To read 19th century British Literature.

[BlackCat]

The pompous and flowery language coupled with the time distance often make 19th century British Lit difficult to read. If you're a Brit fan and enjoy reading works from Dickens, Austen..., what insights can you offer to alleviate this task?

[OrphanPip]

I've never really had a problem with the diction or time difference. I also don't think Austen's writing is particularly verbose or flowery, she's mostly direct and her novels are all short. Dickens wrote for periodicals so he tends towards the wordy since he got paid by the word.

[BlackCat]

I've never really had a problem with the diction or time difference. I also don't think Austen's writing is particularly verbose or flowery, she's mostly direct and her novels are all short. Dickens wrote for periodicals so he tends towards the wordy since he got paid by the word.

How do you read Dickens works then? Obviously not all of us are historian, nor do we all want to spend time on sparknotes trying to understand everything

[OrphanPip]

How do you read Dickens works then? Obviously not all of us are historian, nor do we all want to spend time on sparknotes trying to understand everything

I honestly don't find Dickens very hard to understand, his language does not differ significantly from contemporary English, it's just wordier. I guess... practice?

[BlackCat]

I honestly don't find Dickens very hard to understand, his language does not differ significantly from contemporary English, it's just wordier. I guess... practice?

how do you deal with the historical facts and the fact that his works are closely related to many unknown historical events?

[Dark Muse]

I have to agree, all in all I do not find 19th century literature all that difficult to understand or read. There are certainly some authors that I think may be a bit easier to read then others, but while I find Dickens's tedious at times, I do not find his acutal writing unreadable or particularly difficult to understand.

[Darcy88]

I've only read Great Expectations, but I did not find that particular book difficult to understand at all. Also it didn't seem to require much historical knowledge either. I don't think 19th century British literature is any more "pompous or flowery" than say 19th century American lit with Melville, Poe and others.

[Charles Darnay]

how do you deal with the historical facts and the fact that his works are closely related to many unknown historical events?

With Dickens, "A Tale of Two Cities" and "Barnaby Rudge" are really the only two that demand some historic knowledge...but even those remain fairly accessible without the knowledge. Plus, introductions to most editions are a great help when it comes to context.

Austen has even less context.

The best thing to keep in mind is that 19th Brit lit contains some amazing examples of character-centred works - dealing with characters that are not trapped in their time;place.

Then of course, like all literature, if you start researching the text you will uncover more and more detail, but this is not necessary. For example - you can read/enjoy Pride and Prejudice without even knowing it's a satire.

[cyberbob]

I love that writing style! I enjoy it a lot more than how most modernists or postmodernists write.

[kiki1982]

Dickens is not that difficult. I am not a native speaker and I could get the gist in my second year of English classes... Authors like the Brontës, Wilde (still a little Victorian) and such are more high brow in their writing.

Austen and Scott are from a different age where wit was important and it was seen as highly valuable to be able to say the things you thought, as horrible as they might be, in a way which was still acceptable to the other party. Even to insult with a joke. I admire that, but we have moved so far away from that now. Clarissa also gets very much out of that. :D

Hardy is just precise if he wants to be, so he is wordy in places (mainly in description of nature), but he wishes to be exact and only that.

Historic fact: Dickens I don't think requires so much background. You'll learn it by reading him. That's essentially what his aim was. Only a few, I tend to agree with A Tale of Two Cities and Barnaby Rudge, require a little background. It is not difficult to get, even if you're not reading an edition with an introduction: just go to wikipedia, look up the novel, see what it is about, click on that, and away you go. Although in most cases writers give their opinions about actions of the government and that would require a quite detailed description of what was going on, but as the writer is likely to highlight certain details and even misinterpret (in the face of history) you really do not have to be a professional historian to understand that kind of lit. Les Misérables is about the very end of French revlution (the Bourbon uprising, or that's the climax anyway), but it is not the case that it is incomprehensible.

Austen I find trickier because I can imagine that she is tremendously boring if her irony is not understood. However, there is this wonderful website which explains everything in detail, what the jokes are, why they are jokes and even quotes letters and diary entries by Austen. The Republic of Pemberley.

The problem of 'wordiness' lies in practice. Practice is the best way to ensure that you can read a sentence and not need to read it again. For example in German the main verb is at the back of the sentence (rigidly enforced that is) and it is a practice which moved Twain to say that it enabled 'Schiller to cram the whole of the history of the 30 years war between two commas'. it only takes some training of your mind to remember what was said before the comma (which can be in excess of 10 lines before). And otherwise, look up words and learn by heart (or not learn). That's the most straightforward advice... :D

[mal4mac]

If you do get versions with an introduction always read the introduction *after* reading the novel - unless you get totally lost! The introductions often give the plot away. Wordsworth editions, besides being inexpensive, are actually kind enough to make that recommendation. They also, usually, have good lightweight notes explaining things as you go along - for instance, their version of Walter Scott's Ivanhoe is very good in this respect.

[Seasider]

how do you deal with the historical facts and the fact that his works are closely related to many unknown historical events?

Dickens' novel A Tale of Two Cities...one of my favourites... deals with events during The French Revolution...hardly an unknown historical event.
Moreover he does give background information. Enough to understand the plot at least..He wouldn't be so popular if he were that obscure

[dfloyd]

Ddickens, Eliot, Trollope, Hardy ....

I do have a problem with Dr Seus though.

[mal4mac]

Dickens' novel A Tale of Two Cities...one of my favourites... deals with events during The French Revolution...hardly an unknown historical event.
Moreover he does give background information. Enough to understand the plot at least..He wouldn't be so popular if he were that obscure

The historical event doesn't need to be well known, and if the novelist is doing their job the reader *shouldn't* need to know anything more about it than what the novelist tells them. Dicken's Barnaby Rudge is about 'the Gordon Riots', about which I knew nothing. Still don't, except what I picked up from Barnaby Rudge itself - this didn't detract from my reading experience, it's now one of my favourite Dickens novels.

I recently read Mitchell's "Jacob De Zoot" and Lovric's "Book of Human Skin" - the best modern novels I've read in the last year. Both are historical novels, but I knew next to nothing about the historical contexts they are set in. That's the way it should be! (Though, that said, they have wonderful appendices that give you just enough of the historical context to be interesting, but not enough to bore you like Wikipedia.)

[kelby_lake]

Hardy's quite easy to read.

[cacian]

The problem with writers like Dickens and Austen are out of touch with reality and modern time living.
The fact that they are difficult to read alongside Shakespeare say is because they chose in a language that is now dated.
I find their work tiresome to read because as you say the way they wrote makes it almost impossible to read for some and even for those whose English is a second language.
I cannot imagine why would an English learner would want to read something with a language that is a thousand years old.

[cacian]

Hardy's quite easy to read.

I once tried to read Tess of the D'aubervilles and I thought no this cannot be happening.
I want toread and not secong guess what is being written.
That is one story out of the window for me.
I did try.:wink5:

[cafolini]

Easy or difficult is always a matter of background and practice.

[cyberbob]

I once tried to read Tess of the D'aubervilles and I thought no this cannot be happening.
I want toread and not secong guess what is being written.
That is one story out of the window for me.
I did try.:wink5:

Why don't you try reading some of his short stories first like On The Western Circuit, which I think is pretty easy to understand, so you can get used to his style?

Kids read Jane Austen in high school, I really doubt it's that hard to pick up reading 19th century lit. Besides, like some people said, I don't think 19th century Brit lit is that much harder to understand than 19th century American lit such as Poe, Hawthorne, or Melville. Do you avoid them too?

[stlukesguild]

The problem with writers like Dickens and Austen are out of touch with reality and modern time living.

Dickens and Austen are not "out of touch" with "modern time living"... they were fully of their time which is not our time. Some people who read do not do so simply to reinforce their own experiences and understandings. When we read... or turn to the arts in general, we often discover the voice of others who do not necessarily reaffirm our own beliefs, values, standards, ideals, experiences, etc... The strongest artists don't pander to us. Rather, they offer up an honest expression of their own beliefs, values, standards, ideals, experiences, etc... and as a result they force us to broaden our thinking to other possibilities. This can sometimes be challenging and involve an effort on our part.

As Anna Quindlen proclaimed, "Books (and I would expand this to include the whole of the arts) are a means to immortality." (Kafka, among others, agreed, comparing reading with an "intercourse"... a dialog with the dead.) Quindlen continued "through (the arts) we experience other times, other places; we manage to become more than our own selves." If art has a utilitarian value, it lies here... in the ability to spur on an empathy... a greater understanding of others.

The fact that they are difficult to read alongside Shakespeare say is because they chose in a language that is now dated.

They are only "difficult to read" to those who are too lazy to put forth the least modicum of effort on their part. Quite honestly James Joyce, William Faulkner, T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Geoffrey Hill, and many other modern and contemporary writers and poets can be as challenging... if not far more so... than Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen, etc...

I find their work tiresome to read because as you say the way they wrote makes it almost impossible to read for some...

I cannot imagine why would an English learner would want to read something with a language that is a thousand years old.

And I would suggest the failure (and the loss) is upon your part.

[kensington]

I once tried to read Tess of the D'aubervilles and I thought no this cannot be happening.
I want toread and not secong guess what is being written.
That is one story out of the window for me.
I did try.:wink5:


Even I was able to read Tess. I Love Tess.

[mal4mac]

The problem with writers like Dickens and Austen are out of touch with reality and modern time living.
The fact that they are difficult to read alongside Shakespeare say is because they chose in a language that is now dated.
I find their work tiresome to read because as you say the way they wrote makes it almost impossible to read for some and even for those whose English is a second language.
I cannot imagine why would an English learner would want to read something with a language that is a thousand years old.

Native English readers find Dickens and Austen much easier to read than Shakespeare. A dedicated learner of English should be seeking mastery of the language shouldn't they? A test of mastery, I suggest, would be the ability to read Austen and Dickens without finding it a struggle. English hasn't changed much from the 19th century, so anyone learning English would find that reading these authors would be a great aid to comprehending modern English. At the same time, of course, you would be reading the greatest prose works in the language and, if you have any feeling for literature at all, you will be vastly entertained! If you are someone learning English, or if you are American, try Norton critical editions - they provide lots of notes and explain British references. (Conversely, if you are British, avoid editions with too many notes, you'll get fed up of the obvious being stated! Wordsworth editions are pretty good for Brits. In difficult works... Ivanhoe, Portrait of the artist... only things likely to be obscure to reasonably well read Brits are spelled out.)

[Alexander III]

The problem with writers like Dickens and Austen are out of touch with reality and modern time living.
The fact that they are difficult to read alongside Shakespeare say is because they chose in a language that is now dated.
I find their work tiresome to read because as you say the way they wrote makes it almost impossible to read for some and even for those whose English is a second language.
I cannot imagine why would an English learner would want to read something with a language that is a thousand years old.

Personaly I can't imagine why someone would read a book, it seems a complete waste of time, why read about life instead of living it. But then again some people are strange....

[BlackCat]

Personaly I can't imagine why someone would read a book, it seems a complete waste of time, why read about life instead of living it. But then again some people are strange....

I assume you have never played The Sims :smilielol5::smilielol5:

[kiki1982]

The problem with writers like Dickens and Austen are out of touch with reality and modern time living.
The fact that they are difficult to read alongside Shakespeare say is because they chose in a language that is now dated.
I find their work tiresome to read because as you say the way they wrote makes it almost impossible to read for some and even for those whose English is a second language.
I cannot imagine why would an English learner would want to read something with a language that is a thousand years old.

Well, I think we can all stop watching the news on TV because most of the world is out of touch with reality and modern time living as we believe it is. That is a non-argument.

You throw three writers on one pile labelled 'difficult' although they are completely distinct. Shakespeare is not difficult because he is outdated and out of touch with modern time living (in fact, the scenery is rather irrelevant in most Shakespeare plays...). He may be difficult for you because his language doesn't suit you. It is poetry, and poetry is always difficult to comprehend and to follow, even if the author is modern. Part of the reason it doesn't sell so well. I would go along with StLukes in saying that some modern authors would be as difficult, if not more difficult to understand.

Austin isn't difficult in vocab. Maybe she is 'difficult' (let's say you should know some background) in her irony, but even then she is not difficult.

Dickens... I can't believe you can find him difficult. When I was 14, I started learning English and after 2 years of 2 50-minute classes a week, we had to choose our first book. I chose Dickens because I knew he couldn't be that hard. Apart from the digression in the second paragraph (I think), I could get the whole story. For an English native speaker to term that 'difficult' is laughable. Now I am fluent and if I read any Dickens at all (I do not like him so I prefer to stay away) it is like reading in my mother tongue. British children of 9 read Dickens. Seriously, he can't be that difficult, then, can he? After 1 year of English classes I read Roald Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and A.A. Milne's Winnie the Pooh. Milne in the 1920s. That book was about 70 years old when I read it in the 90s and still it was not difficult.

None of those writers are 1000 years old. Shakespeare is a mere 400-odd. I can even comprehend earlier than that, so frankly, erm...


I once tried to read Tess of the D'aubervilles and I thought no this cannot be happening.
I want toread and not secong guess what is being written.
That is one story out of the window for me.
I did try.:wink5:

I would agree that Hardy is slightly more precise in his wording than Dickens (Hardy had a much better vocab), but seriously, second guess? There are loads of non-natives who read Hardy in English so he can't be incomprehensible.


Native English readers find Dickens and Austen much easier to read than Shakespeare. A dedicated learner of English should be seeking mastery of the language shouldn't they? A test of mastery, I suggest, would be the ability to read Austen and Dickens without finding it a struggle. English hasn't changed much from the 19th century, so anyone learning English would find that reading these authors would be a great aid to comprehending modern English. At the same time, of course, you would be reading the greatest prose works in the language and, if you have any feeling for literature at all, you will be vastly entertained! If you are someone learning English, or if you are American, try Norton critical editions - they provide lots of notes and explain British references. (Conversely, if you are British, avoid editions with too many notes, you'll get fed up of the obvious being stated! Wordsworth editions are pretty good for Brits. In difficult works... Ivanhoe, Portrait of the artist... only things likely to be obscure to reasonably well read Brits are spelled out.)

Seeing as it is the season of good will, I will agree (only joking! ;))

English, as Mal4mac says, has not changed that much since the 19th century. Maybe authorship has changed in the way that writers are no longer required to be wordy so as to prove their skill, but for the rest English in itself has not undergone major changes so as to render older texts completely incomprehensible. Not like Dutch for example. Many of the vocab you see in books from the 19th century is still being used daily in high-brow texts. Not on CBeebies, of course, but read some serious texts and you'll find that English does not change, it acquires more words for the same thing, or more words that give more nuances. Then you can either use a whole sentence to say what you mean, but if you could keep it short and say it in a word, then why not?

To me it is amazing how Defoe's language could have been written yesterday. Apart from certain euphemisms there is nothing really to betray its age. You can't find that in other languages. A Dutch text from 1900, for example, is so dated that you can find older conjunctions, older personal pronouns, older verb forms which are no longer used. To blindly determine the age of a text in English from 1900 to 2000 you would ideally need to try and guess the writer first or go by the subject.

[irishpixieb]

with austen the only thing i can say is to keep trying to read her and eventually you'll get into the flow of the language. Persuasion is the best book to try to read all the way through because it is one of the shortest. And, when you finally get the flow of the language you may be able to attempt Pride and Predjudice or Emma