Bernard Shaw's Remarkable Religion: A Faith That Fits the Facts

Illusionism Is Not Realism
A Playwright’s Progress 75
Many impediments lie in the path of understanding the nature of literary
realism, but one—the distinction between realism and naturalism—can be
dispensed with quickly. Following the example of George Becker, I will
treat “realism” and “naturalism” as essentially interchangeable terms.
While in certain realms of discourse useful distinctions can be made between
the two, they are essentially parts of a single movement. But the
greatest obstacle to understanding genuine realism is the commonsense,
or everyday, usage of the term. The word has acquired associations in its
casual usage that produce contradiction and confusion in discussions of
critical realism. When we use the term casually or impressionistically we
compare what we see with the template of our biases. Commonsense realism
is mere illusionism. The purpose of illusionism in art is not to direct
our attention away from the work of art as art and focus it entirely on that
which is being represented, as is often thought. When we marvel at a lifelike
work of art we are delighted that our perception—normally so trustworthy—has
been tricked. The aesthetic principle is the same as that of a
magic show. We delight in the skill with which we are deceived.
A little reflection shows that this aesthetic conflicts with the aims of
critical realism. Illusionistic techniques are appropriately applied to such
things as settings and costumes when the aim is to show the physical determinants
of human behavior. The mischief is created in the representation
of morals, social institutions, and human motivation, which are the
real concern of the critical realist, who wants to present unfamiliar, even
shocking, truths about them. The illusionist presents the familiar and the
expected: an image we will recognize. Thus he is apt to pander to prejudices
and conventional stereotypes. That is essentially why a play like The
Second Mrs. Tanqueray seemed a masterpiece of realism to most of its
author’s contemporaries. It does not seem so to many modern critics, but
that is not because they are more clever or perceptive; they merely have
different prejudices and cherish different stereotypes. The illusionist aesthetic
necessarily flatters our preconceptions and is thus a barrier to the
aims of the genuine realist. The illusionist does not show us something
new, something we had not seen before; he shows us the familiar and the
known in an unexpected setting.
When either Shaw or Ibsen is criticized for his lapses from realism, it is
usually for a failure to provide a convincing illusion. Shaw was quite brazen
about introducing the most amazing coincidences into his plays, but