Can any one answer?

[realvision]

:confused: In which sens do you see both Realism and Neutralism in any novel?

[SleepyWitch]

:confused: In which sens do you see both Realism and Neutralism in any novel?

Neutralism? do you mean Naturalism?

[Morten]

Claiming that naturalism (roughly) only differs from realism in the sense that it doesn't endow it's characters with a free will, then I'd recommend The Slum by Azevedo.

[bazarov]

Realism and Naturalism (if Naturalism is what you meant), then I'd vote for Anna Karenina. I'm sure there are better choices, but that came immediately to mind.

I don't see what does Anna Karenina has with naturalism, it's pure realism.

I would definitely recommend Emile Zola's Germinal. Actually, that's the only what comes in my mind. Maybe Flaubert's Madame Bovary, but only maybe.

[Kafka's Crow]

Zola is naturalism. Naturalism deals with the effects of heredity and environment on human actions. Germinale is a good example, in fact the whole Rougon-Macquart series is about these things. Germinale is one hell of a violent novel.

[V.Jayalakshmi]

Dear Members,

Read 'Osborne's 'Look Back In anger',for both.

[bazarov]

Realism shows common people in common situations and naturalism shows what's worst in people. Rebel in Germinal is naturalism, and miners life is pretty much realism. In theory of naturalism, environment is not a fact. Therefore, I don't think Anna Karenina can be even considered as naturalism.

[Oomoo]

Naturalism is a subset of realism: all naturalist novels are realist. Naturalism does not merely present things as they are - like realism - but also shows the underlying mechanism that caused them. It is heavily influenced by Darwinism (which Tolstoy mocks at the beginning of Anna Karenina), thus it's very concerned with environmental and hereditary conditions that shape the individual.

There is nothing naturalist about Anna Karenina: in fact, Levin's and Anna's feelings are not scientifically determined, but rather arise from existential angst (I know that sounds bombastic, but that's the case). Tolstoy's work might have some naturalist elements, but in any event describing them is not his goal. His realism merely sets the scene for profound philosophical questions and for exploration of the soul, but for the Naturalist, it's an end in itself

[mortalterror]

I think it's inaccurate to say that naturalism is a subclass of realism, especially since I see realism as coming slightly after naturalism, so if anything it would be the reverse. Naturalism, as I see it, grew out of a reaction against the inaccuracies and histrionics, of all the melodrama in romanticism. Naturalism was an attempt to portray the world as accurately, and in as minute detail as possible. Realism, I see as a meeting point in between the two. The realist writer recognizes that things must be true to life to get a certain emotional identification out of his readers, but that too much authenticity can be extremely banal and boring; so he fudges here and there, for the sake of interest. Like Hemingway said, sometimes you could write from experience but then change some details to make the story even truer. Besides, there are different subjective levels of truism, and who's to say that romanticism isn't emotionally authentic, that it's the way things truly feel? I see Realism as a nice compromise in between Romanticism and Naturalism, between the heart and the brain.

[HotKarl]

I think it's inaccurate to say that naturalism is a subclass of realism, especially since I see realism as coming slightly after naturalism, so if anything it would be the reverse.

Um. No.

Here are some of my notes from college:

Realism: Realism was a development in the second half of the nineteenth century that attempted to go beyond romanticism and represent reality as it actually is. Thus it ostensibly forsakes subjectivity for objectivity (although it also attends to the psychology of its protagonists). It tends to focus not on the grand protagonists, sublime settings, and heroic themes of romanticism but the ordinary and everyday with mimetic methods. Emphasizing character over plot, realism features the plot growing out of the characters’ choices and often creates great psychological studies. In America, at least, realists were generally optimistic. America's earliest realist, Mark Twain, shares a lot with his romantic predecessors. Indeed, even America's realists are strongly influenced by nonrealism. For example, Henry James and Edith Wharton wrote many gothic and ghost stories. The realists did not realize that their definitions of reality were culturally relative--that what is believable varies with race, class, gender, education, nationality, age, etc.


Naturalism: A kind of fiction whose characterization and theme underscore the forces of heredity and the environment--nature and nurture. An outgrowth of realism, naturalism's heyday was in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Often focusing on the downtrodden, it shows the gritty details unflinchingly. Influenced by Darwin, Marx, and later Freud, it is highly deterministic. Like realism, it asserts that reality is readily discoverable through science. Examples of naturalists are Frank Norris, Stephen Crane, Jack London, Theodore Dreiser, and Eugene O'Neill. They were pessimistic about people and life, believing that society was like the jungle and people like animals, opportunistically driven by instincts and primal urges for food, shelter, and sex. Their plots are iron traps of necessity, each event leading necessarily to the next, usually ending tragically.

And here a couple academic websites essentially saying the same thing:

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/naturalism.html

http://realnatural.tripod.com/


Your post seems to have the two terms confused.

[mortalterror]

I beg your pardon, you are indeed correct. I was thinking of Modernism.