![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Stendhal is classified as both a romantic and a realist.Why?
Good question requiring a better answer than I'm qualified to give, but put simply, his characters' psychological complexities are described and analysed using "realist" methods, despite the fact that they embody any number of Romantic tropes and often find themselves in unlikely, emotionally-overcharged situations. The cliché (and not an inaccurate one) is that Stendhal's violently emotional nature made him a natural Romantic, while his obsessive proclivity toward lucid analysis made him a formidable Realist in his own right, in addition to being a tremendous influence on (among athers) no less a figure than the supreme realist (himself showing Romantic tendencies and constantly battling against them), Gustave Flaubert. Hubacelgrand 16:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The section on naturalism is a bit confused. It starts by linking to naturalism (literature) which is about American naturalism. It then cites Flaubert both as naturalism and contrarily as realism. -- Maltelauridsbrigge ( talk) 18:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
This artticle has no references. the writing style is highly self referential. this could be a college essay. i will tag it. i have absolutely no idea how to revamp it, beyond stubifying and rebuilding. i hope someone with knowledge of the subject and skill at broader articles can help it. Im reluctant to make cosmetic changes when the bigger picture is not being addressed. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 17:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Stendhal is classified as both a romantic and a realist.Why?
Good question requiring a better answer than I'm qualified to give, but put simply, his characters' psychological complexities are described and analysed using "realist" methods, despite the fact that they embody any number of Romantic tropes and often find themselves in unlikely, emotionally-overcharged situations. The cliché (and not an inaccurate one) is that Stendhal's violently emotional nature made him a natural Romantic, while his obsessive proclivity toward lucid analysis made him a formidable Realist in his own right, in addition to being a tremendous influence on (among athers) no less a figure than the supreme realist (himself showing Romantic tendencies and constantly battling against them), Gustave Flaubert. Hubacelgrand 16:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The section on naturalism is a bit confused. It starts by linking to naturalism (literature) which is about American naturalism. It then cites Flaubert both as naturalism and contrarily as realism. -- Maltelauridsbrigge ( talk) 18:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
This artticle has no references. the writing style is highly self referential. this could be a college essay. i will tag it. i have absolutely no idea how to revamp it, beyond stubifying and rebuilding. i hope someone with knowledge of the subject and skill at broader articles can help it. Im reluctant to make cosmetic changes when the bigger picture is not being addressed. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 17:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)