Breaking Assumptions in Realism

Frankly, I’m still confused about the concept that I wrote on last week, between ‘witness to self-identify’ and ‘self-identify to witness’, even though I wrote the post about the film, Children of Invention. Hence, I put more time into thinking about the sequence of recognition and I think I found what’s different in terms of literal effect to the readers and audience.

First of all, I think ‘witness to self-identify’ in the film has a role of showing the deep-deep stories. Probably, I venture to guess, most audiences definitely know how an individual’s life would be ruined by pyramid schemes. However most audiences who do not have friends or family members ruined by the pyramid schemes or by the fake company promising quick economic rewards, may not know specifics about their daily life and the process of selling their house and meeting mothers asking for rescue. The film provides the frames the audience has probably heard before but may not have any knowledge about. To make the audience understand and align to the protagonist, it unravels the plots full of specific and objective details.

This viewpoint is also found in Maggie. The novel deals with the consequent events, though the gaps between two incidents seem inconsistent. Why tragedy happens and what kinds of stories are hidden at the NY slum in 1890s. From showing a child who delivers beers to a saloon to depicting a girl in the end to be a prostitute, the novel gives an opportunity to break our assumption which is constructed by media or the common sense.

Unlike Children of Invention, the novel seems to pay attention to the viewpoint of ‘witness to self-identify’, rather than using both of them. Say to experience the personal events, this really happened around the people in the slum (and in the pyramid scheme), and then to evaluate our personal identity compared to the people in the novel, and judge our society from that experience.