Reading Louis Aragon’s “Paris Peasant” is like therapy for me and I start to see how surrealism becomes the main theme of the text. It plays with the lightness and darkness of many situations which shows the illogicality of the narrative. Surrealism is described as “the offspring of frenzy and darkness” (65). Because there is no convention to the writing, — the whole point is for us to question the enigma of our own mind and what the text feeds it. I like how the objectivity in the writing is written subjectively, which is somehow able to bridge the gap between the Scientific Method through observation and a character’s perspective from “The Arts”.

Louis Aragon uses various arbitrary/general terms, names, and many metaphors to describe abstract concepts. It is basically the epitome of the question: “I can read what is going on, but what is ACTUALLY happening?” The author’s use of personification for not only objects, but aspects themselves, renders it as if they (objects and aspects) were people who the readers could reach out to. For example, Death and Psychology are mentioned as if they were confrontable or (for Pleasure) as a loved one, “worthy of absorbing a man’s activity as any other.” (44-5). Furthermore, on page 34, the mention of: Sigmund Freud, and Hegel— hints at the subtlety on how Psychology is the brainchild of Philosophy which counters to how Surrealism is the brainchild to (Photo)realism or even reality itself.

Not only is Surrealism a theme that prospered in and of itself over the course of the mid-20th century, but the theme, if I am not mistaken, could also primarily be a historical reaction to the aftermath of chaos and destruction. It is a movement born from the sheer atrocities that humans committed in general, but most particularly in the World Wars. The fundamentality concerning Surrealism is reflected in the stringent message that is conveyed through propaganda: “It will win, this coalition of powers dedicated to the principles of why-not and making-the-best-of-it” (67). Quite a large group of people began to question themselves in fear of their own safety which was both a beneficial and impoverished way of looking at the world. This gave the forefront to a new form of art that places creativity above rationality. Contrarily, some have regarded that it was radically putting rationalism into practice that led to conflict on a massive scale. The movement itself forged together multiple scraps of meaning and instead of stating or showing the truth, the Surrealists decided to share a unique and exclusive perspective that is uncommon with Society’s Logic of living in a Civilization.

Lastly, in Louis Aragon’s “Paris Peasant”, the “fun” accordion’s PESSIMISM and the mentioning of Freedom imprisoning the narrator shows the contradiction of the whole premise of Surrealism as a major movement — How are things so believable that they can sometimes be counterintuitive and vice versa? And regarding contradiction, is it possible to have a contradiction within a paradox? If there are any boundaries, where might they be?