Freedgood compares Realist novel writing to testifying under oath: the experience the novelist writes about, the experience of reading and understanding the text has to be as true and legitimate as swearing under oath. She is aware of the distortions of perception when representing a character and she has faith in what she knows is truly there. For instance, when she brings up the example of the dressmaker, she is essentially bringing this character to life by automatically making her readers associate the dressmaker as part of the dressmaking community, which comes with it’s own stereotypes and identities that fit a certain class, gender group, social status (occupation).

When she speaks further about Realism, she mentions that fiction may not be the true or accurate representation of reality but it paints a picture and gives us an idea of the meaning and symbols we encounter in our life, sentimental truth.

Vernon Lee says that aesthetic questions lead to ethical ones, something deeper. Although aesthecs can be tweaked and distorted, it gives us a deeper understanding and meaning in to the truth and reality, as seen in British cultural works.

Realism is supposed to teach the readers about the world by experiencing it through different mediums. She believes through a clear, realistic lens is the most effective way of doing so.

Realism was also a form of social change. Since multimedia wasn’t around then, the genre of Realism was a way of communicated and being in touch with issues the world faced during that time. Dickens was a great novelist who wrote about Britian’s poverty population. Many others also wrote for social change: Margaret Oliphant for womens rights, Oscar Wildes who wrote texts with themes of sexuality, and later on Eliot, for the existence of the Israeli state.

Realism contrasts Romanticism. Instead of fantasy and miracles, the Realist writes on ordinary, relatable events by combining the visual, psychological and the social to create verisimilitude- something representing reality.

Like Jane Eyre, Eliot’s novel represents the underlying reality and truth of the time, maybe her own story. But the writer has to find that balance between the reality and the representation or visual.

Interesting that Realism was the “competition” of photography. As photographs depicted this instant, very real snapshot in time, so does Realism. Through writing, Realists paint very vivid pictures of society.

Eliot switches the narration of her novel from a tale of Adam Bede to reality, which sort of jolts the reader of this book, forcing them to detach themselves from the tale and snap back into this objective reality and understanding that these issues are present and prominent

She felt it was crucial to clarify her opinions on controversial subjects occurring during the time period. She writes this chapter as a break in her book to explain the literary method of Realism, which she plans to tell the truth about people instead of romanticizing or creating a fantasy about them, a way to digress from emotion.

She calls out the reader for wanting these made up stories of characters that don’t exist, all with perfect scenarios and happy endings. By bringing the reader away from her novel and back to reality for a chapter, it forces them to realize that life isn’t this perfect moral fairytale.

This reminds me of the society we live in and how social media is very similar to the issues Eliot addresses in this chapter. These days, much of our entertainment (Snapchat, Instagram and Facebook) is circled around photography. The thing is, we post what we want our “friends” to see. Our pictures are heavily edited, to make others believe that our lives are perfect, fun and beautiful.

Like realism, we publish content for the public/ for an audience to look at. Eliot states that instead of depicting her characters and their situations as perfect molds that will please society, she shows them as real people. This is exactly what we do with social media today, which is why I find the notion of Realism very interesting and relevant to our day.

As Elaine Freedgood explains in Nineteenth-century British critics of Realism, the realist art movement sought to represent the modern state of society.  Unlike Romanticism which promotes boundless imagination and embellishment of figures, Realism is “responsible for representing social and individual experience as it really occurs in the world outside the novel” (326 Freedgood).  Since the novel became the vehicle through which reality was portrayed, fiction became integrated with reality.  Fiction was no longer strictly the product of writer’s imaginations, but rather “a portrait of the kinds of man and the kinds of things that the author has encountered and encountered regularly” (327).

In Adam Bete, George Eliot declares her commitment to realism in the following lines “my strongest effort is to…give a faithful account of men and things as they have mirrored themselves in my mind.  The mirror is doubtless defective…but I feel as much bound to tell you as precisely as I can what that reflection is, as if I were in the witness-box narrating my experience on oath” (Eliot, Chapter 17 pg 1)  In these lines, Eliot recognizes the limits of realism by acknowledging how her personal perceptions might distort the way in which she represents reality.  Additionally, as writers select which parts to include or exclude in writing they fall short from representing reality as it actually is.  Nevertheless, Eliot reassures readers that her first and foremost purpose is to be as truthful as if she were testifying under oath.  Ultimately, writers attempt to get as close to representing reality within their own frameworks.

Considering realism should reflect reality as closely as possible, it could be argued that one of its limits lies in mundaneness.  This becomes apparent in when Eliot argues how she delights in Dutch paintings.  Many could dismiss these works as uninteresting and take a similar view as the ‘idealistic friend’ who states “what vulgar details! What good is there in taking all these pains to give an exact likeness of old women and clowns? (Page 3).  While these characters could be made a lot more interesting with a simple stroke of a pen, that isn’t the goal.  Eliot argues that those rules should not be imposed on writers.  She proposes that beauty can also be found in the often flawed nature of the everyday man and woman.

Two major takeaways I had from the first section of the reading where the British critics discussed the flaws of realism were the criticism from the audience on works that showed the harsh reality of society and life and also the limitations of realism depending on what medium the work was being communicated from. One sentence that really struck me concerning Dickens’s work was “Dickens was roundly castigated by critics for a too-lively depiction of the ‘haunts, deeds, language, and characters of the very dregs of the community’ in Oliver Twist: it is ‘a hazardous experiment to exhibit to the young these enormities’, Richard Ford complained in the Quarterly Review” (328). The reason this quote alarmed me was because critics at the time were seemingly berating authors for depicting the negatives of society in a realistic manner and in a way wanted to hide the horrors of society away from the people who weren’t affected by them. How can there be positive change if people don’t even know what is happening around them to those that are less fortunate than them? George Eliot also addresses this during her personal statement in chapter 17 of Adam Bede when she says, “It is so very rarely that facts hit that nice medium required by our own enlightened opinions and refined taste” (1)! Eliot is trying to make it clear that rarely do the real conditions and facts of society appeal to everybody meaning that each person has their own views or moral opinions, and it is impossible for a piece of work to appease all the members of the audience. It is necessary to have honest depictions of the social class especially those that are at the bottom of the social class in order to make people aware of what is happening to others surrounding them instead of ignoring it altogether.

The 19^th Century British critics of realism also claim that depictions of society during the Realist period “must necessarily be limited by the nature of its medium; the canvas of the painter, the chords of the musician, and the language of the writer” (330). I found this point made by the critics to be quite appalling because when did one medium every capture all that was going on in society during a specific time period. Different forms of art whether it be a painting, novel, or piece of music have always had their own unique ways of reaching out to the audience, conveying their messages differently. Eliot also later mentions in her address that paintings like “The Prayer of the Spinner” by Gerard Dou might be plain or boring to those at the upper echelons of society, but it appeals to those that are not so fortunate to be born rich or a noble because it reflects their daily experiences in life. These two readings sort of reflect our society today because many people tend to ignore facts or conditions of other people around them and seem to only be interested in things that appeal to them or benefit them directly instead of being open to critical issues that are occurring around them.

As Realism became more popular, people started to rely on it’s non-fiction qualities. Much to the contrary of past works, such as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, this type of literature focused on the way things really were. Novels were now composed of ideas that were not far-fetched, and readers became better able to relate to what they were reading. In addition, as part of being ‘real’ people were now able to get a better grasp of what the world around them was like. Interestingly, after comparing the ideas of Elaine Freedgood in her scholarly overview regarding Realism titled: “Nineteenth-centruy British critics of Realism” with an excerpt of George Eliot’s “Adam Bede”, I have observed that Realism is not without it’s own unique drawbacks.

Freedgood provides us with a great understanding of what Realism is all about, and how it can be used. She mentions that “The Realistic novelist was something of a sociologist and news reporter, a chronicler of the present and recent past, …” Eliot seems to agree, and they both continue to discuss how people relied on Realism and its style as a method of obtaining news and knowledge of current events. The two authors also seem to agree that authors from this time period worked very hard to show what is going on, and not add dramatic additions to make the story better: “So I am content to tell my simple story, without trying to make things seem better than they were;” (Eliot).

While obtaining news and ideas from the Realism method may seem to be appropriate, Eliot provides a very important flaw in the Realist method. She explains that she will explain things: “… as they have been mirrored in my mind. The mirror is doubtless defective…”. In other words, Eliot is acknowledging that (unlike in our media format where we can see video of events) what she is discussing is simply based off of how she mirrored the event, and the effect it had on her. In essence, the Realist form of writing is simply only an explanation of the event or idea as seen and interpreted by the author, and not by the reader. Readers of these Realist texts are simply learning about them through the frame of reference of the author.

While this may not seem to be a major issue at first, we can think of the game ‘broken telephone’ as an extreme example of just how limiting such texts can be. Similar to the aforementioned game, in which one relies on the information provided to them to inform another person of the occasion, facts and ideas in the Realist form can easily be misunderstood or misstated unintentionally. For instance, one author may hear a speech or see a sight and think of a certain time period while a person right next to them will see the same thing and think of a very different time period. If both observers were to write about what they feel, chances are readers would hear two contrasting accounts of the event. Being that most people during this time period would let these writings influence them, Realism could potentially result in a very confused society.

The Nineteenth-century British critics of Realism, written by Elaine Freedgood, brings to light the differences of Realism and Romanticism. By understanding this reading, and the notion of Realism, we can better grasp, Adam Bede by George Eliot. Fiction is inexorably linked to embellishment and fairytale endings while, “realism is responsible for representing social and individual experience as it really occurs in the world outside the novel” (326, Freedgood). This idea can be seen in Adam Bede as the author dedicates an entire chapter of her book explaining the realness of the character, Mr. Irwine. George Eliot believes that Realism is a much harder form of writing as she states, “falsehood is so easy, truth is so difficult” (2, Eliot). Even though writing in this way may prove more challenging a task, the fact that the ideals are down to earth make the message of the story much stronger. It is one thing to read a Romanticism story and derive a message out. It is a whole other understanding of Realism that enables the ability to empathize with real world situations that many of us encounter on a day to day basis. I believe it is important to move our youth away from the fictitious lies that Disney presents, as it skews our ideas of beauty and happiness. There are many figures in our lives worth looking up to as Eliot says, “I believe there have been plenty of young heroes, of middle stature and feeble beards, who have felt quite sure that they could never love anything more insignificant than a Diana, and yet have found themselves in middle life happily settled with a wife who waddles” (2, Eliot). Eliot is demonstrating that ordinary people with simple lives are often happy. We do not need to go beyond or own encounters to write a powerful and moving story.

Realism does have limitations when it comes to telling a story. These constraints mainly reside in the aesthetics. When a story is told with grandeur features, sure it is entertaining, but it is not real. The mundane, in Freedgood’s mind, is where a story truly prospers as she says, “the novelist must be true to her own experience of the world: a lack of such fidelity is a fictional sin of vast proportions” (326, Freedgood). Though not explicitly said, Freedgood is hinting at the notion that in order to convey important messages, the story has to be something you can sympathize with. In doing so, the reader has the ability of coping with the protagonist in every journey that he or she undergoes. Simplicity is beauty as Eliot suggests, “the world is not just what we like; do not touch it up with a tasteful pencil, and make believe it is not quite such a mixed entangled affair” (1, Eliot). Embroidering stories with frequent occurrences of lucky happenstance takes away from the importance of a story. The tale soon becomes foreign and unrelatable. While Realism takes away from the aesthetics of a story, it also adds the most important element, sympathy.

As you saw in your readings for class today, a wide range of nineteenth-century writers experimented with just how close fiction could come to depicting real life. Nowhere is this more true than in the form of the novel, which gained increasing popularity and prestige in this period. But realism as a mode of fiction was not without its challengers. Some critics objected that literature always introduced distortions when depicting life; others worried that social realists, who claimed to document existing realities, ended up shaping those conditions with their prose. (Along these lines, you may recall our discussion of Abolitionist literature when we discussed Harriet Jacobs’s non-fictional account; here, of course, writers and supporters hoped literature could effect social change and even large-scale political reform.)

Victorian Realism readings

For this assignment, read the pages at the link above: first, a scholarly overview of the debate surrounding realism in Britain, and second, one chapter from the novel Adam Bede, by the British novelist George Eliot, in which she directly discusses her theory of realism and its effects. The chapter stands out from its context, but you should feel free to consult a synopsis if you’re interested.

In a post of your own (of roughly 500 words), due Thursday, make an argument that brings the two readings into conversation with each other. You may focus on any issue you like, but you may consider one of the following questions: what are realism’s limits (either aesthetically or socially)? what do you make of Eliot’s mixture of fiction and literary criticism in this chapter? why do you think Eliot compares her literary method to painting (in particular Dutch scenes like the one below)? how does realism intersect with the depiction of religion or religious subjects? how does realism intersect with the representation of social class?

Again, you can pursue any subtopic you find interesting as you read, but try to stay focused and make a case for a connection you see between the two readings. When discussing the readings, be sure to quote evidence from them and cite accurately. Be sure, also, to give your post an engaging title and to proofread the post carefully.

You’ll be contacted about readings for next week later this week. Happy Spring!

Gerard Dou, The Prayer of the Spinner

Both Harriet Jacob’s Incidents In The Life of a Slave Girl and Fredrick Douglass’s speech “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” illustrate a perspective that those who haven’t endured slavery cannot ever understand. This perspective is one that shows readers or listeners that they have never been through something as dehumanizing and traumatizing as those who have endured slavery–a way of life that doesn’t let a human feel like they will ever be treated as anything more than property. Slaves are people that are treated like they will never have the right to be a human, which illustrates a mentality that still kills thousands due to racism, discrimination and scapegoating. Both Harriet and Fredrick were strong enough to take a stand against these horrors by telling the truth as to what really went on, from their own perspectives that were painful to even hear or read. The Seneca Falls Declaration is a little different, as it is about women’s rights, predominantly, from a white woman’s perspective.

I have to say that even though it hurts to hear Fredrick’s perspective on an entirely different viewpoint of Independence Day, as a woman, I was much more outraged and touched by Harriet Jacob’s writings that emphasized how especially hard it was to be a female slave. Every single thing she did was a sacrifice–something she did to avoid something worse from happening, often just due to fear that her owner would sexually abuse her to a worse and worse extent than had occurred already. A woman who had to endure torturous labor, her story is touching because it also tells the terror that a woman has to go through in order to maintain her own dignity. This illustrates why The Seneca Falls Declaration is relevant, however, it is only from a white female’s perspective. These white women, although abolitionists, cannot relate to the horrors that slave women had to deal with–as they were women who were treated like nothing but property. The white women complain about things like, “He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns,” however that’s the least of the problems that enslaved women  have faced–they aren’t even entitled to earing!

The fact that Linda had to fabricate a love for her neighbor just to avoid further sexual abuse from her owner shows the extent an enslaved woman has to go through in order to avoid the worst. She had to put herself in a situation that made her uncomfortable, and made her use her body with another man in order to compensate for an abuse that was not consensual–the only thing worse at this point.

Frederick Douglas’s work is different because he speaks from the perspective of any slave–thirsting for freedom and the ability to feel like he is entitled to feel independence on Independence Day. He thirsts to feel like he lives in a nation that is seen as superior because of how much liberty it grants to its citizens. However, this is true for every single slave, whereas Harriet’s point was that slavery is a hundred times harder for a woman. “Slavery is terrible for men; but it is far more terrible for women. Superadded to the burden common to all, they have wrongs, and sufferings, and mortifications peculiarly their own,” she said in chapter XIV.

There are hundreds of things a woman has to deal with in addition to the problems that Fredrick spoke of. The fear of sexual abuse forced Harriet to tweak every single thing she did in her life– she had to live in an even more debilitating fear. She had to live in the fear of her children being unsafe without her, and her daughter one day being abused the way she has been.

It seemed as though Fredrick’s complaints as a slave were complaints of a system that was botched, however Harriet proved the same point through a heartbreaking story. She used her blood, sweat and tears to explain not just what she wishes she was entitled to, but she forced us to identify even further with details as to her pain and suffering. She didn’t tell us that her life was unfair, she showed us what she went through in order to paint the pictures of injustice in our heads. The way she told this story was absolutely remarkable, and it is no surprise to me that this book was so controversial and unbelievable to thousands.

Back to the days at the 19^th century, a great movement of civil rights was taking place. For the rights that all the creatures are equal, people fought and blood was involved. At this great time, some people decided to stand up to against the slavery for those who are not trodden fairly. Harriet Jacobs, Frederick Douglass, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott are typically who would like to go in front of people and represent their will. At the time of the 1800s, to speak for slavery is not as easy as now on. Without a firm belief, no one can make it along with tremendous pressure at that society. Though, as all great activists, they used slightly different ways to inspire people.

Harriet Jacobs used to a slave, or in another word, she was born as slaved. Thus she had been through everything but keeping a mind of liberty. The time she had been suffered urged her to tell the story of her to everyone who didn’t fully understand what is the situation. So she tried to talk to her audiences like they are all together in a table. The narrative she adopted was to get close to her readers. In her book, she had many times to directly address to readers. She wanted to grab audiences’ attention. Also, she was very subjective when she talked about someone. Compare to others, Harriet Jacobs would more occasionally apply her own judgment in her narrative. Hence, rather than writing a novel, she was more like telling a story of her. It makes her personal experience more attractive.

Frederick Douglass also, as an African-American, had suffered a lot. But he used a way more intense tension to address his anger. He complained the society. He was reminding people when you are having your rejoice there were people who are suffering from pain in somewhere else. It can not be ignored. He tried to deliver his voice. In Rochester New York, he awoke the audiences that Negro are supposed to have the same rejoice as well as white. So he shouts out and confronts people where are you when we are suffering. Every word he spelled was strong and powerful.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, as two female American activists in the movement of abolishing, spoke to female no matter you are black or white. They didn’t have to be emotional but simply listed the facts between men and women. It may not contain a lot of intense but as strong as Douglass. The speech that Stanton and Mott gave was a declaration of women’s right that they naturally supposed to have. It crystal cleared told their appeal.

Actually, no matter in what way they used. They all very well delivered one central idea that all lives matter. People are supposed to have what they deserved.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucrecia Mott in the Declaration of Sentiments make a direct case for extending rights to women by alluding to an important written work in American history, the US Declaration of Independence.  The fact that the words used are taken right out from the original makes it easier to understand and relate to their grievances.  At the sound of the familiar introduction, the audience will easily recall the fight for independence from British rule.  Once the audience hears the first alterations, “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men and women are created equal;…” the piece takes on a new light.  Now, men must consider if these rights also apply to women.  As the declaration goes on, the men are established as the oppressors.  This strikes a deep chord, considering how recently the United States has gained its sovereignty – plus no one wants to be compared to a tyrant.  The writers deliberately put men on the spot and make them consider whether they have in fact committed the injuries laid out.  As much as the declaration is used to protest fair treatment, Stanton and Mott also want men to be introspective and understand these wrongdoings.

Frederick Douglass’ “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” address makes use of an array of stylistic and rhetorical techniques.  In the video rendition, James Earl Jones fires four consecutive rhetorical questions.  Two impactful ones include“ What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us?”  The blatant answers to the questions ‘nothing‘ and a resounding ‘no’, is intended to make the audience uncomfortable at the state of affairs and to raise urgency for the abolitionist movement.  The fact that Douglass also alludes to the Declaration of Independence, also brings to the surface that abolishing slavery doesn’t cut it – demanding the same rights be granted to free men and women.  Near the end, Douglass also uses hyperbole “For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake” to stress that “scorching irony” and not “convincing argument” is needed to rouse the nation into action.

Harriet Jacobs Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl is unique in that it offers a detailed account of the atrocities faced as a slave woman.  Jacobs’ first person narrative does a spectacular job of appealing to abolitionist women since her experiences in family, motherhood, and power struggle between Dr. Flint are all relatable.  Although she makes no allusions to the Declaration of Independence, Jacobs addresses issues occurring during her lifetime including figures like Nat Turner and the Fugitive Slave Law.  By doing so, she makes the more “fictional” aspects of her life more realistic.  In chapter 29, Jacobs seems to discredit her own work when she writes “I hardly expect that the reader will credit me…”(122) which I feel does a slight disservice even though she follows up with “But it is a fact”.  She seems to do this again in page 91 “Some will call it a dream…” By taking away these superstitious scenes and firmly asserting these events readers of her time may have found it less fictional.

In Monday’s discussion, intersectionality plays a huge role in Harriet Jacobs narrative. Intersectionality being “individuals are subject to a number interconnected social categories” race and gender just to name a few. In other words, one individual being opressed some how. Jacobs intended audience at the time of her novel being written was for white northern women. So they can understand the pain, from not just women to women but the unfairness on their part as being the slave owners wives, the fact that they not just treat women very poorly but as well don’t give respect to their own wives since they are sleeping with female slaves. Jacobs writes about her experiences and incounters throughtout all the years she was a slave. When reading both Frederick Douglass “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July” as well as “Seneca Falls Declaration” I couldn’t help but find some similarities. Starting with Douglass’ piece. He discusses how the fourth of july is something joyful to WHITE AMERICANS only. “The fourth of july is yours not mine, you may rejoice, I mourn.” It is an obvious statement when I say that African Americans were not treated like whites. They basically had no say in society in any type of way or form. He at first gives the founding fathers their credit for what they have done before he talks about the reality. He claims that what the founding fathers have made to be the founding principles are indeed being acted against. This is all a matter of hypocrisy. Just by the title of his speech, reminded to Jacobs narrative, in chapter three, titles “The Slaves New Years Day” in which she would describe how on New Years would be the day where they as in the slaves, would be traded and brought. This day was a day they would dred of course but to the slave owners a good day for them as they brought more slaves that they can prey and take advantage of. Both, shows how a day that is meant for everyone to enjoy and celebrate is in realty, a pity party. In the Seneca Falls Confernece, we see a little of the declaration of independence, talking about equality for all but it also points out how women are apart of those equal rights and how they should be respected in society. As said before, Jacobs audience was for women. White women. As you may have heard, when “We the  people” was written it may have only meant “We the white people” In Jacobs narrative, its clear that women of color would have no say since they were slaves. But the word women doesn’t exclude anyone, its ALL women. This was written by two anti slavery activsts. All three texts go together because they all have to do with white men having more authority and say over everyone else.