Printable View
He was writing fiction, not non-fiction. It is fair to critique his books that use a worse style. I think style was important to him, hence his language, but in some books, probably because of his money-seeking desires, he simply flopped with the language. I think it is a fair critique.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Stamper
im not saying it is not a fair critique... he was writing fiction yes, but he was commenting and reflecting on something that he thought was wrong with society and satirised that by inventing ridiculous caricatures to prove his point (bumble, pumblechook, bounderby, etc)... style is obviously important to most serious authors and dickens is no exception, but i dont think he was as preoccupied with style as much as he was with substance, certainly when he had something important to say (personally i think he flopped in that sense with hard times... not because of language, but because he didn't want to antagonise the mill owners and so his account of life in the industrial north was somewhat watered down).. but like you say, profit motives obviously did have a massive influence on his work and that can't be overlookedQuote:
Originally Posted by JBI
and as somebody has already mentioned, a tale of two cities is an epic novel, and that has nothing do with caricature and everything to do with being a great story teller
i think this is a really good point too.. it doesnt necessarily prove that he is a great writer in terms of style, but it is demonstrable of his value to English literature that is unsurpassed in recent timesQuote:
Originally Posted by wessexgirl
im not sure how many henry james characters people who are unfamiliar with henry james would be able to reel off...
my point is, style isnt everything...
I think Dickens had a masterful hold of the English language, he just was not afraid to show it and didn't dumb it down for anyone. He was a brilliant writer, as far as prose goes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I'll defend JBI and Joz here. By poetic, I doubt JBI meant this to mean flowerly. "Flowerly" in fact is more of a sweeping, perjorative way of generalizing all poetry, when its really more characteristic of the romantic movement - and even then "flowerly" grossly underestimates the quality of the poetry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Stamper
By poetic, we mean a general ability with language that involves vividness, a sense of rhythm and cadence, in short, a very lyrical and descriptive prose style. How a writer manipulates his language is, in my opinion, the very way in which we measure the writer's greatness. Reading Paradise Lost, as Samuel Johnson might, purely for moral messages, and ignoring the highly poetic and grandly vivid language of the verse means you might as well read the plot synopsis on Wikipedia.
Dickens work is not vivid???? :confused: Even if he is satirical, ironic, funny, and trying to convey a message, his language is all of those things. How else do we conjure up those images of his characters, stories etc. which are so recognisably "Dickensian?" See,there's even an adjective for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
Still think his work his boring..
I could substitute that word over and over, doesn't change the fact.
It is certainly the main thing. Language is a filter. It conveys a meaning, that we can assume be expressed in any language. When writing in a language (since it is so far impossible to write outside of one), it is necessarily stylistic. The words we read and the sentences we find in novels and in poetry are linguistic - this language has style. Beckett chosing to write in French because it is the language that best allows him to write without "style" does not imply that Beckett has completely been rid of style. As of yet, we do not have a universal means of expression (perhaps one day something involving numerical values), but of course these numberical values must be expressed using symbols, which are stylistic - arabic numerals, chinese numerals, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Stamper
Simply put, it is impossible to avoid style in writing. Therefore, since language is the medium in which artistic ideas are conveyed in writing (as opposed to music, painting, etc.), we must study the language itself. Without the language itself, there is no message/theme/character to be conveyed, therefore language is of the utmost importance.
I wasn't making any comment on Dickens, merely that "poetic language" is not synonymous with "flowery".Quote:
Originally Posted by wessexgirl
Also, the fact that there is a word "Dickensian" does not mean anything. Theoretically, we can form an adjective from any author's name to describe his style or idealogies - Shakespearean, Kafkaesque, Cartesian, Nabokovian, Hegelian, etc.
To take up the last example - I for one dislike Hegel. I could possibly be wrong in considering his philosophy rubbish (although I doubt it), but the mere fact that the word "Hegelian" exists doesn't act as a refutation to my dislike of him.
Of course you can form an adjective from any name. I do not think that many would conjure up such complete imagery as "Dickensian" though. Mention most of those names to the general public, particularly non-readers, and they would not have a clue about them. I think you'd be hard-pushed to find many who could not picture Dickens and his world, whether they've read them or not. His characters have become part of a national, or even international consciousness. I may be wrong, but I once read that he is the most popular author after Shakespeare, in the world. That takes some doing. And we were talking about fiction here, not philosophy. A "Dickensian" world is not like any other, it is a unique and iconic one.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
Hoope, if you remember, I am one of your friends, and it is wonderful to see what happens when young women fall out over a particular writer. It is like watching a lioness defending her cub. Dickens was a flawed writer in some ways but he was undoubtedly a great one. Anyone who has conscientiously read Oliver Twist, David Copperfield etc. will carry those characters with them throughout their life. I only wish, dear Hoope, that you didn't waste your time reading rubbish like Twighlight; surely you must see the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoope
of course you cant avoid style when writing... when did i ever make such a statement? all i said was that style isnt EVERYTHING, meaning that style - while it is important - does not a good story make... language and style IMO are two completely different thingsQuote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
basically yes it was pejorative...................................... but i said FLOWERY not flowerly..... as already mentioned, how can you possibly say dickens is not vivid? or how can you say he doesnt have a descriptive prose style???Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
milton belongs to a certain era, as does dickens... and comparing the two is irrelevant... i agree that milton is obviously more poetic than dickens, but then milton is a poet, dickens set out to make a social statement, and in his era, this highly poetic style was not the best way to make that social statement
if you judge every writer by their poetic style, then they clearly all LOSE, because nobody comes near shakespeare
I think where I part company with some of the other posters here is that I don't read for solely aesthetic reasons. Yes, I plan to be a critic/professor, and yes, I enjoy reading things from the perspective of: "It's not what it's about, it's how it's about". I like to learn the tropes and tricks of storytelling, to analyze how it's done, to see who is the most streamlined, who does it the cleanest, the best, with the most beauty. All of that is well and good and firing off in one corner of my head while reading, and I can and do (and do enjoy) writing papers entirely in that mode. But I am not just a critic, I am also a full human, who sees art not just as a game of aesthetic beauty but also potentially of spiritual and ethical beauty, who turns to art not just for intellectual stimulation but also for comfort--and comfort not in a beach-read way but in a very wholesome fulfilling way that stays with you not just for the few days after you've turned the last page but also for the rest of your life. I have a need inside of me for a well-told story that makes me feel. Some would stick up their nose at that sort of popular indulgence, but I feel sorry for the person who is so removed that he can't allow himself to really feel a story anymore. Dickens is one of those authors that really makes me feel. And I can write long papers about his structure and the political implications and his use of language till the cows come home, and I can enjoy it too. But it's not the reason why I'm a reader. Dickens scratches a very human itch, an itch I have no desire to deaden by numbing with any more of an injection of theory than is necessary for illumination. I believe at the end of the day that writers write not for critics to understand and deconstruct, but to communicate with another person. It is fun to study how communication takes place, and identify the unity and take pleasure in the turn of a phrase, but that's not always the same as hearing somebody. Dickens is a writer I hear. I hope I have not come off as naive and youthfully arrogant, just sincere and diplomatic is all I intended. When I said something similar on another forum the whole board started calling me "pretentious".
at the end of the day, it gets dark ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mopey Droney
but :thumbs_up ... dickens was never writing to please critics, he was trying to convey ideas... critics will always try and find some fault in his writing.. and i guarantee the majority of those faults will be with his 'lack of style', as demonstrated here.... im sure if you asked him yourself, he would be more concerned that you understood his message, rather than appreciated his 'style'... although im sure most critics would point out that what dickens believed himself was irrelevant