Victorian Literature

[phoenixtears]

The Victorian era has produced some of the finest novelists of all time. Those who immediately come to mind are Charles Dickens, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Robert Louis Stevenson, Lewis Caroll, H G Wells, Thomas Hardy and of course there are many more. Having a particular interest in Victorian Literature, I've read a few works by Dickens(and he became a favourite of mine).His 'Great Expectations' and 'David Copperfield' are among the finest works of that era.
So which book according to you is the greatest product of the Victorian age?

[Alexander III]

I would say the english produced a strong output in the victorian era but the true genius of that age was to be found in France - 20th century lit has little to do with Dickens, Hardy, Wells, Browning and Tennyson - it begins with Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Flaubert, Huyssmans, Mallarme , Verlaine

[Charles Darnay]

There was a time when I was absolutely obsessed with Victorian novels. And while I still love Dickens, and "A Tale of Two Cities" is still up there on my "hypothetical-constantly-changing-list-of-best-novels" - the Victorian novels and I have fallen out.

That being said, Victorian poetry is still as good as ever.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning
Robert Browning
Christina Rossetti
William Morris
Tennyson
....

[Charles Darnay]

I would say the english produced a strong output in the victorian era but the true genius of that age was to be found in France - 20th century lit has little to do with Dickens, Hardy, Wells, Browning and Tennyson - it begins with Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Flaubert, Huyssmans, Mallarme , Verlaine

While I agree with this, Iwould argue that both Wells and Elizabeth Barrett Browning have noticeable lasting impacts on 20th century lit.

[mal4mac]

... I've read a few works by Dickens(and he became a favourite of mine).His 'Great Expectations' and 'David Copperfield' are among the finest works of that era.
So which book according to you is the greatest product of the Victorian age?

I agree with you about Dickens. I can't really pick one out as "the greatest". I recently finished reading all of his novels, or at least the ones on my list, sixteen in all (!) He's remarkably consistent. I worried that Barnaby Rudge and Our Mutual Friend might not be up to the standards of the ones you mention, but I think they are at least as good.

It's ridiculous to say that 20th century lit had nothing to do with Dickens, Hardy, et. al. But the frenchmen were also important...

[Lokasenna]

No love as yet for Wilkie Collins? Shame, as I rather like his novels.

Also, he may only have produced one novel, but we can't forget Oscar Wilde.

I really love William Morris, but most of the stuff I like him for is really hard to acquire these days - the modern presses seem to focus on his socialism and political writings, to the extent that we forget that he was also the inventor of the modern fantasy novel.

[mal4mac]

I also like R.L. Stevenson - Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde and Other Tales is a good collection in Oxford World Classics that I read recently.

La Bête humaine by Émile Zola is an exciting shocker.

Gotta read Wilkie Collins!

[OrphanPip]

Elizabeth Gaskell isn't too bad either.
Arthur Conan Doyle if you like the occasional Sherlock Holmes novel. (I find them campy and fun at times).

Just in terms of lasting impact the most important Victorian novel is probably either Jane Eyre or Great Expectations. Maybe Far From the Madding Crowd is a contender too.

[Charles Darnay]

I agree with you about Dickens. I can't really pick one out as "the greatest". I recently finished reading all of his novels, or at least the ones on my list, sixteen in all (!) He's remarkably consistent. I worried that Barnaby Rudge and Our Mutual Friend might not be up to the standards of the ones you mention, but I think they are at least as good.



Barnaby Rudge is one of my favourites when it comes to Dickens. Our Mutual Friend was also pretty good.



No love as yet for Wilkie Collins? Shame, as I rather like his novels.

Also, he may only have produced one novel, but we can't forget Oscar Wilde.

I really love William Morris, but most of the stuff I like him for is really hard to acquire these days - the modern presses seem to focus on his socialism and political writings, to the extent that we forget that he was also the inventor of the modern fantasy novel.

"Moonstone" is a great novel. I couldn't really get into "Woman in White".

I forgot about Dorian Gray....but I don't really consider that Victorian, even if it technically is. It is much more in line with the French literature of the fin de siecle.

Morris' poetry (particularly "Defense of Guinevere" is great (and fairly accessible)

[Featchy]

Without doubt, David Copperfield. Quite simply it is one of the best novels ever written. Everything that's good and great about Dickens is in this book, and its admirers form a long queue; from Tolstoy and Dostoevsky (both irrepressible fans of Dickens) to Henry James and Virginia Woolf (who were not so fond of his other works).

[Veho]

Victorian literature is my favourite. Some particular favourites are Jane Eyre, Tess and Far from the Madding Crowd, Dorian Gray, Middlemarch, North and South and Henry James's shorter works. But I've still got plenty more authors and works to discover which is great. Anthony Trollope and Wilkie Collins are on my to-read list amongst others. However, I'm not so sure about Dickens - I've only read Great Expectation and wasn't all that impressed. Perhaps I will try David Copperfield next.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Victorian literature is my favourite. Some particular favourites are Jane Eyre, Tess and Far from the Madding Crowd, Dorian Gray, Middlemarch, North and South and Henry James's shorter works. But I've still got plenty more authors and works to discover which is great. Anthony Trollope and Wilkie Collins are on my to-read list amongst others. However, I'm not so sure about Dickens - I've only read Great Expectation and wasn't all that impressed. Perhaps I will try David Copperfield next.

Yes I've never been that much of a fan of Dickens but the comment above persuaded me to zip it to my kindle. I'm on chapter 3 at present. I'm also just finishing off News from Nowhere by William Morris. This was a book I meant to read for a utopian module but never got around to it, so I'm reading it now. New Grub Street by George Gissing is another one I'm eyeing. I'm also enjoying H. G. Wells.

[mal4mac]

I've only read Great Expectation and wasn't all that impressed. Perhaps I will try David Copperfield next.

I'm tempted to re-read that one first... maybe we should start a reading group!

[mal4mac]

Without doubt, David Copperfield. Quite simply it is one of the best novels ever written. Everything that's good and great about Dickens is in this book, and its admirers form a long queue; from Tolstoy and Dostoevsky (both irrepressible fans of Dickens) to Henry James and Virginia Woolf (who were not so fond of his other works).

That shows the limitations of James and Woolf...

[Veho]

Yes I've never been that much of a fan of Dickens but the comment above persuaded me to zip it to my kindle. I'm on chapter 3 at present.

Are you liking it so far?


I'm tempted to re-read that one first... maybe we should start a reading group!

That's an idea. I've got to finish Anna Karenina first though!

[LitNetIsGreat]

Are you liking it so far?

Yes it's not bad but it is early days. I like the biographic style anyway so I think I'm going to like it.

Incidentally we stay at the hotel in Yarmouth, The Royal, where had supposed to have written a lot of it. I don't think the hotel has been decorated since then either, but it is a not bad hotel al the same.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Frankenstien is a favorite of mine. Though, I can't really say I'm a huge fan of Victorian literature in general. It's a bit too didactic for my taste.

[Charles Darnay]

Frankenstien is a favorite of mine. Though, I can't really say I'm a huge fan of Victorian literature in general. It's a bit too didactic for my taste.

Frankenstein is Romantic.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Ah, yes. You are correct. Hmmmm, so I guess there really aren't many Victorian novels that come to mind as particularly good. I liked A Tale of Two Cities pretty much, but I didn't love it. I should probably read more from the period.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Ah, yes. You are correct. Hmmmm, so I guess there really aren't many Victorian novels that come to mind as particularly good. I liked A Tale of Two Cities pretty much, but I didn't love it. I should probably read more from the period.

You are joking, there aren't many Victorian novels that come to mind as particularly good? Try Thomas Hardy, Emily and Charlotte Bronte, Wilkie Collins, Charles Dickens, George Eliot, Oscar Wilde, Bram Stoker, Mary Elizabeth Braddon, George Gissing, William Morris, Arthur Conan Doyle, Lewis Carroll, Elizabeth Gaskill, William Thackeray, Anthony Trollope, George Meredith, R. L. Stevenson, Thomas Hughes, Charles Kingsley...

..............................

Here's Guardian article opinion piece on the top ten Victorian novels, I wonder how much people agree with the choices?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/mar/20/sarahwaters.bestbooks

[Emil Miller]

You are joking, there aren't many Victorian novels that come to mind as particularly good? Try Thomas Hardy, Emily and Charlotte Bronte, Wilkie Collins, Charles Dickens, George Eliot, Oscar Wilde, Bram Stoker, Mary Elizabeth Braddon, George Gissing, William Morris, Arthur Conan Doyle, Lewis Carroll, Elizabeth Gaskill, William Thackeray, Anthony Trollope, George Meredith, R. L. Stevenson, Thomas Hughes, Charles Kingsley...

..............................

Here's Guardian article opinion piece on the top ten Victorian novels, I wonder how much people agree with the choices?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/mar/20/sarahwaters.bestbooks

I would say that it's about as accurate as anyone is likely to get. I'm glad that Gissing is included as he's a superb writer whose own life reads like one of his novels.

[mal4mac]

I would say that it's about as accurate as anyone is likely to get. I'm glad that Gissing is included as he's a superb writer whose own life reads like one of his novels.

Good to see that Dickens gets two! But it's difficult to see why the two choices are better than:

David Copperfield
Pickwick Papers
Nicholas Nickleby
Bleak House
Little Dorrit
Oliver Twist

[Emil Miller]

Good to see that Dickens gets two! But it's difficult to see why the two choices are better than:

David Copperfield
Pickwick Papers
Nicholas Nickleby
Bleak House
Little Dorrit
Oliver Twist

Yes it's always difficult to choose with Dickens because he is such a consistently good example of Victorian literature that it must needs be a personal preference when compiling this kind of list.

[Alexander III]

I know this may be a bit off-topic, but has anyone read the latest Dickens biography? I was thinking about picking it up

[Emil Miller]

Yes I've never been that much of a fan of Dickens but the comment above persuaded me to zip it to my kindle. I'm on chapter 3 at present. I'm also just finishing off News from Nowhere by William Morris. This was a book I meant to read for a utopian module but never got around to it, so I'm reading it now. New Grub Street by George Gissing is another one I'm eyeing. I'm also enjoying H. G. Wells.

It's years since I read News From Nowhere but I remember it as being pretty fanciful stuff. Gissing is wrongly neglected among his contemporaries and is well worth reading, as is Wells, whom I read extensively when I was younger and would particularly recommend Love and Mr Lewisham as one of his best.

[LitNetIsGreat]

It's years since I read News From Nowhere but I remember it as being pretty fanciful stuff. Gissing is wrongly neglected among his contemporaries and is well worth reading, as is Wells, whom I read extensively when I was younger and would particularly recommend Love and Mr Lewisham as one of his best.

Oh yes it is full blown Utopian fantasy stuff, so much so I think he was even employing a little irony towards them as well as launching the popular socialist/communistic platform at the same time. It's clear he was also pushing the Art's and Craft movement as well. It's a good book, better than the part of it I read and disregarded at university anyway as is often the case when you are somewhat pushed for time with other things.

I started New Grub Street but I have put that aside for a while to read David Copperfield which I am really liking at present. I will also make a note of the Wells recommendation thanks. I enjoyed The Time Machine very much before that which I read a long time ago as well.

[mal4mac]

I know this may be a bit off-topic, but has anyone read the latest Dickens biography? I was thinking about picking it up

I heard bits of it on "book of the week" and was impressed. It's still available:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017v88v

[mal4mac]

... Wells, whom I read extensively when I was younger and would particularly recommend Love and Mr Lewisham as one of his best.

I read his science fiction novels and "collected" short stories when I was younger and was very impressed. Probably more impressed by the amazing short stories than the well known novels... I still haven't got round to reading his later "social" novels.

[Emil Miller]

I read his science fiction novels and "collected" short stories when I was younger and was very impressed. Probably more impressed by the amazing short stories than the well known novels... I still haven't got round to reading his later "social" novels.

The War of the Worlds and The Time Machine are well written and ground breaking science fiction from a Victorian writer but, as you have pointed out, Wells wasn't only concerned with science subjects, he was also into sociology and his novels in this sphere are, in my view, better. Anyone wanting to read this side of Wells would do well to read Tono Bungay, a very funny send up of the patent medicine business, and Kipps which is semi-autobiographical. The History of Mr. Polly is also a very good read as is the above mentioned Love and Mr Lewisham, that also has autobiographical elements.

[Charles Darnay]

I know this may be a bit off-topic, but has anyone read the latest Dickens biography? I was thinking about picking it up

I've been looking at that too, as I've heard great things. I'm waiting until my current list quiets down so I can devote the time to the biography that it probably deserves.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You are joking, there aren't many Victorian novels that come to mind as particularly good? Try Thomas Hardy, Emily and Charlotte Bronte, Wilkie Collins, Charles Dickens, George Eliot, Oscar Wilde, Bram Stoker, Mary Elizabeth Braddon, George Gissing, William Morris, Arthur Conan Doyle, Lewis Carroll, Elizabeth Gaskill, William Thackeray, Anthony Trollope, George Meredith, R. L. Stevenson, Thomas Hughes, Charles Kingsley...

..............................

Here's Guardian article opinion piece on the top ten Victorian novels, I wonder how much people agree with the choices?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/mar/20/sarahwaters.bestbooks
I shouldn't have used the word "good," but "enjoyed." Though, I have enjoyed Oscar Wolde VERY much, so he would probably be my favorite Victorian writer. Like I said, I need to read more from the era. In retrospect, I should really reserve judgement until I do so. My favorite book is Moby Dick, but even though it was written within the Victorian time period, I don't think it's considered Victorian . . . right?

I'm reading Jane Eyre right now, and I'm liking it, but not loving it. That kin of seems the pattern for me when it comes to the few Victorian books I've read.

[Raven Falcon.]

I shouldn't have used the word "good," but "enjoyed." Though, I have enjoyed Oscar Wolde VERY much, so he would probably be my favorite Victorian writer. Like I said, I need to read more from the era. In retrospect, I should really reserve judgement until I do so. My favorite book is Moby Dick, but even though it was written within the Victorian time period, I don't think it's considered Victorian . . . right?

I'm reading Jane Eyre right now, and I'm liking it, but not loving it. That kin of seems the pattern for me when it comes to the few Victorian books I've read. Victorian literature: Characterized by the overuse of flowery language.

[kiki1982]

Not all Victorian lit is over-used flowery language. I would say the 18th century was much worse, and rare vocab at that. All very precise. Scott for example still has a lot of that. The start of Ivanhoe... A Victorian would not have made it so long but would have thrown you straight into the story, but no, Scott absolutely had to describe the wood, its grass and its trunks in the most minute detail... That is as far as I remember, though and the rest was absolutely superb.

The Victorians delighted in description of nature and architecture. That is all. And some emotion thrown in like on Turner's paintings. However, all that emotion, and all those inner conflicts which are mostly about the same things can become somewhat tedious. Abd some people just don't see what the point is...

[Raven Falcon.]

Not all Victorian lit is over-used flowery language. I would say the 18th century was much worse, and rare vocab at that. All very precise. Scott for example still has a lot of that. The start of Ivanhoe... A Victorian would not have made it so long but would have thrown you straight into the story, but no, Scott absolutely had to describe the wood, its grass and its trunks in the most minute detail... That is as far as I remember, though and the rest was absolutely superb.

The Victorians delighted in description of nature and architecture. That is all. And some emotion thrown in like on Turner's paintings. However, all that emotion, and all those inner conflicts which are mostly about the same things can become somewhat tedious. Abd some people just don't see what the point is... Well, I like details. However, the details have to be described in concrete and vivid language, to which rare and abstract words simply don't belong. The best describers are those who use difficult vocabulary sparsely.

[Raven Falcon.]

I shouldn't have used the word "good," but "enjoyed." Though, I have enjoyed Oscar Wolde VERY much, so he would probably be my favorite Victorian writer. Like I said, I need to read more from the era. In retrospect, I should really reserve judgement until I do so. My favorite book is Moby Dick, but even though it was written within the Victorian time period, I don't think it's considered Victorian . . . right?

I'm reading Jane Eyre right now, and I'm liking it, but not loving it. That kin of seems the pattern for me when it comes to the few Victorian books I've read. No. Moby Dick, though written in the Victorian era, cannot be considered a Victorian novel simply because it hardly shares any elements that Victorian novels share among themselves. Another reason is of course the fact that Moby Dick is an American novel and to my limited knowledge Victorian novels are British.
Even the language of Moby Dick is different; it seems to me to sound as Shakespearian or Miltonic, though not made pretentious by any comparison to the works of those two giants.

[mal4mac]

Not all Victorian lit is over-used flowery language. I would say the 18th century was much worse, and rare vocab at that. All very precise. Scott for example still has a lot of that. The start of Ivanhoe... A Victorian would not have made it so long but would have thrown you straight into the story, but no, Scott absolutely had to describe the wood, its grass and its trunks in the most minute detail... That is as far as I remember, though and the rest was absolutely superb.

I didn't find Scott's vocab. too bad, and most editions have notes to get you over the little humps. I didn't find the descriptions of plant life too onerous, and (as you say) "the rest was absolutely superb". I actually came to Scott late, just this last year in fact... read Rob Roy and then quickly sought out Waverley and Ivanhoe. All superb!

Going even further back, Daniel Defoe (Moll Flanders & Robinson Crusoe) is a great story teller. Fielding (Tom Jones) is also not to be missed. As you say, the language is bit more flowery, but the compensations are great - all these characters have so much energy!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It's not the flowery language that bothers me. I like flowery language for the most part. Usually I can't get into a lot of Victorian literature because of the plots. Usually strike me as boring.

[LitNetIsGreat]

It's not the flowery language that bothers me. I like flowery language for the most part. Usually I can't get into a lot of Victorian literature because of the plots. Usually strike me as boring.

A tad bit generalised perhaps? :) How are you getting on with Jane Eyre?

.....................


I must say that I am enjoying David Copperfield despite my long-standing ambivalence with Dickens. Maybe this is the one?

[Paulclem]

I "had" to read Emma - Jane Austen - once upon a time. The teacher was great - he made it fun, and I can see him now delighting in the humour which he seemed to exacerbate, but which got me, for one, through the book. Unless I do another course, I'll never read another Austen again. Good writer, icon of her time etc etc but I'm just not interested in the subject matter. Tedious comes to mind.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

A tad bit generalised perhaps? :) How are you getting
Maybe I am generalizing, but I haven't read enough to do much more than generalize, and that much of what I've read of Voctorian literature is boring us true.

I'm almost done with JE. it's good, not great. The plot is interesting, but really dragged in places. Right now it a 7/10, which is probably where it will stay.

[Raven Falcon.]

I "had" to read Emma - Jane Austen - once upon a time. The teacher was great - he made it fun, and I can see him now delighting in the humour which he seemed to exacerbate, but which got me, for one, through the book. Unless I do another course, I'll never read another Austen again. Good writer, icon of her time etc etc but I'm just not interested in the subject matter. Tedious comes to mind.
Tolstoy is superior when it comes to characterization. Hence, I agree that Austen is not worth reading.

Feminists will probably disagree, but I stand firm by my opinion.

[OrphanPip]

Tolstoy is superior when it comes to characterization. Hence, I agree that Austen is not worth reading.

Feminists will probably disagree, but I stand firm by my opinion.

Has nothing to do with feminist. Jane Austen is one of the few female authors that has been canonical prior to the rise of feminism. Most agree that she marks the turning point of the English novel towards realism. The 19th century novel is deeply indebted to Austen, particularly the latter 19th century authors like Henry James.

Comparing Tolstoy and Austen is ridiculous anyway, since they wrote 100 years apart from each other. Tolstoy has the fully developed form of psychological realism at his hands when he is writing. Austen is pioneering and developing that form.



I "had" to read Emma - Jane Austen - once upon a time. The teacher was great - he made it fun, and I can see him now delighting in the humour which he seemed to exacerbate, but which got me, for one, through the book. Unless I do another course, I'll never read another Austen again. Good writer, icon of her time etc etc but I'm just not interested in the subject matter. Tedious comes to mind.

Emma is a brilliant novel though. Austen's wit shines through in this novel without the heavy handed satire of Northanger Abbey.

This is the tragedy of how Austen is received these days, she is reduced to being consider as a novelist of plot. Either you enjoy romantic matchmaking plots or you don't and from that one determines how you consider Austen. This leads to droves of tween girl readers who love her, but don't appreciate her. And loads of other readers who are so accustomed to reading for plot that they are blind to the formal and technical mastery of her novels.

Edit: Austen is not a Victorian anyway, she was writing during the Georgian regency period. Victorians were not particularly fond of Austen, for them she lacked the emotion, moral sentiment, and eccentricity that they cherished. She comes back into importance with the rise of the Naturalist at the end of the century when they go searching for technical precursors to their form of realism.

[Paulclem]

Emma is a brilliant novel though. Austen's wit shines through in this novel without the heavy handed satire of Northanger Abbey.

This is the tragedy of how Austen is received these days, she is reduced to being consider as a novelist of plot. Either you enjoy romantic matchmaking plots or you don't and from that one determines how you consider Austen. This leads to droves of tween girl readers who love her, but don't appreciate her. And loads of other readers who are so accustomed to reading for plot that they are blind to the formal and technical mastery of her novels.

Edit: Austen is not a Victorian anyway, she was writing during the Georgian regency period. Victorians were not particularly fond of Austen, for them she lacked the emotion, moral sentiment, and eccentricity that they cherished. She comes back into importance with the rise of the Naturalist at the end of the century when they go searching for technical precursors to their form of realism.

Good points, and I don't think my teacher could have presented her in a more enjoyable way. Characters and all - but no, I'll not be partaking no more. (Just watch - some situation will arise when I'll have to read something by her again and I'll have to stufff down that humble pie...I just bet you).

[Raven Falcon.]

Has nothing to do with feminist. Jane Austen is one of the few female authors that has been canonical prior to the rise of feminism. Most agree that she marks the turning point of the English novel towards realism. The 19th century novel is deeply indebted to Austen, particularly the latter 19th century authors like Henry James.

Comparing Tolstoy and Austen is ridiculous anyway, since they wrote 100 years apart from each other. Tolstoy has the fully developed form of psychological realism at his hands when he is writing. Austen is pioneering and developing that form.




Emma is a brilliant novel though. Austen's wit shines through in this novel without the heavy handed satire of Northanger Abbey.

This is the tragedy of how Austen is received these days, she is reduced to being consider as a novelist of plot. Either you enjoy romantic matchmaking plots or you don't and from that one determines how you consider Austen. This leads to droves of tween girl readers who love her, but don't appreciate her. And loads of other readers who are so accustomed to reading for plot that they are blind to the formal and technical mastery of her novels.

Edit: Austen is not a Victorian anyway, she was writing during the Georgian regency period. Victorians were not particularly fond of Austen, for them she lacked the emotion, moral sentiment, and eccentricity that they cherished. She comes back into importance with the rise of the Naturalist at the end of the century when they go searching for technical precursors to their form of realism.

So now Darwin somehow indirectly marks the rise of realism?
I am ignorant of many things. I admit that I am a literature neophyte. Most novels have only received a quick glance from me.

Again, I admit that am quite reluctant to read novels that are considered as the forefathers of a particular genre when I can read novels that are recognized as the pinnacle of the genre.

In the case of realistic literature, War and Peace is at the summit I think.

[OrphanPip]

So now Darwin somehow indirectly marks the rise of realism?

Naturalist in this sense refers to a school of late 19th century realist writers, like Zola in France. But even in general she was embraced by the literary realist like Henry James.



I am ignorant of many things. I admit that I am a literature neophyte. Most novels have only received a quick glance from me.

Again, I admit that am quite reluctant to read novels that are considered as the forefathers of a particular genre when I can read novels that are recognized as the pinnacle of the genre.

In the case of realistic literature, War and Peace is at the summit I think.

That strikes me as a bad approach in general, how do you appreciate or even recognize something as the pinnacle if you can't appreciate where it is coming from or where it is going. A novel like Emma reaches for something very different than War and Peace. Frankly, I far prefer Austen's careful crafting of her relatively simple plot to the disjointed attempt at an epic in novel form that Tolstoy produces. Not to mention that Austen spares us having to read through endless 19th century philosophical discourses. Anna Karenina is a more tightly structured, and thus I feel a more effective novel in comparison to War and Peace. Austen is certainly the more talented comedic writer as well, since there is little amusing in Tolstoy's masterpieces.

Austen and Tolstoy lie at different points of a literary movement, but they are both high points. Just as Dickens forms a distinctive and important voice between them. And Flaubert in France forms an equally powerful and important voice contemporary to Tolstoy.

[Raven Falcon.]

Naturalist in this sense refers to a school of late 19th century realist writers, like Zola in France. But even in general she was embraced by the literary realist like Henry James.



That strikes me as a bad approach in general, how do you appreciate or even recognize something as the pinnacle if you can't appreciate where it is coming from or where it is going. A novel like Emma reaches for something very different than War and Peace. Frankly, I far prefer Austen's careful crafting of her relatively simple plot to the disjointed attempt at an epic in novel form that Tolstoy produces. Not to mention that Austen spares us having to read through endless 19th century philosophical discourses. Anna Karenina is a more tightly structured, and thus I feel a more effective novel in comparison to War and Peace. Austen is certainly the more talented comedic writer as well, since there is little amusing in Tolstoy's masterpieces.

Austen and Tolstoy lie at different points of a literary movement, but they are both high points. Just as Dickens forms a distinctive and important voice between them. And Flaubert in France forms an equally powerful and important voice contemporary to Tolstoy.
I hope you are not saying that Austen is infinitely the better writer between the two. (Tolstoy)
I do agree, however, that it makes more sense to compare Flaubert with Tolstoy than with somebody who could have been his grandmother.

[kiki1982]

Well, I like details. However, the details have to be described in concrete and vivid language, to which rare and abstract words simply don't belong. The best describers are those who use difficult vocabulary sparsely.

I would not say that the best decribers are those who use difficult vocabulary sparsely, I would say they are those who can convey their feelings, what they see or whatever they want to describe exactly as they wish to. If that is with very precise and what we deem 'difficult' vocabulary, then fine. It'll teach me some more to impress people :D


I didn't find Scott's vocab. too bad, and most editions have notes to get you over the little humps. I didn't find the descriptions of plant life too onerous, and (as you say) "the rest was absolutely superb". I actually came to Scott late, just this last year in fact... read Rob Roy and then quickly sought out Waverley and Ivanhoe. All superb!

Going even further back, Daniel Defoe (Moll Flanders & Robinson Crusoe) is a great story teller. Fielding (Tom Jones) is also not to be missed. As you say, the language is bit more flowery, but the compensations are great - all these characters have so much energy!

I still have to try Fielding, but I'll certainly do. Waverley was not my taste, however. Ivanhoe was and Rob Roy may be (I have to get that one too still, Amazon is so vast ;)), but I thought Waverley was too much of a Werther... Too much feeling and not enough man. It got tedious for me after a while... Ivanhoe had somehow more drive in it. Sorry to say that, but I think I will try some more anyway. Defoe was remarkably easy. I had braced myself for a long-winded and precise description of the moral deprivation of Moll Flanders, but it was so light and fun!


I hope you are not saying that Austen is infinitely the better writer between the two. (Tolstoy)
I do agree, however, that it makes more sense to compare Flaubert with Tolstoy than with somebody who could have been his grandmother.

I hope you are not suggesting that Pushkin is worse than Tolstoy? And 'not worth reading'. I dare you to tell any Russian that the inventor of the Russian novel is no good. See how long it takes before they absolutely tear you to pieces.

Neither of them is infinitely better than the other, why should they be? You yourself like Tolstoy infinitely better than Austen (although how would you know because she 'is not worth reading'?), but what does that say?

Maybe you are changing into Tolstoy though, who declared that Shakespeare was sh*te. :lol:

On another note: I find it als sad that Austen, or any book for that matter, has been reduced to plot and story. Screaming teenage girls are just the thing she loathed. Maybe she's now looking down and fondly revelling in her ultimate revenge, though: handing those who do appreciate her a way of laughing at people :lol: :piggy:

[mal4mac]

It's not the flowery language that bothers me. I like flowery language for the most part. Usually I can't get into a lot of Victorian literature because of the plots. Usually strike me as boring.

I don't, in general, agree with that at all! To be more specific, recently I have read Sartre's the Age of Reason, Mailer's The Naked and the Dead, Dickens' Our Mutual Friend, and Stevenson's Dr Jekyll. The plots of the 20th century authors were, to me, stultifyingly boring, and the 19th century plots were absolutely fascinating. Same goes for other aspects - suspense, humour, character, descriptive prose, even (perhaps surprisingly) existential depth... This is not an unusual experience... I'm convinced the 19th century was the golden age for the novel (with a few nods to the 18th) It's been downhill since then...

[mal4mac]

I "had" to read Emma - Jane Austen - once upon a time. The teacher was great - he made it fun, and I can see him now delighting in the humour which he seemed to exacerbate, but which got me, for one, through the book. Unless I do another course, I'll never read another Austen again. Good writer, icon of her time etc etc but I'm just not interested in the subject matter. Tedious comes to mind.

I was forced to read Silas Marner at school and couldn't get on with it. Fortunately I didn't let my childhood impressions affect my adult self, and read Middlemarch - a superb experience. Why not give Austen another chance? Try Price & P or Persuasion, they're quite short and pithy...

[aliengirl]

This is the tragedy of how Austen is received these days, she is reduced to being consider as a novelist of plot. Either you enjoy romantic matchmaking plots or you don't and from that one determines how you consider Austen. This leads to droves of tween girl readers who love her, but don't appreciate her. And loads of other readers who are so accustomed to reading for plot that they are blind to the formal and technical mastery of her novels.

Edit: Austen is not a Victorian anyway, she was writing during the Georgian regency period. Victorians were not particularly fond of Austen, for them she lacked the emotion, moral sentiment, and eccentricity that they cherished. She comes back into importance with the rise of the Naturalist at the end of the century when they go searching for technical precursors to their form of realism.

I was wrongly made to believe that Austen's novels were all about "romantic matchmaking plots" and that's why I stayed away from them despite her complete works were lying on the shelf within hands reach. Thankfully I had to read Emma last year (as it was in my course) and after that I knew better. Her wit and lack of emotion (where any mediocre writer would use sloppy dialogues) are engaging. Although her novels have Cinderella tale ending, she is the mistress of irony.

Austen (1775-1817) was from the Romantic era though insulated to the romantic ethos.

[Raven Falcon.]

I don't, in general, agree with that at all! To be more specific, recently I have read Sartre's the Age of Reason, Mailer's The Naked and the Dead, Dickens' Our Mutual Friend, and Stevenson's Dr Jekyll. The plots of the 20th century authors were, to me, stultifyingly boring, and the 19th century plots were absolutely fascinating. Same goes for other aspects - suspense, humour, character, descriptive prose, even (perhaps surprisingly) existential depth... This is not an unusual experience... I'm convinced the 19th century was the golden age for the novel (with a few nods to the 18th) It's been downhill since then...

I agree, even more so if you look beyond natively-written English novels in the time period. (19th century)

French and Russian novels from that period are particularly outstanding.

I think you know it better.

[Paulclem]

I was forced to read Silas Marner at school and couldn't get on with it. Fortunately I didn't let my childhood impressions affect my adult self, and read Middlemarch - a superb experience. Why not give Austen another chance? Try Price & P or Persuasion, they're quite short and pithy...

Yes - much as I respect your opinion Mal, it's going to be a no. Funnily enough I liked Silas Marner. I won't be reading Middlemarch either though.

I've come to the conclusion that I'll never read all the books I want to, and so I feel no pressure whatsoever to read an author I didn't like the first time around.

[Paulclem]

I read War and Peace last year, and I really enjoyed it. I put a lot into it - i read a history of 1812 - Napoleon's march into Russia, to get a political perspective, and frequently looked up battles like Austerlitz. That way I got much more out of it, and I though it was excellent. It was better than Anna Karenina, which I had enjoyed as a student.

I think it's hard to compare Austen and Tolstoy - their scope and interest is just so different. Pip's right about the tightly plotted Austen novels, but if you like the sweep of history mingled with brilliant characterisation, drama and romance in excellent writing, then it's got to be Tolstoy.

I've come back to Doestoyevsky as well, having just read The House of the Dead. It's one of the best classics I've read in a while, and, whilst I could appreciate Crime and Punishment, I felt House of the Dead was also excellent.

[Raven Falcon.]

I read War and Peace last year, and I really enjoyed it. I put a lot into it - i read a history of 1812 - Napoleon's march into Russia, to get a political perspective, and frequently looked up battles like Austerlitz. That way I got much more out of it, and I though it was excellent. It was better than Anna Karenina, which I had enjoyed as a student.

I think it's hard to compare Austen and Tolstoy - their scope and interest is just so different. Pip's right about the tightly plotted Austen novels, but if you like the sweep of history mingled with brilliant characterisation, drama and romance in excellent writing, then it's got to be Tolstoy.

I've come back to Doestoyevsky as well, having just read The House of the Dead. It's one of the best classics I've read in a while, and, whilst I could appreciate Crime and Punishment, I felt House of the Dead was also excellent. To enjoy a lesser work of an author more than his well-known work is not at all surprising.
I for one is currently reading Hadji Murad; from what I've read of it thus far, it's more enjoyable than War and Peace.
As for which is better, I first have to finish the novella.

Going back to Victorian literature, if you have to recommend one for a curious, which novel will you pick? ( Victorian novel, of course)

[mona amon]

It's easy to be more impressed with Tolstoy. War and Peace for instance, is much 'bigger' than anything Jane Austen wrote, in it's sweep, scope and sheer size. But it takes a special kind of perceptiveness to appreciate Jane Austen's subtleties. Not that Tolstoy's work doesn't have its own subtleties. In fact, when reading Anna Karennina and the peace parts of War and Peace, I was often reminded of Austen.

[mal4mac]

To enjoy a lesser work of an author more than his well-known work is not at all surprising.
I for one is currently reading Hadji Murad; from what I've read of it thus far, it's more enjoyable than War and Peace.

Is it a lesser work? Who says so? Harold Bloom rates it as Tolstoy's best work, in fact as his "personal touchstone for the sublime of prose fiction... the best story in the world". I'm inclined to agree with him, and you! But his other short novels are also wonderful.

Hadji Murad has none of rather tedious historical meditations of War and Peace. It is pure, almost mythical, storytelling and yet, magically, retains the historical accuracy. Bloom discusses Hadji Murad at some length in "The Western Canon", if you want to compare your observations with his.

[mal4mac]

I've come back to Doestoyevsky as well, having just read The House of the Dead. It's one of the best classics I've read in a while, and, whilst I could appreciate Crime and Punishment, I felt House of the Dead was also excellent.

I'm a bit ambivalent about Dostoevsky, I appreciated "Crime & Punishment" and "Notes from Undeground", but found "The Idiot" and "The Devils" a bit tedious. The latter two were like very inferior Jane Austen - lots of toffs hanging around not doing much (but, unlike with Jane, not being funny or interesting either...) I'll give House of the Dead a go, though, mock executions and Siberian prison camp sound much more like the Dostoevsky we know and love...

[Raven Falcon.]

Is it a lesser work? Who says so? Harold Bloom rates it as Tolstoy's best work, in fact as his "personal touchstone for the sublime of prose fiction... the best story in the world". I'm inclined to agree with him, and you! But his other short novels are also wonderful.

Hadji Murad has none of rather tedious historical meditations of War and Peace. It is pure, almost mythical, storytelling and yet, magically, retains the historical accuracy. Bloom discusses Hadji Murad at some length in "The Western Canon", if you want to compare your observations with his.

What do you think of Tolstoy's writing style? War and Peace and Hadji Murad seem to share Tolstoy's frequent use of repetition.

Certain words tend to appear again and again within the same paragraph.

[mal4mac]

What do you think of Tolstoy's writing style? War and Peace and Hadji Murad seem to share Tolstoy's frequent use of repetition.

Certain words tend to appear again and again within the same paragraph.

I'm not bothered about this. P & V are bothered about this. The Maudes are not bothered about this. I read the Maudes translation of Hadji Murad and was not bothered by the lack of repetition. I read the Maudes and P & V translations of W & P and was not bothered either way. In their introduction to their translation of War & Peace, P & V suggest that translators should be bothered about this, and give examples of other translators mostly not being bothered about this. Hmmm... it's quite a powerful stylistic technique. Perhaps I should be bothered about this

[Raven Falcon.]

I'm not bothered about this. P & V are bothered about this. The Maudes are not bothered about this. I read the Maudes translation of Hadji Murad and was not bothered by the lack of repetition. I read the Maudes and P & V translations of W & P and was not bothered either way. In their introduction to their translation of War & Peace, P & V suggest that translators should be bothered about this, and give examples of other translators mostly not being bothered about this. Hmmm... it's quite a powerful stylistic technique. Perhaps I should be bothered about this To relate it with Victorian literature, Dickens is pretty well-known for his repetition.
I think Leo Tolstoy actually adopted Dickens' style into his writing. There is big difference, however: Tolstoy's prose is prosaic as opposed to Dickens' poetic prose.

What I mean is this: Rarely do rare words appear on Tolstoy's pages. Even if one appears, it appears on rare metaphorical paragraphs used to describe events not so rare so as to make them appear rare to us.

Joking aside, that's what I mean.

[Drkshadow03]

To relate it with Victorian literature, Dickens is pretty well-known for his repetition.
I think Leo Tolstoy actually adopted Dickens' style into his writing. There is big difference, however: Tolstoy's prose is prosaic as opposed to Dickens' poetic prose.


Funny, Mal4mac made a similar point in a different thread a little while back.