The outlook of how realism should be displayed in fiction differs greatly among authors. I believe that all of the perspectives give sufficient reasons for believing their methods are correct, but in anything there is always room for improvement.
When dealing with the subject matter Booth explores the point of view that the subject matter should validate reality outside the book. There are those that believe that it should show the unattractive sides of life, and others that believe it is not realistic unless it includes the enjoyable events in reality. I believe one cannot exist without the other. It is the good and bad events that construct our lives. Everything in between is simply transitional points.
When naturalists are writing about social reality there isn't strict rules about when or how a writer will intrude, but metaphysical truths seems to require more precise techniques and form. Booth says, "Many in this century have required that a work reflect adequately the ambiguities of the human condition or even the universe itself." I find myself wondering why there is more flexibility in one than the other.
There are others that believe reality should be explored through the accurate reproductions of feelings formed by objects instead of providing one with how something can be viewed in life. I understand the logic to this notion, but I feel that it would be hard to create reality with just this alone.
Then there is the dilemma of how to make a subject real. Some believe that it is doesn't make since to use chance in fictional literature, while others believe chance is what life is tailored around. I see the need for both. There are certain things in life that are influenced by what happens before that situation, but the outcome can also be left up to chance.
This all ties into the technique that one chooses to express reality. Some believe it is only realistic to tell a story the way one would in real life. Isn't that the ultimate goal? That outlook is a reasonable one, but many believe reality is experiencing life, so that leaves us with the argument that a narrator should make himself invisible, so that the readers feel as if they are observing life in action.
As I have stated before, all of these points of views have legitimate arguments, strengths, and weaknesses, so I believe there is no wrong or right answer. After going over the information that Booth provides one with, I believe a writer should use whatever methods and techniques that help him or her effectively display one's truth. Do you all believe that there are any of these points that make a book more enjoyable to read?
I don't believe that there is one realistic point of view that makes a novel better. It all depends on the situation the novel is trying to portray. If that situation requires for the novel to have a more blue effect then by all means go with what depicts the reality of what is going on.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the author should use any of the points to help portray realism. I do not think there should be a single way to express reality. It would be hard to nail down one particular style over the other. Every author has their own style and can make any method work.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a mix of all realism writing styles are what works the best. If you use them same tactics your writings become boring and the reader looses interest. By showing realism in multiple ways you keep the readers engaged as well as not over using realism. Changing your style helps to keep you from adding to much realism.
ReplyDeleteDorothy, I'm a little confused about what you mean by "I find myself wondering why there is more flexibility in one than the other." Could you elaborate more? Do you mean flexibility in technique? The point there is that "realism of subject" doesn't really demand much of technique, whereas a more metaphysical approach to realism and aesthetics demands more of the artist's technique. For the first, it only matters WHAT you write about, whereas for the second, it matters both WHAT you write about and HOW you write about it. The question of technique here is tricky, but that's really the one that Booth's going for. Realism of subject doesn't have too many problems with the author's voice, whereas the more metaphysical approaches present the kind of critical difficulties that Booth is writing about.
ReplyDeleteLet's not get too relativistic here, folks. The point is criticism (saying what is Good Art and what is Not), rather than "Hey, it's a free country, so anything goes!"
I was wondering what is the difference between the technique a writer uses when dealing with social reality and metaphysical truth. I am somewhat confused about this.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete