This list differentiates between Zola-esque realist fiction and radical new fiction which seeks an internal, psychological reality, rather than the "Forsyte Saga" sort of story. The list also negatively discusses Henry James's aesthetics, for James says the artist only needs a "germ" from life, so he can then create artistically. Woolf and others write about life itself, and attempt to reveal patterns within it. A passage from Woolf's essay "Modern Fiction" argues convincingly that the way she wishes to write about life, is the better way than the materialist or realist ways.
Showing: 1 - 5 of 5
I am adding this article from "The Queenslander", 27.3.1930, because I agree with Woolf's argument that there is a better way to write about life, than simply describing the machines, processes and consumerisms of the modern world. The article also mentions beauty, which is relevant to one of the preoccupations of 1930s "Women's Weekly" letter writers:reading for beauty, or for knowledge, among other things. This article quotes an Italian novelist as having said that in these modern days, "our beauty is different".
I add this article to the list(s), because it is a review of Woolf's work which indicates that she does not use the traditional Victorian device of a single dramatic subject, such as the court case in "Bleak House". This is pointed out without negativity of opinion, so that readers not used to radical fiction can become acclimatised to the idea. The reviewer of this "Argus", 8.5.1937 piece on "The Years" also demystifies Woolf by indicating how her family saga lacks animation. This demystification would have had the effect of bringing Woolf down from the "highbrow" pedestal upon which some had placed her books. More common readers may then have been inclined to attempt an acquaintance with her work. The reviewer also reveals that this saga is not surrealist, not extreme in form or subject matter. This knowledge would also have persuaded some to attempt a reading of "The Years".
This article already figures in another list, but it also contributes to the issue of whether the new or radical writers such as Woolf, Joyce, Mansfield, Lawrence, Dorothy Richardson, and Conrad were really providing good reading. If it was good, what was bad about the former styles of writing?
I add this title to the list because Lady Martin's talk traverses literature from early Victorian times to the 1930s, and she discusses changes in forms and subject matter, during those years. Whilst doing so, she digresses into her ideas on what 1930s readers looked for, in books, which was a discussion of interest to 1930s Australians. This is argued by P. Buckridge in a paper about good reading as promoted by the 1930s "Australian Women's Weekly".
This article is about changing from the older ideas, to something newer and better. The phrase "exhilarating emergence of new talent" is used, as Ross Campbell refers to the crop of new writers who commenced publishing after World War One.