If you've read any books on the history of literature (or, better yet, explored my Classic Literature in Translation site) you've probably come across an "-ism" or two. Romanticism, realism, naturalism, magical realism, surrealism, formalism, structuralism, modernism, post-modernism--these are a few of the many, many "-isms" that literature scholars use. Normally, any given -ism will be used to stand in for a large, complex group of books, writers, and ideas. "Realism," for instance, is a classification that takes in hundreds of major authors, spread across three or four centuries. Lots of information: one easy-to-remember label. See why scholars love these?
These -isms, then, are pretty popular. But should they be? There are plenty of reasons why this terminology has caught on. Sometimes, authors themselves went around inventing -isms. (Émile Zola coined "naturalism" for his own novels, and a small army of 20th-century writers and artists dubbed themselves "the Surrealists.") Sometimes, too, the label is wonderfully appropriate. Authors as different as Tolstoy, Flaubert, and Thomas Mann all attempted to create complex, realistic characters. Hence, they're all grouped under "realism."
Now the downside. Even the best -ism can be misapplied. (Did Kafka consider himself a Surrealist? Not at all. So why do modern commentators describe him as one?) And even-long lived -isms stress similarity, not difference. Yes, Flaubert and Tolstoy are both realists, but they're two enormously different authors. Don't forget that, and don't think that knowing an -ism is a perfect replacement for sitting down and actually reading their works.
So write in and tell me: Do classifications like these -isms help you understand literature? Or just boggle your mind? Even if you are boggled, don't be shy about examining the -isms I talk about on my site. Classification or no classification, you're sure to discover some amazing literature.