Portraying horrible events clearly

[musenji]

I've read the first two chapters of Romantic Manifesto, and am familiar with Rand's idea of Romantic Realism: portraying life as it might be and ought to be, through a selective recreation of reality.

Does the qualifier of "life as it might be and ought to be" automatically preclude clearly portraying horrible things? At first I would've said "That's naturalism, and selective naturalism of the worst kind. The artist is in essence saying, 'This horrible thing is what is important about life.'"

But now I wonder whether it could fall under her definition of Romantic Realism if the horrible event wasn't "obviously" horrible to everyone, and the artist wanted to make clear how horrible it was. In this case the artist is saying, in essence: "In a perfect world, it would be obvious to everyone that this event/thing was/is evil. It is important that people see this horrible thing for what it is."

Thoughts? Would We the Living qualify as portraying a horrible thing (Communist Russia) for the sake of showing people who were ignorant, what it was really like?

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The setting can be awful. The focus is on the people *in* the setting and how they respond. Rand always wrote about magnificent people--her protagonists--in the settings. (Mind you there were pretty awful people there too. Sonia, Toohey, and too many to count in AS)

[AMERICONORMAN]

There is a difference between Romanticism and Romantic-realism in fiction. First though, the difference between romanticism and naturalism in fiction is the metaphysical outlook of the total, whether the artist can succeed in communicating such an outlook clearly. In naturalism the author presents a world in which men are pushed forward by some non-volitional means, biology, fate, emotions, etc. In romanticism the men are pulled by their own values, there is something they are after.

So in naturalism, an author is satisfied by averaging out the types of men as he has observed them in experience, that is the key. Whether they are not killed at the end is a different matter. In romanticism an author looks at the men he has observed in his own experience but decides to present men according to more fundamental standards such as philosophy, and will focus on unusual types of men that are not typically observed in the real world. Men CAN act this way for these motives, even if none I have observed have ever done so. But why be limited to experience only when you have the power of philosophy and ethics to draw characters more readily, hence one is guided by the ought to be or ought NOT to be.

How well a writer succeeds at presenting a universe by the total work in which men are governed by free will will classify him as a romantic.

A romantic realistic is concerned with the men and issues of his own time. As far as I have come to understand it, romantic realism cannot be set in the distant past. I have never encountered it in the specimens available. Ayn Rand is a romantic-realist but has never set anything in the past. I think with Hugo we only have Les Miserables and Toilers of the Sea (the latter I forget when exactly it is set). Joseph Conrad does set his works in his own time and writes about the issues of his own time. Dostoevsky, I can't recall exactly. Put yourself in the position of the reader: it will be more valuable to him to have a romantic story set in his time dealing with the issues that concern him or are really affecting society, for example slavery and monarchy are universal issues but do not concern us today. The author himself is the ultimate consumer though, and it is of more value to the author to re-create a better world in a novel set in his own time.

The question arises: if you are romantic you will tend to write about universal philosphic issues--if they are universal issues then they apply always--so why set them in the past?

This doesn't mean that an writer must only write works set in his own time. If no one has ever written a great romantic work set during the American Revolution then it is perfectly valid to set one in that period, for example, and there must be countless of other examples.

In today's world the most important thing that we need is Romanticism in the context of Romanticism versus Romantic-Realism. So I encourage the world to becomes romantic artists.

Edited September 14, 2008 by AMERICONORMAN

[musenji]

Thanks for the replies...I fail to see how the issue of time period setting in a novel relates to the subject of the thread...

But you did bring up what I think I was essentially going for: can Romantic Realism be a portrayal of what ought NOT to be, given that it is clear why that is so? It still is Romantic in that it assumes man's volition, but it serves as a warning sign instead of a positive ideal.

[edit] Actually, I'm reading on in the Romantic Manifesto, and I think the answer is probably "no". If "an artist re-creates those aspects of reality which represent his fundamental view of man and of existence (p. 81)," and the primary purpose of the artist is not communication of his view but rather bringing "his view of man and of existence into reality (p. 45)," then to fully illustrate his view that man has volition and is capable of achieving success, the artist has to show man achieving success.

But does this mean that any work of literature with a tragic ending is therefore not Romantic Realism?

Edited September 16, 2008 by musenji

[softwareNerd]

... can Romantic Realism be a portrayal of what ought NOT to be, ...

Like Dostoevsky?

[AMERICONORMAN]

Ayn Rand projects a universe that is benevolent, happy, fulfilling, grand, etc. A very positive place. But such is not the way we find our present time, such is not how Ayn Rand found her time, such is not how the men living during the World Wars found there time. If one had to look at the world one could not say that it was mostly a great place, to say it was would not be being realistic. So how can Ayn Rand dare to call herself a Realist?

Because happiness, success, fulfillment is observable within the souls of individuals. There may not be many but it is possible, it possible theoretically in all men because a rational code of values is possible to all men, though few men achieve it. It is her philosophy or sense of life that allows her to call herself a realist in conjunction with being a romantic.

The naturalists are born from the realism of Balzac and Flaubert and they record a dark view of their time and they write about their time. There main focus is to be journalists and to be true to "reality". But Ayn Rand sees something different than them whe she looks at reality, especially within her own soul. Naturalists, for good or for bad, do not believe that men are in control of their destinies, they say so explicitly. A romantic shows the value choices and consequent choices of action that men make, for good or for bad.

Roskolnikov (Crime and Punishment) is clearly driven by himself and his mistaken explicit philosophy. Do you know what is the final final fate of Roskolnikov, and do you know whether he is responsible for that final fate? Is it good or is it bad? Dostoevsky is a Romantic primarily because a man like Roskolnikov is guided by his own will.

Ayn Rand called Joseph Conrad a Romantic-Realist, by the way? How is that so? I'm still working on that answer. This Romantic-Realist question is much more difficult than understanding the Romantic question. Ayn Rand hardly discussses the former, except for giving what amounts to mere definitions. Which means you have to look for the demonstration with your own eyes.

Jose.

Edited September 16, 2008 by AMERICONORMAN

[AMERICONORMAN]

This link might be of interest to you: A former Romantic Realism forum.