For the longest time, I hated classical literary realism. I used to consider the works of authors like Stendhal, Balzac, Hugo, Georges Sand, Dickens, or the Bronte sisters to embody boredom at its peak (I do realize that realism begins with the Latin novel, but I consider the afore-mentioned XIXth century authors most emblematic for the literary current.). It seemed to me as if they had wasted outrageous creative efforts along hundreds of pages, only to achieve petty nit-picking in the dull lives of ever-grey characters.
Just recently have I understood that these authors were not striving to merely amuse their readers, which is why they did not seek to pleasantly fantasize in their lengthy narratives. The true point of realism, in fact, ensues from Stendhal's reflective chapter in "Le Rouge et le Noir". There, the author responds to those who criticized the "immoral" aspects in his novels, by saying that he did no more than "carry a mirror along a road," displaying the clear sky, the passers-by, and the mundane dirt of the causeway, as well. This means that realist authors were actually working towards the lofty goal of mirroring (human) reality in writing.
Nevertheless, a writer's mind cannot capture the world and render it with the mechanic accuracy an actual mirror would. It does not suffice to bluntly describe what one observes. The readers do not recognize a book's literary universe as reflecting their own if the former just imitates the superficial details of the latter. They need to sense that the realist world functions according to the patterns of the real world, in the way they are familiar with it. This is why realism necessarily has to conceptualize reality. It must grasp and reconstruct the framework of principles that govern how individuals (inter)act in society. At this point, realist writers also have to enter the complicated inter-play between what the reader expects and is able to recognize as veracious, and the innovative, maybe even revolutionary insight they hope to offer their audience. Thus, what realist authors initially endeavoured on literary ground alone must, at least implicitly, also deepen into philosophy.
Nevertheless, a writer's mind cannot capture the world and render it with the mechanic accuracy an actual mirror would. It does not suffice to bluntly describe what one observes. The readers do not recognize a book's literary universe as reflecting their own if the former just imitates the superficial details of the latter. They need to sense that the realist world functions according to the patterns of the real world, in the way they are familiar with it. This is why realism necessarily has to conceptualize reality. It must grasp and reconstruct the framework of principles that govern how individuals (inter)act in society. At this point, realist writers also have to enter the complicated inter-play between what the reader expects and is able to recognize as veracious, and the innovative, maybe even revolutionary insight they hope to offer their audience. Thus, what realist authors initially endeavoured on literary ground alone must, at least implicitly, also deepen into philosophy.
And herein is where I think a second-degree problem arises. It underlies and extends in importance beyond my initial, purely impresionist quarrel with literary realism. Does this literary current have the means to meet its high-stake goal, and reflect human reality in a fresh, meaningful manner? Or does realism remain just another ideological "-ism", and falls short of substantially exploring reality?
To be continued...
Posts
1 comment:
What is, in fact, an "-ism"? I would suggest that any philosophy or artistic movement that is categorized as an "-ism" is merely being denigrated for being so easily breaking down into an archetype or convenient set of rules.
The debate you are having on realism, therefore, is likely based on one or the other view. I think you have forgotten the greatest form of realism to date, Russian realism. Perhaps my systematic appropriation of Tolstoy to the genre of realism is a misnomer, but hopefully it will elucidate my point.
Tolstoyvian literary realism was based, at least in his earlier writings (Anna Karenina, War and Peace, etc) on a decidedly amoral expression of very moral issues. In Anna Karenina, Tolstoy richly depicts each of his many characters in light of all their vices and human suffering. The reader is given the sense these characters are weak and one should feel sympathy for the (albeit often with a morbid curiosity with their trials and tribulations). All characters are given this realistic analysis, except of course for Konstantin Levin, arguably the protagonist for the book. Levin's character represents more of Tolstoy's inner monologue, and the real moral compass of the book: Levin develops an ideology throughout the extremely long novel that provides direction to the reader even if the book's distraught characters can find none.
Back to the main theme of your post - if Tolstoy is a realist (if you disagree on this point, humor me for a moment), then how does his realism actually reflect on his portrayal of the human condition (if I may assume that this is the question on your mind)? I would argue that Tolstoy's deconstructionalist and realist approach is merely a means for him to coax the reader into his world by dosing the reader with a vivid portrayal of the real world - and then injecting his commentary on fundamental suffering and the human condition.
My point is that Tolstoy's realism isn't the message, its the media through which he employs his ideological insights (to borrow from McLuhan). Any decent writer (as any decent artist) must realize the limitations of artistic representation. You say it is a philosophical issue, but it is really an artistic one. Perhaps the reason why you have so long considered the classical literary realisms to be so dry and boring (as to many people today), is because they come from a dated time period and it is all the more difficult for you to be absorbed into their representations of reality. And if you can't be seduced into their reflections of the real world, then you can't be indoctrinated with their dissertations on the human condition. And, in all truth, very few authors can compete with the genius of Tolsoty.
Post a Comment