torso closer to that of a pro football player (American football). The biggest stood about eight feet high at the shouder and about fourteen at the head. Weight was about 150Kg.

Launch was not difficult, even in no-wind conditions from a limited space.

They used a quadrupedal launch, leaping from a standing start at an angle of approximately 30° to the horizontal with maximum acceleration a little over 4g. The manus (hand) was the last thing to leave the ground. The photo is of a Quetzalcoatlus northropi left humerus seen from the top front with my left hand in frame for a size comparison.