Look within and life, it seems, is very far from being ‘like this’.
EVIDENCE MODERNISM: KEY PHILOSOPHY. While "life" might externally represent realist descriptions, internal life does NOT
1,216 Matching Annotations
- Nov 2021
-
drive.google.com drive.google.com
-
-
as the pages fill themselves in the customary way. Is life like this? Must novels be like this?
Every time you close your eyes... (Lies, Lies!)
-
to provide a plot, to provide comedy, tragedy, love interest, and an air of prob- ability embalming the whole so impeccable
List of some conventions realists employ
-
writer seems constrained,
Constraint
-
labour thrown away
Like the old archaeologist. Does work, for waste EVID REAL
-
ceases to resemble the vision in our minds.
EVIDENCE REAL/MOD -> realism conventions Don't resemble internal thought structures (realness of mind)
-
If we fasten, then, one label on all these books, on which is one word materialists, we mean by it that they write of unimportant things;
Ok: two points here.
PEACHES is right -> materialists is word she uses
EVIDENCE REALISM -> They write "unimportant" things very well
MAKING THE TRANSITORY APPEAR THE TRUE AND ENDURING (when obviously its not)
-
taking upon his shoulders the work that ought to have been discharged by Government officials, and in the plethora of his ideas and facts scarcely having leisure to realise, or forgetting to think important, the crudity and coarseness of his human beings.
EVIDENCE REALISM: explicitly says this realism author should stick to facts/writing pamphlets. Does this super well, neglects to include CRUDITY/COURSENESS of human beings -> implies internal reality is unstable.
Overall:
- Woolf posits that reality is shifting/flawed/not just external. Human souls are flawed. In order to portray what's "accurate" need to focus on INTERNAL truths (thought processes, etc) as opposed to EXTERNAL descriptions of characters and events and such
-
is characters live abundantly, even unexpectedly, but it remains to ask how do they live, and what do they live for?
Not getting at truth of matter. The HOW is answered (archaeology) but not the WHY - reflections/internal
-
e can make a book so well constructed and solid in its craftsmanship that it is difficult for the most exacting of critics to see through what chink or crevice decay can creep in. There is not so much as a draught b
Conventions again overly intricate, useless, and "praised" so hard to overthrow
-
writers are materialists.
What Peach was talking about: not realists but basically means this. Proper word/term alludes her
-
r Wells, Mr Bennett, and Mr Galsworthy have excited so many hopes and disappointed them so persistently that our gratitude largely takes the form of thanking them for having shown us what they might have done but have not done; what we certainly could not do, but as certainly, perhaps, do not wish to do.
These authors claim to reflect reality, fail, but in doing so reveal we shouldn't even try
-
accomplishment that we can scarcely refrain from whisper- ing that the fight was not so fierce for them as for us.
More entrenched institution evidence? (how could it possibly be overturned)
-
We do not come to write better; all that we can be said to do is to keep moving, now a little in this direction, now in that, but with a circular tendency should the whole course of the track be viewed from a sufficiently lofty pinna- cle.
Lit not innovated - has moved in pendulem like swing unlike science
-
compare their opportunities with ours! Their masterpieces certainly have a strange air of simplicity.
Direct mention of simplicity of conventions -> opportunities for FUTURE NOVELISTS abound
-
modern practice of the art is somehow an improvement upon the old.
Pretty explicit
-