1. When Frank Norris (1106) states in his essay "Zola as a Romantic Writer" that "[n]aturalism is a form of romanticism, not an inner circle of realism," he is saying this in contrast to the usual perception of naturalism as being "an inner circle of realism-a kind of diametric opposite of romanticism, a theory of fiction where things are represented 'as they really are,' inexorably, with the truthfulness of a camera." Norris says this because naturalism as a genre is closer to romanticism than it is to realism, but it encompasses both.
I agree with him. Naturalism has the grittiness of realism but also the drama of romanticism. While realism simply depicts a grim reality, the romantic side of naturalism imbues it with a greater meaning than realism offers-one that considers the impact of reality on human beings. Realism with no embellishment of romanticism is not nearly as effective, because it may shock but does not tug at the heartstrings the way romanticism does. Literature that is not ultimately about people and how they feel, the meaning of their existence, and the passions they hold for the things that are important to them, is literature that readers cannot engage with. The naturalistic writer couples the camera's truthfulness with the romantic's understanding of the human heart to make the written work one that the reader can really relate to.
2. Jack London's view of nature in his story "The Law of Life" is that death is a part of life, and nature impersonally helps both people and animals to their death when the time comes. For the Eskimo, the ritual when one is about to die is to leave the person beside a fire with a pile of sticks; when the sticks run out, the fire will die, and the person will die also. Likewise, Old Koskoosh, while waiting beside his own fire for death to arrive, recalls seeing an ailing old moose killed by a pack of wolves. As Old Koskoosh feels
...