J.P Stern defined pragmatism as being: ‘no more, and no less, than an project to look all the relevant facts in the face ‘ .[ 1 ]Literary pragmatism is a tendency that began in 19th century Gallic literature. Realist writers such as Flaubert, Maupassant and Emile Zola depicted modern-day life and society, including mundane common responsibilities in their narratives. These authors sought to stand for life without any type of hyperbole and attempted to compose candidly about subjects and subjects. They preferred this manner of composing to the romanticised literature that was more popular in the beginning of the 19th century. Romanticism was the antonym of pragmatism and included more inventive narratives. However, their purpose was to demo the world of their society and ‘the life and agonies of the working category ‘ .[ 2 ]Maupassant and Flaubert were cardinal influential writers in this realist motion, and I will research how both writers implemented the realist genre in their work and how their work differed from each other.
There are no major literary devices used by Maupassant. Alternatively he conveys the straightness of the state of affairs and gives a elaborate description of the character ‘s visual aspect and personality ‘A good-natured chap, though, unoffending and obliging, he had devoted himself with uncomparable enthusiasm to organizing the defense mechanism of the town ‘ .[ 4 ]This information gives the reader a vision of the characters. Peter Brooks writes about the usage of senses when reading a realist narrative: ‘realist literature is attached to the ocular, to looking at things, registering their presence in the universe through sight ‘ .[ 5 ]Maupassant particularly uses the sense of sight to affect the reader in the narrative and play on their relationship with the characters. The reader is able to visualize the character more successfully and make up one’s mind whether they like the character or non.
Maupassant creates a hierarchy within the manager consisting of a Democrat, a cocotte, two nuns, and the remainder are of a socially high position. These respectable travelers look down upon the remainder of the cortege. However, the differences between these categories are forgotten when they all accept to eat nutrient from Boule de Suif. At this point they are all on an equal terms: ‘mouths opened and shut without intermission, get downing, masticating and quaffing hungrily. ‘[ 6 ]The writer shows the generousness of Boule de Suif as she altruistically gives up her nutrient for the remainder of the group. We begin to bury our prepossessions of the cocotte and realise that she does hold certain moral guidelines. Her personality is farther portrayed as a giving homo when she makes the biggest determination in the narrative. All of the characters in the narrative program to pull strings Boule de Suif into perpetrating an immoral act of kiping with the enemy: ‘Boule de Suifaˆ¦ felt angry with all her neighbors, ashamed of holding given manner to their supplications, and defiled by the busss of the Prussian into whose weaponries they had hypocritically thrown her. ‘[ 7 ]The ‘respectable ‘ characters do non take the high moral land and back up her determination non to kip with the Prussian, it is their selfishness and immorality that take over their logical thinking and force her to travel against her will. Not merely do they desire her to give up her nutrient, they besides want her to give up her organic structure. Michael Lerner provinces that
For Maupassant the simple Norman provincial who throws a rock or takes a shooting at the enemy is far worthier of our esteem than any of these more sophisticated types, who would prefer to give their state merely as they do Boule de Suif instead than abandon or harm their commercial involvements and ain wellbeing[ 8 ]
This statement depicts Maupassant ‘s ain personal position of his businessperson characters and emphasises the awfulness of the dirt they have committed. We are shown a realist position of businessperson human nature as selfish, chesty and corrupt.
Although Boule de Suif is a cocotte of her ain agreement, she is faced with a hard determination. At first she would give herself for the pleasance of other people, whereas now she is being forced to make so ; and with the enemy. Maupassant conveys the effects of her determination in a manner that makes the reader sympathise with the cocotte instead than call on the carpet her. His pick of words when seeking to portray Boule de Suif ‘s feelings are an accurate word picture of a existent, exploited emotion: ‘aˆ¦she found herself choking with fury and indignationaˆ¦.she opened her oral cavity to state them what she thought of themaˆ¦but her aggravation was so violent that she could non express a word ‘ .[ 9 ]Her useful forfeit has saved her comrades from the Prussians yet her personal relationship with the dissemblers has diminished. Michael Lerner states that: ‘Maupassant relates the destiny of both France and the naif but loyal cocotte to the selfish attitude of the businessperson ‘ .[ 10 ]Lerner makes a cagey statement and suggests that Maupassant was doing a strong societal point through his narrative. The pragmatism depicted in this scene is that of use and emotion. We are given an illustration of a high category act and a low category act and how they both differ morally and ethically. This is thought to picture the nature of both categories at the clip.
Maupassant ‘s usage of imagination in the passenger car after the cocotte ‘s forfeit is dismaying: ‘she felt overwhelmed by the disdain of these respectable peasants who had foremost sacrificed her, and so cast her aside like an dirty object for which they had no farther usage. ‘[ 11 ]We are given an penetration into her emotions and we besides feel the tenseness within the confined infinite of the traveling vehicle. As the cocotte ‘s emotions mirror as our ain, that of disgust and choler, Maupassant has successfully portrayed his representation of humanity with the usage of realist linguistic communication. Richard Fusco states that Maupassant: ‘wanted to galvanize readers into recognizing the pretenses of society and those within themselves. ‘[ 12 ]As the remainder of the characters pretend to Boule de Suif that her actions will besides be in her ain involvement, Richard Fusco is right in doing this statement, nevertheless, the writer besides startles us into gaining that our actions can be more eventful than heroic. Boule de Suif ‘s place is non created on her ain agreement but through the use of her socially ‘respectable ‘ higher-ups.
Michael Lerner remarks on Maupassant ‘s pragmatism as: ‘fairly shoal ; he went through the impressions of it without to the full perpetrating himself ‘ .[ 13 ]This remark is really disagreeable as we can see Maupassant has used really intricate realistic techniques to convey the message of the narrative: ‘everybody stayed in the kitchen, prosecuting in eternal treatments and seting frontward the unlikeliest theories ‘ .[ 14 ]The linguistic communication gives an indicant of many different emotions and shows poignancy, strong character representation and lucidity in his authorship, of life at the clip. Maupassant manages to successfully portray a realistic character in his narrative.
Maupassant had studied under Flaubert for a figure of old ages and it was through him that he met other literary masterminds such as Emile Zola and Ivan Turgenev. All of these influences contributed to Maupassant ‘s literary thoughts and it is for this ground that his manner mirrors Flaubert ‘s in many ways. I will be analyzing Flaubert ‘s realist narrative A Simple Heart, which is set in the clip and state of the writer of 19th century France. Like Maupassant, the cardinal figure is based on a existent individual whom Flaubert knew.
One of the similarities that both these writers hold, harmonizing to Agnes Rutherford Riddell, was symbolism. Maupassant used Boule de Suif as a symbol for the labor whilst Flaubert used the name Felicite in A Simple Heart as a suggestion for ‘both the peasant adult female ‘s fatalistic acquiescence in fortunes and, by contrast, the existent wretchedness of her batch. ‘[ 15 ]Such symbolism helps to portray a deeper message of the world of the narrative.
Flaubert besides used vivid, descriptive linguistic communication within his narratives: ‘her frocks hung in a row under a shelf incorporating three dolls, some basketballs, a set of doll ‘s furniture, and the wash-basin she had used. ‘[ 16 ]Like Maupassant, Flaubert creates a realistic sense of the reader being involved in the novel. However the difference between the two ; is Flaubert ‘s usage of more intricate particularization of milieus and vision. Riddell argues that: ‘Maupassant appears to avoid this sort of error, possibly through detecting its consequence in his maestro ‘s work. On the whole, nevertheless, description through the eyes of a personage is consistent in both writersaˆ¦ ‘ .[ 17 ]Both authors use description as a necessity in their work in order to give a more realistic history of their milieus. Timothy Unwin is accurate in his belief that: ‘It is a well-accepted fact that, in the 19th century, realist novelists were less interested in stating narratives than they were in depicting them. ‘[ 18 ]
In A Simple Heart, Flaubert uses the technique of an all-knowing storyteller to his advantage. The reader is able to see the supporter externally and internally. Externally through the attitudes of other characters towards Felicite : ‘Madam Aubain told her to halt snoging them all the clip ‘ and internally through Felicite ‘s ideas, told to us by the storyteller: ‘which hurt her deeply ‘ .[ 19 ]This allows the reader to see things as she does. H. Meili Steele states that: ‘the storyteller has the apparent traits of omniscience, such as the ability to travel freely through infinite and clip and to stand for characters ‘ ideas. ‘[ 20 ]We can see that this is non the lone advantage of an all-knowing storyteller. In footings of realist literature, the all-knowing storyteller acts as a device to give the reader more information on the characters and the scene. Therefore ensuing in a more matter-of-fact attack to the text.
In A Simple Heart, the chief character, Felicite , is used as an instrument of symbolism for the uneducated and the hapless. She is repeatedly exploited by those around her, even by the people she loves and she is ever hunted by unhappiness and sorrow. When she is stranded by her lover ‘aˆ¦she hastened to her lover. In his topographic point she found his friends. From him she learned that was ne’er to see Theodore once more ‘ , we can see how concise and heterosexual to the point the sentences are.[ 21 ]This disconnected construction makes the reader sense the daze and disturbance of the supporter. These are the existent feelings of the supporter shown to us through concise sentence construction and normal, mundane linguistic communication: ‘I have n’t had any for six months! ‘ .[ 22 ]This is the chief focal point of Flaubert ‘s realist authorship. Timothy Unwin states that: ‘ … Flaubert the novelist steered clear of picturing modern-day literary life in item. ‘[ 23 ]This is right in footings of duologue between characters nevertheless, we have established that Flaubert was really intricate in the particularization of puting that the characters were placed in.
Flaubert comments on the function of faith in the narrative, particularly that of the Roman Catholic church in 19th century France. Felicite is devoted to the church and visits on a regular basis yet her devotedness is non based on its beliefs: ‘As for tenet, she did non understand, did non even try to understand a word of it. ‘[ 24 ]Flaubert seems to be mocking the church in this sentence, connoting that faith is a holiness for the weak and hapless who get some type of higher entity to depend on for support. Mary Orr states that: ‘Flaubert challenges the religious redundancy and irrelevancy of Catholic theologyaˆ¦ ‘ , this shows how we are given an indicant of Flaubert ‘s ain personal positions towards the Catholic church through his authorship.[ 25 ]He shows non merely the common realist idea of the clip, but his ain idea. Raymond Giraud remarks that we have more of an penetration as to Flaubert ‘s character through his narratives ‘Flaubert reveals himself, positively or negatively, straight or indirectly, in the characters he creates ‘ .[ 26 ]Flaubert ‘s presence in his literature is dominant and his ideas represent the ideas of many of the realist authors and minds.
We have already recognised that Maupassant ‘s descriptions involve the reader ‘s senses, yet Flaubert ‘s descriptions besides involve the senses, but of the characters instead than the readers. Timothy Unwin points out that:
‘he tickers and gathers information about the characters and the storyteller less from what is said about them than from catching them looking… .In Un Couer Simple the tall grass at the underside of the watercourse which, we are told, is like the hair of dead organic structures, explains what Felicite sees and thinks. Through her eyes we understand that she erroneously assumes Victor died drowning ( he died on a land of disease ) . ‘[ 27 ]
We can reason from this quotation mark that the writer is utilizing description from the character ‘s point of position to give us more information about the character ‘s province of head. The fact that Felicite has made a error in her cognition of Victor ‘s decease shows us her naivete and overall, the simple-mindedness of the uneducated and hapless category that Felicite represents.
Maupassant and Flaubert ‘s usage of pragmatism tends to be rather similar. Yet, there are many points where one stands out more than the other. We can reason that Maupassant was strong in his realist representation of businessperson behavior, his usage of symbolism and giving an enlightening description of the scene in his narrative. Whilst Flaubert is more descriptive in non merely the scene of the narrative, but of the characters ‘ positions and ideas. Peter Brooks emphasises that: ‘Everything, as Flaubert understands it, depends on the item ‘ , therefore, giving the reader more information on the text and leting them to associate to the narrative more.[ 28 ]Both nevertheless, do non fall into the trap of over dramatizing their realist descriptions and maintain it every bit reliable as possible. Peter Brooks besides notes how: ‘aˆ¦we might inquire ourselves: Why do we take pleasance in imitations and reproductions of the things of our universe? ‘[ 29 ]It seems really commonsense to compose about what we see, yet we take the easy attack of literature and compose about fictional existences and admirations. Writing is a type of escape, which pragmatism does non let, but we can see from the plants of these two masterminds that realist literature is merely every bit good and more educational than any other type of fanciful literature.
The verisimilitude is a device of amusement and Timothy Unwin argues that: ‘Everything and everyone, in Flaubert ‘s position, had alone qualities that it was the creative person ‘s responsibility to seek out ‘ .[ 30 ]Realism puts more of an accent onto the little inside informations of mundane life. Flaubert and Maupassant both understand this and fit this thought in their work.
The usage of ‘le mot juste ‘ in realist literature is a ready to hand tool to picture life and milieus most accurately. Timothy Unwin points out that
This expression was valid for Flaubert, but the rule of mot juste does non connote that there is merely one manner of stating all narratives. Rather, it suggests that each narrative has a privileged manner of being told, through which it appears at its most persuasive.[ 31 ]
Unwin ‘s remark here raises an interesting point. As each narrative has a privileged manner of being told, this means that it is hard to presume that what we read is all a precise history of world at the clip. The author implements their ain positions and opinions into their work, finally, doing their narratives biased. What we must bear in head when reading realist literature, is that the narrative is all person ‘s reading of world and this is the chief difference between the writers. The text is a word picture of the writer ‘s world. Our reading of world is likely to be more different.