Classics for Beginners discussion
Defining a Classic
Janine wrote: "Guess I have to add London to my list since I'm a Call of the Wild virgin. :)@ Yasiru - masochistic overtone? Oh boy. I guess we all read for different reasons. *wink*"
Ha ha ha, what I meant was that some fiction depresses me, seemingly devoid of the prospect of joy, and yet there may be something to be taken away.
Mod
But that allows me to segway back to classics. There are books that end with the end of the world, but, for some reason, don't end depressing. The best (and possibly only) example is H.G. Well's The Time Machine. It ended with a note of compasion and tenderness.
For me I find books that have been labelled as classics tend not to be generally highly depressing. Okay The Great Gatsby's an exception but that's because it was written in my view to portray human greed and selfishness. Great Expectations is another yet I think that reveals how human expectations often fall short in the end unlike in fairytales. Most books that depress me have come from contemporary authors. And many have been well acclaimed yet I've read them (or maybe just begun them) and gone "well that's a load of rubbish."
Even though - and I do use this example regularly - E.A.Poe's stories are dark I still feel that they again serve to provide insights into the human condition. Plus the writing is of such quality I can't help but enjoy it. Which all serves to affirm Hugh's point. True classics may touch on dark or depressing themes at times but those things serve a purpose - either the characters will rise again later or there's a message in the text. The one reason I could not get into The Game of Thrones is because when I started reading it it was brutal like other books I've read and enjoyed yet it was an unbridled brutality. Violence for its own sake it seemed.
I find I don't care much for "dark" reads but I do like Poe. Go figure. I've never cared much for horror or excessively scary or dark themes. I tend to stick to the HEA (happily ever after) reads. I won't watch sad movies anymore either.
I should elaborate. I don't mind darker books at all where that means things like violence or amorality or even horror as was mentioned (and even when the end is a hopeless one, I don't require an external consistency to justify how the story is told if all was ended). But what I meant by 'depressing' is somewhat more personal and can apply to works where more transcendent tragedy (which I define to be more cerebral bleakness in tone, character mindsets or crucial narrative devices, etc.) is even touched on.Sometimes an author introduces melancholy themes, then in most cases also proceeds to resolve them. But even then, I find that a lot of the time I find these resolutions lacking (usually since they aren't as general as I like, instead latching on to some fine thread of hope and giving it undue focus).
This is probably more telling about me than anything, but to me there's tragedy sometimes (not always of course, and rarer than you may think- the dark themes employed have to be sufficiently powerful) in the very idea of the events depicted in fiction being exceptional, especially where things go right just because the case is exceptional (particularly with matters of circumstance which the protagonist cannot or does not control).
I was thinking about this topic earlier and a profound realisation came to me about writing in general. The most difficult aspect of writing is of course describing. But done right it is the greatest part of any written piece. The thing is it's impossible to properly describe emotions, memories and experiences. It's not possible to convey correctly how a scene should be. We look at a scene and take in everything in one image complete with sounds, feelings, thoughts, smells, sounds and touch. When you try and convey all that on paper you have to edit it down to simply the most noticeable things and even then you cannot convey it at once. You end up with more a list of everything that you would really observe simultaneously.
I guess what I'm saying is writing is an imperfect way of capturing what we observe. And that is what most writers try and do. Even the most perfect book will still therefore be flawed. I think therefore that for me the great books are those which best capture the essence of reality. Those underlying threads of humanity. Those snippets and images which we observe and display them there beautifully.
What I place before you is that perhaps the classic works are not those which are perfect. But those which best capture pictures in words and allow their audience to see those images.
Good way to put it jonathan..totally agree. and also with your previous statement that the most depressing books are usually more highly acclaimed contemporary pieces. Someone made me read The Road by McCarthy last year and I HATED it. Sad, depressing...ugh...oh yes, sure it shows how strong man can be in the face of adversity, but seriously, isn't it much more meaningful if it's something we can relate to? He loses his family in a drinking and driving accident? He ends up in a wheelchair after going to war? Etc.? When they roast up human fetuses for food and leave the young boy alone in a crappy world at the end, seriously...that's going too far. Yes, a book that's good will capture pictures in words and allow the readers to relate. Beautiful way of putting it.
Sorry if I spoiled The Road for anyone but if anyone read this, and still want to read it...well. ur weird. Or maybe masochistic? :)
Janine wrote: "Good way to put it jonathan..totally agree. and also with your previous statement that the most depressing books are usually more highly acclaimed contemporary pieces. Someone made me read The Ro..."Jonathan wrote: "I was thinking about this topic earlier and a profound realisation came to me about writing in general.
The most difficult aspect of writing is of course describing. But done right it is the grea..."
I agree with both of you. And, these powerful descriptions are what I love most about the classics. Read H.G. Wells The War of the Worlds. There are wonderful descriptions using very powerful words strung together in ways that modern writers, and people in general, do not think of. Even though it's a bit late to call it in the same era, Tim Power's Declare is written with a nostalgic almost throwback voice.
(here's the sample I put in my review)
”… From over the shoulder of the mountain, on the side by the Abich I glacier, he heard booming and cracking; and then the earthbound thunder sounded to his right, and he saw that it was the noise of avalanches, galleries and valleys of snow moving down from the heights and separating into fragments then tumbling and exploding into jagged bursts of white against the remote gray sky before they disappeared below his view.
The cracks and thunders made syllables in the depleted air, but they didn’t seem to be in Arabic. Hale guessed that they were of a language much older, the uncompromised speech of mountain conversing with mountain and lightning and cloud, seeming random only to creatures like himself whose withered verbs and nouns had grown apart from the things they described.
The music was nearly inaudible to Hale’s physical eardrums, but in his spine he could feel that it was mounting toward some sustained note for which tragedy or grandeur would be nearly appropriate words.
Silently in the vault far overhead the clouds broke, all tall columns of glowing, whirling snow-dust stood now around the black vessel, motionless; Hale reflected that it must be noon, for the shining columns were vertical. The mountain and the lake and the very air were suddenly darker in comparison.
The columns of light were alive and he fields of their attentions palpably sweeping across the ice and the glacier face and the mountain, momentarily clarifying into sharp focus anything they touched; for just a moment, Hale could see with hallucinatory clarity the woven cuffs of his sleeves.
Angels, Hale thought, looking away in shuddering awe. These beings on this mountain are older than the world, and once looked God in the face…”
And those same discriptive voices, talking about nothing but the surroundings, or, as in this case events going on, do so much to bring us down or lift us up.
I also agree with janine, I like dark characters that grow. Think "The Ryme of the Ancient Mariner" here (Samuel Taylor Colleridge). All sorts of dark things were arond him. An animated crew the dead sailing his boat, everyone thirsting to death, and Death gambling for his soul. Then, the moment where he looks down and sees how pretty and facinating the sea snakes are, the albatross falls from his neck into the ocean.
I like uplifting. If a skilled writer can use words to bring us down into the pit, which is sometimes necessary, I prefer it if he didn't leave me there, but used those powerful words to bring us out of the pit with deeper understanding of life, love and the world around us.
I'll get off of my high horse now.
@yasiru Your right, It is a compelling discussion and I'm enjoying it too.
Generally this is the rule, but there are works that I like, that don't uplift, but they are limited and few. Orwell's 1984 for example and The Jungle by Upton Sinclaire. Books I count as valuable to have read, but really struggled with how dismal and hopeless they were.@Johnathan, Don't forget Sameul Taylor Colleridge. That realization of the beauty and wonder of life around you that you mentioned is kind of what that poem is all about...well that and redemption.
Well I could have gone on to Coleridge, Poe, Stoker, Shakespeare, the Shelleys, Lord Byron, Dickens, Fitzgerald, Doyle, Lewis, the Brontes, Banjo Patterson, Blake...Actually Banjo Patterson (being patriotic here) is really good when it comes to depicting the natural world around. His poetry encapsulates the spirit of the Aussie bush excellently.
I guess that is what writers of good classic fiction do: encapsulate spirits. And now Hugh will believe that classics writers are like ghost hunters which trap fiction spirits in bottles...
I agree with you all that most classic books are more serious and often depressing. My daughter complained that so many of her books that she is required to read are so sad. I think so many "good" pieces of literature are depressing because we are more changed by problems and sadness than when things are going well in our lives. Having said that, we still need light, happy and inspirational pieces to lift our spirits and motivate us.
@Jonathan - I noticed the same thing about the book..then read an article somewhere on the editing and how they did it on purpose to "further expand on the theme of the book". whatever that means.and as for descriptions yes...but your walk with your dog, it made me think of the book i'm reading right now, which does an excellent job of that
1000 gifts by voskamp
Ignore the Christian stuff if you're not a christian...she decides to find more joy in her life and thinks she can accomplish that thru being more thankful, so she starts a list to come up with 1000 things to be thankful for. stuff like bare toes in morning sunlight and washing warm eggs. the way she writes makes me appreciate those little things around me.
@Janine - I don't think that that's really any excuse. It just appears to me like it's lazy. I mean yes I get why there's no quotation marks but all the grammar errors? The punctuation? I think most people who are readers would look at a book like that and go: ooookay this is just a nightmare of poor editing rather than bother to look behind the thing. I don't believe you can get away with all the errors like that. And that's because I've read books that have done similar things and done it smart. John Steinbeck for instance knows how to use improper spelling to produce an effect even if it still annoys me. The Road's misspelling just looked shoddy to me. I know a lot of people loved it but I didn't. I could see what he was trying to do but it didn't work for me. Actually when I read other reviews of this work I often go: are you sure we read the same book? This is really, well minimalist, and I don't think I appreciate that style of writing.
I'll check that out then. I do read those kinds of books but even as a christian I tend to not read them regularly. I don't know there's something strange in the way some people write theological books/experiences. I prefer straight novels and classics which are always still pure and speak to all hearts.
Jonathan wrote: "Well I could have gone on to Coleridge, Poe, Stoker, Shakespeare, the Shelleys, Lord Byron, Dickens, Fitzgerald, Doyle, Lewis, the Brontes, Banjo Patterson, Blake...Actually Banjo Patterson (bein..."
Quite the contrary, those would be evil scorcerors, the good ones learn to live in concert with the spirits around them.
Ah so now you're comparing quality classic authors to musicians.
Jonathan wrote: "I was thinking about this topic earlier and a profound realisation came to me about writing in general. The most difficult aspect of writing is of course describing. But done right it is the grea..."
This may be a good way to look at it, but I don't personally care for setting up some literary ideal that can never be reached (in this case capturing perfect descriptions of reality), because in not knowing this feat achieved, it makes comparisons with it and relative to it all the more difficult- in fact needlessly so.
Of course, trading in the abstract, I may be prejudiced in wanting ideas freed from constraints imposed by reality and also in wanting literary standards (with regards to the ideal) to be constructive (in the sense of being achievable) and not clamouring towards the very same (arguably narrower) ideal.
Support for your idea though is numerous. For instance, from Babel's appraisal of War and Peace that, "If life could write, it would write like Tolstoy", where a sense of emulation of life is considered an artistic height.
Further on Tolstoy, I think Orwell's response to Tolstoy's disdain for Shakespeare is again very important in trying to define what a classic work is. A telling quote is given on the Wikipedia page for the essay, Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool, where Orwell questions even the worth of artistic theories.
In addition to what Orwell says, I would add that what sort of works enjoy lasting popularity is a statement about humanity in a more significant and perhaps indirectly deliberate way than is the popularity of a thing at any given time. Unlike with Tolstoy (where it seems a personal clash of attitudes that makes him charge against Shakespeare), particularly with those things we are able to judge objectively (whatever that may mean, but Tolstoy surely being disqualified on Shakespeare at this point), even a bitter, or otherwise malicious man, let alone an average man, might wish to preserve or pass on what is 'good' (for the sufficiently open-minded, sometimes even when this may not in conclusion tally with the person's views, should it be that a balanced case is made for points of contention, so that a purely objective judgement may not even be quite as crucial on an individual level; one of my criteria for a great writer being that they should be able to convincingly portray relevant viewpoints they may not themselves hold any stock in), and this collective effect of an objective judgement of worth is what lends endurance (as well as fundamental character) to a body of literature (in our most general case, what we call 'classics' here, perhaps to the chagrin of classicists).
One could reformulate the problem retrospectively then as to what these supposed subtle but objective criteria could be that yield a shadowy collective effect if not always an individual one? Instead of (rather too ambitiously, in my opinion) trying to set down what makes a work good enough, we are now following a more analytical process, trying to discover what characteristics in common are works already deemed good enough possessed of.
I think you slightly misinterpret my point or more precisely I have not conveyed it properly. I am not trying to say that my view would have people capture reality perfectly. I am saying that as a writer - as a good writer your job is to capture ideas, visions and thoughts. Yes to capture the indescribable as incongruous and impossible as the thought may be.I subscribe to the idea that a good writer is a thinker. An further a human capable of expressing those thoughts with structure, flair and the other sometimes pretentious trappings of narrative and form. What I am trying to convey is not that writers should all attempt to make the best and most realistic descriptions but to instead attempt to convey the ideas that reality shows to them.
Take To Kill a Mockingbird which I believe to be one of the finest books written. Its poignant description does not fully portray a realistic town for that would be impossible. But when the book is read you can perceive ideas and thoughts the author has not even written. The book takes on a life of its own. The author hasn't noted every piece of gravel, every tree, every leaf as she would see it in real life but instead has phrased her words to provide the reader with perspective to see her vision of reality.
That to me is quality writing. It is an element that cannot be explained truly. Yes we can come up with dozens of fancy words and argue till the sun comes down but it: like spirituality, religion, art, beauty cannot be fully described. It is all a part of the eternal, the indescribable. And that is what I feel authors should aim for.
You argue that we should not aim for realism but I saw we should simply because all of us view the world differently and my reality is a different reality to yours. I feel the job of an author is to portray that reality they see.
@jonathan - i agree. the road did not achieve the hype it was acclaimed for. just bad editing.@yasiru - don't even get me started on tolstoy. war and peace was terrible. although the death of ivan ilyich wasn't bad. still, his writing always tends to give off that "oh poor little me" attitude i detest.
Also, I like the idea of looking at it from another way, what characteristics are common in already established classics? That might be something we can shoot for here. It'd be interesting to see which direction that line of thinking takes us. But I think first we need to figure out some books/authors we can all agree on that are classics.
Might I suggest Shakespeare and shall we say Dickens to start off with? I think most people can agree that these two have been considered classical literature authors for some time now.
So...opinions...what characteristics of writing do these two authors have in common? anyone? beuller? :)
@jonathan - ohhh...The job of an author is to portray that reality they see.... love that!
@Janine - about Shakespeare and Dickens. They're both dead for starters...
Also both based their characters on moulds that had existed before. Character styles that had been featured in myths and common story telling. They also both had a popular following among the average person to the best of my knowledge. Shakespeare's plays were popular viewing and Dickens' works were serialised.
Jonathan wrote: "... You argue that we should not aim for realism but I saw we should simply because all of us view the world differently and my reality is a different reality to yours. I feel the job of an author is to portray that reality they see."This is a vastly different idea than attempting to capture a particular, unified reality. Given this is what you mean, I would agree. So long as the world as it is perceived and conceived is what we're after, there is no set ideal that all must aspire to, since such an ideal is made irrelevant by our efforts no longer aspiring to be strict approximations of it.
While I haven't read 'To Kill a Mockingbird', I believe I'm familiar with what you're describing. There comes such a resonance in some scenes that they become more powerful for what is unsaid, almost as an invitation of sorts, from the author to the reader.
I am dubious on the other hand that vague things should be aims for an author setting out to write. Clear aims and deliberation tend to make for better writing, even though through interpretations after the fact, vague 'indescriptions' will be aplenty.
@Janine-
I remember reading a few chapters of Anna Karenina long ago, but I can't remember much of it. I hope to read War and Peace perhaps next year. I don't mind self-pity too much when it comes reasonably.
On Shakespeare and Dickens, rather than them having been popular, I suggested that why they should have endured is a better question. It seems to me that a similar reposing helps in analysing Dickens- rather than say Dickens wrote on contemporary issues, I think Dickens used social criticism of Victorian London to illustrate and highlight basic ideas about humans and their place in a social construct.
About Shakespeare there is, to bring in what Orwell notes in his essay, a sort of unrestrained, sometimes almost flighty, honesty about the human lot in life.
In the intersection I think is the idea that an author should be honest, and perhaps this has more to do with 'realism' than we give it credit for.
@Yasiru I do not mean to say that such eternal and vague ideas should be the basis of the author's writing. I do think that of course more solid groundwork is necessary. However I believe that the powerful and indescribable ideas should shine through. Like I mentioned I believe it is the author's job to describe the reality they observe in the way they wish. Whether that be through creating a new world (as in fanatasy) or trying to conjure up the past (as in historical fiction). On further reflection about Shakespeare and Dickens I must say I agree with your comment that Dickens used social criticism. I would further add that Shakespeare also was a master of utilising social commentary within his work though it was sometimes veiled through comedy. Both writers were master wordsmiths and despite writing in two completely different styles managed successfully to convey messages through their works about the human condition. That is all I have to say at this late hour so on that subject I bid adieu.
On honesty, it seems Orwell had these rules for writers-1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
While I think the first five depend on the tone you wish to set and how floridly you go about your prose, number six seems an indispensable end to any such set of rules.
Mod
That certainly is.Well when I write I never consciously have any set of rules. I'm a creature of instinct, emotion and feel. I twist my vocabulary until the sentences feel right. I don't think anyone can say to anyone else you must write like this. Rule number six would suggest that. In the end it is good to have rules for writing but if your writing would turn out tortured then break them instead. Because I know that every writer has their own way of writing to convey a reality and ideal they perceive.
Well, the proof is in the pudding. I figure everyone has their own style, and some of them are able to list rules they write by, some aren't. For me, it's the warning in 1984, and Animal Farm, that is what makes it so compelling, and Orwell (Arthur Blair)'s ability to paint two pictures at once, a vision of history, what has happened on top of a fantasy world or a world with a glimpse of our future, and even and even a dissection of how people in power work.
I found his descriptions rather dark, colourless and frightening. Though I see it as part of his "art," I still prefer more lyrical prose like Poe, and H.G. Wells, or even Arthur Conan Doyle. With the exception of Doyle, who is likely the least lyrical, they wrote some pretty dark stories too. And if they followed Orwell (Blair)'s rules, they used the fool out of rule six.
(I suspect they marched to the beat of a different drummer than Blair.)
Hence my assertion that any such set of rules could use the sixth here to conclude with. Depending on what you're writing and how you wish to convey yourself, the frequency of invoking this rule may vary considerably.As we were comparing authors earlier but keeping now with the dystopian theme, I pose to anyone who might have read them all- how do Orwell, Huxley and Bradbury compare? What might be common features in their work?
I'm only familiar with Orwell, though I should be able to get through Brave New World and The Illustrated Man this year.
As an aside, it seems Bradbury gets plenty of love. :D
Haven't read Bradbury, but just added him to my list. Lots of good discussion...no time to add right now...but loving it...
Mod
Now I will be the first to say I make mistakes all the time in grammar, but I still think it's important to know how to write good quality prose and to understand good writing mechanics, so you can be a better writer. That doesn't happen overnight.
One way to learn how to write more effectively is to read as much as you can. The thing about classic reading is that you will be exposed to archaic forms of writing, so that for a modern reader and audience, it's not as relevant. If you want to write old school, there is a place for it, but it definitely won't appeal to everyone.
I agree. It's fine to play around with the syntax of your prose, but to do this well I find that you need a decent command of the way things are in the first place. Ultimately, you need something that works. Much like a machine actually- you'd be hard pressed to work around inside to use it for a purpose other than the intended one without knowing how it worked in the first place.On the other hand, exposure to a wide variety of styles that cover a sizeable historical period might better help one settle on or refine their own style. It's not emulation you're after, but to find out what style you're most comfortable and successful with. It might also help one be more flexible.
You might find this amusing-
Mod
issomebodytryingtogivemeahint?
Not certain if that was sarcastic, m'Lady?Just a random thing I'd come across the other day.
I fully agree with you Lady D. I personally have a decent understanding of the syntax - although I have had to work at my understanding because I wanted to. I know despite this relatively strong grasp that I do at times ramble and abuse the rules unintentionally. I hope that my linguistics classes will help further strengthen my understanding. Is it just me or does anyone else often note how authors have used language in their work? I often do it unconsciously while reading for enjoyment, noting uses of apostrophes and sentence structure. I find the most often abused conventions too are the hyphen, colon and semicolon. I'm currently reading a uni text that consists of beautiful prose but has far too many commas in places. I feel semicolons could be used at times.
When I come across a semi-colon, it screams at me, "This should be a period!" but, I don't mean litterally screams at me; that would be far to foolish of me to think such a thing; perhaps i am being too hasty?
I find it interesting how some authors will write a dialogue and use these huge words I've never heard of like people really speak like that. Okay, maybe there are a few people out there who might but I'm talking about the average joe who hasn't gone to college, etc...
I completely understand Curmudge, commas have always talked to me. They seem to go to great lengths to detail what an idiot I am.
Yes, I, maybe as much as anyone, really understand what you mean, and anyone with the comma splice run on issue, given that we are only talking about commas talking to us in a personifacation, like, way, and, not in a real way, which, under certain circumstances, could be frightening, like this sentence.
Mod
Just a random thing I'd come across the other day."
I didn't take it as sarcasm at all. I find it very germane and well phrased.
Mod
Jonathan, I love reading good writing. I read for pleasure, but I definitely take more pleasure out of writers who have a gift for prose.
Pamela(AllHoney) wrote: "I find it interesting how some authors will write a dialogue and use these huge words I've never heard of like people really speak like that. Okay, maybe there are a few people out there who might ..."I speak with those words now... Too much reading haha.
@Lady D - when I see that a writer enjoys what they are writing and it's excellent work that's when I can get most pleasure out of it usually. Not always but most of the time.
Mod
Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "Yasiru wrote: "Not certain if that was sarcastic, m'Lady?Just a random thing I'd come across the other day."
I didn't take it as sarcasm at all. I find it very germane and well phrased."
Ah, never mind. I thought you were being so.
@Pamela- I have a lingering suspicion that this is why I like fantasy and historical contexts. The speakers are... refreshingly, verbose, though it can sound rather affected and artificial if not done well.
It's why I love Narnia and the Lord of the Rings. Many people argue about the literary qualities of those works but when I read them I sense the passion and labour gone into making those worlds.Then on the other hand I argue that the Road is no good. I cannot enjoy it but others sense the beauty behind it. That's why I'm against arrogance and snobbery when it comes to books. Why trash what someone loves? I'm always careful to point out in negative reviews that it is my own opinion because of that fact that others will like it.
Mod
Yasiru, I am not into being sarcastic online (because all I have is my words to represent me and it's very easy to be misunderstood), so I will usually say what I mean, or make it clear that I am joking. I'm glad we're clear that I wasn't making fun of you.
Jonathan, I know what you mean. I think books are way too subjective to make blanket statements about what books suck and what books are great.
@Theresa- I'm in favour of giving at least half a century to see how a work has endured even to label it a 'modern classic' (so even Tolkien is a modern classic for me, though I think it will endure just fine), so perhaps it's too early to tell with those.Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: ...
Yasiru, I am not into being sarcastic online (because all I have is my words to represent me and it's very easy to be misunderstood), so I wi..."
Oh, I worried you were offended or something. It's not always clear what comes across as text, so I try to avoid ambiguity as well.
Having looked at the credentials for both those works, I would say at least the first has a very good foothold.
Classics for Beginners
Books mentioned in this topic
To Kill a Mockingbird (other topics)The Color Purple (other topics)
To Kill a Mockingbird (other topics)
Gargantua and Pantagruel (other topics)
The Epic of Gilgamesh (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
George Orwell (other topics)Aldous Huxley (other topics)
Ray Bradbury (other topics)
Gabriel García Márquez (other topics)
Gabriel García Márquez (other topics)
@ Yasiru - masochistic overtone? Oh boy. I guess we all read for different reasons. *wink*