" without being temperamentally capable
of understanding what "Realism" really is.

And what--I thought--is Realism? What is the meaning of that word so
wildly used? Is it descriptive of technique, or descriptive of the
spirit of the artist; or both, or neither? Was Turgenev a realist? No
greater poet ever wrote in prose, nor any one who more closely brought
the actual shapes of men and things before us. No more fervent idealists
than Ibsen and Tolstoy ever lived; and none more careful to make their
people real. Were they realists? No more deeply fantastic writer can I
conceive than Dostoievsky, nor any who has described actual situations
more vividly. Was he a realist? The late Stephen Crane was called a
realist. Than whom no more impressionistic writer ever painted with
words. What then is the heart of this term still often used as an
expression almost of abuse? To me, at all events--I thought--the words
realism, realistic, have no longer reference to technique, for which the
words naturalism, naturalistic, serve far better. Nor have they to do
with the question of imaginative power--as much demanded by realism as by
romanticism. For me, a realist is by no means tied to naturalistic
technique--he may be poetic, idealistic, fantastic, impressionistic,
anything but--romantic; that, in so far as he is a realist, he cannot be.
The word, in fact, characterises that artist whose temperamental
preoccupation is with revelation of the actual inter-relating spirit of
life, character, and thought, with a view to enlighten himself and
others; as distinguished from that artist whom I call romantic--whose
tempera mental purpose is invention of tale or design with a view to
delight himself and others. It is a question of temperamental antecedent
motive in the artist, and nothing more.

Realist--Romanticist! Enlightenment--Delight! That is the true
apposition. To make a revelation--to tell a fairy-tale! And either of
these artists may use what form he likes--naturalistic, fantastic,
poetic, impressionistic. For it is not by the form, but by the purpose
and mood of his art that he shall be known, as one or as the other.
Realists indeed--including the half of Shakespeare that was realist not
being primarily concerned to amuse their audience, are still
comparatively unpopular in a world made up for the greater part of men of
action, who instinctively reject all art that does not distract them
without causing them to