In which of our current writers do you read naturalism? In which do you read realism? What about modernism? In what unique ways do you see the three combine in single authors or single pieces of writing?
Advertisement
In which of our current writers do you read naturalism? In which do you read realism? What about modernism? In what unique ways do you see the three combine in single authors or single pieces of writing?
Frank Norris seems to combine both realism and naturalism. His “A Plea for Romantic Fiction” details his want for a story that has actual human experience rather than the idealist version of romance. The essay also discusses the various forms of true romance, saying that it is found everywhere, not just in silk gowns which seems to lean more towards naturalism.
Henry James is a famous realism author who, in “The Art of Fiction” discusses the techniques of writing literature that people could relate their lives to rather than books that helped them escape from everyday life.
W.E.B. Du Bois pushed the United States to accept African Americans the same way they accepted whites, making his works fairly realist. His disdain of Booker T. Washinton’s suggestion that the hate that the white society had for the African Americans displayed his wish for a more modern culture.
One of the most inconvenient and simultaneously intriguing characteristics of American literature is its essential resistance to classification; the works of American writers cannot merely be grouped into the distinct aesthetic movements of realism, naturalism, and modernism without considerable difficulty to the poor anthologist who is forced to make the attempt. There are, however, certain texts that are closely intertwined with the particulars of each of these movements.
In Kate Chopin’s works At the ‘Cadian Ball and its sequel The Storm, a decently pessimistic tone and thorough examination of the human reaction to social expectation are suggestive of naturalist roots. Chopin’s description of the tangled love lives of several individuals concerned purely with aesthetic beauty and instant gratification provides a sense of futility; it seems as if characters such as Calixta and Alcée Laballiere can never truly be satisfied with the outcome of their romantic struggles. Chopin’s ironic close to The Storm emphasizes the cynical nature of her writing: “So the storm passed and every one was happy.” It is this line that, like so many others, combines with Chopin’s overall focus on the dysfunctional nature of social interaction to give one the impression of its roots in the naturalist movement.
Later, in Mary E. Wilkins Freeman’s A New England Nun, literary characteristics pertaining to the realist movement abound. Throughout her frank portrayal of the slightly troubled life of Louisa Ellis, Freeman maintains an objective, purely descriptive tone. Freeman’s choice of subject matter is also indicative of the realist nature of her work; strained relationships between two people of the opposite sex were common toward the end of the nineteenth century, and Freeman’s text thus offered “a norm of experience” (Norton 1745). For example, when describing Louisa’s potential husband Joe Dagget, Freeman writes the following:
“When Joe Dagget was outside he drew in the sweet evening air with a sigh,
and felt much as an innocent and perfectly well-intentioned bear might after
his exit from a china shop… Louisa, on her part, felt much as the kind-hearted,
long-suffering owner of the china shop might after the exit of the bear” (Norton 1622)
Here, Freeman’s description of the awkward relationship between Louisa and Joe is candid and offers a sense of reality due to its accurate portrayal of the tense nature of “romantic” relationships at the turn of the century.
Continuing onward with the tentative classification of works of American literature, W.E.B. Du Bois’ The Souls of Black Folk demonstrates a tendency to drift toward literary aspects characteristic of the modernist movement. Through stressing the ineffectual nature of Booker T. Washington’s approach to integrating African Americans into American society, Du Bois identifies with the modernist “conviction that the previously sustaining structures of human life, whether social, political, religious, or artistic, had been destroyed or shown up as falsehoods or, at best, arbitrary and fragile human constructions” (Norton 1888). Thus, while the style of Du Bois’ work was not particularly innovative or newfangled, its content certainly emphasized a need for social change that was closely connected with the modernist desire for reform.
Due to the overlapping nature of American literary movements, however, some texts encompass aspects of multiple aesthetics. One such work by Henry James entitled The Beast in the Jungle was written during the realist movement and describes John Marcher’s egocentric introspectiveness in an essentially descriptive and objective manner. Simultaneously, however, James’ tone is pessimistic and critical of the self-serving aspect of human nature, thereby stressing an attachment to naturalism. Furthermore, James’ use of decently complex symbols (“the beast in the jungle”) to describe human fears emphasizes a focus on the modernist advancement of literary forms. Essentially, Henry James’ work The Beast in the Jungle presents an amalgamation of aspects from the realist, naturalist, and modernist movements.
In short, it is the complexity of American literature that is both intriguing and difficult to navigate. While certain works seem to be easily classified into the naturalist, realist, and modernist movements, among other aesthetics, other texts incorporate a variety of aspects pertaining to each of the aforementioned movements. Perhaps it is American literature’s complicated nature that makes it such an alluring area of study.
I believe that the terms “realism”, “naturalism”, and “modernism” are some of the most frustrating literary terms of all time. Authors can be defined as realist and naturalist and romantic and modern and postmodern all at the same time. My approach at this defining debacle is: rather than labeling an author as “realist” or “naturalist”, to look at the time periods of realism and naturalism and to try and define boundaries regarding the cultural axioms of the time. Admittedly, naturalism and realism are still with us to this day; but, when the respective aesthetic movements officially began, there were certain defined beliefs relative to the periods.
Jack London wrote in a style that clicked with naturalistic beliefs. Harsh settings, realistic characters, and objective observation of the human response are all characteristic of Jack London’s writings.
Freeman’s writings portray a style that is very realist. Everyday characters, in an everyday setting are usually always portrayed. Opposite to naturalism, “realist” writings observe the person in their everyday activities, whereas “naturalist” literature observe the persons psychological response to outside stimuli.
I completely agree with your first sentence. However, I also agree with Madeline’s statement that categories are the the easiest way to group things even if the specifics of the difference and similarities are hazy. The anthology defines the difference fairly clearly in saying that realism “attacked social more and manners but were rarely critical of the political foundations of society itself…naturalist novels had extreme settings, in contrast to the everyday, believable locales of realist novels.” (1746) That in mind, as well as our discussions the last two day, I have a better understanding of the guidelines and specifics of each movement.
London was clearly a naturalistic writer although as mentioned in class, he was a romantic. His characters were realistic characters set in extreme settings – which also can make him a realist. Dreiser was also a naturalist which can be seen in his novel, Sister Carrie. Mark Twain and Henry James were also categorized as realist, but I think that some of Twain work contains aspects of naturalism.
In responding to authors that represent modernism, I thought it to be a little difficult to identify the differences between modernism and realism and naturalism. It seems to me that modernism is a combination of both. Our anthology even states that by the end of the 19th century, realism was considered modern. This did not help me in identify the difference between the three movements.
However hard it is to identify which writers wrote in which category, I do think it is important to see the differences and similarities that each movement had and how each movement changed society then and still continues to impact it today.
In Harte’s “The Luck of Roaring Camp,” the story has a certain romantic beginning but by the end has the markings of realism. Realism, in its efforts to portray humans as humans and nothing more, succeeded in showing life as it actually is. When the baby and old man died in the end of the story, it was a reminder of how humans are not in complete control.
Stephen Crane offers a good example of a writer of literature following realism. Crane wrote in “War is Kind” about the so assumed glory of war. Crane’s pessimism comes clearly across in a few lines, such as “Do not weep, babe, for war is kind. Because your father tumbled in the yellow trenches, raged at his breast, gulped and died, do not weep. War is kind.” Naturalism took the point of realism (making it “real”) a bit further in trying to show that humans are helpless and adopting an all around pessimistic nature. Naturalism showed the superiority of nature and its ability to thwart humankind, such as in London’s “To Build a Fire.”
In Addams’ biography of “Twenty Years at Hull-House”, she brings forth a desire to change the way society views people. At the Hull-House, Addams worked to provide meals and clothes to immigrants in the area. Over time, as Addams realized how much America discarded old ethnicities, she worked to embrace those cultural crafts and culture observances. This is a good example of the view of Modernism, which felt that old societal and public views were either falling to pieces or were lies.
Obviously no piece of writing can fit neatly into one category on literary movements. In pieces such as Zitkala Sa’s “Impressions of an Indian Childhood” we can see different styles peeking out. We can see realism in the way it is a story of actual life, looking into the mind of a young Indian girl. We can also see a hint of Modernism as the young girl pleads to leave the old ways behind and travel to a new school. In “The Soft-Hearted Sioux” we can see the pessimism and harshness of naturalism as the father dies, but we can also see Modernism as the young man seeks to leave behind the old ways of his heritage. As a general trend, chronological literature tends to veer to one movement or another, but each piece is still different in which movements it represents.
Frank Norris is certainly an interesting writer with at least a hint of naturalism in his literary works. When I think of Norris I think of McTeague, a fairly grim and gruesome novel about a couple who got married because the one ran into a large sum of money. The novel ends with the wife stealing the money, the husband beating her to death then taking the money, and then flees to the desert. Needless to say the wife’s secret lover follows the husband to the desert. In the desert the two end up fitting for the $5000 and the last of the water, and in the end the husband kills the boyfriend who in his last breath handcuffs his dying body to the husband. In short it’s a pretty pessimistic view of the inescapable shape of human character.
I think the best example of a realist in our list of authors is William Howells. I am thinking specifically of Howells’ A Modern Instance. This novel looks at a marriage that is from the start successful and then ardently fails, and ends up with the husband leaving the wife to her problems as he his own. From the 1900s to the 1960s I think there was a general belief that a marriage doesn’t spilt up, and this novel looks at the reality. However, the public really doesn’t see the reality as in the 1950s we see the notorious smiles of the nuclear American family.
Throughout all of the of Du Bois’ writing that are in the anthology I have thought that he looks at the current situation, looks what it could become, and then tries to make the possibilities he sees happen. I have always a large part of modernism to be identifying a social injustice and then working to overcome it, and I see these features in most of Du Bois’ writings. However, it is not only limited to his writings as in reality he would work hard to form organizations like the NAACP, and strive to find equality for African Americans.
If I had to coin one of these author (which I do) a compilation of all three of these movements I would have to say that Frank Norris seems the most colorful. Looking back to McTeaque I think it is clear that Norris identifies a common problem in society-money driven. While the novel (as well as many of Norris’s works) lacks definite modernist aspects I think there are threads that filter through. The general example would be that the outcome is placed in the human mosaic and not the control of some hell bent deity, and to me a large part of modernism is focusing on human condition and human will.
I think part of being American means that there are always exceptions and ways of getting around things. I mean this in the literal sense (people always think the government, etc should change to benefit them) but also in other ways, too. So many American authors that we have read about so far have overlaps in their styles of writing. It’s hard, sometimes, to really differentiate between modernism, realism, naturalism, etc.
With settings that are always harsh and characters that are easily related to, Jack London can be characterized as a truly naturalist author.
Frank Norris does a good job at fitting into several of these literary categories. Although you need to look around to find out exactly how and where these different categories are represented in Norris’ writing, they are present.
I don’t really like titles or labels like “realism”, “modernism”, and “naturalism”. I think the only real importance that they serve is to is to classify eras in writings. The all seem confusing to me because there is so much overlap. You can see a lot of realism in naturalism. I don’t know how else you would sort literature though if you didn’t use terms like that.
In W.E.B. Du Bois’s works I can see that there is some modernism in it in ideals that he wants to see for blacks. But I can also see a realist in him because in his biography it says that he was aware he was different because of the color of his skin at a pretty young age. I don’t see what is more realistic than coming to the realization of how ugly things are and how the world works as far as races go.
When I think of naturalism authors I automatically think about Jack London. It seems obvious because of the extreme conditions and the elements of nature that they are fighting. The way he writes is what naturalism is to me.
Even though we haven’t gotten there yet in class, I think that you can see modernism, naturalism, and realism combined all into the works of Ernest Hemmingway. Even though he is known as being a modern writer you can read elements of all three into his book The Old Man an the Sea. You can tie the sea into the elements of nature that you see in naturalism and the realism elements can be seen in the disappointment that is present when he catches the fish and doesn’t get to bring it to shore because it’s eaten by sharks. I see the realism in having a dream and seeing it not come together as planned.
I think for naturalism, I’m definitely reading that in Jack London’s writing, such as “To Build a Fire”. He writes, as the man faces his first winter in the strange Yukon land, “He was quick and alert in the things of life, but only in the things, and not in the significances” (1827). I think this is a good example of Naturalism, in that he was a human in settings beyond himself. That although it was very cold, and he could perceive this, he seemed unaware that his life was coming to an end because of this. A characteristic of Naturalism is extreme settings, and Jack London seems to be the master of characters in extreme conditions.
In realism, I personally think that Mark Twain represents this movement the best, after all we have read. He puts his characters into everyday roles and happenings, adds some adventure, and lets his characters have their own voices, unique to their cultural and geographical backgrounds.
But since he’s not technically in this section of the book, I’ll point out Stephen Crane as a realist, though I also see some modernism in his writing as well. Having died in 1900, this was much before any serious action against racism was taken. He took to developing his ideas in his writing to find “a sympathetic but unflinching demand for courage, integrity, grace, and generosity in the face of a universe in which human beings, to quote from ‘The blue Hotel,’ are so many lice clinging ‘to a whirling, fire-smote, ice-locked disease-stricken, space-lost bulb” (1779). He also set to developing “his powers as an observer of psychological and social reality” (1777). Both of these are very realist, very modernist ways of thinking.
In which of our current writers do you read naturalism? In which do you read realism? What about modernism? In what unique ways do you see the three combine in single authors or single pieces of writing?
Naturalism has many different meanings that we discussed in class on tuesday which include Darwinism, the hero is subsumed, pessimistic, philosophy, psychology, extreme settings, and redefining “Common.” Some of the writers we are reading that deal with naturalism would be London and his build a fire. I dont think you can get more natural than being placed in nature and having to survive. This story uses extreme settings to the extreme.
realism includes actually being “real”, “common”, mid class to lower class, experiential, and non-romantic. Some writers that are realists would have to be Henry James and Mary Freeman. Freeman wrote for the people and the product of time.
Modernism or a modernist could be stephen crane who also can be considered a realist. also naturalism is realism so technical they all tie together and I think each writer could in a way or sense put something of the other in their work. they may focus on their major area but overlap the other two.
I would have to say that the first realist writer to stand out in my mind would have to be Twain. Twain’s writing through aside many of the old romantic ideas that everyone else had, and instead used a form of literature that seems much more real to the reader. It could also be considered a naturalist, because there are extreme settings, and much of it takes place in nature.
Another example would be W.E.B. Du Bois, who instead of romanticizing the racial problems in America, told what was happening to blacks straight out. His writing was especially different from writings like “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”, which was very romanticized, and wasn’t written exactly how the events would have happened, but instead was made solely to entertain readers.
There is also Jack London, whose writing was very natural in style. Most of his works such as “Call of the Wild” involve nature in almost all aspects of the book. They are also set in very extreme settings, which make the naturalist influence on London’s work even stronger.
Modernism also seems to come into our current literature. Henry James’ “The Art of Fiction” for instance, shows some emphasis on aesthetic details, and also uses some things as symbols, which is a component of modernism.
In our current writing, there is a little bit of every style. As a matter of fact, many of these works, like those of Twain, have several styles involved. This just helps to diversify the author’s writings, and tends to make their literature more unique and interesting.
In our reading, William Dean Howells ,Henry James and Chariles W.
Chesnutt are realism writers.Realism took place during a seris of
social unrest. United States grew rapidly after the civil war,
especially in industrialism and urbanization, and there is an
expanding population base due to immigration. Athough a lot people
were going through very hard life, they still believe they can
change their life by hard working. The well-known writer Mark
Twain is a realism writer,too.
Frank Norris, Theodore Dreiser and Jack London are naturalism
writers. One of the major themes of naturalism is pessimism. It
emphasizes the scientific point of view. Darwin is the important
force behind naturalism. Naturalism writers are usually lower
class among the society, born after the Civil War, went through
economic panic. These set the tone of naturalism. For example,one
of the naturalism writers Theodore Dreiser. His childhood was not
very happy. He thinks his dad is mentally a little weak and the
only person who ever loved him enough is his mom. These provide
the prototype of his writings.Dreiser’s novels directly reflect
his inner life.
These divisions of American literature are quite blurring. A
writer’s work doesn’t have to be one of the realism,
naturalism,romantism and even modernism.It could be all or some of
them.But I think these literature movement is mainly based the
social economic progress and change.
There is definitely an unclear and confusing division between movements and unfortunately, I think that may make many people look at this classification system in an unfavorable way. I think the movement divisions can connect to what Matt said in so many words today about the movie rating categorization – categories are the easiest ways to group things, even though the specifics get dirty. Having these movements gives us as a class a space to compare and contrast the writing style of authors. Each movement gives a general common ground in regard to aesthetic style of the time.
From the text we read for class today, although many of the other responses above do not identify this, I would categorize Jack London as both a naturalist and realist writer. I am not sure if the excerpt in the the Norton Anthology from “What Life Means to Me” would be able to be included in an analysis of his literature, but since he is writing from his life experience, I would say that it is realist writing. I know that autobiographical narratives are usually seen as nonfiction, but I think in all cases there is fiction involved because there are not many people who can recall all their memories clearly. “To Build a Fire,” as we discussed in class is a very naturalist piece with the extreme setting and insight into the characters natural instincts.
Although a majority of an author’s writings may have a common thread that tie them together, I feel that in an author’s lifetime, he or she will hit on different styles of writing. Writing is an outlet and I know that after writing so much, I want to try something new, instead of sticking to the same style that I have written with before. The author will always keep his or her voice in their writings, but by drawing on different settings, situations, and characters, they will get a different perspective and something new. I would bet that Stephen Crane and Jack London wrote or at least attempted a Romantic piece, but that is because I feel that authors are creative and resist to be set in a certain category.