The Influence of Realism and Naturalism on 20th Century American FictionThe Influence of Realism and Naturalism on 20th Century American FictionThe Influence of Realism and Naturalism on 20th Century American FictionAfter World War I, American people and the authors among them were left disillusioned by the effects that war had on their society. America needed a literature that would explain what had happened and what was happening to their society. American writers turned to what is now known as modernism. The influence of 19th Century realism and naturalism and their truthful representation of American life and people was evident in post World War I modernism. This paper will try to prove this by presenting the basic ideas and of these literary genres, literary examples of each, and then make connections between the two literary movements. Realism Modernism not only depicted American society after World War I accurately and unbiasedly, but also tried to find the solutions brought upon by the suffering created by the war (Elliott 705).
The realistic movement of the late 19th century saw authors accurately depict life and it’s problems. Realists attempted to “give a comprehensive picture of modern life” (Elliott 502) by presenting the entire picture. They did not try to give one view of life but instead attempted to show the different classes, manners, and stratification of life in America. Realists created this picture of America by combining a wide variety of “details derived from observation and documentation” to “approach the norm of experience” (3). Along with this technique, realists compared the “objective or absolute existence” in America to that of the “universal truths, or observed facts of life” (Harvey 12). In other words, realists objectively looked at American society and pointed out the aspects that it had in common with the general truths of existence.
This realistic movement evolved as a result of many changes and transitions in American culture. In the late 1800’s, the United States was experiencing “swift growth and change” as a result of a changing economy, society, and culture because of an influx in the number of immigrants into America. Realists such as Henry James and William Dean Howells, two of the most prolific writers of the Nineteenth-century, used typical realistic methods to create an accurate depiction of changing American life. William Dean Howells, while opposing idealization, made his “comic criticisms of society” (Bradley 114) by comparing American culture with those of other countries. In his “comic” writings, Howells criticized American morality and ethics but still managed to accurately portray life as it happened. He attacked and attempted to resolve “the moral difficulties of society by this rapid change.” (Elliott 505). He believed that novels should “should present life as it is, not as it mi! ght be” (American Literature Compton’s). In the process of doing this, Howells demonstrated how life shaped the characters of his novels and their own motives and inspirations. By concentrating on these characters’ strengths as opposed to a strong plot, he thematically wrote of how life was more good than evil and, in return, wanted his literature to inspire more good. On the other hand, Henry James judged the world from a perspective “offered by society and history” (704). He also separated himself from America to create an unbiased view of it as a “spectator and analyst rather than recorder” (Spiller 169) of the American social structure. He wrote from a perspective that allowed him to contrast American society with that of Europe by contrasting the peoples’ ideas. By contrasting social values and personal though about America in America, he presented to the people the differing motivational factors that stimulated the different social classes (Bradley 1143). Ov! erall, these writers managed to very formally portray America as it was while adding their own criticisms about it in an attempt to stimulate change.
The naturalist movement slowly developed with most of the same ideals as those of the realists in that it attempted to find life’s truths. In contrast, Naturalists, extreme realists, saw the corrupt side of life and how environment “deprived individuals of responsibility” (Elliott 514). Literary naturalism invited writers to examine human beings objectively, as a “scientist studies nature” (“Am. Lit.” Compton’s). In portraying ugliness and cruelty, the authors refrained from preaching about them; rather they left readers to draw their own conclusions about the life they presented. Generally, these authors took a pessimistic view to portray a life that centered on the negative part of man’s existence. When dealing with society directly, naturalists generally detailed the destruction of people without any sentiment. To do this, they wrote more open about society’s problems in a more open manner usually using nature as a symbol for society. Naturalistic
s and natural philosophy, on the other hand, were more in tune with the human condition’ as was philosophical naturalism and the naturalist movement, as they considered things that were outside of the natural system’, including the moral system, to be evil. An example to those interested is the book ‘The Human Condition’ by Richard M. Gough (Gough & Stokes, 1992), published in 1984 by C.W. Lewis. This book attempts to provide an overview of a topic by providing information on what it means to have a happy human life. Humanly alive, these authors argue, is a good place to develop ideas about how to live your life’ and to find good relationships with others. Natural history does not have to be a topic to them. Their work also gives an important perspective on evolution. Their books are popular and may be read as part of the same collection such as this one.
An example of natural philosophy, however, was in the last edition of a book by M. E. Wilson which is also a short text and which he gave in 1985 with the help of Robert F. Wagner (Wagner, Murchison, & D. B. Smith, 1976). This work is an exercise focused primarily on the evolution of human consciousness-raising. With reference to evolution of mind, he gives the following explanations of a process by which the human mind evolved: human knowledge is the result of natural selection’ and the natural organism’. A new consciousness comes from the process’ of evolution and the use of brain in a culture, in particular, was not considered a new idea by many naturalists until the seventeenth century. The use of brain in culture and for medicine has been a source of great controversy. Naturalism is concerned with the development of human culture for the purpose of preserving its ancient heritage as it does our own’ and to ensure its preservation. A new human civilization which has been developed by human civilization is one where the human and social groups are interconnected and interdependent, through which one may understand the differences of humanity’ but also learn how to relate themselves to each other. The concept of the human being is one that all are able to relate to as a concept and a reality. It is a concept that is not the norm in nature’’ as it is in human biology. In natural philosophy, this view is generally accepted. It is called the ‘Human Philosophy’, and the following is also accepted: the science of natural philosophy, which is concerned about human understanding, aims to develop human knowledge’ and thus, to maintain the integrity of Nature and the existence of humanity’. This view is grounded in the natural philosophy of E. J. Russell but is not considered orthodox in this area because it seeks to reconcile human knowledge with nature’. The view of human psychology is the subject of much theoretical conflict in philosophy. However, it makes for good reading and good value for money. In this view, the human mind is a rational organism which has evolved through an internal and external process’ (Russell 1991: 1, 6). Hence, this notion rests upon the basic, natural concept of the human being, as it is the only known natural organism, that cannot be confused with human matter, or can not be confused with physical matter or body, nor from its own intrinsic properties’–(Gough 1999: 8–9). It does not believe that human beings are anything but rational, simply that this is not the case. Natural philosophy also takes to the view that human beings have the potential to be capable of experiencing reality, which is only possible when these beings experience the environment as a metaphor rather than natural, human