Realism

From your in-class responses:

Some of the works you put in the “unrealistic” category:
Borat, Harry Potter, Reality T.V., Grey’s Anatomy, Sopranos, Big Love, Danielle Steele novels, The Day After Tomorrow, 24, Accepted, Snakes on a Plane, "Life as a Dream”

Realistic works: Law and Order, The Wire, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Gandhi, Shopgirl, Don’t Tell Mama, Titanic; Exodus, Fight Club, Pride and Prejudice; The Queen, The Simpsons; The Family Guy; Push


You gave different reasons for why works struck you as “unrealistic”—many works, like Harry Potter, are generically “fantasy”; they deal explicitly with magic and other supernatural events, that is the “impossible”: examples include Heroes and most Science Fiction; The Lakehouse;

Other examples mentioned works with plots that are highly improbable but not “magic”: Snakes on a Plane, 24; James Bond, Déjà Vu.

Others mentioned works which purport to depict something much closer to life as it lived by real people, but where the characters’ personalities, words and actions, or lifestyles, fail to persuade us that these could be real people. Many of these stories feature highly dramatic or “soap opera” events that depart from the experience of day-to day living. examples: the Sopranos, Grey's Anatomy, Danielle Steele;

A few mentioned works that make strong claims to represent reality, claims which can’t be supported after critical scrutiny: reality T.V., Soviet propaganda; a show like "Big Love" that purports to give an inside look into a particular sub-group. Borat could possibly be put in this category.

Your choices of “realistic” works were more wide-ranging. Some emphasized works that depict actual historical events and people such as Titanic, Gandhi, The Queen;

Others noted works that depict “real” serious social problems, such as Fight Club or Push;

Many of you suggested that your choice created a persuasive picture of a social context; depict characters facing “real life” conflicts or challenges, create pictures of human beings that convince us: Catcher in the Rye,

Some of you pointed to works like the Simpsons that challenge and discredit overly rosy or stereotyped versions of people or families; or like Curb Your Enthusiasm emphasize highly flawed characters.

I would add a few points:

As I am using them, the words “Realism” and “realistic” cannot refer to reality, only to representations. We use the word "realistic” to characterize how close something is to reality. Reality or lived experience cannot be close to or resemble itself—it simply is. Realism is best used as a term of literary criticism, denoting either a set of artistic practices, genres, or historical period.

Works that strike us as strongly realistic often seem highly original and vice versa. A major reason works strike us as “unrealistic” is that they feature events or characters that “only happen on T.V.” or in books; the events are too exciting, the characters are too glamorous or heroic, their houses are too beautiful, their emotions are too volatile and interesting. When a work successfully departs from a formula or the ‘usual” we often perceive it as realistic—I would compare the show “Numbers,” which despite its math gimmick resembles most other cop/FBI shows I have ever seen and thus feels preposterous, and shows like “The Wire” or “NYPD Blue” which for complex reasons never feel like any other cop show. It is important to be aware that often the innovation is in form rather than in content: innovations in creating plot lines, dialogue, even camera angles and cutting.


One recurring trick of realism is to emphasize the “ordinariness” of people; often this involves depicting them as highly flawed but not villains, as in Larry David, or as having “real-world” jobs and problems as in Shopgirl. There is a very strong tendency to feature middle class characters--for reasons you should think about, they appear the most ordinary. As I said in class, the episode in which Crusoe spends a year making a boat that he discovers he can’t move is strongly realistic: it departs sharply from the kinds of heroic or tragic mistakes that fictional characters usually make. It does not hold back from making the character appear foolish but the depiction cannot be described as satiric—instead we find ourselves using words like “human” to describe his behavior. That is an effect of Defoe’s realism.

Most important point: I think it is crucial to remember that the episode in Crusoe is as fictional as anything in a Harry Potter movie; likewise, with “Numbers” and “The Wire”: none of these depicts events that actually happened. So you must ask yourself, how does a writer or director create such a strong impression of reality in us? As critical readers it is important to move beyond simply comparing works to “real life.” “Realism” depends much more on the style of depiction—on the artist’s choices--than on the subject matter being depicted. Depending on the treatment, works that depict historical events can feel totally fake, while stories featuring purely fictional characters and even improbably events can feel realistic.

On Robinson Cruesoe (Character and Text)

While I appreciate the historical and cultural significance of Robinson Crusoe as “the first English novel,” I must admit that the work itself left me cold. Echoing Jennie’s comments about the “instruction manual feel” of Defoe’s prose, I had little patience for the minutiae of the various activities Crusoe engages in. One might argue that such details make the novel “realistic,” but for me they were distracting and excessive; as I was trudging through it, I couldn’t help but think that Defoe took that old writing chestnut about “showing, not telling” too literally—oh yes, I thought, you CAN show too much. To be fair, I suppose readers of the time caved specificity in their literature (and, it must be said, had fewer distractions and longer attention spans than the readers of today). However, the inevitable problem with a novel that focuses almost exclusively on one character: it becomes too insular, too dislocated from reality, because much of the action takes place in the protagonist’s head, and as a result the work loses the vitality of having other perspectives and points-of-view present themselves. I don't count Friday and the other “savages” (as Crusoe himself might term them) because as Defoe presents them in the novel they aren’t fully developed characters, but rather caricatures.

Defoe seems to take it for granted that as a white Christian male Crusoe should naturally enjoy dominion over the earth. As Jennie so precisely put it, what makes Crusoe so irksome is that "he never own[s] up to his culpability as perpetuator of imperialism in all its hateful grandeur.” While Crusoe’s colonialist tendencies are offensive, we have to put the novel in the context of its time. However ardently we may wish, a person like Defoe just wouldn’t share our modern, multicultural perspective. If anything, I had a larger problem with Crusoe’s MacGyver-esque way of cobbling together a solution to any obstacle he faces—how are we supposed to take him seriously as an “everyman” when he is so insufferably resourceful? Does this also play into notions of white male supremacy; in other words, was Defoe trying to suggest that ALL white Christian males had the ability to be Crusoe-like if they just applied themselves?

After reading Robinson Crusoe, I could only think of one word to describe him confusing. The reason Robinson is confusing is because he is a hypocritical character. It is as if money controls his every living moment. Robison considers money more important than his family. He does not listen to his father's advice about being safe and uncorrupted and becomes stranded on an island, he becomes a slave, owns a slave, see footprints on the island and becomes frightened of them and all the while becomes obsessed with hard work and fortune to the point where he becomes obsessed with it and let it control him. He does display a religious to the point where I feel he becomes preachy about how in order for one to become wealthy you must believe in a religious bieng. I really wonder if he wrote this novel for a higher class of audoence even though the higher class cosidered it novel not to be read by the upper wealhier class of people. Or am I reading too much into it.

Anselmo

Robinson Crusoe

I would say, this book was a little boring at first but as i cotinued to ...i started to enjoy it more and more. The thing for me that kept me reading was the fact that every chaptar brought you to a new mark in the life of Robinson Crusoe..on his journey away from home. I think the author did a good job in making me as a reader want to know more about this journey.

Crusoe aka Superman

As we moved from Crusoe's solidarity, into his paranoia and then subsequent kinship with Friday, I thought that the novel had taken a turn from daily journal entry to account of escape. Instead Defoe continues to beat the reader over the head with Crusoe's seemingly inexhaustible knowledge. It seems that not only does he know what to do in an attack against the new comers to the island; he is a master of negotiations and makes them all his loyal servants in a matter of days. The story took an even more unbelievable turn when Crusoe returned to civilization and found himself a rich man, foreshadowed by his leaving all of his acquired riches on the island. I was disappointed as the lack of expansion on the discomforts of returning to civilization. Only once is the discomfort of wearing clothes again mentioned.
I enjoyed reading the novel, but it neared satire as everywhere Crusoe seemed to go, including a deserted island, seemed to benefit him.
I wonder if early warnings from Crusoe's father, and our class' reading of Defoe's intent to defend the Middle Class way of life may have been way off and instead Defoe's novel was advocating instead a life of movement and transformation. After all, Crusoe ends up being the benefactor to anyone who had helped him along the way, not to mention his own colony.

Crusoe as King and Cretin: Novel Idea, Same Old Story

It is not difficult to imagine why Robinson Crusoe was well-received in the early eighteenth century, as it appealed to the masses of a particular mindset. While it offered something new to literature in its form as a novel which told the tale of a shipwrecked man in all his ingenuity of survival; it also served to perpetuate Christian/Protestant idealogy. Therefore, although the reader was allowed to"get inside" Crusoe's head thoroughout a myriad of long-winded spiritual ponderings (mostly as to whether to attack the cannibals or not, and questioning whether God had stranded him there as punishment for his sins), ultimately, the underlying message in the story serves to further promote the WASP as imperial lord/ruler over man and beast. Indeed, the evidence is clear as Crusoe's middle class sensibilty is soon virtually non-existent, as he deems himself king of the island and master to Friday and others: "My island was now peopled, and I thought myself very rich in subjects. And it was a merry reflection which I frequently made, how like a king I looked. First of all, the whole country was my own mere property; so that I had an undoubted right of dominion. Secondly, my people were perfectly subjugated; I was absolute lord and lawgiver" (p.234).

It is interesting to note that in spite of the lack of words flowery in description, the scenes in which the birds and animals are killed (especially the bear) are stomach-cringing and much more inhumane and violent than the depiction of the cannibals busy at their human feasts. The bear, as he is cruelly put to the chase and his eventual death for the sport of it, for the joke of it; it allows for the men " some laughs": "The bear was walking softly on, and offered to medddle with nobody.... Just before he [the bear] could set his foot on the ground, Friday stepped up close to him, clapped the muzzle of his piece to his ear, and shot him dead. Then the rogue turned about to see if we did not laugh; and when he saw we were pleased by our looks, he began to laugh very hard" (p.284-5).

I found the book tediously boring. In contrast to the tropical setting with all its lushness of nature, Devoe's language is anything but romantic; the words are too clinically precise and antiseptic. And as a result, the reader is unable to see the colors surrounding Crusoe, can't smell the flowers on the island, and doesn't taste the salt in the sea air. But the unnecessary attention paid to every minute detail of dismantling the ship, building the enclosures and planting and gathering the food is frustrating, and my brain was forced to painfully inch through it. The instruction manual feel to it helps to bring the reader even more outside of Crusoe's world, instead of reeling him/her in. And certainly, so much time spent on discussion of the mechanics of wind direction and ocean currents could be understood by and of interest to only seafarers.

Robinson Crusoe could have been a good novel for me if Devoe had done with a bit less Bible thumping (sincerely, with no offense meant), and spent more time ingesting, digesting and then refluxing in words man's inhumanity to man, as well as addressing man's abuse of nature and of its creatures therein. Aye, Crusoe triumphed over a thirty year exile from the human race (and the readers of that time loved it), but with all his Bible reading and great reflection, he never owned up to his culpability as perpetuator of imperialism in all its hateful grandeur. And the sad thing is; the readers, in ballyhooing this work, didn't think about it either.

King of his own island?

At the end the chapter labelled, "We March Out Against the Cannibals," in the Signet version of Defoe's novel, Crusoe's reflection of his peopled island had me reconsidering how true a character/narrator he was. With Friday, Friday's father, and the Spainard all under his care, Crusoe had no trouble in mentioning his "kingly" complex. And I guess that's what bothers me the most. One would think that a man stuck on an island for some twenty-odd years with no human contact would welcome his current situation with an ounce of humility and truckloads of gratefulness (which I'm sure he expressed). Apparaently the European imperialistic way of thinking was deeply ingrained in Crusoe, as he took great pride in being the "absolute lord and lawgiver." I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this way of thinking; especially during the period when the novel was written. I just wanted to point out that such thoughts of superiority in being English and in Crusoe's religious faith were still present in his character. And here I was thinking that after years of reflection, prayer, and living a lonesome life that he would have taken a bite out of the humble pie.

"I Revisited My Island"

I would have to say I have a love and hate relationship with this book. I think it is unbelievable that no matter what happens, he survives. The ship gets destroyed and everyone goes missing yet he survives being left with everything that was on the ship. He is left with clothes, food, etc. That is what I think is phenomenon, and hate.
When Crusoe makes himself a canoe and goes around the Island just to view everything. All of a sudden he is caught in a current that was about to take him to see and then he is saved, and he is really grateful. Why is he so afraid to go on to the sea with his canoe if it could get him off the island and he could return home ones he gets on land? I understand that he might be afraid that he might not get to shore but at least he could try.
Also I find it hard to believe that he is able to survive this long and how is he able to have a whole plantation on the island?
I don’t understand how a man can be in fear for two years of his life because of a single foot print that he thinks is of a devil and then of a man. And if it is of a mans footprint than why not go out there and face him and help each other to get back home. Honestly I think he is afraid, afraid of going back home he seems to like his conditions and I think he also believes he can survive anything because he has been saved so many times. He is starting to believe that god is on his side and will never leave him if he is faithful to him. Although when he left home he was not a religious man.
And ones again, Crusoe is lucky, He finds a wrecked ship and he is left ones again with clothes, food, wine, etc.
Crusoe saves a boy who is about to be slaughtered by the cannibals and names him Friday. Crusoe teaches him everything he possibly can and in return the boy helps him with his Island. Crusoe and Friday grow fond of each other and love each other and are afraid of separation. Friday stays with him till the end.
I would have to say the last the best part for me was “I revisited My Island.” Crusoe lived on the Island for 28 years and had a deep attachment to it. Even years after he got married and had three kids and they grew and after his wife passed away he felt an attachment that was unbreakable only to the Island. Crusoe goes back to the Island to find the Spaniards have been still living there and are doing quite good for themselves. He offers them more merchandise and promises them he will send more. By Crusoe going back to the Island I found it most beautiful because it was as if he was showing gratitude to it because after all he had survived everything on the Island. It was indeed a very adventurous book.

Crusoe-Is He A Relatable Character Or Not?

Reading through Robinson Crusoe, I found myself constantly questioning whether I could relate to the main character or not. Sure, I identified with his rebelliousness at first, because people often don't want to become what their parents want them to be. But after his first incident with sailing almost cost him his life, I would figure one would be hesitant to go to sea again. Yet Crusoe persists in his desires and eventually becomes a slave to someone who takes over the ship he was sailing on. He escapes his confinement and is rescued. He gets himself some land and would have lived a happy and content life if he had stayed there, yet he goes to sea YET AGAIN. After Crusoe ends up on the island, I thought to myself, "here is a man who can never be satisfied; I hope the island teaches him a lesson." Crusoe is way too lucky on the island, since he is able to find food, ammunition, clothes, and all manner of things on the boat which crashed near the island. It was certainly believable to an extent, but after a while I became a little incredulous at all the luck he came across (goats, rice and barley, and all the things he was able to make by himself). I felt a connection with Crusoe when he started to believe in God because it is certainly something that can happen to someone stranded on an island all alone. He gives thanks for being the sole survivor of the boat crash and all the supplies he manages to get from the boat, yet he almost squanders it all away when he rides his canoe around the island and is almost lost to the current. I mean, how is it logical for a person who has had so much misfortune on the seas, and has come to believe in an omnipotent God, to go out and risk his life on the water again, especially after living a comfortable life on a deserted island for a number of years? His fear of the footprint was one of the few things I could relate to, because he thought savages were after him. If anyone was on an island for over ten years and saw a footprint, they would be freaked out, since they would be so used to isolation. In fact, I'm surprised Crusoe didn't go mad when he first landed on the island; though the book makes mention of a brief moment of madness, it certainly passes very quickly. All in all, taking into account all of the things I have mentioned, Crusoe comes off as a highly unique, interesting character; though not a very relatable one.