Talk:Naturalism (literature)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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)

"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)

Contents 1 Darwin's Influence 2 The General Style? 3 Stub? 4 Copyright Violation? 5 Not enough focus on literature?

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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 Besides being a gross overgeneralization, this is simply inaccurate, as Naturalism is superceded by a number of different styles in the early twentieth century.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.

[edit] Stub?

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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)