Victorian Literature

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You are joking, there aren't many Victorian novels that come to mind as particularly good? Try Thomas Hardy, Emily and Charlotte Bronte, Wilkie Collins, Charles Dickens, George Eliot, Oscar Wilde, Bram Stoker, Mary Elizabeth Braddon, George Gissing, William Morris, Arthur Conan Doyle, Lewis Carroll, Elizabeth Gaskill, William Thackeray, Anthony Trollope, George Meredith, R. L. Stevenson, Thomas Hughes, Charles Kingsley...

..............................

Here's Guardian article opinion piece on the top ten Victorian novels, I wonder how much people agree with the choices?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002...ters.bestbooks

I shouldn't have used the word "good," but "enjoyed." Though, I have enjoyed Oscar Wolde VERY much, so he would probably be my favorite Victorian writer. Like I said, I need to read more from the era. In retrospect, I should really reserve judgement until I do so. My favorite book is Moby Dick, but even though it was written within the Victorian time period, I don't think it's considered Victorian . . . right?

I'm reading Jane Eyre right now, and I'm liking it, but not loving it. That kin of seems the pattern for me when it comes to the few Victorian books I've read.

[Raven Falcon.]

I shouldn't have used the word "good," but "enjoyed." Though, I have enjoyed Oscar Wolde VERY much, so he would probably be my favorite Victorian writer. Like I said, I need to read more from the era. In retrospect, I should really reserve judgement until I do so. My favorite book is Moby Dick, but even though it was written within the Victorian time period, I don't think it's considered Victorian . . . right?

I'm reading Jane Eyre right now, and I'm liking it, but not loving it. That kin of seems the pattern for me when it comes to the few Victorian books I've read.

Victorian literature: Characterized by the overuse of flowery language.

[kiki1982]

Not all Victorian lit is over-used flowery language. I would say the 18th century was much worse, and rare vocab at that. All very precise. Scott for example still has a lot of that. The start of Ivanhoe... A Victorian would not have made it so long but would have thrown you straight into the story, but no, Scott absolutely had to describe the wood, its grass and its trunks in the most minute detail... That is as far as I remember, though and the rest was absolutely superb.

The Victorians delighted in description of nature and architecture. That is all. And some emotion thrown in like on Turner's paintings. However, all that emotion, and all those inner conflicts which are mostly about the same things can become somewhat tedious. Abd some people just don't see what the point is...

[Raven Falcon.]

Not all Victorian lit is over-used flowery language. I would say the 18th century was much worse, and rare vocab at that. All very precise. Scott for example still has a lot of that. The start of Ivanhoe... A Victorian would not have made it so long but would have thrown you straight into the story, but no, Scott absolutely had to describe the wood, its grass and its trunks in the most minute detail... That is as far as I remember, though and the rest was absolutely superb.

The Victorians delighted in description of nature and architecture. That is all. And some emotion thrown in like on Turner's paintings. However, all that emotion, and all those inner conflicts which are mostly about the same things can become somewhat tedious. Abd some people just don't see what the point is...

Well, I like details. However, the details have to be described in concrete and vivid language, to which rare and abstract words simply don't belong. The best describers are those who use difficult vocabulary sparsely.

[Raven Falcon.]

I shouldn't have used the word "good," but "enjoyed." Though, I have enjoyed Oscar Wolde VERY much, so he would probably be my favorite Victorian writer. Like I said, I need to read more from the era. In retrospect, I should really reserve judgement until I do so. My favorite book is Moby Dick, but even though it was written within the Victorian time period, I don't think it's considered Victorian . . . right?

I'm reading Jane Eyre right now, and I'm liking it, but not loving it. That kin of seems the pattern for me when it comes to the few Victorian books I've read.

No. Moby Dick, though written in the Victorian era, cannot be considered a Victorian novel simply because it hardly shares any elements that Victorian novels share among themselves. Another reason is of course the fact that Moby Dick is an American novel and to my limited knowledge Victorian novels are British.
Even the language of Moby Dick is different; it seems to me to sound as Shakespearian or Miltonic, though not made pretentious by any comparison to the works of those two giants.

[mal4mac]

Not all Victorian lit is over-used flowery language. I would say the 18th century was much worse, and rare vocab at that. All very precise. Scott for example still has a lot of that. The start of Ivanhoe... A Victorian would not have made it so long but would have thrown you straight into the story, but no, Scott absolutely had to describe the wood, its grass and its trunks in the most minute detail... That is as far as I remember, though and the rest was absolutely superb.

I didn't find Scott's vocab. too bad, and most editions have notes to get you over the little humps. I didn't find the descriptions of plant life too onerous, and (as you say) "the rest was absolutely superb". I actually came to Scott late, just this last year in fact... read Rob Roy and then quickly sought out Waverley and Ivanhoe. All superb!

Going even further back, Daniel Defoe (Moll Flanders & Robinson Crusoe) is a great story teller. Fielding (Tom Jones) is also not to be missed. As you say, the language is bit more flowery, but the compensations are great - all these characters have so much energy!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It's not the flowery language that bothers me. I like flowery language for the most part. Usually I can't get into a lot of Victorian literature because of the plots. Usually strike me as boring.

[LitNetIsGreat]

It's not the flowery language that bothers me. I like flowery language for the most part. Usually I can't get into a lot of Victorian literature because of the plots. Usually strike me as boring.

A tad bit generalised perhaps? How are you getting on with Jane Eyre?

.....................


I must say that I am enjoying David Copperfield despite my long-standing ambivalence with Dickens. Maybe this is the one?

[Paulclem]

I "had" to read Emma - Jane Austen - once upon a time. The teacher was great - he made it fun, and I can see him now delighting in the humour which he seemed to exacerbate, but which got me, for one, through the book. Unless I do another course, I'll never read another Austen again. Good writer, icon of her time etc etc but I'm just not interested in the subject matter. Tedious comes to mind.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

A tad bit generalised perhaps? How are you getting

Maybe I am generalizing, but I haven't read enough to do much more than generalize, and that much of what I've read of Voctorian literature is boring us true.

I'm almost done with JE. it's good, not great. The plot is interesting, but really dragged in places. Right now it a 7/10, which is probably where it will stay.

[Raven Falcon.]

I "had" to read Emma - Jane Austen - once upon a time. The teacher was great - he made it fun, and I can see him now delighting in the humour which he seemed to exacerbate, but which got me, for one, through the book. Unless I do another course, I'll never read another Austen again. Good writer, icon of her time etc etc but I'm just not interested in the subject matter. Tedious comes to mind.

Tolstoy is superior when it comes to characterization. Hence, I agree that Austen is not worth reading.

Feminists will probably disagree, but I stand firm by my opinion.

[OrphanPip]

Tolstoy is superior when it comes to characterization. Hence, I agree that Austen is not worth reading.

Feminists will probably disagree, but I stand firm by my opinion.

Has nothing to do with feminist. Jane Austen is one of the few female authors that has been canonical prior to the rise of feminism. Most agree that she marks the turning point of the English novel towards realism. The 19th century novel is deeply indebted to Austen, particularly the latter 19th century authors like Henry James.

Comparing Tolstoy and Austen is ridiculous anyway, since they wrote 100 years apart from each other. Tolstoy has the fully developed form of psychological realism at his hands when he is writing. Austen is pioneering and developing that form.

I "had" to read Emma - Jane Austen - once upon a time. The teacher was great - he made it fun, and I can see him now delighting in the humour which he seemed to exacerbate, but which got me, for one, through the book. Unless I do another course, I'll never read another Austen again. Good writer, icon of her time etc etc but I'm just not interested in the subject matter. Tedious comes to mind.

Emma is a brilliant novel though. Austen's wit shines through in this novel without the heavy handed satire of Northanger Abbey.

This is the tragedy of how Austen is received these days, she is reduced to being consider as a novelist of plot. Either you enjoy romantic matchmaking plots or you don't and from that one determines how you consider Austen. This leads to droves of tween girl readers who love her, but don't appreciate her. And loads of other readers who are so accustomed to reading for plot that they are blind to the formal and technical mastery of her novels.

Edit: Austen is not a Victorian anyway, she was writing during the Georgian regency period. Victorians were not particularly fond of Austen, for them she lacked the emotion, moral sentiment, and eccentricity that they cherished. She comes back into importance with the rise of the Naturalist at the end of the century when they go searching for technical precursors to their form of realism.

[Paulclem]

Emma is a brilliant novel though. Austen's wit shines through in this novel without the heavy handed satire of Northanger Abbey.

This is the tragedy of how Austen is received these days, she is reduced to being consider as a novelist of plot. Either you enjoy romantic matchmaking plots or you don't and from that one determines how you consider Austen. This leads to droves of tween girl readers who love her, but don't appreciate her. And loads of other readers who are so accustomed to reading for plot that they are blind to the formal and technical mastery of her novels.

Edit: Austen is not a Victorian anyway, she was writing during the Georgian regency period. Victorians were not particularly fond of Austen, for them she lacked the emotion, moral sentiment, and eccentricity that they cherished. She comes back into importance with the rise of the Naturalist at the end of the century when they go searching for technical precursors to their form of realism.

Good points, and I don't think my teacher could have presented her in a more enjoyable way. Characters and all - but no, I'll not be partaking no more. (Just watch - some situation will arise when I'll have to read something by her again and I'll have to stufff down that humble pie...I just bet you).

[Raven Falcon.]

Has nothing to do with feminist. Jane Austen is one of the few female authors that has been canonical prior to the rise of feminism. Most agree that she marks the turning point of the English novel towards realism. The 19th century novel is deeply indebted to Austen, particularly the latter 19th century authors like Henry James.

Comparing Tolstoy and Austen is ridiculous anyway, since they wrote 100 years apart from each other. Tolstoy has the fully developed form of psychological realism at his hands when he is writing. Austen is pioneering and developing that form.




Emma is a brilliant novel though. Austen's wit shines through in this novel without the heavy handed satire of Northanger Abbey.

This is the tragedy of how Austen is received these days, she is reduced to being consider as a novelist of plot. Either you enjoy romantic matchmaking plots or you don't and from that one determines how you consider Austen. This leads to droves of tween girl readers who love her, but don't appreciate her. And loads of other readers who are so accustomed to reading for plot that they are blind to the formal and technical mastery of her novels.

Edit: Austen is not a Victorian anyway, she was writing during the Georgian regency period. Victorians were not particularly fond of Austen, for them she lacked the emotion, moral sentiment, and eccentricity that they cherished. She comes back into importance with the rise of the Naturalist at the end of the century when they go searching for technical precursors to their form of realism.

So now Darwin somehow indirectly marks the rise of realism?
I am ignorant of many things. I admit that I am a literature neophyte. Most novels have only received a quick glance from me.

Again, I admit that am quite reluctant to read novels that are considered as the forefathers of a particular genre when I can read novels that are recognized as the pinnacle of the genre.

In the case of realistic literature, War and Peace is at the summit I think.

[OrphanPip]

So now Darwin somehow indirectly marks the rise of realism?

Naturalist in this sense refers to a school of late 19th century realist writers, like Zola in France. But even in general she was embraced by the literary realist like Henry James.

I am ignorant of many things. I admit that I am a literature neophyte. Most novels have only received a quick glance from me.

Again, I admit that am quite reluctant to read novels that are considered as the forefathers of a particular genre when I can read novels that are recognized as the pinnacle of the genre.

In the case of realistic literature, War and Peace is at the summit I think.

That strikes me as a bad approach in general, how do you appreciate or even recognize something as the pinnacle if you can't appreciate where it is coming from or where it is going. A novel like Emma reaches for something very different than War and Peace. Frankly, I far prefer Austen's careful crafting of her relatively simple plot to the disjointed attempt at an epic in novel form that Tolstoy produces. Not to mention that Austen spares us having to read through endless 19th century philosophical discourses. Anna Karenina is a more tightly structured, and thus I feel a more effective novel in comparison to War and Peace. Austen is certainly the more talented comedic writer as well, since there is little amusing in Tolstoy's masterpieces.

Austen and Tolstoy lie at different points of a literary movement, but they are both high points. Just as Dickens forms a distinctive and important voice between them. And Flaubert in France forms an equally powerful and important voice contemporary to Tolstoy.