Re: JCO: them
Hi, Jane & Richard. I think Naturalism is one of many tools in a writer's workshop. O and critic Alfred Kazin had a disagreement partly over the term when K visited O in Windsor, ONT, in 1971, to write a profile on "Oates" for Harpers Magazine. (See Greg Johnson's Invisible Writer, pages 194-5).
Richard, did you ever receive my posting last month when I gave you my take on that twice-repeated scene in them when Maureen goes to the emergency room following a beating from her stepfather? You wondered whether it was beyond naturalism. And how's the paper going?
Thanks,
Cyrano
In a message dated 12/9/2007 10:17:28 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jward1108@hotmail.com writes:
Hi Richard,
I hesitated to respond to this, because I haven't thought about such terms in a long while. However, it does seem to me that them is naturalistic. In her Journal, January 12, 1975, she refers to her writing "in the past" as being naturalistic. 'I wanted the tone of naturalism, believing that the improbable, introduced into such a world, would itself be believable and hence not improbable.[...] This method is fine, I love the feel of naturalism, the clarity of details . . . infatuation with the physical, sensuous world . . .' She goes on to say, 'For this I had to accept being classified as a "naturalistic" writer in the tradition of Dreiser (who I have, alas, never read . . . and must someday read, before it is too late; I must read Sister Carrie and An American Tragedy) though it was only the material of "naturalism" that interested me, not the treatment of it. "Gritty realism" and that sort of thing.' She continues at length about the challenge of wedding 'the naturalistic and the symbolic, the realistic and the abstract, the utterly convincing story and the parable . . . that is , to bring together the psychological and the mythic in one character at all moments . . . and to wed time and eternity in a seamless whole.'
Well, you can look at that yourself and see if you think it is relevant to your paper. She doesn't mention them but is referring to her writing in general. Anyway, as I was reading the journal yesterday, I came across that section and thought about your question. It seems that she may be answering it for you, to some degree.
Good luck with the paper!
Jane
=
From: rlpeacock6@hotmail.com
To: jco@usfca.edu; rlpeacock6@hotmail.com
Subject: JCO: them
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:54:59 -0500
Hello all:
A few weeks back, I sought help from you knowledgeable people with regard to a graduate school research paper I am in the process of completing. I am seeking help again. Part of the paper deals with the controversy over whether or not them is a work of naturalism. In the texts of literary criticism I have come across, all of the scholars say them has naturalistic elements--or even pseudo-naturalistic elements--but they add the novel is not a work of naturalism. That much is very clear to me. But at the same time, the critics do not come out and say clearly what the novel is specifically--a kind of realism, an experimental work, something else? My inclination is to say the novel is work of realism, since realism is generally the domain in which JCO works. Some of the literary critics I am dealing with include some highly regarded big shots when it comes to scholarship on JCO: Brenda Daly, Gavin Cologne-Brooks, Joanne Creighton, Greg Johnson. And I think there is an assumption among them and other critics that folks either know or consider them to be more realistic than anything else.
Basically, if anyone knows anything, if anybody can direct to a clarifying book or an article, let me know.
Richard
Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. Power up!
posted by Admin at
10:03 AM
