It’s funny how deep a conversation you can have about the ostensibly shallowest of subjects. Case in point: “Cartoons: Generic Fantasy or Magical Realism?”
Now, of course the conversation didn’t start that way, and nobody was titling it, but that’s what it turned out to be. I argued that “Rocky and Bullwinkle” were magical realism, because, well, talking animals. I later changed it to science fantasy, because there were also aliens. But that’s the point–how deep can you get?
It was argued to me that R&B were only generic fantasy because the only fantasy element was talking animals, but Bugs Bunny, now he’s magical realism. That could be because of his quick-change abilities; not even a rabbit is that fast, and where does he keep all this stuff? (Maybe a pocket universe, but then you get back to science fantasy.)
Now, when you get into Bugs, you really get metaphysical, because of Elmer Fudd. Fudd spends all of his time trying to hunt down a rabbit that he can talk to and who talks back. A rabbit who is clearly sentient. (Daffy? Maybe a little wiggle room there.) When you’re hunting down sentient creatures, that’s not called “hunting” anymore–it’s called attempted murder. Elmer is the Sideshow Bob to Bugs’s Bart. The guy should be in prison.
But of course it’s all in fun, and Bugs makes Elmer look the fool every time. (Nor does Daffy seem to suffer unduly from his various mishaps.) And maybe that’s the difference between “fantasy” and “magical realism,” because there are no consequences, and no harm lasts. There is no “realism,” even magical, in these cartoons.
Except of course in “The Simpsons.” Totally real.
Graffiti on the Walls of Time 