Disappointment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarous

Criticizing Dickens for a 'soap opera'-like plot, etc is virtually doing the same for all of the 19th century literature. Dostoevsky, Flaubert, etc....

---

I don't agree with that. A lot of that literature has more to it than the story. I also have the same problem with Dickens. I just... there is nothing to read for me, certainly not something that should be that long anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madame X

Hehe, but if you're gonna read trash literature you might as well read it in its proper element, not so? :brow:

---

Possibly, but I can honestly say that I never read trash literature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarous
Criticizing Dickens for a 'soap opera'-like plot, etc is virtually doing the same for all of the 19th century literature. Dostoevsky, Flaubert, etc....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

I don't agree with that. A lot of that literature has more to it than the story. I also have the same problem with Dickens. I just... there is nothing to read for me, certainly not something that should be that long anyway.

---

Me neither. Dostoevsky is a world away from Dickens for one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

I don't agree with that. A lot of that literature has more to it than the story.

---

One cannot find more than the plot in Dickens? Why is he still widely read?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

Me neither. Dostoevsky is a world away from Dickens for one.

---

Obviously, Dickens and Dostoevsky have different aims in writing, but I've heard (and famous writers, such as Nabokov for one, agree) both of them compared to soap operas. It's not a wild claim, seeing how both writers revolve around plot (now go, bite my head off Men of the Underground for saying Dostoevsky revolves around plot). Novels like The Idiot and Demons are closer to Dickens, than the titanic depth of The Brothers Karamazov or Crime and Punishment, but even then I suppose one can make the case. Now I'm not in love with Dickens' work or anything, the novels I read by him were appreciable yet so-so, but I don't think he should be either ruled out due to simple plot based novels, he's is not the one penning Twilight now. But if he's a disappointment to you, well that's you and that's wholly understandable.

@Barbarous:

Because most people just read the plot? I don't know, ask them. For me he repeats himself too often so you get bored. Hugo does not repeat himself, although he fills 1000s of pages. Austen one also reads for the plot, but there is always a slightly philosophical question at the end of that plot, be it a woman-question... How do I see life? how should we see it?

Dickens was a brilliant writer in periodical form. If one publishes his stories monthly or weekly one needs to repeat oneself in order to avoid people who have forgotten what the story was about. But if you put that into a book and read it in one go, it becomes annoying (at least that is what I find).

On the other hand, Dumas also wrote for periodicals and he does not repeat. On the contrary, missed a detail? Shame for you because it is important for later.

But hey, this is a personal opinion-thread. We cannot say that 'you must like, because it is a classic'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

Yes, yes, the serial form thing is understandable but at the end of the day you can only judge the novel by the novel. As the for substance I think it is pointless looking, better to take them for what they are, (extremely sometimes) well written soaps. Yawn.

---

I think there is a lot of substance to Dickens, though. He addresses such a range of social and political issues. I would say one of the reasons I perhaps rate Great Expectations lower than Bleak House and Oliver Twist (the other two Dickens novels I've read) is because I don't remember him doing this in it as much. I do know what you mean about the soap opera feel, his characters are often caricatures and his plots always end up with some convenient coincidence or dea ex machina, however, I think it is doing him a diservice to write him off for that. There is still a lot going on there. The way he shows the interelatedness of his many many many characters in terms of their relationships and also their place in society is extremely intricate and complex. And the way he addresses issues of poverty juxtaposed with extreme wealth, or corruption alongside morality, is also very skilled.

When he wrote about the poor districts in Bleak House it was because he had seen these things and was outraged by them. When he wrote about the child corruption in Oliver Twist it was because it appalled him. And these books are saturated with these social commentaries and satires. Yet he manages to include these observations in a way that doesn't make his novels didactic or preachy. I just think there is a lot more there than soap operas dressed up in exquisite writing.

Okay. I'll take a deep breath and remember this feeling the next time I criticise Henry James or Emily Bronte! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mono

Quite dismissive, yes, but difficult to deny, and nearly impossible to ignore all of the millions of similarities of characters, plots, and themes; that this seemed the only route to publication, for a female author to "sell out," just as many authors have always done and continue to do today, other than novels like Wuthering Heights, The Awakening, Middlemarch, Silas Marner, and such classics, one can practically pick a book off the shelf, read 10 pages into it, and know roughly what will occur. Charlotte Brontë perfected the art of rhetoric; out of all of her novels, especiallyVillette, I thought her language use entrancing, her descriptions remarkable, her individual character-depth astounding, but I feel she still lacked the original plot that her younger sister, Emily, could only connive (I just remembered Dr. Alfred Adler, a psychologist famed for his developmental theory, always considered creativity a quality more of middle-children than eldest or youngest :lol:). I thought all of the Brontës amazingly talented writers, and I enjoyed all of their novels (yet snoozed a bit through Agnes Grey), but feel that Charlotte and Anne sold out into that Jane-Austen mentality that in order to get successfully published, women writers must follow this-and-that template; it all seemed way too easy to understand, and reading something in-depth into it, which many have attempted with Austen, seemed a lot like leading one's self on, rather than finding a pearl in the oyster shell.
Trends like these exist, and always will. During the Romantic era, a poet practically had to have a graduate degree in Greco-Roman mythology in order to write well (sarcasm, of course); the English and Irish flight-of-consciousness writers of the early 20th century gained high acclaim in their time; no one can deny the Dickensian verbosity popular in 19th century English and American literature, which would leave no irrelevant crack in the wall undescribed; post-Renaissance literature obsessed about heroics and chivalry. The trends undoubtedly persist even today, and will come clearer once the early 21st century drifts into the past, but some writers prefer squeezing themselves into these common areas of thought and rhetoric, and a few others step outside the boundaries of acceptance, think beyond the common societal values, and write the forever unwritten by any other hand. Perhaps Anne and Charlotte had that ability, too, yet, unlike Emily, they refused to utilize an obviously familial talent.

---

Okay. I do agree with you to an extent. However, I do think that both Charlotte and Anne rocked the boat more than you're perhaps giving them credit for. I know Emily and other female writers like George Elliott flouted the female narrative and plot traditions more but I still think that there are some surprises in Charlotte and Anne's works. They did hide behind predictable plots but they used them to make their points. In Jane Eyre Charlotte openly critisises the so called 'charitable' orphans' institutions with her section at Lowood. And Anne goes even further to make points not really addressed about domestic abuse and women's limited marital and social power in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall.

I know you're not saying you dislike Anne and Charlotte's works. And I recognise that as much as I personally dislike Wuthering Heights, Emily was perhaps more brave in writing it than her sisters. I guess I just get very defensive over Charlotte and Anne!

Jane Eyre might have been a conventional plot (although it probably has become more so since the time that book was written than the contrary), but it certainly is not convenional like Austen is more so. There is much more of an intellectual base in Jane Eyre than in Austen (references, psychology and science).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

But hey, this is a personal opinion-thread. We cannot say that 'you must like, because it is a classic'.

---

This I certainly agree with! When I read my first Dickens book, there was something that loosely reminded me of Dostoevsky...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lady

Okay. I'll take a deep breath and remember this feeling the next time I criticise Henry James or Emily Bronte!

---

:lol::lol:
No worries, Dark Lady, do not get yourself caught in a corner - we like a strong, raw, yet heartfelt discussion from time to time - all for good fun, and for the love of literature. If it makes you feel any better, I would not consider myself an immense fan of Henry James either, perhaps other than The Turn of the Screw and many of his short stories; in another thread, I even strongly defended William Somerset Maugham over him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mono

:lol::lol:
No worries, Dark Lady, do not get yourself caught in a corner - we like a strong, raw, yet heartfelt discussion from time to time - all for good fun, and for the love of literature. If it makes you feel any better, I would not consider myself an immense fan of Henry James either, perhaps other than The Turn of the Screw and many of his short stories; in another thread, I even strongly defended William Somerset Maugham over him.

---

Mono,
It's no use quoting Maugham to a membership who, for the most part, don't know who he is because the majority of latter-day Americans are incestuously concerned with the likes of Salinger and Kerouac and fail to understand that their psyche is, and has been for quite some time, fully understood by Maugham as well as James.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

Mono,
It's no use quoting Maugham to a membership who, for the most part, don't know who he is because the majority of latter-day Americans are incestuously concerned with the likes of Salinger and Kerouac and fail to understand that their psyche is, and has been for quite some time, fully understood by Maugham as well as James.

---

Actually us Americans are just too busy watching Jerry Springer and speaking Klingon.

I take it you don't like Salinger and Kerouac?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Actually us Americans are just too busy watching Jerry Springer and speaking Klingon.

I take it you don't like Salinger and Kerouac?

---

I'm actually more of a fan of The Howard Stern Show and French but the point is not entirely without merit. To me, Catcher in the Rye and On the Road are two of the best books ever written, and the independent streak in me is always a little flattered when foreigners talk disdainfully about the American character. My favorite is by D.H Lawrence.

"The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted."

I could only wish we were such a nation of badasses, but at least we're getting the message out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

I'm actually more of a fan of The Howard Stern Show and French but the point is not entirely without merit. To me, Catcher in the Rye and On the Road are two of the best books ever written, and the independent streak in me is always a little flattered when foreigners talk disdainfully about the American character. My favorite is by D.H Lawrence.

"The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted."

I could only wish we were such a nation of badasses, but at least we're getting the message out.

---

I was talking about us REAL Americans. French?! They're called freedom fries buddy!

You think Catcher in the Rye is one of the best books ever written? Why? Can you unpack that statement a bit? I find it interesting that someone loves Catcher.

Did not like Sartre 'nausea' ; it was below expectation. Same goes with orhan pamuk's my name is red, i thought it dragged on way too much. Love huxley's work, especially point counter point. Btw has anyone read h.g. wells non sci fi stuffs like ann veronica, meanwhile, aristocracy of mr parham etc, I loved them!!! Did you guys read poor folk by Dostoevsky, simply awesome.

N.B. i am among those people who watch trash stuffs like star trek and whats more abominable, i actually call myself trekkie LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

I was talking about us REAL Americans. French?! They're called freedom fries buddy!

You think Catcher in the Rye is one of the best books ever written? Why? Can you unpack that statement a bit? I find it interesting that someone loves Catcher.

---

It's sort of an American Notes From Underground. You have your protagonist the anti-hero at war with himself and society, a textbook self-loather, existentialist intellectual, Hamlet type, frozen into inaction by his compulsion to overthink his situation and be better than the culture he despises. You have this ambiguous response to that world which he both longs to be a part of and scorns for the vices he alone seems able to distinguish. He interacts with people and has a habit of hyperbolizing and turning them into symbols of good and evil. The book deals with urban life, modern feelings of alienation, the transition from childhood to adulthood, sexual angst, a somewhat quixotic Grail questing hero searching for a meaning to his life. He's got to deal with his brother's death and his own burgeoning consciousness of mortality. In that way it's a little like Gilgamesh or in the way the character rambles around sort of bumping up against life Holden could be compared to the protagonist of Sartre's Nausea. It's a very deep book that captures the psychology of American adolescence exceptionally well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

It's sort of an American Notes From Underground. You have your protagonist the anti-hero at war with himself and society, a textbook self-loather, existentialist intellectual, Hamlet type, frozen into inaction by his compulsion to overthink his situation and be better than the culture he despises. You have this ambiguous response to that world which he both longs to be a part of and scorns for the vices he alone seems able to distinguish. He interacts with people and has a habit of hyperbolizing and turning them into symbols of good and evil. The book deals with urban life, modern feelings of alienation, the transition from childhood to adulthood, sexual angst, a somewhat quixotic Grail questing hero searching for a meaning to his life. He's got to deal with his brother's death and his own burgeoning consciousness of mortality. In that way it's a little like Gilgamesh or in the way the character rambles around sort of bumping up against life Holden could be compared to the protagonist of Sartre's Nausea. It's a very deep book that captures the psychology of American adolescence exceptionally well.

---

Hmmm, I never thought of the book as a modern day Hamlet. Not exactly what you said, of course, but I suppose Holden does have many of those qualities.

I think that it is a stunning example of first-person unreliable narrator done correctly. If anyone was trying to write a book with a first-person unreliable narrator I think this would be the book to check out. You have a very interesting analysis there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Hmmm, I never thought of the book as a modern day Hamlet. Not exactly what you said, of course, but I suppose Holden does have many of those qualities.

I think that it is a stunning example of first-person unreliable narrator done correctly. If anyone was trying to write a book with a first-person unreliable narrator I think this would be the book to check out. You have a very interesting analysis there.

---

Oh, I think you could definitely go both routes with this character. Take Hamlet as your archetypal example. Is he sane? Is he crazy? Does he want people to think he's crazy? So many antiheroes are mixed up with themes of insanity and unreliable narratives. There's Yossarian, Humbert Humbert, Tyler Durden, Patrick Bateman. I wonder if we might even put Camus' character the stranger in this category, call it outsider fiction? When we recall that Holden is writing from some form of hospital either for his neurosis or because he caught something while sitting out in the cold at the end of the novel, there is a certain room for doubt.

The slant doesn't even have to be deliberate. The youth and innocence of Huckleberry Finn often skews the narrative to humorous effect. Should we rush to condemn and think the worst of Holden?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Actually us Americans are just too busy watching Jerry Springer and speaking Klingon.

I take it you don't like Salinger and Kerouac?

---

Nope, teenage angst and beatniks are definitely not my cup of tea.