Robert Stevens

I did not really understand too much about this essay. It seems to revolve around some inherent defense of literary "magic." He appears to be saying the literature is mostly either depicted as a series of causes and effects, or that the storyline is heavily influenced by magic. In most of his examples he determines that “magic” is the driving force behind most writings. Some of his defense, however, included non-literary sources, such as the references to the cultural traditions of American Indian tribes, ancient Mayans, Australian medicine men, et cetera. The conclusion states that with magic, “every lucid, determined detail is a prophecy.”
Again, this essay really confused me. I am not even sure I interpreted it correctly. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.