Themes for a 2011 Masterpiece

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, the first big players are the modernists, who basically destroyed the 19th century form, and created the serious novel - but the structure itself had an echo, so we still call works like Ulysses novels, even though they lack in resembles to the original novels of Tom Jones. From there we hit the post-WW2 world, where gimmicks became fashionable, so you have people as early as the 60s writing anti-novels, which basically destroy the trajectory of the novel narrative form - namely, hero goes into society, has a struggle, and emerges, or dies - the construct we have since the 18th century. resolution, climax, plot, character - all of these were eventually broken down, much of the time by meh artists.

Into the last decades of the 20th century though, there were 3 movements really from what I can gather - popular fiction, namely best-sellers which adhere to a sort of limited third person narration most of the time, and stick to a simple trajectory by means of cliff hangers, what I would call tier two books, in that they are good novels, but lack any sort of structural advancement, namely books that are good, perhaps win a Pulitzer or the equivalent, and then people forget about them, not because they are bad, but because they aren't new enough, or innovative enough to make any real progress in the form. Then you have your third type of novelists who write in extremely experimental styles most of the time, who really take a crack at the structure of the novel itself - the best example would be the introduction of metafiction as a central trope, which undermines the credibility of the novel itself, something detrimental to the structure of the narrative as a whole - something like Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle would be an early example of this rather hit and miss mode, but something like Blood Meridian, or even Pale Fire are equally as valid. There is not much novel in Pale Fire, for instance, and in something like Calvino's mature work, or even in Marquez's Hundred Years of Solitude - the question of the novel has been bending for a long time now - the old Tom Jones, or even the old Cervantes model has been pretty much broken out of.

I am proud to say I knew all of this. This not to belittle what you wrote in any way, JBI. I just didn't know if there was something going on contemporarily with novelistic form that I didn't know about.

And, Stlukes, I gotta say I always appreciate when you take the time to put together these mini-lessons on art. Always very fascinating.

[JBI]

I am proud to say I knew all of this. This not to belittle what you wrote in any way, JBI. I just didn't know if there was something going on contemporarily with novelistic form that I didn't know about.

And, Stlukes, I gotta say I always appreciate when you take the time to put together these mini-lessons on art. Always very fascinating.

There is much going on, but I am rather limited in my knowledge of contemporary novels outside of Canada, and to a lesser extent, China, so I did not feel comfortable going more in depth on that.

[MANICHAEAN]

Three echos of advice from the past:

1. "I wish to keep my reader in the company of flesh and blood" William Wordsworth.

2."Do not fire too much over the heads of your readers." Anthony Trollope.

3."Novelists who write for the public are, in my opinion, no good; they've discovered who their readers are and, in submitting to their judgement, they're dishing things up like short order cooks." Graham Greene.

[Alexander III]

Three echos of advice from the past:

1. "I wish to keep my reader in the company of flesh and blood" William Wordsworth.

2."Do not fire too much over the heads of your readers." Anthony Trollope.

3."Novelists who write for the public are, in my opinion, no good; they've discovered who their readers are and, in submitting to their judgement, they're dishing things up like short order cooks." Graham Greene.

1) agree

2) disagree, for no reason should a writer dumb his work down, if the masses wont get it who cares. Joyce strived for the stars and he didn't let the fact that the average reader wasn't gonna get it, why should he care or write for the average reader when he is by no means an average writer..

3)"No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money" - S.J

[MANICHAEAN]

AIII

1. I'll take it further. Books can sometimes be a pretty bloodless substitute for life. But then, thats not much consulation for those stuck with bankers hours, a stable marriage and a pension scheme.

2. Interesting point & I suppose I actually agree with you. I was thinking more of the lower strata of dumbing down. Sorry, that all sounds a bit elitist and superior. I'm reading works now in my late 60's that I found impossibe in my 20's and am thoroughly enjoying them.

3.And?

[JBI]

1) agree

2) disagree, for no reason should a writer dumb his work down, if the masses wont get it who cares. Joyce strived for the stars and he didn't let the fact that the average reader wasn't gonna get it, why should he care or write for the average reader when he is by no means an average writer..

3)"No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money" - S.J

He doesn't refute that, only, his idea was to have the public instead mold their tastes around the innovations of his fiction, rather than mold his fiction around their tastes.

[mortalterror]

There are all kinds of ways to write intelligently while maintaining accessibility. Witness the success of Homer, Dante, and Shakespeare.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Shakespeare is accessible? I mean, sure it is for literary folk, but the layman?

[Drkshadow03]

Shakespeare is accessible? I mean, sure it is for literary folk, but the layman?

Sure, 5th Grade inner city kids, some who can barely speak English, do it every year.

[Alexander III]

Shakespeare is accessible? I mean, sure it is for literary folk, but the layman?

The only problem I see with Shakespeare is that he writes in verse no prose, so one must learn how to read poetry to read Shakespeare. Other than that he writes in a simple yet beautiful manner which was specifically create so it could be understood by the low classes of 15th century england. I suppose the use of archaic words might complicate matters, and a sexual pun every 10 lines on average might get repetitive but nonetheless he is a rather easier read than most symbolist or modernist poets, not to say they are better simply they take more time to read in order to understand.

But yea to summarize, everyone finds Shakespeare difficult at first not because he is difficult but simply because most everyone only knows prose.

[Paulclem]

Shakespeare's plays weren't intended to be read primarily. Undrstanding is easier through watching performances of the play - which is what happens befre the study of it by youngsters.

[JBI]

it's not even that, the bulk of his audience were laymen (men) and they found something in there. He is accessible on many levels, and the difficulty today is just a change of times, in terms of the first level. Then there are layers upon layers of less accessible stuff written for a second audience, but even so, he isn't difficult, in the sense that Pound's Cantos are.

[Drkshadow03]

One professor of Greek mythology commented during a lecture that it wasn't the language that throws so many modern high school students off in Shakespeare, but the copious allusions to Greek Myth. If you don't know the myth, then you're not going to get the reference and the metaphor sometimes connected with the allusion.

Gallop apace, you fiery-footed steeds,
Towards Phoebus' lodging: such a wagoner
As Phaethon would whip you to the west,
And bring in cloudy night immediately.
Spread thy close curtain, love-performing night,
That runaway's eyes may wink and Romeo
Leap to these arms, untalk'd of and unseen.

Who is this Phaethon?! What is a Phoebus? Why do English teachers enjoy inflicting me with these hardships!!!!!!!! Why am I even using the word hardship as an uneducated fifteen year old! None of it makes sense!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Shakespeare's plays weren't intended to be read primarily. Undrstanding is easier through watching performances of the play - which is what happens befre the study of it by youngsters.

Not in my experience, as teacher or student. Usually the films of his plays are shown after the poem is read, or after each act (which I feel is the best way).

In my experience with students, it's the archaic language that trips them up more than anything. I agree that it is definitely easier than other poetry of the time and modern and post-modern poems, but I don't think it is by any means an "easy" read for kids.

[kelby_lake]

The only problem I see with Shakespeare is that he writes in verse no prose, so one must learn how to read poetry to read Shakespeare. Other than that he writes in a simple yet beautiful manner which was specifically create so it could be understood by the low classes of 15th century england. I suppose the use of archaic words might complicate matters, and a sexual pun every 10 lines on average might get repetitive but nonetheless he is a rather easier read than most symbolist or modernist poets, not to say they are better simply they take more time to read in order to understand.

But yea to summarize, everyone finds Shakespeare difficult at first not because he is difficult but simply because most everyone only knows prose.

The bolded isn't true. Although a lot of it is verse, there are also prose passages. People definitely aren't used to watching verse plays and the barrier created by the idea that poetry is incredibly formal and elitest, only relevant to a minority, is a struggle to overcome for some people.

Some of Shakespeare's plays are more accessible than others. I think it would be pretty hard to make All's Well That Ends Well truly accessible for a modern audience but Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet are very accessible.