Im about to finish Nana by him. I quite enjoyed it, its a wild ride, fun to read and has that wonderful 19th century paris flair, but it feels somewhat flat, superficial. The characters are very one-dimensional, not really gripping. Theres a lot of crude symbolism. It feels like a tasteful overdramatic soap Opera, and cant really compare itself to Balzac, Stendhal or Flaubert. Is this what Zola is like? Is Nana an outlier in his work? Because Germinal is considered to be a masterpiece, but after having read Nana, i cant really see the author of this book writing a masterpiece.In short: Please share your thoughts on Emile Zola.
Zola's whole shtick is to portray as accurately as possible how people acted at the time. It's fly on the wall literature.
>>24938739>Zola's whole shtick is to portray as accurately as possible how people acted at the time.Judging by whats happening in these last pages im reading right now, im not sure thats all he tried to do. I know about his writing method, but here i have to defend him, hes more than just a gimmick writer. The novel has turned into a satirical farce with one man after another, changing after each page, humiliating and ruining his entire life, in the span of weeks, for this prostitute. Its hilariousl, and clearly not meant to be realistic, rather it feels moralistic.
>>24938675>one-dimensional, not really gripping. Theres a lot of crude symbolism. ItThat's his thing. He's basically a fedora on a mission who also writes stories, so a lot of his books are unironically about degeneracy, and you get the same kind of storytelling as if you asked /pol/ to write a story about a contemporary romance. Sometimes there's more meat to the issue (like it's a broadly debated topic like coal miner strikes or a specific incidence) but most of the time it's like>This alcoholic had a son who was a gambler who then married some whore and then the grandkids were retarded and left to die in the street by their unfit parents, ergo evolution
>>24938750>Its hilariousl, and clearly not meant to be realistic, rather it feels moralisticBy Zola's own definition naturalism is supposed to be scientific. Any moralistic tone in his writing is the result of his personal bias. He'd tell you that that's just how things are, that his novels are a mirror, but because that mirror reveals harshness, injustice or desperation it inevitably feels moralistic
>>24938786I think you are too reductive. These are Zolas words on Nana.
No one on this board knows one fucking thing about literature
I have read Thérèse Raquin, 1/3rd of La Bête humaine and L'Attaque du moulinThérèse Raquin was interesting and very different from his other works
>>24938837And he'll tell you picrel.He thought that was just how things are. Not my fault his system is retarded. There's a reason why a lot of French writers hated his ass.>>24938871Most people read one book by Zola and never touch a French book in their lives ever again. Don't make your thread at 2am French time next time.
>>24938896As i said you are too reductive, these are contradicting statements and you ignored what he said, that completely contradicted your statement on this book you havent read, by posting a passage where he says something else. Want me to cite every instance of the quote i presented to you, where he invokes morality as the driving force for this novel we are discussing?Its evidently not that simple and you contribute nothing but parroting the memefied summary of his technique.
>>24938675nigga faggot
>>24938906I didn't ignore what he said you mongoloid. I said his system is retarded because it rests on abstract "truth" and the message being pushed is usually one that suggests the inevitability of certain human conditions. Even though his method aims to be objective, it inevitably still carries his subjective worldview.Like I said>By Zola's own definition naturalism is supposed to be scientific>He'd tell you that that's just how things are>on this book you havent readI did read the book in highschool and just about the only scene I somewhat vividly remember is when the women are near the fire and talking about Bismarck. Is it something special for you to finish a book? Evidently so with this newfag post >>24938871>Want me to cite every instance of the quote i presented to you, where he invokes morality as the driving force for this novel we are discussing?Yeah? And what are you gonna do? Quote another Goodreads review? Didn't even bother copy-pasting this shit into a word document to remove the italics.>Its evidently not that simple and you contribute nothing but parroting the memefied summary of his technique.I won't quote anything else from Le Roman expérimental where he outlines what naturalism is then. I'll just watch a youtube video next time like you did.Anyways don't ever post here again. Or ask AI what to think next time instead of copying goodreads reviews, it's easier to hide. I'm going to sleep now. Congrats on your first book
>>24938932>By Zola's own definition naturalism is supposed to be scientific>He'd tell you that that's just how things areReread the quote on Nana, where he explicitly, several times declares this book to take a moral stance. Since you cannot comprehend this and insist on repeating again and again the little definition of Zola etched into your tiny brain, there is indeed no value in continuing. The idea that a man has a rigid method which guides his writing, and that this same man can deliberately cast aside this method, which anyone with half a brain will recognize when reading the last 50 pages of this, will detect, seems too much for you. I am not surprised you barely retained anything from reading it.
>>24938675L'Assommoir is undoubtedly a masterpiece.
