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.