Just finished reading Great Expectations, and whilst I appreciate it is well written, I struggled with his style of writing. It seemed very over wordy which got in the way of the story for me. My favourite 'classic' authors are Steinbeck and Orwell, which are obviously 20th century. However I'm really interested in reading novels from the Victorian era. Are there any who write in a more simplistic style than Dickens?
There are others but these come immediately to mind:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cropduster84
Wilkie Collins, George Eliot, Arthur Conan Doyle, Walter Scott, and Anthony Trollope are all Victorian writers. Henry James could also be included, but if you don't like excessive wordiness, give him a miss.
Just finished reading Great Expectations, and whilst I appreciate it is well written, I struggled with his style of writing. It seemed very over wordy which got in the way of the story for me. My favourite 'classic' authors are Steinbeck and Orwell, which are obviously 20th century. However I'm really interested in reading novels from the Victorian era. Are there any who write in a more simplistic style than Dickens?
So you are seeking a Victorian writer who writes like a Modernist?
By the way... how do the words get in the way of the story? The story is but a single element of a work of literature. The choice of words or use of language is just as essential, if not more so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
What I meant by that is that I find I spend more time trying to get to grips with his sentences than paying attention to the plot, I find his style clouds the story rather than bring it to life.
Yes, I guess I am looking for Victorian authors who write in a more Modernist style. My favourite authors are John Steinbeck, Haruki Murakami, Cormac McCarthy and George Orwell. They to me write in a very simple, I suppose, easy to read style. Are there authors from the Victorian era who write closer to these styles than Dickens.
I've read Stoker's Dracula and James' Turn of The Screw, both of which I enjoyed very much. Dickens however left me somewhat bored.
I have to agree with StLukes in terms of the plot being only one part of the novel.
Scott is not Victorian, but 19th century. There is a slight difference.
Anyhooo, I find Dickens annoying, not because he is wordy (I love wordy, therefore I am wordy myself which I could still go on about, but you get the idea :D), but because his wordiness, to me, serves no purpose. It is not incredibly nice to read, it is repetitive, it is not ingenious, it is not renewing, not overly original... In short, I could write the things he wrote in 100 words in 10 and it would make no difference. You can't do that to Hardy.
If you want something nice and poetic, but also well-written (challenging your vocab) then read Hardy. He can be wordy, but his wortdiness serves a purpose. For truly sad and tragic stories you are in the right place. Otherwise, try Far from the Madding Crowd for something better. Otherwise, start with Tess of the d'Urbervilles. By all means avoid Jude the Obscure if you do not know Hardy yet. The Mayor of Casterbridge I found a bit odd, it was a little 'I desperately want to write a sad story, but I didn't really get there, because actually everything turns out well'. Still it was nice at moments.
I couldn't get into Eliot so well. At least not into The Mill on the Floss. I found it all a bit too melodramatic for its own good. But she's got some great prose moments.
The Brontë sisters are good at prose of the easy to read kind, which does not mean they do not cater for the deeper thinking public (they were incredibly well read adn it shows), but they are maybe too closed. Great as Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights are, they are very claustrophobic, although Wuthering Heights is a trememndous feat of free-thinking. Though they write very nice and flowing prose.
Scott, to include him in this anyway, although he is not Victorian, writes very wordy. And I am not really sure why. Obviously it was done then... I started with Ivanhoe and that was very good when it got going, but Waverley I didn't like so much... Although there were some great moments, it didn't do it for me. Waverley the character didn't capture me like Ivanhoe, Bois-Guilbert, Rebecca and Rowena did...
Anyway, this has reminded me that I have to try Trollope soon.
[edit] oh, and maybe you could try Wilde's only novel The Picture of Dorian Gray. Certianly well written, although the use of difficult words took me aback a bit, but maybe that was only a first impression. He has nice flowing prose, though. He is still Victorian, Wilde, isn't he?
And yes, you are not the only one who gets bored with Dickens. I have tried him twice and twice I had to give up, and I don't do that easily.
150 years or so, the educated reader in the Victorian era had a better vocabulary and comprehension of reading than the modern reader. You should not dismiss Dickens because you are having problems with him, or any other 19th century author for that matter. The problem lies with your reading comprehension which is generally improved through reading authors which are beyond your present scope.
High jumpers must raise the bar and try again. So must you.
I read Dorian Gray and enjoyed it very much, Wilde has very readable prose.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
I think I will definitley try Hardy. And I'm dying to read Bronte's Jane Eyre. I prefer darker texts.
Maybe I also find Dickens a little cartoony in his characterization. Overall, I just found Great Expectations boring. I suppose not everyone can like him. There wasn't enough there to hold my attention.
I am exactly the same.with Dickens. I get bored.
Maybe, if you like nice and sad (me too ;)), try some Emile Zola. That is of course not Victorian, but 19th century French. Pretty dark too.
Maybe after that try Les Misérables for good measure. That is misery for you.
There is Robert Louis Stevenson too, Jekyll and Hyde and Treasure Island. Stevenson can approach purple prose, but his novels are much shorter.
Part of the problem may be that, like Dumas, much of his work was serialized in newspapers, and he was paid by the word or line.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
I find it ironic that you say you like Steinbeck since I myself find him to be extremely overly wordy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cropduster84
But I would suggest you Wilke Collins who I think is a very accessible Victorian writer.
I noticed you said you like darker things so I would recommend trying
Sheridan Le Fanu.
And Bram Stoker's Dracula is a personal favorite of mine.
That's why it puzzles me that I like (even love) Dumas, but not Dickens. Maybe Dumas's sentences and word use work better in French than Dickens's in English? French is long-winded anyway, although apparently Dumas was so controversial that it was rumoured that he couldn't actually write those things himself at such a speed. Things became so bad that at some point, he actually demonstrated constructing one of his extortionately long sentences in front of a group of journalists...Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
Or maybe it is that Dumas's characters are less of a caricature than Dickens's?
I just... have given up trying to determine the problem.
I have also tried to read him with one chapter every week or so, but that doesn't do it either.
It annoys me that I continuously have to answer to people who label him a genious. I don't mean to you in particular, but to mainstream people (who have not even read any of it, I suspect).
[edit] Have to try Collins. Have to try Collins. (if only I read faster ;))
Thanks for the suggestions:yesnod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
I'm currently reading Dracula (for the second time) as I too love it. I then have Wilkie Collins The Woman In White lined up.
I think the difference is that Dumas is an action hollywood movie good writer. He knows the abc of Indiana Jones. So, his repetitions are more dialogues than descriptions or Dickens tapestry of social relations.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
Anyways, Wilde, Stoker, Stevenson, Doyle... The league of extraordinary Gentlemen is what he needs. :D
I have exactly the same problem with Dickens, exactly. I am currently reading A Tale of Two Cities bit by bit and finding it, as I do with every Dickens, unsatisfactory. There are flashes of good/great even brilliant moments, little bits here and there but that is weighed down by so much that is uninspiring and I'm just left feeling deflated.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
I'm going to stick with the book, maybe a chapter a day, but I'm not going to change my mind about this one I think or Dickens either. Such a shame.
I echo the recommendations of Hardy. Read Tess or Jude for Hardy at his best.
I think you've touched on it above: Dickens was more into social commentary and satire, while Dumas wrote ripsnorting historical action-adventure-romances. As with pretty much every kind of literature, it comes down to the individual reader's taste. I like Dickens, but I love Dumas, because he's a whole lot more fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
The difference between Dumas and Dickens is that Dumas was French and Dickens was English and nothing highlights the fact more than their writing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
I strongly recommend Anthony Trollope.
I think Dickens is no doubt wordy but not to such an extent that I've noticed. However I do find occasionally (but not too infrequently) that I come across a sentence that just makes no sense to me. This makes me feel discouraged as I end up working out a sentence for five minutes because I like to understand everything I read. Also, I don't know why I get confused by some sentences when others don't seem to. I'm not particularly dim, I hope. Winge over!
I'm not a big fan of Dickens either but I can appreciate him - if they were just shorter they might actually be better. I understand why they're so long though.
Maybe you'd like Joseph Conrad if you like Steinbeck and Orwell. All Conrad's books end miserably (well that's the impression I got after reading three of them). TBH, I cannot remember whether Conrad was wordy or not. I don't think he was but there was a lot between the lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cropduster84