What perhaps no-one in a class will tell you–not a teacher, perhaps not another student (unless such a student is very clever indeed)–is that the two are beautifully compatible. Such a thing these days, is occasionally being referred to as “Romantic Realism.” This is, if you turn the clock back a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago, the actual meaning of the term “romanticism.” However since this word has been co-opted, the term “Romantic Realism” is beginning to replace it. It can also be problematic simply Googling the term “Romantic Realism,” because I am perhaps the only artist, or one of the few, who would so tag any of my work–at least openly. And because it being a true outcast–a true alternative–such work is cautiously or timidly presented as such. There is even quite a lot of venom against it. This venom is quite institutionalised, which is why you are presented with Realism and Romanticism as a dichotomy at school where in fact no such dichotomy exists. This is what one may term a “false dichotomy;” for, where two instances are compatible to so great a degree, no dichotomy exists, except one that is quite deliberately false.
No subjects are taboo to romanticism (romantic realism) but the tenor of such writing is thus, even regarding evil subjects: “Look at this! Isn’t it amazing!! Isn’t it grand how very strange and evil it is!!!) And when writing about that which is good, we show the best it can be–even in a novel wherein such characters fail to closely approach such an ideal. We show, perhaps, or give the impression: “Look at this!! This is how good it can be!!! This is the ideal to pursue.!!!!” Such writing, or art, makes us see, not fantasy, as might be intimated in a modern classroom, but possibility.
Everything I write is along that vein, for example. All that I currently post on-line, however, are sonnets, which might not be so “accessible,” and are not to just anyone’s taste. However if you should take a few moments and google, for example the sculpture of Danielle Anjou. And take a few more moments to find out a bit more about her life–and three fascinating career changes–I think it will be immediately obvious what I mean (and none of the above long-windedness will have been necessary)
In retrospect, I have a link handy here: http://sonnetblog.wordpress.com/tag/fh84y398h/ if you click on the image you find there, it will take you to her site.
And, I should like to apologise, if none of this makes any sense to you, Since I am reblogging this, it is only partly directed toward your entry, even as it is partly directed at those who might be confounded by such a false dichotomy as above I have described, and who might have some kind of sense–as though perhaps, a wordless impression–that “something,” in the way in which this subject is generally viewed or presented “is amiss.” It is to such people who I should like to provide some clarity.
Yeah, I said it. Someone in my class said that people tend to like Romantic writers better because we want an escape. I don’t agree. I think Realism writers can provide just as strong an escape. Romanticism is a part of every day life. People romanticize everything: their car, a presidential candidate, their newest love interest, etc. It is not that Realism is realistic, it just tries to be. And it is not that Romanticism is romantic, it just tries to be.
I think I am arguing the definitions of these works and genres. I see more Romanticism than Realism in my reality, my daily life. So, for me, Realism offers more of an escape.
David Emeron: Sonnets 
you are welcome. And thank you. For, as Bayes Theorem applied here, would also predict, were you a random person–which I feel very strongly you are not–that you might very well take such a comment as mine much too personally. I am very happy that you do not. It may, or may not, have taken effort on your part, but regardless, I so appreciate it, because, as I mentioned in my post, I do believe you to be a quite genuine person, and as such, not at all duplicitous. Regardless of our relative interests in some current event,; I really do feel that you “call ‘em as you see ‘em.”
My interest in the abstract eschewing current events is more than a whim or a default state, however, but one inspired also by abstract mathematics:
If, for example I am made quite miserable by being involved emotionally in some issue (in which my involvement will have very little impact) I am, in fact being used by those, whoever they may be, who have a greater interest and/or desire and/or ability to impact said issue. This puts a bit of a lie–at least in my mind–to the concept of the “if we all know/do a little then maybe ultimately…” type of argument. If the sum total of my impact is far less than the sum total of my personal misery (even when simply emotional duress) Then it is reasonable to assume there are many like me–that is, in the same position. This is true whether they court or approve of their state of misery or not–or might count themselves (vainly) among the activists in such an event, or not.
Now take the sum total of all the impact all of us “minimal impact” people will have. While it is true, it may be significant, it is also true that the sum total of all our miseries together is a huge sum. Such a sum cannot help but having–in a most unpredictable way (owing to catastrophe mathematics)–a profoundly negative effect on society in general, and in particular, the immediate world of each of us “marginals impact” people.
Think on this for a moment. We all may be being used as a cog in someone else’s wheel; and whether this cause is just or not–whether or not this wheel is rolling in a just direction (if indeed such is even possible)– the sum total of the misery, due to the method and amount of our impact vs. the some total of our misery will have a far greater negative impact on the world–and each of our individual slices of it.
I am not imparting to you any of this in order that you might change your opinion on whether you, or I for that matter, should or should not participate in some cause or interest; I am simply explaining, in as succinct a manner as I can, why I pay attention to that which I pay attention, and why I take no interest in such things as those in which I take no interest.
Then again, our hearts and minds are fair enough one thing, in reality. And one must follow ones heart, I think. Which can in this case, be reframed to mean we must do what we think right. This is not a contradiction. I am not what one might call “neurotypical,” and as such, I see patterns in complex interactions which, I am constantly reminded, others do not, or cannot see–at least not without some careful explanation.
This might make me seem heartless to some: however, if I perceive the pattern as I have outlined above, and chose instead to do the opposite, I may not appear heartless to they who might think me heartless as I am now; but I would in actual point of fact be quite heartless–and quite deliberately so. I therefore chose not to be heartless, all the while risking the appearance of such; because, I am not heartless–which I think, like them or not, one could not help but know from reading my sonnets.