José de Alencar e Machado de Assis: um possível diálogo realista

• Ano de defesa: 2014
• Autor(a) principal: Gadelha, Dariana Paula Silva
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: www.teses.ufc.br
• Palavras-chave em Português: Romanticism; Realism; Assis, Machado de, 1839-1908 - Crítica e interpretação; Alencar, José de, 1829-1877 - Crítica e interpretação; Romantismo; Realismo
• Link de acesso: http://www.repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/8117

Realism was the aesthetic that opposed the romanticism and advocated a more veristic description of human facts and the customs of the period. However, although attempts are made to separate them tightly, it can be said that both have many factors in common. Following this idea, Afrânio Coutinho (1986) argues that realism is better a continuation than an opposition to romanticism, as they bring the man as the central issue. It is understood, therefore, that there is a confluence of characteristics between the aesthetics, because they present more human characters, those with vices and virtues; descriptions in order to provide truth to fiction, in a consistent way to reality; and because of the criticism to society. Thus, one should not consider the currentsas opposed, when in fact they interact and complement each other. In this sense, it is based on the problematic relationship between romanticism and realism that we will seek to establish a comparative analysis between the two most important writers of the period, José de Alencar and Machado de Assis, who made history, respectively, in the literary aesthetics aforementioned. Thus, based on the novel Senhora (1875), by José de Alencar, and Memórias Póstumas de Brás Cubas (1880), by Machado de Assis, we aim to study the realistic traits verified in the mentioned works, thus ascertaining to what extent and how the authors approach and distance themselves, since both the author of Iracema as Dom Casmurro’s one observed, criticized and represented the society of their time, bringing to light ambiguous and densely human characters. It is understood, therefore, that comparative dialogue becomes possible, since both writers did not delimited themselves to literary precepts ofthe currents to which they belonged.