I totally agree. Victorian and earlier writing is often more complex and interesting than many modern ideas. The main problem with Victorian books is the use of language - many words have become redundant and the style is difficult for most modern readers, who are often used to idiotic, simplistic English. It is challenging to get used to older idioms but after a few pages you get used to it and the payback is generally worth the effort.
Somewhere our educational system gave up on teaching people to read long sentences. Some years ago, one of my publishers who is French told me, "You cannot trust anyone under fifty to punctuate properly." It is really a shame.
I am not acquainted with Charlotte Riddell. Frankly, I have only recently heard of her. And I thought I knew Victorian literature pretty well. Oh, well. Moby Dick(1851) is not a good example of 19th century novel writing. It was unsuccessful in its day and not recognized as a great work generally till long after Melville's death(1891). Melville's novels of seafaring adventure sold pretty well, but works like Mardi, Moby Dick. Pierre, The Confidence Man, all recognized as great works in the 20th Century sold poorly, if at all, and were barely understood, and only by a select few. In the 19th Century, life was rather slow, and there weren't many alternatives available to the reading public (which was also much smaller than today.) Interestingly, Melville in one of his short stories complains of the speed with which things are moving compared to the past. A train could actually go 25 miles per hour ! Why does it need to go so fast ? My father never went so fast. I wonder what Melville would have thought of Bullett trains. People had time to spend reading books, which they might find hard to do today. But even in the 19thy Century books that entertained fared better if they had a gripping story (like Collins' The Moonstone), especially a mystery story, or an action thriller such as Fenimore Cooper's novels of the Indian Wars, or horror (E.A. Poe). There were no writing schools in the 19th Century and people learned to write novels by reading novels already written. I'm old enough to remember when, before the Internet, writing schools and work shops were being denounced for homogenizing literature. Much the same sort of argument that is being made today against internet based writing courses and advice. There's always going to be tension between writing great art and popularity. At the present time art, no matter how excellent, is being ignored or denounced if it goes counter to the politically correct views currently in fashion in academia and even on the internet. The thing about art that is tricky is this: art demands to be shared, whether it is great art or mediocre. And while many artists are willing to settle for a small audience rather than a large one, they still want an audience. But even a small audience is hard to reach these days if it is offered material that does not entertain and attract attention.
Moby Dick is easy to read considering its time period and perhaps was regarded as simplistic and lacking in depth and literary skill? Still, it is an excellent book and a gripping story, maybe he was ahead of his time and hence was not well received.
@@lukeeastwood I believe the general reaction to Moby Dick (at least the critical reaction) was one of complete bafflement. Only Nathaniel Hawthorne had anything good to say about it. I think you are correct in saying he was ahead of his time. The other books for which Melville is remembered today The Confidence Man, Bartelby Scrivener, Billy Budd and even Pierre are way different from anything being written in their time period. It's hard to think of anything like them until you get to Kafka who was writing in the 1920's. Melville had a very great mind, but it was a mind in confusion because his religious view of life was in conflict with the growing scientific and secular view of the world that was emerging in the works of Darwin and others, a development whose implications Melville was fully aware of, and unable to ignore. The idea of Evolution challenges the God as beneficent Creator approach more directly than Galileo ever did. It's hard to believe the resistance that Darwinism evoked at the time. Eventually, of course, unable to refute it, the religious found ways of ignoring, or incorporating evolutionary theory with creationist theology, but it is not a good fit and, even today, you see occasional outbursts of attempts to refute or modify evolutionary theory with creationism. If Evolutionism is correct, God becomes, as Lamarck put it, an unnecessary hypothesis.
I read next to nothing written after the year 2000. My style is of a certain antiquity reminiscent of the 19th century. My supreme influence is Arthur Conan Doyle.
I totally agree. Victorian and earlier writing is often more complex and interesting than many modern ideas. The main problem with Victorian books is the use of language - many words have become redundant and the style is difficult for most modern readers, who are often used to idiotic, simplistic English. It is challenging to get used to older idioms but after a few pages you get used to it and the payback is generally worth the effort.
Somewhere our educational system gave up on teaching people to read long sentences. Some years ago, one of my publishers who is French told me, "You cannot trust anyone under fifty to punctuate properly." It is really a shame.
Found your channel recently. Subscribed.
Thank you!
I don't think I've read anything that predates the 1930s.
I view writing as art, as well.
I am not acquainted with Charlotte Riddell. Frankly, I have only recently heard of her. And I thought I knew Victorian literature pretty well. Oh, well.
Moby Dick(1851) is not a good example of 19th century novel writing. It was unsuccessful in its day and not recognized as a great work generally till long after Melville's death(1891).
Melville's novels of seafaring adventure sold pretty well, but works like Mardi, Moby Dick. Pierre, The Confidence Man, all recognized as great works in the 20th Century sold poorly, if at all, and were barely understood, and only by a select few.
In the 19th Century, life was rather slow, and there weren't many alternatives available to the reading public (which was also much smaller than today.) Interestingly, Melville in one of his short stories complains of the speed with which things are moving compared to the past. A train could actually go 25 miles per hour ! Why does it need to go so fast ? My father never went so fast. I wonder what Melville would have thought of Bullett trains. People had time to spend reading books, which they might find hard to do today. But even in the 19thy Century
books that entertained fared better if they had a gripping story (like Collins' The Moonstone), especially a mystery story, or an action thriller such as Fenimore Cooper's novels of the Indian Wars, or horror (E.A. Poe).
There were no writing schools in the 19th Century and people learned to write novels by reading novels already written. I'm old enough to remember when, before the Internet, writing schools and work shops were being denounced for homogenizing literature. Much the same sort of argument that is being made today against internet based writing courses and advice. There's always going to be tension between writing great art and popularity.
At the present time art, no matter how excellent, is being ignored or denounced if it goes counter to the politically correct views currently in fashion in academia and even on the internet.
The thing about art that is tricky is this: art demands to be shared, whether it is great art or mediocre. And while many artists are willing to settle for a small audience rather than a large one, they still want an audience. But even a small audience is hard to reach these days if it is offered material that does not entertain and attract attention.
Moby Dick is easy to read considering its time period and perhaps was regarded as simplistic and lacking in depth and literary skill? Still, it is an excellent book and a gripping story, maybe he was ahead of his time and hence was not well received.
@@lukeeastwood I believe the general reaction to Moby Dick (at least the critical reaction) was one of complete bafflement. Only Nathaniel Hawthorne had anything good to say about it. I think you are correct in saying he was ahead of his time. The other books for which Melville is remembered today The Confidence Man, Bartelby Scrivener, Billy Budd and even Pierre are way different from anything being written in their time period. It's hard to think of anything like them until you get to Kafka who was writing in the 1920's.
Melville had a very great mind, but it was a mind in confusion because his religious view of life was in conflict with the growing scientific and secular view of the world that was emerging in the works of Darwin and others, a development whose implications Melville was fully aware of, and unable to ignore. The idea of Evolution challenges the God as beneficent Creator approach more directly than Galileo ever did. It's hard to believe the resistance that Darwinism evoked at the time. Eventually, of course, unable to refute it, the religious found ways of ignoring, or incorporating evolutionary theory with creationist theology, but it is not a good fit and, even today, you see occasional outbursts of attempts to refute or modify evolutionary theory with creationism. If Evolutionism is correct, God becomes, as Lamarck put it, an unnecessary hypothesis.
I read next to nothing written after the year 2000. My style is of a certain antiquity reminiscent of the 19th century. My supreme influence is Arthur Conan Doyle.
A man after my own heart!
@@LoganAlbright73 Ditto that.