Realism

In a previous post I referred to a discussion in the weblog s1ngularities:criticism in which John Updike was quoted as saying that in the U.S. "realism is kind of our thing." The quote was in reference to Donald Barthleme and his supposed decline in influence, but I've looked up the Salon interview in question (it's actually quite an old one, going back to the pubication of In the Beauty of the Lilies) and Updike had actually mentioned both Barthelme and John Barth, remarking, in full, that "There are fads in critical fashion, but a writer at his peril strays too far from realism. Especially in this country, where realism is kind of our thing. Writing that gives you the real texture of how things look and how people acted. At least there's something there beyond your self and your own wits to cling to, a certain selflessness amid the terrible egoism of a writer."

Updike doesn't necessarily speak contemptuously of either Barthleme or Barth, and if they were "out of fashion" in 1996, they are indeed even more so now. However, Updike's assertion that "realism is kind of our thing" is simply wrong. It can't stand up to an analysis of American literary history in any way.

I'm not sure that Updike's own fiction validates a statement like this one, in fact. Certainly his work represents an effort to give "the real texture of how things look and how people acted," but a number of his books defy the label "realism" in any meaningful sense of the term: The Centaur, The Coup, The Witches of Eastwick, Brazil, S, most recently Toward the End of Time. Furthermore, Updike's sinuous prose style is probably not what most people have in mind when they think of "realistic" storytelling.

Much of the most important American fiction fits more comfortably into the the category of "romance" than realism. (The term goes back to the medieval narrative form, and doesn't have any connection to the modern "romance novel.") Hawthorne famously set out the terms in which the romance is to be understood in his preface to The House of the Seven Gables: "When a writer calls his work a Romance. . .he wishes to claim a certain latitude, both as to its fashion and material"; this "latitude" allows him to present the "truth" of human experience "under circumstances, to a great extent, of the writer's own choosing or creation" and to "manage his atmospherical medulm as to bring out or mellow the lights and deepen and enrich the shadows of the picture."

Going back to the beginnings of American fiction, "romance" would thus encompass the work of Charles Brockden Brown (often identified as the first important American novelist), Washington Irving, James Fenimore Cooper, Hawthorne, Melville, much of Twain, the later Henry James, Faulkner, Ellison, Flannery O'Connor, Malamud, much of the later Roth, and, in my opinion, almost all of the writers called "postmodern." Of the "great" American writers, only Crane, the earlier James, Edith Wharton, Dreiser, Steinbeck and Hemingway could plausibly be called "realists." (And there are those who think the latter would more aptly be called a "symbolist" rather than a realist.) Currently the followers of Raymond Carver or Richard Yates might fit the description.

Perhaps it's just that the term "realism" gets tossed around much too lightly, used to signal other assumptions about what fiction ought to do: tell dramatic stories, create sympathetic characters, depict current social conditions, reflect "life" as most readers would recognize it. If so, I can't believe Updike actually thinks that this kind of "realism" is either fiction's "proper" mode or that most readers actually do prefer fiction that really, truly, tells the "truth" about human existence or the common lot of most people in our beloved U.S. of A. In my somewhat jaded opinion, most readers still want "escapist" literature--to the extent they want literature at all--that nevertheless doesn't stray too far from ordinary experience. American "literary" writers have really never provided them with this, so the test of how many people are reading a given writer at a certain time is wholly irrelevant.

Having said all this, I like much realist fiction perfectly well. Flaubert is a great writer, as is Chekhov, as is James, as is, in a much different way, Thomas Hardy. If the complaint is that current writers don't write like these folks, well, few writers could. If it's that writers like Bartheleme or Barth don't write conventional narratives with "real" people and identifiable "themes," then it's really a complaint that serious fiction doesn't remain static and hidebound. This is not Updike's complaint, but it's one I hear often enough.

For a much fuller treatment of the romance tradition I've sketched out here, see Richard Chase's The American Novel and Its Tradition, one of the books I listed in a previous post ("On Reserve") as among the ten critical works with which all serious readers should be familiar. That such books have fallen into obscurity is itself perhaps one of the reasons many people misunderstand what the history of American literature actually shows us--and thus what many contemporary writers are actually up to.

Comments

[cortney]

I was just curious.... what EXACTLY is psychological realism?? I'm writing a paper on Joyce Carol Oates's "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" and the psychological realism that is present throughout the story, but I'm having slight difficulties considering the fact that I don't have an EXACT idea of what psychological realism is. If you could help me out, that would be great!! Thank You.

[Daniel Green]

In saying "supposed" I was really only referring to Updike's own perception that Barthelme had fallen out of favor.

Actually, "psychological realism" is already a departure from the kind of realism that Updike describes. It introduces an element of the subjective that allows for some of the "latitude" Hawthorne wants. James was himself greatly influenced by Hawthorne, and no more so than in his later work, where this subjective element comes to predominate almost exclusively.

By "symbolist" here I mean that the depiction of outward "reality" becomes secondary to the figurative or symbolic possibilities of literature--almost as if the story could be treated as a poem rather than a documentary account of experience.

As to O'Connor, think of Wise Blood. Would we really want to say that her primary goal in this book is "realism"--the objective "look of things," etc.?

Finally, thank you for your own piece on Barthelme. I only wish I had come across your site sooner.

[Trent Walters]

Mr. Daniel Green,

Thank you for responding to the article. I'm flattered.

I liked your point about romance--a term that fell into disuse once it referred to a pulp category.

I also liked your point about Updike's own fiction. I would surmise that Updike's response, since Updike probably realized this, would be that he felt he had strayed from realism at his peril and suffered the consequences...? Just a conjecture.

Malamud didn't always stray from realism. I haven't read all of Malamud to say, but some of his work did. I can't think of any non-realistic O'Connor or Faulkner off the top of my head, but they may have written a story or two. Even "A Rose for Emily" seems highly realistic to me, but then you may have had to grow up in a small town to feel its texture.

I would probably agree with Updike's definition of realism. In fact, I assumed we all shared this definition and didn't bother to quote it. I'm not sure how prose style could affect a story's depiction of the "texture" of reality if the words are doing so. Maybe you have an example in mind? I'm not sure how usage of symbols could affect realism, either, unless the symbols take on such a prominence that the story fails to give "you the real texture of how things look and how people acted." Do you see realism as a no-frill depiction of reality? without symbols or stylistic nuances?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Flaubert is a great writer, as is Chekhov, as is James.... If the complaint is that current writers don't write like these folks, well, few writers could." Putting aside James' ghost stories, which some might describe as a psychological realism anyway, I might say that you almost could not have picked three more influential nineteenth century authors on our modern usage of realism. Or is that what you were trying to say?

A minor quibble:

You wrote: "The quote was in reference to Donald Barthleme and his supposed decline in influence, but..."

This intimates (perhaps I read too much into the statement?) that the use of the quote was misplaced in its reference. But, if you meant this, it was not. The discussion I pulled it from was all about the "holding-up" of writers of Updike's generation and Updike queried the interviewer regarding Barthelme. You're right, of course, that Updike does admit to liking some of Barth's work although his feelings about Barthelme remain in question, either way (at least in this interview).

Thanks for your article. Fascinating stuff. I look forward to reading more of your insights.

Take care.

Trent

[Daniel Green]

I'm very interested to hear that younger writers are rediscovering both Barthelme and Barth. Barth's many books are not uniformly at the same high level of accomplishment, but his best work is good indeed.

[Maud]

Actually, I think both Barthelme and Barth are enjoying renewed respect and adulation among more experimental younger writers--at least among those of my acquaintance. Interesting dissection of the "realist" construct, though.