When you read recently-written books and compare them to books written during the 19th/early 20th century, what sort of differences do you notice?
Overall, how does the tone and language of today's writing differ from that of the 19th/early 20th century?
Which writing style do you appreciate more? And why?
Sounds an awful lot like homework questions, which we shouldn't be doing for you. What are your own thoughts?
This is not homework. This is something that I'm curious about, especially after browsing several public domain works on Google Books.
I'll share my thoughts, but I hope they won't bias that of others. That is, if you have a different opinion or disagree, please feel free to say so. I enjoy listening to different point of views.
Here it goes: To me, it seems that modern writing is more direct, matter-of-fact, and concise. Whereas, writing from the 1800s/early 1900s seems more circuitous, sentimental, and introspective; it also tends to be wordier though not necessarily in a bad way. I've also noticed greater variety in sentence structure and diction in writing from that time period. While there are exceptions, this seems like the general trend.
The evolution of the English language is truly fascinating. I wonder what spurred these changes and whether the advent of industrialization is partly responsible.
It is an interesting topic, and there are several factors that cause such changes.
Let's start with the advent of the novel (18th century - with a few pre-cursers in the late 17th century). The earlier forms of industrialism in the 18th century had the same, albeit smaller, effect as the original agricultural revolution. That is, from the 18th century, people (upper class people) tended to have more free time, and thus, were able to sit down and read such books as Clarissa, or Tom Jones, or other lengthy novels. This culture bloomed throughout the 19th century, wherein novels began to appear both in long forms, but also in newspapers. Industrialization created a sort of schedule, a normalcy that was new to this society. People were able to keep up with the chapters spread out throughout the months' editions of the newspaper, the same way we today keep up with weekly tv shows. Because this was a growing market, the "pay by word" system became a thing in England: this accounts for the wordiness that you point out.
Let's jump ahead. The start of the 20th century saw a reaction against the pedantry and over intellectualism of the Victorians. WWI furthered this cause. No longer was there room in literature for the escapism that the Victorian texts provided. The world underwent such a horror that had to be faced and dealt with, not hidden behind stories. Post-WWI literature therefore became more succinct (Hemingway being the epitome of this). Of course, this is all very generalized - and there was still escapism being produced (Fantasy and early sci-fi) and still some wordy authors.
I don't think your assessments of contemporary literature are wholly accurate. There is a great mishmash of work out there today - maybe not reaching the level of Dickens' works when it comes to wordiness, but certainly not as condensed as you make it seem. There are two overly-general strands of books out there: those that exist for the story, sort of, a movie in print - and those that exist for the language: where the beauty of the book lies in the words. Postmodernism and its residues exist in the second category. Some of the more mainstream literature of today fall into the first.
Interesting observations, Charles Darnay.
I think the one thing that stands out from me is this: Modern writing has a lot of abbreviations slang and swearing.
Language has change and so the content is less and less impressive.
Are you serious here? Have you not read anything of post-modernism, the biggest literary movement of the post-ww2 era? Pynchon, McElroy, Gass, Nādas, DFW, Krasznahorkai... Not one of these writers could be described as direct, matter-of-fact, concise... McElroy's Women and Men and Peter Nādas' Parallel Stories might be two of the most "wordy" novels ever written... Alongside being disjointed, obfuscatory at times, labyrinthine, and certainly experimental to some extent. Krasznahorkai writes novels that seem like fiercely personal apocalypses... The apocalypse of but a single man. And his prose spirals off endlessly, several page sentences are frequent discoveries. Prose doesn't get much more beautifully grotesque than with William Gass... The Tunnel might be one of the most bizarre, yet captivating novels I have read... And these are just a few writers. I could provide a list of 100s... Even more, dependent on cutoff date... Do we throw Beckett's magnificently jarring prose in now? Nabokov's? They were certainly post ww2 to a large extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by astrum
I can only imagine you are referencing modern mass market type works for this statement to bear even a semblance to reality. Besides Joyce, it would be quite a challenge to name another writer from the late 19th/early 20th as "difficult" or "challenging" as any one of those mentioned above.
The content is less impressive because language has changed? Because there are abbreviations, slang, and swearing? How much of the modern literary canon have you read? It seems little from this statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
Regardless of what you have read, a writer of the earlier period in question, Joyce: is his prose less impressive because Ulysses is full of colloquialisms? Because Finnegan's Wake is likely incomprehensible to the average reader? Laurence Sterne and Rabelais wrote bawdy masterpieces of essentially vulgar toilet humour in this more impressive past...
Have you read Pynchon, DFW, Nabokov, Krasznahorkai, Nādas, Burroughs, McElroy, Carter, Beckett, Gass, Gaddis, Barnes,Barth, Vollmann, Kirino, Perec, Bolano, Ducornet, Ackers, Burgess, Murakami, Smith, Federmen, Queneau, Delillo, Roth, Ballard, Munro, Rushdie, Borges, Llosa, Kundera, Amis, Roy etc etc etc? If not, how can you qualify such a statement about content being less impressive?
Hi islandclimber I have picked few books at the airport through sheer boredom and I can promise you the content was much less apparent then the language. The writing was crammed with swear words abbreviations and literally littered with attitude and violence. I mean I am talking broadly speaking. The English language today is slang and half spelled. Just look at the average cheap newspapers and mobile texting. The language ihas become half lettered and half numbered. The computer does not help either.Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
Do you not see the problem with the connections you make? You have picked up a few airport novels, which are widely considered trash, and you are extrapolating from this extraordinary discovery that all modern literature is lacking in content, vulgar, crude, trash. Shouldn't little red logic flags being going up in your head? You're comparing today's trash novels to the classics of the past; you're suggesting that literature today is the equivalent of cheap newspapers and mobile texting because you have read a few airport novels. The problem is that you haven't read anything of contemporary literature that will someday achieve classic status. Therefore, how could you possibly be qualified to make a judgment on contemporary literature?Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
That list of contemporary/modern writers I began above... how many of them have you read? Better yet, check the modern libraries list of 100 greatest books of the century, or other such lists and tell me how many you have read from the past 50 years of listings... Then tell me if you feel qualified to make broad generalizations about modern literature...
I'm not just referring to literature but rather the era's overall language/voice.
even this is a bit myopic - but you're in fair company there. It's part of romanticizing the past, but the truth is, if you read 19th century essays, you will find complaints that the English language is dying and people are becoming lazy in writing and speech.
Myopic, certainly. You are comparing the works that survived the test of time - the classics of the past - to every piece of genre trash that gets published today.Quote:
Originally Posted by astrum
What do you know of mediocre writers from the 19th/early 20th century such as Sax Rohmer, Emilio Salgari, H Rider Haggard, RM Ballantyne, William Morris, Abraham Merritt, Georgette Heyer, EM Hull, Karl May, Owen Wister, Simon Mohler Landis, and so on? There were countless authors penning awful literature 100+ years ago, they just haven't survived to this day. We no longer know anything of the penny dreadfuls that were prevalent then, because today no one reads this junk. But it was some of the most popular literature of the Victoria Era. Thomas Peckett Prest, James Malcom Rymer, Horatio Alger, Oliver Optic, Harry Castlemon; any of these names ring a bell? Unlikely. But they created some of the most atrocious fiction ever...
You cannot compare a macrocosmic view of contemporary literature to a microcosmic view of 19th/early 20th century literature. Just as there is highbrow and lowbrow now, there was also highbrow and lowbrow then. A failure to take this into account reduces an opinion to irrelevancy.
hey now - what is Morris doing on that list?
Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
Take a random book/article written during the 1800s and compare that to a random book/article written recently. Then, you will probably see what I mean. For example, compare the following books on Jay Gould, a 19th-century industrialist. The first was written during the late 1800s while the second was written in our times. Do you not notice the differences in language?:
Life of Jay Gould: How He Made His Millions
The Life and Legend of Jay Gould
Charles you made really interesting observation. One thing that I would like to add is that the language. Now the language is quite much changed. But due to this you can not say that now there is not enough good writing. You can cal it different but not useless or non interesting.
I would say there is no difference whatsoever apart from the style of writing. the content is still the same. it has not changed.
According to the most recently published (June, 2011) I.E.L.T.S. (International English Language Testing System) findings "...in the last 50 years, the average working vocabulary of a 15 year old has decreased from 25,000 words to just 10,000 words," hence we might infer that both writer and audience have suffered at least minimally at the hands of the Common Denominator Effect, and that has been a lexiconic change (Aside: The Bard's estimated vocabulary is most often expressed as "c. 290,000 words;" Winston Churchill's as "400,000 words.") Given that two short centuries ago in America, collegial entry examinations required that the prospective student possess a mastery of Greek, Latin and English grammar, to be able to read three orations from Cicero's De Officiis and Virgils Æneid in the original Latin, and to evidence the ability to translate the first ten chapters of one of the four Gospels from Greek into Latin, the above remarks suggesting a decline in the "quality" of contemporary writing are probably readily justifiable.
Directly to Charles Darnay's assertion, "Let's start with the advent of the novel (18th century - with a few pre-cursers in the late 17th century):"
Why begin the examination here? The novel as a literary form has been in existence since the high Medieval period, and with the advent of printing by moveable type in the second half of the fifteenth century, had spread with some prolificity to the educated class, inclusive of Diego de San Pedro's Cárcel de Amor, Joanot Martorell's Tirant lo Blanc, Fernando de Rojas' Calisto and Melibea (i.e. Tragicomedia de Calisto y Melibea or Comedia de Calisto y Melibea), Poliphilo's Dream (Hypnerotomachia Poliphili), and coutless others which were already in print in the dwindling years of the fifteenth century. If the intent was to examine solely the sources of the English language novel form, why not begin with Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, whose first English language edition was printed in 1485, then delve into the early genre novels like Baldwin's Beware The Cat (Horror Fiction), Lyly's Euphues: The Anatomy of Wyt and Euphues and his England (both Modernist Romance), Sidney's The Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia (Adventure Fiction), Nashe's The Unfortunate Traveller(Jack Wilton) and other sixteenth century novels? Overlooking the origin of the novel form might prove just a trifle shortsighted when examining the relationship between nineteenth century and contemporary fiction.
Also aside: the entendre "pre-cursers" for 'precursors' is amusing in light of the vernacular which often passes for literature these days, but Geoffrey Chaucer was writing "cursers" - or at least some mighty randy prose - in the mid-fourteenth century.
I have a book of Australian newspaper articles from the 1840's to today, two pages for each year. The change of language is stark.
Florid and formal are the older articles, matter-of-fact and simplified are the newer ones. I love watching Victorian dramas for the florid and formal language, whilst modern mini-series like Fargo I watch for the more amusing content which couldn't be made in Victorian times though the language is ordinary.
Yours truly subscribe to the argument that things were different. Information intake is up. There are various outlets for entertainment and competing interests.
So reading a dusty old tome is probably only an exercise in historical pass-time-- if you enjoy 19th meditations on Russian aristocracy, no judgment here. Italo Calvino in his Harvard lectures wrote about the benefits of lightness, versus the density of what we call 'literature.'
A 600 page philosophical novel that's heavy on meditation and light on plot is probably unpublishable today. And yours truly makes the argument that it just shouldn't exist because none of you have anything '600 pages' important to say because you grew up in the common culture and it's molded you all into jerks anyway (writers).
Case in point, DFW.
(DFW hate time!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLPStHVi0SI
"What I was doing was closer to math than philosophy."
YOU WEREN'T DOING MATH. But saying what you're doing is kind of like math is an appeal to the authority of math, like basking in its halo gives aires of rigor and productivity and meaning. That kind of mental contortion maybe makes you post-modern, or at least Generation X. 600+ pages of how important your almost-like-math thoughts are.
We are all, by degrees, DFW. And that's why none of us should write books. No one currently living should write books anymore. We should all just be quiet for a while, maybe thumb through a magazine or something, also quietly, until death takes us.
J
What pessimism, Jack! I donīt know what DFW means, talking through acronyms is certainly an invention of more recent times. I partly agree with you, but one shouldnīt throw the towel before the time.:(
Sorry :(
Cranky Jack.
J
A couple of things. Newspapers often paid their reporters and columnists by the word in Victorian times, hence wordy articles.
Also, the last three modern books we've read at book club have been first person and present tense - eg "I enter the house, it's dark." I can't think of any classic that does that, and to be honest it doesn't always work well.
I remember looking at posterboard advertisements made during the 1870s through the 1890s and they used really long compound English words like, "It was Supersplendalicious! Exhilerationism is Awesome Pandamoniumness!" Lots of ridiculous crap like that. Specifically, the one I remember the most was a boxing advertisement with New York Irishmen "putting their dukes up".
Itīs ok, Jack! ;)
Itīs ok, Jack!;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack of Hearts
Yeah, can that even be done well?Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
But it works well when spoken, right? Like anecdotes?
J
If I were to temporarily exclude some of the more prominent experimentalists I would say the tendency has been towards greater simplicity of sentence structure and a largely drumming down of vocabulary. There are however far more types of writing being published daily than in the 18th/19th centuries. So there are still many writers who are dealing with complex and intricate thoughts in complex vocabulary and complex sentences. I guess we need a bit of both. The references to journalism in this thread are very apposite.
In America, yes, the language continues to degrade and get simpler and stupider and "McDonaldized", but elsewhere in the world such as England, Wales, Europe and India, the language has kept intelligent, although not as wordy and poetic as the long dead Victorian era, but light years above American English.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
To be fair, what sort of literature would you have found at an airport in 1953? I am sure that if you purchased a mass print book at an airport in 1953 it wouldn't be considered "trash". Same with your newspapers. How does journalism differ between 1953 and 2020? You'll probably find that the modern journalist reads less educated and less thought provoking and comes off as a lower caliber of quality in comparison to what a journalist once was.Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
So, the point about quality the thread starter was trying to make isn't all that moot. It doesn't take a neurologist to plainly see that there's been a steep decline in regards to the subject of literature and journalism quality.
I wonder what those same authors would say about todays American EnglishQuote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
You make a great point there.Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
Not merely justifiable, today's average college student is just plain stupid and inferior to a college student from 1875 and would probably crumble under the workload and demand of a real challenging education.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eman Resu
As an American, when I think about the style of America's Victorian era I think of high class American southerners. Many of them continue to embody that laid back high brow Victorian attitude and I think perhaps that was sort of where the style of that era came from.
Much like in the 1980s glam rock ruled the style and attitude of America and the 1990s grunge did the same. Everyone was using hairspray then suddenly everyone was wearing flannel. Those ideas came from one place. I think those same sort of stylistic trends came about the same way back in the 1800s and 1700s. Like, large pointy triangle hats in the 1700s. They started somewhere. Puffy shirts in the 1600s. They started somewhere.
Has anybody read The Art of Novel by Czech writer Milan Kundera?
I think it is justified when it indulges in the phenomenon of how slowly art of writing is disappearing/degrading!
Each page is filled with words of wisdom and great historical analysis as well as sensible future predictions
Must quote these lines from in there:
"NOVEL. The great prose form in which an author thoroughly explores, by means of experimental selves (characters), some great themes of existence.
LETTERS. They are getting smaller and smaller in books these days. I imagine the death of literature; bit by bit, without anyone noticing, the type shrinks until it becomes utterly invisible."
Has anybody read The Art of Novel by Czech writer Milan Kundera?
I think it is justified when it indulges in the phenomenon of how slowly art of writing is disappearing/degrading!
Each page is filled with words of wisdom and great historical analysis as well as sensible future predictions
Must quote these lines from in there:
"NOVEL. The great prose form in which an author thoroughly explores, by means of experimental selves (characters), some great themes of existence.
LETTERS. They are getting smaller and smaller in books these days. I imagine the death of literature; bit by bit, without anyone noticing, the type shrinks until it becomes utterly invisible."