Talk:Naturalism (literature)

Criticisms

"Naturalism was criticized in the twentieth century by a whole host of Sauve Chronics What does this mean? --Krbrowning (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Naturalistic performance is often unsuitable when performing other styles of theatre, particularly older styles. For example, Shakespearean verse often requires an artificial acting style and scenography; naturalistic actors try to speak the lines as if they are normal, everyday speech, which often sounds awkward."

I tend to disagree with this. There is a definite move to use Stanislavskian approaches to characters from many old plays, especially Shakespeare.

--Lentorre 16:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The Stanislavskian approach can be applied, but it misses core aspects. Added some content to try to flesh that out. DionysosProteus 03:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin's Influence

'Naturalistic writers were influenced by the evolution theory of Charles Darwin.'

This might be true, but this sort of claim needs to be sourced from either naturalistic writers saying so, or at least critics that support this theory. Sfnhltb 18:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Williams citation, which covers it. Moved that section to top, as it applies equally to the other media. DionysosProteus 03:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was always under the impression Naturalism was more influenced by Spencerian Social Darwinism rather than Darwin's theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.246.177 (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The General Style?

The article makes the claim of literary naturalism: "As in film, naturalism is the general style." Besides being a gross overgeneralization, this is simply inaccurate, as Naturalism is superceded by a number of different styles in the early twentieth century. Naturalism, or at least elements of it, does continue to be used, but it would be difficult to argue that it is the dominant (or "general") literary mode, particulary given the prevalence of modernism, expressionism, magical realism, surrealism, postmodernism, etc. in the literature of the twentieth century (and continuing today). I would alter the article, but as I am relatively new to Wikipedia and don't understand the protocols, I thought I should let someone more experienced with Wikipedia make the changes.

Stub?

Considering what a large field naturalism is, this article could be considered a stub. Should I add the stub template? Yes.

--Bringa 18:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation?

The entire In the USA section is very similar to a copyrighted article in the Literary Encyclopedia. Note the abrupt end in the middle of a word.

64.83.234.164 17:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough focus on literature?

"As in film, naturalism is the general style".

Surely this article is coming at naturalism from the wrong angle, by explaining naturalist literature through naturalist film?

Naturalist literature devloped before films was even invented. Whether there's a coherent and clear link between the two media I don't know enough to say, but Zola is generally recognised as the father of naturalism in the mid 19th century, the 1860s or thereabouts. The article also focuses heavily on theatre and film but gives little coherant info on literature, the area which saw naturalism's initial developments.

Naturalism is NOT the general literary style: that would mean that in general most literature takes the approach that fate/behaviour/character is genetically or 'scientifically' pre-ordained, which I don't believe to be the case. --Chochotte 09:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar lines

"...opposed to such movements as Romanticism or Surrealism, in which subjects may receive highly symbolic, idealistic, or even supernatural treatment"

"...opposed to romanticism, in which subjects may receive highly symbolic, idealistic, or even supernatural treatment."

These two lines in the beginning of the article are almost identical. Is the second one really necessary? 81.226.252.221 (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack London

This guy is practically the epitome of American Naturalism, and he doesn't even get a mention or a link?

and French naturalism

"Most naturalists demonstrated a concern with the animal or the irrational motivations for human behavior, sometimes manifested in connection with sexuality and violence. Here they differed strikingly from their French counterparts."

Since most of the article is unreferenced, it seems pointless to call for a cite on this final sentence, and its not entirely clear which properties of French naturalism it refers to. But French naturalism (especially Zola) is full of sex and violence as well as the irrationalism of people driven by instinct, hereditary madness, and everything but human reason. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As well, the quote in French near the beginning of the "Defining Characteristics" section, "une vieille bique... ses os en pointe," remains untranslated. As such, it does nothing to explain a concept or support an argument for users who do not speak French. The quote should be followed by its English translation (since it appears in the English language edition of Wikipedia,) should itself be translated to English, or should be eliminated altogether. --Zacmea

Biased

The article is mainly focused on American naturalism, and forgets completely about for example, English writers such as Thomas Hardy and Spanish ones such as Vicente Blasco Ibáñez or Emilia Pardo Bazán. The article called Naturalism (theatre)is much better focused and the one corresponding to literature in general should follow that neutral tone. American naturalism, especially what corresponds to 20th century literature should probably have its own, separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauronicolini (talk • contribs) 22:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sould 'psychology' be added amoung this list 'determinism, detachment, scientific objectivism, and social commentary.'?

I wonder if the word psychology in a book talking and deffining what naturalism is.^[1] Maybe the 'psychology' can be added to the list mentioned above.--Der under Smurf (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Émile Zola. Nouvelles naturalistes (in French) (Classico Lycée ed.). Belin Gallimard. p. 109. ISBN 978-2-7011-6149-5. Dans leurs récits, ces auteurs s'intéressent aussi bien à l'esprit qu'au corps humain, cherchant à retranscrire à travers leurs personnages une vérité à la fois psychologique et physiologique.

[1] Émile Zola. Nouvelles naturalistes (in French) (Classico Lycée ed.). Belin Gallimard. p. 109. ISBN 978-2-7011-6149-5. Dans leurs récits, ces auteurs s'intéressent aussi bien à l'esprit qu'au corps humain, cherchant à retranscrire à travers leurs personnages une vérité à la fois psychologique et physiologique.

[1]