Victorian Literature

[Raven Falcon.]

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.



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.

I hope you are not saying that Austen is infinitely the better writer between the two. (Tolstoy)
I do agree, however, that it makes more sense to compare Flaubert with Tolstoy than with somebody who could have been his grandmother.

[kiki1982]

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.

I would not say that the best decribers are those who use difficult vocabulary sparsely, I would say they are those who can convey their feelings, what they see or whatever they want to describe exactly as they wish to. If that is with very precise and what we deem 'difficult' vocabulary, then fine. It'll teach me some more to impress people

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!

I still have to try Fielding, but I'll certainly do. Waverley was not my taste, however. Ivanhoe was and Rob Roy may be (I have to get that one too still, Amazon is so vast ), but I thought Waverley was too much of a Werther... Too much feeling and not enough man. It got tedious for me after a while... Ivanhoe had somehow more drive in it. Sorry to say that, but I think I will try some more anyway. Defoe was remarkably easy. I had braced myself for a long-winded and precise description of the moral deprivation of Moll Flanders, but it was so light and fun!

I hope you are not saying that Austen is infinitely the better writer between the two. (Tolstoy)
I do agree, however, that it makes more sense to compare Flaubert with Tolstoy than with somebody who could have been his grandmother.

I hope you are not suggesting that Pushkin is worse than Tolstoy? And 'not worth reading'. I dare you to tell any Russian that the inventor of the Russian novel is no good. See how long it takes before they absolutely tear you to pieces.

Neither of them is infinitely better than the other, why should they be? You yourself like Tolstoy infinitely better than Austen (although how would you know because she 'is not worth reading'?), but what does that say?

Maybe you are changing into Tolstoy though, who declared that Shakespeare was sh*te.

On another note: I find it als sad that Austen, or any book for that matter, has been reduced to plot and story. Screaming teenage girls are just the thing she loathed. Maybe she's now looking down and fondly revelling in her ultimate revenge, though: handing those who do appreciate her a way of laughing at people

[mal4mac]

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.

I don't, in general, agree with that at all! To be more specific, recently I have read Sartre's the Age of Reason, Mailer's The Naked and the Dead, Dickens' Our Mutual Friend, and Stevenson's Dr Jekyll. The plots of the 20th century authors were, to me, stultifyingly boring, and the 19th century plots were absolutely fascinating. Same goes for other aspects - suspense, humour, character, descriptive prose, even (perhaps surprisingly) existential depth... This is not an unusual experience... I'm convinced the 19th century was the golden age for the novel (with a few nods to the 18th) It's been downhill since then...

[mal4mac]

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.

I was forced to read Silas Marner at school and couldn't get on with it. Fortunately I didn't let my childhood impressions affect my adult self, and read Middlemarch - a superb experience. Why not give Austen another chance? Try Price & P or Persuasion, they're quite short and pithy...

[aliengirl]

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.

I was wrongly made to believe that Austen's novels were all about "romantic matchmaking plots" and that's why I stayed away from them despite her complete works were lying on the shelf within hands reach. Thankfully I had to read Emma last year (as it was in my course) and after that I knew better. Her wit and lack of emotion (where any mediocre writer would use sloppy dialogues) are engaging. Although her novels have Cinderella tale ending, she is the mistress of irony.

Austen (1775-1817) was from the Romantic era though insulated to the romantic ethos.

[Raven Falcon.]

I don't, in general, agree with that at all! To be more specific, recently I have read Sartre's the Age of Reason, Mailer's The Naked and the Dead, Dickens' Our Mutual Friend, and Stevenson's Dr Jekyll. The plots of the 20th century authors were, to me, stultifyingly boring, and the 19th century plots were absolutely fascinating. Same goes for other aspects - suspense, humour, character, descriptive prose, even (perhaps surprisingly) existential depth... This is not an unusual experience... I'm convinced the 19th century was the golden age for the novel (with a few nods to the 18th) It's been downhill since then...

I agree, even more so if you look beyond natively-written English novels in the time period. (19th century)

French and Russian novels from that period are particularly outstanding.

I think you know it better.

[Paulclem]

I was forced to read Silas Marner at school and couldn't get on with it. Fortunately I didn't let my childhood impressions affect my adult self, and read Middlemarch - a superb experience. Why not give Austen another chance? Try Price & P or Persuasion, they're quite short and pithy...

Yes - much as I respect your opinion Mal, it's going to be a no. Funnily enough I liked Silas Marner. I won't be reading Middlemarch either though.

I've come to the conclusion that I'll never read all the books I want to, and so I feel no pressure whatsoever to read an author I didn't like the first time around.

[Paulclem]

I read War and Peace last year, and I really enjoyed it. I put a lot into it - i read a history of 1812 - Napoleon's march into Russia, to get a political perspective, and frequently looked up battles like Austerlitz. That way I got much more out of it, and I though it was excellent. It was better than Anna Karenina, which I had enjoyed as a student.

I think it's hard to compare Austen and Tolstoy - their scope and interest is just so different. Pip's right about the tightly plotted Austen novels, but if you like the sweep of history mingled with brilliant characterisation, drama and romance in excellent writing, then it's got to be Tolstoy.

I've come back to Doestoyevsky as well, having just read The House of the Dead. It's one of the best classics I've read in a while, and, whilst I could appreciate Crime and Punishment, I felt House of the Dead was also excellent.

[Raven Falcon.]

I read War and Peace last year, and I really enjoyed it. I put a lot into it - i read a history of 1812 - Napoleon's march into Russia, to get a political perspective, and frequently looked up battles like Austerlitz. That way I got much more out of it, and I though it was excellent. It was better than Anna Karenina, which I had enjoyed as a student.

I think it's hard to compare Austen and Tolstoy - their scope and interest is just so different. Pip's right about the tightly plotted Austen novels, but if you like the sweep of history mingled with brilliant characterisation, drama and romance in excellent writing, then it's got to be Tolstoy.

I've come back to Doestoyevsky as well, having just read The House of the Dead. It's one of the best classics I've read in a while, and, whilst I could appreciate Crime and Punishment, I felt House of the Dead was also excellent.

To enjoy a lesser work of an author more than his well-known work is not at all surprising.
I for one is currently reading Hadji Murad; from what I've read of it thus far, it's more enjoyable than War and Peace.
As for which is better, I first have to finish the novella.

Going back to Victorian literature, if you have to recommend one for a curious, which novel will you pick? ( Victorian novel, of course)

[mona amon]

It's easy to be more impressed with Tolstoy. War and Peace for instance, is much 'bigger' than anything Jane Austen wrote, in it's sweep, scope and sheer size. But it takes a special kind of perceptiveness to appreciate Jane Austen's subtleties. Not that Tolstoy's work doesn't have its own subtleties. In fact, when reading Anna Karennina and the peace parts of War and Peace, I was often reminded of Austen.

[mal4mac]

To enjoy a lesser work of an author more than his well-known work is not at all surprising.
I for one is currently reading Hadji Murad; from what I've read of it thus far, it's more enjoyable than War and Peace.

Is it a lesser work? Who says so? Harold Bloom rates it as Tolstoy's best work, in fact as his "personal touchstone for the sublime of prose fiction... the best story in the world". I'm inclined to agree with him, and you! But his other short novels are also wonderful.

Hadji Murad has none of rather tedious historical meditations of War and Peace. It is pure, almost mythical, storytelling and yet, magically, retains the historical accuracy. Bloom discusses Hadji Murad at some length in "The Western Canon", if you want to compare your observations with his.

[mal4mac]

I've come back to Doestoyevsky as well, having just read The House of the Dead. It's one of the best classics I've read in a while, and, whilst I could appreciate Crime and Punishment, I felt House of the Dead was also excellent.

I'm a bit ambivalent about Dostoevsky, I appreciated "Crime & Punishment" and "Notes from Undeground", but found "The Idiot" and "The Devils" a bit tedious. The latter two were like very inferior Jane Austen - lots of toffs hanging around not doing much (but, unlike with Jane, not being funny or interesting either...) I'll give House of the Dead a go, though, mock executions and Siberian prison camp sound much more like the Dostoevsky we know and love...

[Raven Falcon.]

Is it a lesser work? Who says so? Harold Bloom rates it as Tolstoy's best work, in fact as his "personal touchstone for the sublime of prose fiction... the best story in the world". I'm inclined to agree with him, and you! But his other short novels are also wonderful.

Hadji Murad has none of rather tedious historical meditations of War and Peace. It is pure, almost mythical, storytelling and yet, magically, retains the historical accuracy. Bloom discusses Hadji Murad at some length in "The Western Canon", if you want to compare your observations with his.

What do you think of Tolstoy's writing style? War and Peace and Hadji Murad seem to share Tolstoy's frequent use of repetition.

Certain words tend to appear again and again within the same paragraph.

[mal4mac]

What do you think of Tolstoy's writing style? War and Peace and Hadji Murad seem to share Tolstoy's frequent use of repetition.

Certain words tend to appear again and again within the same paragraph.

I'm not bothered about this. P & V are bothered about this. The Maudes are not bothered about this. I read the Maudes translation of Hadji Murad and was not bothered by the lack of repetition. I read the Maudes and P & V translations of W & P and was not bothered either way. In their introduction to their translation of War & Peace, P & V suggest that translators should be bothered about this, and give examples of other translators mostly not being bothered about this. Hmmm... it's quite a powerful stylistic technique. Perhaps I should be bothered about this

[Raven Falcon.]

I'm not bothered about this. P & V are bothered about this. The Maudes are not bothered about this. I read the Maudes translation of Hadji Murad and was not bothered by the lack of repetition. I read the Maudes and P & V translations of W & P and was not bothered either way. In their introduction to their translation of War & Peace, P & V suggest that translators should be bothered about this, and give examples of other translators mostly not being bothered about this. Hmmm... it's quite a powerful stylistic technique. Perhaps I should be bothered about this

To relate it with Victorian literature, Dickens is pretty well-known for his repetition.
I think Leo Tolstoy actually adopted Dickens' style into his writing. There is big difference, however: Tolstoy's prose is prosaic as opposed to Dickens' poetic prose.

What I mean is this: Rarely do rare words appear on Tolstoy's pages. Even if one appears, it appears on rare metaphorical paragraphs used to describe events not so rare so as to make them appear rare to us.

Joking aside, that's what I mean.