Naturalism and Realism are very interesting and I’m pretty sure that they inspire endless debates about how are they different; even though I have a general understanding; I think we should go over them more in class.
The purpose of Realistic and Naturalistic literature is to write about real people, “replicate everyday reality” instead of just entertaining. However, I have never been too pleased reading this type of literature because it is most of the times depressing and like a labyrinth without exit. That is why I prefer fantasy, fiction, romance, action, poems, or what we have read in class before the short stories.
It is not that I do not like Bazan’s short stories, actually “El Legajo” is very interesting, and once I started the story I couldn’t put it down. It is just that Naturalist literature is most of the times the same.
I remember reading Latin American realist/naturalistic works and they were always the same: women get raped, or people can’t get out of their poverty and misery and if they do, then some loved ones will die and the misery is eternal.
:(
1 comment:
I agree they are both very interesting nd we should go over it in class a little more. I see what divides the two but sometime s when I am actually reading a story I have trouble picking out if it is naturalismo or realismo. It like I can define the two but when I see them in action the lines et blurred and i have to guess what kind of work I am reading. It's not like seprating a romantic story where things are clear cut and defined in the reading that jump out at you and scream romantisismo.
Post a Comment