Realistic literature in the 20th century has become increasingly diverse and rich in forms and techniques, including drawing on the artistic experience of many schools of non-realism, but this does not mean that realism is unrealistic, alienated and deviant. On the contrary, this is the inherent need of realism's own development and the progress of realism with the times. The history of literature shows that different literary schools always challenge and influence each other, both in the past and now. This is the broad road for the development of human art, and it is also a universal law. Since its birth, realistic literature has absorbed the artistic experience of classical literature and romantic literature, such as comedies, satires and fables about daily life in classical creation, which deeply influenced the realistic creation of19th century, while Dickens and Dostoevsky's realistic novels used the romantic theme and technique. As for the creation of Merimee and Pushkin, it is even more impossible to draw a clear line with romanticism, because they changed from early romantics to realists.
In the final analysis, the innovation of realistic forms and techniques in the 20th century is the result of life and the call of the times. Lenin once profoundly pointed out: "With the discovery of each era, even in the field of natural science (not to mention human history), materialism is bound to change its form." Brecht also has a wise saying: "Regarding literary forms, we must ask reality, not aesthetics, nor realistic aesthetics." It can be seen that realism, as a creative method or poetic system, has always been dynamic, developing and open, rather than static, unchangeable and closed. However, for a long time, this understanding has not been recognized by some realistic literary critics and critics, who still copy the traditional realistic standards when dealing with realistic literature in the 20th century. For example, in some textbooks and works of the Soviet Union and China, it is believed that realism only "reflects life in the form of life itself" or "describes life accurately and delicately according to its original style"; Or "typical characters in typical environment", or as Luacs, Balzac and Lev identified in 1930s? Tolstoy's creation is regarded as the only model of realism. Obviously, these views are one-sided, and they cannot reflect all the richness of realistic creation in the 20th century. They will only limit the aesthetic development of realistic art and make it poor.
In view of these one-sided views, some people of insight in the literary world put forward their own new views in the right direction. In the 1930s, in the famous debate with Luacs about realism, Brecht clearly put forward the proposition of "the vastness and diversity of realism", believing that it can be faithful to reality in details, and it can also adopt metaphors, symbols and storytelling. It can be humorous or exaggerated. In the early 1960s, at the influential Kafka International Symposium held in Prague and shortly after the conference, Aragon and Garaudy put forward new viewpoints of "open realism" and "infinite realism" respectively. In the early 1970s, Soviet scholars Sukkov and Markov put forward the new propositions of "open category" and "open system" of socialist realism respectively, holding that the understanding of life, the choice of theme, the expression of form and the display of writers' personality are infinite and open.
These are several important milestones in the theoretical exploration of realism in the 20th century.
In fact, the realistic literary creation in the 20th century is not as stereotyped as people think, and it is also a multi-genre and multi-genre literature. Judging from the realistic literature in Latin America, there are at least Garcia? Magic realism represented by Marquez, asturias and Carpentier represented by Vargas? Structural realism represented by Lusa, and Ernesto? Psychological realism represented by El Salvador and others. From the perspective of global realism literature, it can be roughly divided into: 1. The school of objective history (reflecting life in the form of life itself), such as the Italian neo-realism that showed the daily life of ordinary people after World War II; The realism of Slavic countries in Central and Eastern Europe (works by Minak, Gifvars, Kevic, Andric, etc. ) and British anti-war satires. Second, the analogy of virtual school, such as Brecht's plays, Ai Lvya's poems, etc. Third, the school of psychological description, such as Herman? Hesse's novel Wolf in the Wilderness, Stefan? Zweig's novellas Letter from an Unknown Woman and Twenty-four Hours in a Woman's Life, andreyev's novella Red Smile and Belgolitz's novella Stars in the Day, etc. Fourth, the fable myth school, such as Aitmatov's novellas "White Boat" and "Dog Flower Cliff", Thomas? Mann's novels The Story of Jacob and Young Yue Se, etc.
The division of the internal schools of realistic literature in the 20th century is relative, not absolute. Moreover, as far as the division of the main schools of literature in the whole 20th century is concerned, it is relative, not absolute. It is impossible for many writers in the 20th century to integrate into some kind of "ism" unconditionally. There are many complicated situations, which must not be treated simply: first, some writers have experienced various "isms" on their creative path, such as Ibsen's romanticism or symbolism first, and then realism; Gorky is first a romantic and critical realist, and then a new realist (or socialist realist). Secondly, some works of some writers, such as Pazos, Hemingway and Faulkner, are still difficult to be classified as realism or modernism, and may be called mixed or intermediate works, which deserve further discussion. Third, the division of "ism" or schools is closely related to the viewpoints of the divider and the receiver. There is a problem that different people have different opinions. For example, Andreev once joked that he was a contemptible realist, famous for his decadent school of noble birth; For traditional realists, he is a very suspicious symbolist. For another example, Sartre is recognized as an existentialist writer in people's eyes, but he calls himself a realist.