Quote#Books & Reading
Why must a novel-writer be either a “realist” or a “romantist”? And,…
Quote byFrancis Marion Crawford · 1854–1909
Commonly attributed — not confirmed in an authoritative edition. Cited on Wikiquote to: The Novel: What It Is (1893).
English (original)
Why must a novel-writer be either a “realist” or a “romantist”? And, if the latter, why “romanticist” any more than “realisticist”? Why should a good novel not combine romance and reality in just proportions? Is there any reason to suppose that the one element must necessarily shut out the other?
— Francis Marion Crawford
You may also like
There are secret humiliations to which no man would submit, as such, but from which love, when it is real, can take away the sting and the poison.
A community of vices is a closer and more direct bond between human beings than a community of virtues.
We know little of the lives of others, but we are apt to think that other people understand our own very well, including our good deeds if we have done any, and we expect full measure of credit for these, and the utmost allowance of …
It is easier to bear suffering when one clearly understands all its causes, and distinguishes just how great a part of it is inevitable and how great a part may be avoided or mitigated.
The lover of romance may lie in the sun, caring not for the time of day and content to watch the butterflies that cross his blue sky on the way from one flower to another. But the historian is an entomologist who must be stirring. He must …
This book for men alone is meant, Book-worms, or bibliophiles anent, Of solid mind, of serious bent, On curious, hidden books intent, On odd research and learning.
