Best prose stylists in English literature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

People may not be able to play like Hendrix, but they can listen to Hendrix. Normal people can not write like Hemingway or Joyce, does not matter much.
The complexity of Joyce is exagerated, it is not his invention, Mallarme was as much obscure as him and literature always had some tendency towards obscure meanings. Neo Classics like Voltaire aimed simplicity, Poe or Tchekhov too. But then you have Borges with a language simple enough for a kid and the entire complexity of themes. Even James, stilized, but far from the word-play of Joyce or even Carroll (Coleridge was already complaning about simplification of prose writers while compared to poetry writers), and of course, Stevenson was simple as hell.

---

The thing with Neo-Classicism though, generally in most parts of the world, it has a few great authors, then tends to drag for a long time, unable to evolve; it staggers, before being blown out in favor of often more radical, very new language.

I think that is apparent in French, when Romanticism essentially redefines a genre mastered over a century before its death. It happens again in England, but it also happens in, from what I understand, Chinese literature, as well as other traditions.


Generally neo-classicism, from my understanding, follows a movement that first commences as artistically brilliant - such as the rennaissance, and then somehow gets out of control, where the styllistic modes invented and developed become to decorated and fanciful. Then some people get it in their heads to "tie down" the language into "pure forms" - so you get strong writers for a while, with clean, precise, and sharp lines. This of course, gets boring quick. So Racine can develop, and French can be governed by the court of Louis XIV, or Charles II, but it doesn't develop -so by the time Voltaire comes by, the style becomes satirical - it folds upon itself, with similar shows in Swift.

The movements only managed to really move forward with, instead of a lasting refinement in style, a change in style to conventions of the exact opposite. Popular novels brought out the popular, often "trashy" forms as a counter to the limitations.

Also, Romantic poetry seems to have remade verse forms - the movement in the exact opposite direction of classicism and the 18th century in general.

This in turn becomes fanciful, and the cycle arguably respins itself in a circular point - with Romanticism being the head, then Victorianism the fanciful period, turned into Modernism, the re-defining of prose back into "purer" form, that is, "common spoken language" or Joyce's "Scrupulous meanness" or Hemmingway's "Iceberg." If we take it that way, Postmodernism is the downturn of fancy leading to the next big bang.


But that all of course is just wishful thinking. Only I find it interesting to note how neo-classical style can only stretch itself so far.

I think simplicity always runs the risk of getting boring very quickly; that's why artists coming away from it tend to obscure it. Movements that emphasize clarity and simplicity generally lead to movements of stagnation, and then about-faces.


As such, I don't know how to view someone like Swift, Defoe. or Fielding; somehow they seem dry and boring, as if they were just echoing a rather dry idea, despite the fact that in another context, they would be revered as the great stylists of their time.

Likewise, I find reading Dryden a bore, but in terms of style, he seems to have perfected the couplet form to an unmatched level; stylistically he is one of the greatest poets of English - how do we then understand that in today's context?

The whole of idea of simplicity and difficulty, of form and deviance from the form, gesture to a process of refinement, and redefinition outside of refinement. Joyce already wrote in the refined style that was the emergent force at the time; you see it in Dubliners, and in much of Portrait. But the form couldn't contain anymore, so, arguably, he sought to write the book of forms - Ulysses - in which he uses every single style of English he could think of in as many forms as he could work in. To me it reads like a Neo-Classical text more so than anything else - D. H. Lawrence would be his Romantic counterpart, as outlined by F. R. Leavis I believe.

So where does that leave this whole idea? ultimately, some degree of difficulty will emerge whether the tradition is of simplicity or difficulty. Neo-Classical writers had a knack for taking the simple, and writing the most ridiculous out of it. Marinism in Italy proves such an idea, where a penchant for gimmicks in stylized forms dominates even in a time when "classical refinement" and subject matter were thought essential.


I guess it is no surprise now that poets as well as prose-stylists are starting to push more toward the "comprehensible" - you see that in a lot of emergent authors. I wouldn't be surprised if the "simple" - the rehashing of Wordsworth and Coleridge's Lyrical Ballads introduction - is rerealized in the nearby future - as of now it looks like it's either that, or a descent into flowery, over-formed language, or else stagnation.

I'd sell my soul to write like Emerson.

I'd give it away to write like Thoreau,

Jane Austen. Look how she employs abstract nouns and relations between ideas, among others.

But if you were to consider all languages, I would say Proust. A million times Proust.

Literature is admired when it becomes obscure and the obscurer the style of the writer the greater is his status. James Joyce in Ulysses simply tried to challenge the scholars or professors of his days and he had somewhere expressed this bluntly. Derrida too was much in praise of his style of writing. Derrida is a difficult read and so is Joyce' Ulysses. I feel reading him is a waste of time. There are greater writers to choose from and running after a stylist is sheer stupidity when at the end of it all you come across is wordiness and nothing else. I like to read Tolstoy, Dickens, V> S> Naipaul, Salmon Rushdie more. Of course I got impressed by Joyce's style and repertoires of approaches to writing works of prose but more often than not the attempt I find is exasperating all the time. We can say great things in simple words, and running after a horde of critics is rubbish. English is today a global language and there are so many styles of writing in English in different countries. There great writers writing in English in India, Nepal, Pakistan, Shrilanka, Hong Kong and we must consider their styles also. Americanism or Englishness is not quite enough. Globalism must be the norm and I urge commenters here to refer to some other great writers in English originating in some non-English speaking countries. From Indian for instance come great writers in English, like Arundhoti Roy, Arvind Adiga and the like. We can quote examples from other countries too

Blaze, in the U.S., Canada, Australia, N.Z., and the U.K., etc. there is a cultural sense of 'Ireland' that probably goes beyond what is usually experienced in other nations, even those where English is commonly spoken and sometimes a first-language. In the U.S., across the Atlantic from Ireland, we celebrate every year a holiday devoted to Ireland, and I know of a pub/bar that has an oral reading of Finnegan's Wake every year to celebrate the holiday in the city I used to live in. So Americans, Brits, Canadians, etc. may have a sort of "head-start" on Joyce, his vocabulary, and his style/vernacular. STILL, just as important, is the time-gap, that keeps growing between now and the time that Joyce wrote his often perplexing novels.

So, I think it is just fair to say that for a book to be a masterwork of English, it need not be beholden to modern usages, or trends. And I think you would probably agree with this, as you have spent an admirable time commenting on Joyce in other threads, and praising his obvious, yet sometimes elusive genius. However, you are most certainly right to point to the obvious (and more obvious with every day) fact that the modern world of English, and its use in many English-using countries deserves recognition for its skill and relevance, despite the relative paucity of built-up regard.

I am ashamed to admit that I have not read Roy or Adiga, but I imagine I will sometime. I have had the pleasure of reading some V.S. Naipaul, and I certainly understand your point.

More than anything, however, I wonder if you (a very interesting Litnetter who has commented on both Joyce and Dostoevsky, and quite often) have read much of Nabokov--a writer not so old as Joyce, and similarly respected among many, yet not a native-English-speaker?

Blaze,

With respect, I think your evaluation of Joyce is a little facile. I am the first to admit that his work can present a difficult and , it must be said, sometimes unrewarding experience. However, for the reader willing and able to handle some initial disorientation, (and here I leave Finnegan's Wake aside) there is much joy to be had not only in terms of prose, but with respect to humor and characterisation. That said, and as Bill points out, an appreciation of Joyce is undoubtedly aided by an intellectual climate in which his work is the subject of intense and continued study. In any case, your broader point about moving beyond the US and Europe is well made. Indeed, I can't believe I didn't mention Naipaul in my earlier post (though I suppose he is regarded in many quarters as a British novelist).

Joyce difficult is not born from challenge from scholars, that is silly to reduce his aesthetic ambition to a simple matter of showing off. At some point, when prose started to domain the scenario, some writers started to apply the directions and demands from poems to prose. Joyce was possible just the the one who did it best, all his works, albeit in prose, are written with rythim, the words picked because their sound, their combination. The difficult of FW is that we do not have to read it only, but listen to it. Other than that, his classification as elitist is far fetched, his books may be the glory of academic stabilishment, but his themes and even language were in many aspects mundane, there is some irony how he uses the mirror of Odissey to portrait a day and a commun man.

Anyways, route to JBI...
Yes, I think to be honest, that neo-classicism lacks better understanding from us. They have a imense merit to organize the world that Romanticism would explore. It is a great momment for very good translations (1001 Nights, Pope, Champman, etc) which are the ultimate source for much of XIX delight, even more with the end of latim.
As nature, I think Classicism (those who repeat the roman model, not themselves) have a tendecy to pastiche by its very nature. They seek a form, a spirit that is no longer theirs. This bring the irony to the most of them out. And yes, they wont develop much further: they already are in their area. The XVIII century then, also had the lack of faith to enrich their texts and they will always look old if compared with the recent writers.
I however would say that stagnation is the destiny of all dominant styles, eventually they fade away and some of the modern authors are quite neo-classics (Borges or Machado de Assis) and of course, they are also noted by their humor and language economy. I think Joyce Ulysses is one of those genre blendings texts, there is neo-classical references, but that accumulation of styles seems to me quite baroque. Proust seems to me more neo-classical but with modernist this is always hard to say. Perhaps the english counterpart could be Bernard Shaw or Fitzgerald...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Joyce difficult is not born from challenge from scholars, that is silly to reduce his aesthetic ambition to a simple matter of showing off. At some point, when prose started to domain the scenario, some writers started to apply the directions and demands from poems to prose. Joyce was possible just the the one who did it best, all his works, albeit in prose, are written with rythim, the words picked because their sound, their combination. The difficult of FW is that we do not have to read it only, but listen to it. Other than that, his classification as elitist is far fetched, his books may be the glory of academic stabilishment, but his themes and even language were in many aspects mundane, there is some irony how he uses the mirror of Odissey to portrait a day and a commun man.

Anyways, route to JBI...
Yes, I think to be honest, that neo-classicism lacks better understanding from us. They have a imense merit to organize the world that Romanticism would explore. It is a great momment for very good translations (1001 Nights, Pope, Champman, etc) which are the ultimate source for much of XIX delight, even more with the end of latim.
As nature, I think Classicism (those who repeat the roman model, not themselves) have a tendecy to pastiche by its very nature. They seek a form, a spirit that is no longer theirs. This bring the irony to the most of them out. And yes, they wont develop much further: they already are in their area. The XVIII century then, also had the lack of faith to enrich their texts and they will always look old if compared with the recent writers.
I however would say that stagnation is the destiny of all dominant styles, eventually they fade away and some of the modern authors are quite neo-classics (Borges or Machado de Assis) and of course, they are also noted by their humor and language economy. I think Joyce Ulysses is one of those genre blendings texts, there is neo-classical references, but that accumulation of styles seems to me quite baroque. Proust seems to me more neo-classical but with modernist this is always hard to say. Perhaps the english counterpart could be Bernard Shaw or Fitzgerald...

---

Oh, I just meant that the movements seem to be moving in a cyclical structure. Certainly Joyce is not a prime example of neo-classicism. I just wanted to point out that he has those elements firmly engraved in him, as do Eliot, Pound, and then Auden to an extent.

Real Neo-classical though really needs to turn from Restoration until the emergence of the novel - when couplets and letter writing were at their prime.

In truth, the art of writing letters seems the most outwardly neo-classical, given that it as good as sees the reemergence of Erasmian form - the so called abundant style. In that sense, the epistolary novels seem to be neo-classical to the core, in both style and diction.

What that implies (to me) is a rather unexperimental form of language, in a stylized form. The art is in how the form is manipulated - perfected - rather than in the form itself.


What Ulysses then seems to me, is the playing of all forms - it is neo-classical, in that it swallows all the models, and builds on all the models that come before it - but ultimately, the last passage proves the most innovative and famous - as does perhaps Nausicaa.

Hemingway. Give me the iceberg method over any flimsy, convoluted, passive description any day! Of course I'm only generalising here. There are many, many great writers who are massively descriptive, however Hemingway is the king of style for me.

He's definitely a writer's writer, and one I base most of my own writing on!

Other stylists I feel that are worth notable mention are Raymond Carver (matter of fact, simple, yet beauty steeped in ordinariness), Anton Chekhov (well, not technically an 'English' writer, but still a brilliant short story writer), Graham Greene, Anthony Burgess, Italo Calvino, John Cheever and Fyodor Dostoevsky.

I think the ciclical structure is in crisis now. Anyways, I agree that letters do sound like neo-classic (unless you consider Werther) mostly because they are philosophical in their nature. So it is the essays and works with prefaces. Neo-classic prose seems to be more close to short forms. Historical narratives like Gibbons seems to be a need for epical poetry, which no neo-classic was really able to produce with competence.
I think the thing about Joyce is that the Neo-classic part of the book, the obvious influence, was a mirror. There is obvious distortions, which was a bit part of intention, it was not exactly the imitations that the poets used to do with Horace, Pindar, etc.

I would include Hemingway on the list of great stylists, but I wouldn't put him at the top. There two problems I have with his style: First, I like prose to sound good when read aloud, and his usually doesn't - he doesn't seem to have much sense of rhythm. Second, he sometimes deteriorates into self-parody. It's no wonder there are "bad Hemingway" contests. I remember a passage from the beginning of "Green Hills of Africa" that I can't quote exactly, but in my memory it went something like this: "We went up the hill and across and down into the valley and along the river and up again and then down and across and up and along and then down and through and across and along and up again and down and up and down ..."

Sheesh.

:)

Joyce has got to be up there. Easily one of the best descriptive writers. But he's already been discussed.

I'm surprised no one mentioned Orwell. Line after line, the man delivers. Knows how to get right to the point and making the most of your attention.

As far as wit goes, I like Vonnegut. His simple, crisp writing never gets dull and always knows how to put everything in perspective. Wilde, too, is easily one of the most quotable.

Hemingway's iceberg method is also something to consider. His minimalist take that "takes you to the bridge and lets you walk over it" is a bit demanding, but well worth it. Not one more word needs to be in "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place" or "Hills Like White Elephants" to portray the story. Also has some of the most memorable passages from what I've read.

I'm also a fan of Pynchon's, Salinger's, and Kerouac's styles too, though the others write better.

I skimmed the whole thread and didn't find a definition of "prose stylist", so I don't think that the responses were anything beyond preferences in writers of prose, which isn't an especially enlightening piece of information.

I can understand why there were several responses of Nabokov, and he was a damned good writer. The same is true of Joyce; although clarity was not one of his stronfpoints, and clarity is of high valuse in prose. My preference would be for someone who used the style to convey information. Most writers don't do much of that, and many would question whether it was possible, but H. P. Lovecraft created atmosphere and assisted in characterizations through his style. There are a few others who have done the same, such as Mark Twain and Jonathan Swift, but most writers are lucky to get clarity.

I think Kerouac deserves mention, his prose is clear and there are pieces infused with the early jazz of his time, which he brings to the page in bright bursts of color.

Borges postulated something of a cyclical nature to literature (or art in general) suggesting that dynamic new movements in art eventually erode into a sort of Mannerism (although Borges used the term "Baroque") and that all Mannered or "Baroque" art was by it very nature ironic... satirical... comic. Borges himself is surely not far removed from a writer like Swift or Sterne.