Realism and Naturalism A Comparative Critique

John Newell
February 21, 2015
Prepared for Mark Gooding
American Literature 1860-Present

Realism and Naturalism
A Comparative Critique
Part I
1) My understanding of dramatic structure consists of only five parts, regardless of whether the plot's structure is linear or episodic. Unfortunately I don't know what the sixth part is but I will identify and explain the five parts I do know.
The first part is called "exposition." This consists of the introduction of the story, the background information required to understand the story properly. The second part is called "rising action." This part is required to develop the story leading into the climax. This is often the journey or actions that set up the climatic moment, often (but not always) the longest part of the story. The third part is called the "climax." This is considered the high point of the story; it's also the turning point, often the most exciting moment. The fourth part is called "falling action." This section is the after-effects of the climax, where the story prepares for its resolution. And last is the fifth part known as the "resolution (denouement)," the conclusion of the story appears here. It is also often the time of catharsis and relief of anxiety, where the dramatic tension is released. It is the time where revelations occur (especially for mystery stories) or the last conflict occurs.
2) I believe I could make the claim that Realism and Naturalism are the same but only perceived differently, what I mean is that the characters in the Realist story may be written to perceive free-will and freedom of thought but ultimately are truly subject to determinism. This is a silly argument from my position, however I think from a position of someone who claims that Naturalism isn't a real literary movement, and is instead is the same as Realism, they could have an argument. It is based upon perception however. I am of the opinion that Naturalism actually was and is a separate literary movement, "extreme Realism."
Realism appeared shortly after Regionalism, where stories were told more as honest accounts of real life, especially among the working classes. The advent of Realism came by way of The Industrial Revolution and how it changed modern life. Realism focused on the "every day," the true struggles, and shied away from the grandiose romanticism style of storytelling. Realism was also very popular with painters as well. I believe a good example of realism from what we've read is The Pupil by Henry James. The Realism is evident by showing the poverty of the characters, especially of the tutor Pemberton. It also is strongly shown by the relationship between the pupil, Morgan, and his parents. The poverty of Pemberton motivates his decisions throughout the story.
Naturalism came about by way of modern science of the day. It started to appear in literature around the time when scientists and artists started to embrace the concept of determinism argued heavily in Darwin's masterpiece On The Origin of Species. By the late 19th Century, more people within the literary community wrote from a determinist perspective, focusing on motifs involving nature, and the nature of reality.
Of all the stories we've read so far this semester, I'd say that Jack London's To Build a Fire was a good example of Naturalism but even more so was Stephen Crane's An Episode of War. The reason I think the latter is a stronger example is because the character doesn't show any signs of remorse, but instead just takes life as it is from the beginning of the story when he's sorting the coffee to when he is shot, to the very end after his amputation, when he returns home and says "Oh well, I don't suppose it matters so much as all that."
Part II
Prompt #2
Morality is often considered relative, though many argue that there are also moral absolutes. Relative morality deals with cultural influence and ideology, while moral absolutes have a more objective basis. Moral absolution, regarding human relations, concerns actions and ideologies with a specific objective, which is the well-being of conscious creatures.
I have chosen three stories, each from a different literary movement, one Regionalist, one Realist and one Naturalist. I will address and compare the treatment of the concept of morality within each story by forming them into moral questions. I will begin with William Dean Howell's Realist story Editha, then move on to Mary Wilkins Freeman's Regionalist story The Revolt of Mother, and lastly I will address Jack London's Naturalist story To Build a Fire.
In William Dean Howell's Editha, morality is questioned concerning patriotism, matrimonial roles, political non-interventionism and pacifism. Editha holds an ideology believing her fiancé, in order to be a good husband and man, should be patriotic and fight on behalf of the United States regardless of his anti-war beliefs. She sees his reluctance to join the army as a weakness and unbefitting for the role of husband. In the end after her fiancé ends up being killed in battle, his mother who claims to have raised her son to oppose war because of their family's personal experience during The Civil War accosts her. This brings the morality into question. Were Editha's convictions moral? Or was the anti-war stance her fiancé and his family believed to be moral?
This story is quite unique because it raises questions but does not answer them. Regarding the character Editha herself, she in the end after feeling remorse after her fiancé died and the assault from his mother, ended up feeling justified and moral. This, by the aid of the woman who was painting her portrait, when discussing how unfair it was for her to be assaulted and accused in such a way, and how he died fighting a war that has done lots of good for the country and the oppressed people. After the story, the questions we are left with are: Is pacifism, non-interventionism and strong diplomacy the only moral way to address cruel oppression caused by a government over their people? Is war and killing justifiable if done for the greater good of the people? Basically it's the classic question of morality: Does the end justify the means?
In Editha the moral questioning also deals with moral relativism concerning the roles of men and women. It is addressed when Editha questions the convictions of her fiancé to see if he measures up to the "moral" standards of being a worthy husband.
The Revolt of Mother by Mary Wilkins Freeman addresses morality within marriage as well but from a different area. It addresses not only the moral role of an ideal husband but also of an ideal wife. The farmer's wife, Sarah Penn, pleas her case to her husband to have him instead of building a new unnecessary barn, he should build her and the family a new house like he promised long ago. Her arguments tell of how much she has struggled and put up with over the years to be a good mother and wife, and how she and the family deserves a new house instead of another barn, which she sees more as a selfish act.
The moral question that arises from the revolt Sarah Penn "bestows" upon her husband is whether or not his brushing her off, as it were, is immoral or is he just simply unaware of how much a new house really means to her. Does he see his choice of building a new barn more beneficial to the happiness and prosperity of his family?
More moral questions arise when the minister comes to visit Sarah while her husband is still away on business, unaware of his family's move into the new barn. The minister, Mr. Hersey, questions the morality of her behavior. He is answered by her justification comparing the European colonists taking away the native's land in New England, though it isn't clear if he agrees fully, however it does seem to stop his attempts to make her see error in her ways.
To Build a Fire, the Jack London story, addresses morality in a much different way than the previous two stories. Man's ignorance and perhaps stubbornness is the antagonist in this story. The first moral question here is whether ignorance is moral or not when life is concerned. In this story there are a few sentient beings, the man, the dog, the man's colleagues, and the old man who warned him of the dangers of traveling alone in such bad weather and tough terrain. Ignorance is questioned, is it immoral to be ignorant while your life and the lives of others are at stake? Was it immoral for him to not heed the old man's warnings due to stubbornness and over-confidence, because his life and the life of the dog were both at stake?
In this story the definition of a moral absolute I provided earlier, "Moral absolution, regarding human relations, concerns actions and ideologies with a specific objective, which is the well-being of conscious creatures," is very relevant because the well-being of the man and the dog, both conscious creatures, though perhaps the dog's level of consciousness is much lower than the man's, are both at stake and the man's ignorant decisions end up causing him to die and most likely the dog as well. In this case the man's ignorance would be considered immoral.
When Jack London addresses the mind of the dog, he expresses it as instinctual thought and/or behavior. London also does the same with the man's thoughts and behavior. He compares two sentient beings, one evolved for this environment and one not, one who needs nothing but his own body to survive and one who requires tools. This is where Naturalism is very apparent. And therefore the questions remain: Is it immoral to be ignorant, to not purposely choose poorly, to not choose to cause harm, but to ignorantly make a choice, which in the end turns out to be fatal? Is it immoral to be ignorant and make a choice that causes another sentient creature to face danger – especially a creature that would instinctually make better choices on its own? Is not heeding the warnings of a local with more experience immoral? Not only did the man lose his life, but he also caused his colleagues to lose him.
To Build a Fire addresses the morality of the means. In this case it isn't a question of whether the end justifies the means, but rather should the means always adhere to a moral code regardless of the possible end result?









1