PDA

View Full Version : Has modern writing lost something?



astrum
01-05-2014, 11:07 AM
From Google Books & Hathitrust mainly, I've read scores of books/letters/articles written during the 1700s, 1800s, and early 1900s.

And it has been my observation that such writings differ considerably from modern writing. Writings from that period were incredibly candid (people didn't mince words), had much more heart/poignancy, displayed a higher level of introspection & self-awareness, and used a wider variety of vocabulary/idiomatic expressions. On the other hand, modern writings tend to be more matter-of-fact.

Has anyone else noticed this? If so, what do you make of it?


As an example, see the passage below:




I take up my pen just to give you an imperfect account of one of the most dreadful hurricanes that memory or any records whatever can trace, which happened here on the 31st ultimo at night. It began about dusk, at North, and raged very violently till ten o'clock. Then ensued a sudden and unexpected interval, which lasted about an hour. Meanwhile the wind was shifted round to the South West point, from whence it returned with redoubled fury and continued so 'till near three o'clock in the morning. Good God! what horror and destruction. It's impossible for me to describe or you to form any idea of it. It seemed as if a total dissolution of nature was taking place. The roaring of the sea and wind, fiery meteors flying about it in the air, the prodigious glare of almost perpetual lighting, the crash of falling houses, and the ear-piercing shrieks of the distressed, were sufficient to strike astonishment into Angels. A great part of the buildings throughout the Island are leveled to the ground, almost all the rest very much shattered; several persons killed and numbers utterly ruined; whole families running about the streets, unknowing where to find a place of shelter; the sick exposed to the keenness of water and air without a bed to lie upon, or a dry covering to their bodies; and our harbors entirely bare. In a word, misery, in all its most hideous shapes, spread over the whole face of the country. A strong smell of gunpowder added somewhat to the terrors of the night; and it was observed that the rain was surprisingly salt. Indeed the water is so brackish and full of sulphur that there is hardly any drinking it.

My reflections on this frightful and melancholy occasion are set forth in the following self-discourse.

Where now, oh! vile worm, is all thy boasted fortitude and resolution? What is become of thine[(original reads "they")] arrogance and self sufficiency? Why dost thou tremble and stand aghast? How humble, how helpless, how contemptible you now appear. And for why? The jarring of elements – the discord of clouds? Oh! impotent and presumptuous fool! how durst thou offend that Omnipotence, whose nod alone were sufficient to quell the destruction that hovers thee, or crush thee into atoms? See thy wretched and helpless state, and learn to know thyself. Learn to know thy best support. Despise[(original reads "despite")] thyself, and adore thy God. How sweet, how unutterably sweet were now the voice of an approving conscience; Then couldst thou say, hence ye idle alarms, why do I shrink? What have I to fear? A pleasing calm suspense! A short repose from calamity to end in eternal bliss? Let the Earth rend. Let the planets forsake their course. Let the Sun be extinguished and the Heavens burst asunder. Yet what have I to dread? My staff can never be broken – in Omnip[o]tence I trusted.

He who gave the winds to blow, and the lightnings to rage – even him I have always loved and served. His precepts I have observed. His commandments I have obeyed – and his perfections have I adored. He will snatch me from ruin. He will exalt me to the fellowship of Angels and Seraphs, and to the fullness of never ending joys.

But alas! how different, how deplorable, how gloomy the prospect! Death comes rushing on in triumph veiled in a mantle of tenfold darkness. His unrelenting scythe, pointed, and ready for the stroke. On his right hand sits destruction, hurling the winds and belching forth flames: Calamity on his left threatening famine disease and distress of all kinds. And Oh! thou wretch, look still a little further; see the gulph of eternal misery open. There mayest thou shortly plunge – the just reward of thy vileness. Alas! wither canst thou fly? Where hide thyself? Thou canst not call upon thy God; thy life has been a continual warfare with him.

Hark – ruin and confusion on every side. 'Tis thy turn next; but one short moment, even now, Oh Lord help. Jesus be merciful!

Thus did I reflect, and thus at every gust of wind 'till it pleased the Almighty to allay it. Nor did my emotions proceed either from the suggestions of too much natural fear, or a conscience over-burdened with crimes of an uncommon cast. I thank God, this was not the case. The scenes of horror exhibited around us, naturally awakened such ideas in every thinking breast, and aggravated the deformity of every failing of our lives. It were a lamentable insensibility indeed, not to have had such feelings, and I think inconsistent with human nature.

Our distressed, helpless condition taught us humility and contempt of ourselves. The horrors of the night, the prospect of an immediate, cruel death – or, as one may say, of being crushed by the Almighty in his anger—filled us with terror. And every thing that had tended o weaken our interest with him, upbraided us in the strongest colours, with our baseness and folly. That which, in a calm uruffled temper, we call a natural cause, seemed then like the correction of the Deity. Our imagination represented him as an incensed master, executing vengeance on the crimes of his servants. The father and benefactor were forgot, an in that view, a consciousness of our guilt filled us with despair.

But see, the Lord relents. He hears our prayer. The Lighting ceases. The winds are appeased. The warring elements are reconciled and all things promise peace The darkness is dispell'd and drooping nature revives at the approaching dawn. Look back Oh! my soul, look back and tremble. Rejoice at thy deliverance, and humble thyself in the presence of thy deliverer.

Yet hold, Oh vain mortal! Check thy ill timed joy. Art thou so selfish to exult because thy lot is happy in a season of universal woe? Hast thou no feelings for the miseries of thy fellow-creatures? And art thou capable of the soft pangs of sympathetic sorrow? Look around thee and shudder at the view. See thy fellow-creatures pale and lifeless; their bodies mangled, their souls snatched into eternity, unexpecting. Alas! perhaps unprepared! Hark the bitter groans of distress. See sickness and infirmities exposed to the inclemencies of wind and water! See tender infancy pinched with hunger and hanging on the mothers knee for food! See the unhappy mothers anxiety. Her poverty denies relief, her breast heaves with maternal pity, her heart is bursting, the tears gush down her cheeks, Oh sights of woe! Oh distress unspeakable! My heart bleeds, but I have no power to solace! O ye, who revel in affluence, see the afflictions of humanity and bestow your superfluity to ease them. Say not, we have suffered also, and thence withhold your compassion. What are you[r] sufferings compared to those? Ye still have more than enough left. Act wisely. Succour the miserable and lay up treasure in Heaven.


You'd be hard-pressed to find a modern piece like that above....

JCamilo
01-05-2014, 12:05 PM
Modern writting is in the early 1900's and if you compare a large sample of authors (3 centuries) to a short sample, you will always find a biased statistic. But I suppose you can say for example, that Voltaire is a candid writer.

astrum
01-05-2014, 12:36 PM
Modern writting is in the early 1900's and if you compare a large sample of authors (3 centuries) to a short sample, you will always find a biased statistic. But I suppose you can say for example, that Voltaire is a candid writer.


By "modern," I'm referring more so to writings from our times

sandy14
01-05-2014, 02:02 PM
Not necessarily, because less is more.

Much of today's writing is leaner and more focused, leaving the reader to do some of the work. They are different styles, but I think modern writing has gained something by becoming less verbose. If every book started with "I pick up my pen..." it soon becomes boring.

stlukesguild
01-05-2014, 02:21 PM
No... "Less is a bore" since we're citing artists' quotes.

Personally I tend to lean toward a richer, poetic, more sensuous and descriptive manner of writing... but both have their strengths when done well.

I have little idea whether contemporary writing is less "verbose" than older writing. I suspect that there are areas where richness in descriptiveness has been lost: descriptions of nature, for example. But this probably owes much to our contemporary reality which is often quite removed from nature so that we might not frequently hear words like bramble, brier, thicket, mire, etc... On the other hand, our vocabulary has undoubtedly gained a great many terms related to our experience with technology, for example. I also suspect that as a result of technology... the internet and texting... as well as access to alternative sources of "entertainment" (video games, videos, films, TV) our culture as a whole has less time... and patience... for reading something that goes on for 1000 pages.

sandy14
01-05-2014, 06:51 PM
so that we might not frequently hear words like bramble, brier, thicket, mire,

Yes, people moved into the cities and we get descriptions of city life as well as country life. (Howard's End is an example of the tensions this was causing). However, the words also became clichés. There are only so many poets or lovers that can get caught in the mire before it gets boring. The reader ends up a step ahead of the writer. When dire turns up in a poem, it almost certain that the rhyme will be mire, desire or require.

Oliver Twist was originally published in serialised form, as were many of the "classic novels" we see today. Reading Oliver Twist in a serialised form is a different prospect to having the whole text in front of you. One is a staircase, the other a mountain.

Reading has always competed with other forms of entertainment. There are more distractions today, but if folk didn't want to read before they could do other things. One important difference, perhaps, was the observance of the Sabbath. In my parent's village in Scotland people were not allowed to work on a Sunday. This included most domestic chores - you could read, walk or visit relatives and that was about it. So people read because they were not allowed to do anything else. It's all changed now, but the habit of reading has stayed with the older members of the community. When I visit they are always swapping books or discussing what they have borrowed from the library.

Reading large and difficult texts has always been a minority sport. Some people play rugby, and I don't get it. Why people get themselves covered in mud and break their heads in an argument over a ball and call it fun is something I will never understand. Some folk say the same about reading Ulysses, and other big books.

Let those who want to play rugby - play rugby. Let those who enjoy reading big books - read them. As to why they choose to spend their time in this way - I leave that to the psychologists. To each their own.

JCamilo
01-05-2014, 10:46 PM
Today texts are not shorter or larger than texts in the past, it is false. Voltaire used much less words than J.K.Rowling for example. Haikus exists for centuries. Epigrams for thousand years. You must suspect that the conclusion is based in a sample bias that put together 3 centuries of literature as if they are the same.

stlukesguild
01-06-2014, 12:47 AM
Poetry is always something altogether different... especially considering how few... even here... regularly read it. Yes... we have extremely short poems... and long/epic narrative poems (Omeros, The Changing Light at Sandover, The Maximus Poems, Canto General, Kazantzakis' Odyssey, etc...) But prose... the novel... has dominated to an extent since the 19th century. Are our contemporary novels really on the same scale as the 19th/early 20th century epics: The Brothers Karamazov, Crime and Punishment, Anna Karenina, War and Peace, Les Miserables, The Three Musketeers, In Search of Lost Time? I suppose you are right now that I browse about my shelves: Durrell's Alexandria Quartet, Gormenghast Trilogy, Lord of the Rings, Roth's Zuckerman Bound, Pynchon's V, Gravity's Rainbow, and Mason & Dixon, DeLillo's Underworld, John Barth's Giles, Goat Boy and The Sot-Weed Factor, Gore Vidal's Julian, Burr, Lincoln, Empire, etc...

mona amon
01-06-2014, 12:57 AM
From Google books & many other places, I've been able to read scores of books/letters/articles written during the 1700s, 1800s, and early 1900s.

And it has been my observation that such writings differ considerably from modern writing. Writings from that time period were incredibly candid (people didn't mince words), abounded with heart and poignancy/emotion, were more introspective, and used a wider variety of vocabulary/idiomatic expressions. On the other hand, modern writings tend to be more matter-of-fact. Has anyone else noticed this? If so, what do you make of it all?

Speaking of the Average Joe rather than the professional writer, I think people were better writers in those days because it was the only form of long distance communication. Telephone calls and Skype have mostly replaced letters, notes and e-mails, and photographs are a substitute for detailed description. Of course there are still things like creative text messages and forum posts.

JCamilo
01-06-2014, 01:23 AM
Poetry is always something altogether different... especially considering how few... even here... regularly read it. Yes... we have extremely short poems... and long/epic narrative poems (Omeros, The Changing Light at Sandover, The Maximus Poems, Canto General, Kazantzakis' Odyssey, etc...) But prose... the novel... has dominated to an extent since the 19th century. Are our contemporary novels really on the same scale as the 19th/early 20th century epics: The Brothers Karamazov, Crime and Punishment, Anna Karenina, War and Peace, Les Miserables, The Three Musketeers, In Search of Lost Time? I suppose you are right now that I browse about my shelves: Durrell's Alexandria Quartet, Gormenghast Trilogy, Lord of the Rings, Roth's Zuckerman Bound, Pynchon's V, Gravity's Rainbow, and Mason & Dixon, DeLillo's Underworld, John Barth's Giles, Goat Boy and The Sot-Weed Factor, Gore Vidal's Julian, Burr, Lincoln, Empire, etc...

Not to mention, some of those novels were put together as a big volume way after the first editions, who will not say people will - with the changes of technology - lump together all Harry Potter books as a single work. I am pretty sure, all Lord of the Rings put together maybe as big as War and Peace and even at anytime, Tolstoy's masterwork has a notable size if compared to any work ever written, not just today and the same tolstoy also wrote several short stories or a smaller work like Ivan Ilitch.

It is all down to style, the same cervantes of Don Quixote, wrote several short novellas, the Voltaire of Henriade wrote Candide, The Dante (he was candid?) also wrote several short poems, etc. For a Hemingway, a Faulkner. In every age, specially because there will be always selective kind of readers demanding more or less from text and that will read anything from anytime.

astrum
01-06-2014, 02:09 PM
Speaking of the Average Joe rather than the professional writer, I think people were better writers in those days because it was the only form of long distance communication. Telephone calls and Skype have mostly replaced letters, notes and e-mails, and photographs are a substitute for detailed description. Of course there are still things like creative text messages and forum posts.


@mona amon

I think that you might be on to something.

Volya
01-06-2014, 02:32 PM
Not to mention, some of those novels were put together as a big volume way after the first editions, who will not say people will - with the changes of technology - lump together all Harry Potter books as a single work. I am pretty sure, all Lord of the Rings put together maybe as big as War and Peace and even at anytime, Tolstoy's masterwork has a notable size if compared to any work ever written, not just today and the same tolstoy also wrote several short stories or a smaller work like Ivan Ilitch.

It is all down to style, the same cervantes of Don Quixote, wrote several short novellas, the Voltaire of Henriade wrote Candide, The Dante (he was candid?) also wrote several short poems, etc. For a Hemingway, a Faulkner. In every age, specially because there will be always selective kind of readers demanding more or less from text and that will read anything from anytime.

If I'm not mistaken Tolkein originally intended to publish it as one novel but the publishers made him split it into three novels. Now if you were to add The Lord of the Rings together with all the other works set in the same universe (i.e, The Hobbit, The Children of Hurin, The Silmarillion, etc) then it would be absolutely VAST.

blank|verse
01-06-2014, 03:57 PM
And it has been my observation that such writings differ considerably from modern writing. Writings from that time period were incredibly candid (people didn't mince words), abounded with heart and poignancy/emotion, were more introspective, and used a wider variety of vocabulary/idiomatic expressions. On the other hand, modern writings tend to be more matter-of-fact. Has anyone else noticed this? If so, what do you make of it all?
The short answer to your question is that the artistic movement of Modernism (http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/5664) happened and did away with the traditional ways of writing poetry, plays and novels.

astrum
01-06-2014, 06:31 PM
The short answer to your question is that the artistic movement of Modernism (http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/5664) happened and did away with the traditional ways of writing poetry, plays and novels.


Interesting.

Please, could you expound?

cacian
01-07-2014, 02:43 PM
has it lost something? I think it has lost why it writes rather then how it writes.
modern writing writes a lot but I do not feel it knows why it is writing. there are more books then there are reasons.
what is the meaning of writing is a question worth considering I think.

astrum
01-11-2014, 05:19 PM
You all might be interested in the following article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/science/study-finds-literary-mood-reflects-previous-decades-economy.html?_r=1

hannah_arendt
01-11-2014, 05:46 PM
You all might be interested in the following article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/science/study-finds-literary-mood-reflects-previous-decades-economy.html?_r=1

Thanks for sharing :)

ajvenigalla
04-26-2015, 04:38 PM
stlukesguild don't forget Blood Meridian. That's a great 20th century prose epic, like Moby-Dick

stlukesguild
04-26-2015, 06:02 PM
I'm not one to forget Blood Meridian. I was one of the few promoting McCarthy here for years.

Scheherazade
04-26-2015, 08:00 PM
Here is what the readers think:

http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-most-overrated-books-of-all-time?page=2

tonywalt
04-27-2015, 11:58 AM
Here is what the readers think:

http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-most-overrated-books-of-all-time?page=2

Not surprised to see Infinite Jest on there - I've always suspected that some people lie about reading it, even a few reviewers.