Realist Writers’ Disapproval of Romantic Writing: Examining the Debate

Introduction

Realism and Romanticism are two distinct literary movements that originated in the late 18th century. Realism is characterized by its attention to detail, objectivity, and rejection of idealized notions of life. Romanticism, on the other hand, is characterized by its focus on emotion, imagination, and nature. Throughout history, there has been an ongoing debate between realist and romantic writers about the merits of each approach.

Examining the Realist Writers’ Disapproval of Romantic Writing

The debate between realist and romantic writers has been long-standing and intense. Realist writers, such as Gustave Flaubert and George Eliot, have expressed their disapproval of certain aspects of romantic writing. In order to understand their critique, it is important to consider what they objected to and how they responded to romantics.

What did Realists Object to?

Realists objected to many aspects of romantic writing, including its sentimentality, its idealization of characters, and its lack of realism. Realists argued that romantic writing was too focused on emotions and lacked a sense of reality. They also argued that romantic writing often idealized characters, portraying them as perfect beings rather than flawed individuals with flaws and imperfections. Finally, realists argued that romantic plots were often overly simplistic and lacked complexity.

How did Realists Respond to Romantics?

In response to the romantic writers, the realists sought to create a more realistic form of literature. They sought to portray characters as flawed individuals with human frailties and struggles. They also sought to create complex plots that explored the complexities of life. Realists also sought to avoid sentimentality and instead focus on the harsh realities of life.

How did Realist Writers Deny the Validity of Romantic Writing?

Realist writers denied the validity of romantic writing by arguing that it was too idealistic and lacked a sense of reality. They asserted that romantic writing was too focused on emotion and lacked an understanding of the complexities of life. Furthermore, they argued that romantic writing was often overly simplistic and lacked depth.

Comparing and Contrasting Realist and Romantic Writing

In order to better understand the debate between realist and romantic writers, it is important to compare and contrast their approaches to writing. While both movements share some similarities, there are key differences in their outlooks and styles.

Differences in Sentiments

One of the most notable differences between realist and romantic writing is their respective treatments of sentiment. Realists sought to avoid sentimentality in their writing, preferring to focus on the harsh realities of life. On the other hand, romantic writers embraced sentimentality, often focusing on the beauty and joys of life.

Differences in Characterization

Another key difference between realist and romantic writing is their respective treatments of characterization. Realists sought to portray characters as flawed individuals with human frailties and struggles. On the other hand, romantic writers often idealized characters, portraying them as perfect beings without any flaws or imperfections.

Differences in Plot

Finally, there are also differences in plot between realist and romantic writing. Realists sought to create complex plots that explored the nuances of life. On the other hand, romantic writers often created overly simplistic plots that lacked complexity.

Conclusion

The debate between realist and romantic writers has been long-standing and intense. Realist writers disapproved of certain aspects of romantic writing, particularly its sentimentality, its idealization of characters, and its lack of realism. By comparing and contrasting realist and romantic writing, it is clear that there are key differences in their respective outlooks and styles. Ultimately, the debate between realist and romantic writers has implications for modern readers, as it serves as a reminder that literature should reflect the complexities of life.