Sentimentality in literature

[curlyqlink]

Reading Garth Stein's The Art of Racing in the Rain got me thinking about this classic literary flaw. The novel is written from the dog's perspective, the dog is as loyal and and self-sacrificing as all get-out, and like all dogs, it has a short life-span. Formula for sentimentalism, no?

Problem is, I think the book works. There's enough originality, enough humor, to make it a fine, fun read. Got me thinking about other books that can be condemned for sentimentality, like Uncle Tom's Cabin. Little Eva may be irredeemably over the top. Tom himself is noble, long-suffering, noble, and blameless. It's hard to believe that anyone could be that good, but is it impossible? If I can accept a character who is perfectly loathsome, why is it harder to accept one who is perfectly virtuous?

I understand how sentimentality is an easy out for a writer. Make a character who is sweet and innocent (a child works great), give her a fatal disease, present her as selfless and uncomplaining, and... voila! Not a dry eye in the house. On the other hand, may not the prohibition against sentimentality be based on Victorian (and male) notions of the Stiff Upper Lip?

Or maybe I'm just getting soft in my old age...

[kelby_lake]

It is a bit manipulative but that gets results. Pandering to the reader is annoying but people like to read sentimental things because they like to be 'moved'. 'Moved' is such an overused word for books/films/actors/singers and it really bugs me.

[Remarkable]

Sentimentalism is perhaps neccesary for people because it's so rare in reality so many have to replace it with fantasy.I don't think we should be too harsh on sentimenalist writers as long as they have a style and make a point.Jane Austen's books are very sentimental but definitely far away from soap operas and pretty witty from time to time...

[patrickbeverley]

Sentimentality has its place. The paintings of Carl Larsen (Woman Lying on a Bench, below) show a sentimental view of life, but they are also vivid and evocative.

http://images.easyart.com/i/prints/rw/en_easyart/lg/3/0/Woman-Lying-on-a-Bench--1913-Carl-Larsson-300921.jpg

However, to get adult readers to accept sentimentality in literature, authors have to do a lot of work, and this is where Dickens really shines. Although he sometimes gets it wrong and becomes cloying, in his best works (Bleak House, Great Expectations), the sentimental parts do not sound a false note at all, partly because they are balanced with great sadness elsewhere in the book, and partly because the characters in question are so loveable that one wants to be sentimental about them, no matter how much of a cynic one might be the rest of the time.

[slobone]

Sentimentality is one of those critical terms that is, unfortunately, only used pejoratively. By the time you say something is sentimental you're saying it goes too far. Probably the best you can do is "it may be sentimental, but...".

patrickbeverley, I agree that Dickens is the perfect example. There is so much that is outrageous, compelling, inventive, and surprisingly ambiguous in his books that when he does lapse into sentimentality, such as in the love scenes in Our Mutual Friend, it's very disappointing.

I've never thought of Jane Austen as sentimental -- quite the opposite in fact. It's true that she does tend to provide her characters with a happy ending that may not be totally convincing, but hey, they're comic novels and they have to end somehow...

[PeterL]

Reading Garth Stein's The Art of Racing in the Rain got me thinking about this classic literary flaw. The novel is written from the dog's perspective, the dog is as loyal and and self-sacrificing as all get-out, and like all dogs, it has a short life-span. Formula for sentimentalism, no?

Problem is, I think the book works. There's enough originality, enough humor, to make it a fine, fun read. Got me thinking about other books that can be condemned for sentimentality, like Uncle Tom's Cabin. Little Eva may be irredeemably over the top. Tom himself is noble, long-suffering, noble, and blameless. It's hard to believe that anyone could be that good, but is it impossible? If I can accept a character who is perfectly loathsome, why is it harder to accept one who is perfectly virtuous?

I understand how sentimentality is an easy out for a writer. Make a character who is sweet and innocent (a child works great), give her a fatal disease, present her as selfless and uncomplaining, and... voila! Not a dry eye in the house. On the other hand, may not the prohibition against sentimentality be based on Victorian (and male) notions of the Stiff Upper Lip?

Or maybe I'm just getting soft in my old age...

I think that there is more than one question involved here. Sentimentality is one thing and having a sweet, lovable character is another matter. Uncle Tom's Cabin isn't a good example of anything, except itself; it was written as an anti-slavery book, and it ttype it was melodramatic. Its characters were extreme and flat. Most literature has characters that are mixes of characteristics. Sentimantality isn't common these days, because most writing shows things as a mixture of good and bad.

[Drkshadow03]

I know Robert Frost's poems always get criticized for being too sentimental, yet despite these common protests we still seem to read him in the classroom nonetheless.

But hey I like Frost's work from what I've read. I personally don't see sentimentality as a bad thing necessarily.