People always compare realism with romanticism, argue that realism is what really happened and romanticism is about somehow fantasy. However, is it really true? I think this argue only rough limited both realism and romanticism. Things may work in different ways. I believe that realism is what we can tell from what we see.  Realism has been sharped so much by realism novelist. They tied to sharp the story that through it more reality would be reflected.  Then realism was limited by itself.

Elaine Freedgood had mentioned in her article Nineteenth-century British critics of realism realism novel were strong relied on characters. There must be some characters that are stand out so that the story can go on. But in realistic, there were not many resources for those realism novelists to write. At the same time, realism novelists were keeping sharping their story. Being loyal to realistic had been the biggest barrier for the novelist.  George Eliot had complained about the appalling lacking of empirical veracity purveyed.

Then Eliot opened up a paradox about fiction. Fiction may or may not reflect the reality. In another word, in fiction, there isn’t gap between aesthetic and realistic. But Eliot refused to accept the “arbitrary picture” that represent things as they never have been and never will be. George Eliot saw his work as Dutch painting that he delighted very much. Painting should be a mirror-like work present every sight that people can capture. He knew that the truth might be ugly and tough. But people shall do nothing but accept.

On the other hand, Eliot refused to be a “folly woman novelist”. He wanted the unexpected to do something unexceptional.