What Is The Open Boat Naturalism
“A singular disadvantage of the sea lies in the fact that after successfully surmounting one wave you discover another behind it just as important and just as nervously anxious to do something effective in the way of swamping boats.” (Stephen Crane, The Open Boat). Stephen Crane’s, “The Open Boat,” illustrates a fictional story concerning a shipwreck at sea, while simultaneously emphasizes various elements of naturalism. These elements consist of constant determinism, the absence of God’s presence, and the depiction of ordinary characters in extraordinary situations as it characterizes naturalism through the use of varying tones, and excessive imagery. Determinism is, perhaps, the most frequently indicated element of naturalism, which also
…show more content…
Overall, the characters never seem to be entirely free of jeopardy. Crane writes, “When it occurs to a man that nature does not regard him as important . . . he at first wishes to throw bricks at the temple, and he hates deeply the fact that there are no bricks and no temples . . . Thereafter he knows the pathos of his situation.” (Crane; section 6). This quote functions as a preface to the correspondent’s epiphany that the sea and nature were a part of a greater supremacy that rationally controlled the universe. Instead, the correspondent discovers that he is worthless to the universe, or God, who remains cryptic and ambiguous throughout the story. Crane omits God’s presence, or suggests that God is very distant, which is ironic because he repeatedly personifies God as a “high cold star.” Through facing these tough tasks, the pessimistic attitude of the omniscient storyteller is detached, and views nature as, “lacking in sensitivity.” With this somber and pessimistic portrayal of life, the characters are left to surmise to the will of evil external powers, “This tower . . . represented . . . the serenity of nature amid the struggles of the individual—nature in the wind, and nature in the vision of men. She did not seem cruel to him then, nor beneficent, nor treacherous, nor wise . . . she was indifferent, flatly
Overall, the characters never seem to be entirely free of jeopardy. Crane writes, “When it occurs to a man that nature does not regard him as important . . . he at first wishes to throw bricks at the temple, and he hates deeply the fact that there are no bricks and no temples . . . Thereafter he knows the pathos of his situation.” (Crane; section 6). This quote functions as a preface to the correspondent’s epiphany that the sea and nature were a part of a greater supremacy that rationally controlled the universe. Instead, the correspondent discovers that he is worthless to the universe, or God, who remains cryptic and ambiguous throughout the story. Crane omits God’s presence, or suggests that God is very distant, which is ironic because he repeatedly personifies God as a “high cold star.” Through facing these tough tasks, the pessimistic attitude of the omniscient storyteller is detached, and views nature as, “lacking in sensitivity.” With this somber and pessimistic portrayal of life, the characters are left to surmise to the will of evil external powers, “This tower . . . represented . . . the serenity of nature amid the struggles of the individual—nature in the wind, and nature in the vision of men. She did not seem cruel to him then, nor beneficent, nor treacherous, nor wise . . . she was indifferent, flatly