Talk:Literary realism

Mark Twain is a realist?
What about A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court and The Mysterious Stranger? Peterwshor (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * True. He could write fantasy too. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC).

Um?
"Howells is known for his wry humor and wit, as well as characters that seem so tangible that one ends his novels feeling as if one had made many new friends."

What?!

138.253.235.187 (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It does sound a bit out of place in an encyclopedia, doesn't it? -- 67.184.171.30 (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

seeds or precursors of literary realism from outside of Europe
I just wanted to write here and possibly submit for discussion that have formulated for myself an impression that, culturally, the Japanese people, during the Heian "classic literature" period of time (794-1185) may have in fact been the true precursors of the literary current known as realism in Europe earlier than the seeds of literary realism that author Jorge Luis Borges had opined that one could find in the Scandinavian sagas, (the earliest of which date from the year 930 in Iceland, and most of which date from 1190-1320).

I am not an expert, it is just an opinion I have formulated in time, alongside the opinion that, in general, Japanese authors seem to have been capable of writing insightfully and quite realistically about social & family relationships much earlier than the Europeans were.

161.4.82.7 (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sourced material on extra-European writing would be a welcome addition. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

Realism
The usage of realism is up for discussion, see Talk:Philosophical realism -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Literary realism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ww2.jhu.edu/foundations/?p=8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

After reviewing the article, here are some edits I think would be beneficial:

1. The introductory paragraph gets to the point swiftly and effectively, but I think the final sentence is random/to specific to be so early on in the article. 2. There is ample relevant content immediately beneath the "background" heading, but I think reorganizing the to have more similarly-sized paragraphs would be beneficial to the reader (this goes for most of the article - enhancing uniformity). 3. Removing "social realism," "socialist realism," and "naturalism" from beneath the "background" heading and providing a new one that indicates the discussion of sub-genres of literary realism would help solidify the topics. 4. Retitling "The novel" as "Realism in the Novel" & "American realism" as "In the United States" (also adding "In the" to other titles") would bring more cohesion and flow between subheadings/provide a better understanding for the reader as to what the purpose of the section is 5. Re-working "Europe" section to provide more context as to where the works are from (right now, it is a broad topic, with no distinction in the various details as to where the individual works are located) 6. Retitling "The theatre" to "Realism in the Theatre" for cohesion in relation to the "Realism in the Novel" subheading. Handrews.000 (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Definition of realism
I believe that the current definition of realism in the first paragraph is wrong. At least since post-structuralism, any references to truth in literature do not make any sense. I edited the section into the following: "Literary realism is a literary genre, part of the broader realism in arts, that that reaches the truth-effect by employing realistic aesthetic devices (...). Literary realism attempts to represent familiar things to create an impression of seeing the things "as they are." However, my change has been reverted. Can you put some valid arguments why the previous definition is better? Thank you. Sociological Fiction (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Opinions of individual editors count for little on Wikipedia. What are needed are reliable sources. I see that you have made only 5 edits to Wikipedia. You may wish to gain further experience before making significant changes to an important and well-established article. See if other editors support your views WP:Consensus. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC).
 * Thank you for the reaction, I am indeed more than happy to learn new things from more experienced users. I would naturally never make substantial changes based merely on my personal opinion. My resource is eight years of studying literary theory. But I can see if I will find a good citable source that can be included. Sociological Fiction (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The opening sentences of the article should be written as simply as possible so they are easily understood by people who have no prior exposure to the topic. Simple declarative sentences are best, and we should avoid obscure terms like 'truth-effect'. - MrOllie (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

modernism & central Europe
There could be more discussion of the movement from realism to modernism in central and eastern Europe. 2A01:598:C823:1683:E3A7:A5A:124A:4E62 (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Patrick White ?
isn't he late modernism? 2A01:598:C823:1683:E3A7:A5A:124A:4E62 (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Two technical problems
The closing double-quote mark in

give a scientific form to studying social and moral phenomena."

has no matching opening double-quote mark. There is no telling where that quoted material actually began.

Moreover, the sentence there that begins with:

The positivist spirit in science presupposes feeling contempt towards metaphysics, the cult of the fact, experiment and proof,

is very poorly written. One could easily read it to mean:

... presupposes feeling contempt towards metaphysics, contempt towards the cult of the fact, and contempt towards experiment and proof...

But of course it does not mean that. The apparent intent was:

... presupposes feeling contempt towards metaphysics, and presupposes the cult of the fact, and presupposes experiment and proof...

If that sentence is part of a verbatim quote (that began with the mysterious missing double-quote mark, as noted above), which is what it seems to be, then it cannot be changed. Otherwise, it should be rewritten. Toddcs (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)