Classic vs Contemporary

[Colette Jones]

...For the most part, as you will notice if you browse my post to the "50 Favorite Books" thread, the books I read are "classics." This is because, from my experience, the writers of the past have a deeper understanding of human nature than the authors of today. I have yet to find writer on a par with Balzac, Dostoevsky, Dickens, or Henry James among contemporary writers.

Ooh, this sounds like a challenge. I believe I must be your polar opposite as I find the classics a mixed bag. Let's take Dickens for example - I've only read a few but I find them a bit of fun rather than thought provoking. I've had fun trying to figure out The Turn of the Screw and would rate Henry James much higher in intrigue than Charles Dickens, but I wouldn't say that he had a deeper understanding of human nature than, say, Richard Yates.

And don't get me started on Wuthering Heights. (luckily you didn't mention Emily Bronte).

Edit (after reading the rest of the thread): I don't recall the first 75 pages of Focault's Pendulum being the difficult ones. I think I got into difficulty somewhere in the middle but ploughed through.

[titania7]

Ooh, this sounds like a challenge. I believe I must be your polar opposite as I find the classics a mixed bag. Let's take Dickens for example - I've only read a few but I find them a bit of fun rather than thought provoking.

Yes, some of Dickens' novels are quite fun! However, there was certainly nothing "entertaining", in my opinion, about A Tale of Two Cities or Bleak House. For me, both of these novels were quite thought-provoking
and neither offered me any good laughs.

Bleak House, for example, is partially narrated by a young woman who is illegitimate, and who, over the course of the novel, becomes badly disfigured by a disease. Surely you couldn't find this amusing? I know I didn't. Then, her mother, who has been blackmailed by a nefarious man who will stop at nothing, runs away and is found dead in a graveyard. Entertainment? I suppose it depends on how you look at it.

I assume we're talking about the same Charles Dickens, but I daresay we are not talking about the same books.

I've had fun trying to figure out The Turn of the Screw and would rate Henry James much higher in intrigue than Charles Dickens, but I wouldn't say that he had a deeper understanding of human nature than, say, Richard Yates.

Henry James is a master of psychological realism. I've never heard Richard Yates referred to as that. However, to make any judgements based merely on The Turn of the Screw would be remiss indeed. Have you read any of James' major novels: The Ambassadors, Wings of the Dove, The Golden Bowl, or The Portrait of the Lady? I haven't read Yates, but I find it impossible to imagine that he could have penned a novel on the same level with one of these books by James.

If you really want to debate this issue, that's fine--but please, read one of the novels I list above. Otherwise I simply can't have a meaningful discussion with you in this regard. To base an opinion on something as comparatively insignificant as The Taming of the Shrew simply isn't fair. Also, Washington Square (which I believe was on your list of 2008 reads) is what I would call B-rate James, at best (i.e., good enough, but nothing exceptional).

I don't mean to be harsh or take umbrage unnecessarily, but I do feel that comparisons should be fair above all else. Since you mention Yates, I assume you've read one of his MAJOR novels. To not give James that same benefit seems very unjust.

As for Dickens, unless you have a very twisted sense of humor, I just cannot imagine your finding Bleak House or A Tale of Two Cities funny. And yes, I do consider a novel in which one man sacrifices his life to save another (as in A Tale of Two Cities) thought-provoking.

And don't get me started on Wuthering Heights. (luckily you didn't mention Emily Bronte).

I only named a few people because I was merely trying to find examples. When I first read Wuthering Heights, I found it confusing. Later, I understood what Emily Bronte was trying to say. The narrative structure can be frustrating, and the novel is not pleasant to read. But I do think Emily conveys something about human nature that is interesting--and that is how closely aligned hate and love can be, and how easily pride can destroy us.

Stewart has recommended Yates to me, and I'm sure Revolutionary Road is a great book. But I don't think I'll be putting Yates in the same category with the classic novelists I mentioned any time soon. Just out of curiosity--in what way has one of Yates' novels changed your life, Colette? I haven't read any of his books....so maybe I really am missing out on something. I know that many books that are technically "classics" have changed my life, including Tolstoy's Resurrection and Dostoevsky's The Possessed and The Brothers Karamazov, Edith Wharton's The House of Mirth, James' The Wings of the Dove, as well as Mann's Doctor Faustus.

I'm perfectly prepared to accept that we simply have different vantage points in regard to books. But the Richard Yates argument puzzles me. If, for example, you had said that Salman Rushdie or Saramago was as thought-provoking as Dickens and Balzac, I'd have been more easily persuaded. But Yates? From the descriptions of his novels, I see nothing psychologically penetrating about them. He's compared to J. D. Salinger and John Cheever, both of whom, I must say, are hardly known for their depth of characterization or their treatment of thought-provoking issues. Rather, it seems Yates is a different sort of writer entirely. And maybe that's just the point--he appeals to you whereas these other authors don't. He is hailed as a "chronicler of 20th century mainstream American life," as opposed to James whose finest novels have been called "brilliantly
subtle and penetrating character studies."

The fact you appreciate Yates is not something I have trouble with as I believe that each person is entitled to have his or her own favorites where authors and books are concerned. However, when you start calling Dickens and James "a lot of fun," I must protest as that's not an accurate assessment of their writing.


All the best for 2009,
Titania

[Colette Jones]

Whoa, Titania, I was not trying to start a fight! I am certainly not well-read in the classics but I was just trying to say that, compared to those classics I have tried, I prefer more recent writing. I have not read Bleak House and I agree it does not sound funny. I was referring to Great Expectations as a bit of fun, but was not intending to make commentary on all Dickens' books!

My post was meant to be fun - in that you prefer classics to more recent authors and I am the opposite. I thought we might find books to offer each other to show what we like and why. I am only giving my opinion - I don't really mind what other people prefer and would not try to convince anyone that what I prefer is better.

A Side Note: "A bit of fun" does not mean funny to me. I didn't find Great Expectations funny.

[titania7]

Whoa, Titania, I was not trying to start a fight!

Colette,
Forgive me if I overreacted. Strangely enough, I've been called upon to defend my views about various things quite a bit lately. Thus, I may be a wee bit sensitive in this regard. I appreciate the fact that you don't want to start any sort of quarrel--neither do I.

I am certainly not well-read in the classics

....just as I am not very well-read when it comes to contemporary fiction. I've told Stewart about my lack of familiarity with "modern" authors on more than one occasion. If you take a look at my 50 Favorite Books, you'll see that most of the books on my list are what would be called "classics."
Henry James, Charles Dickens, George Eliot, Honore De Balzac, Victor Hugo, Guy De Maupassant, Thomas Mann, Gustave Flaubert, Marie-Henri Beyle Stendhal, Emile Zola, Diderot--all of these authors are close to my heart. To have never read their books would have deprived me of great joy and happiness. These are the writers I grew up reading, and I'm passionate about them.

If my passion comes across as vehemence, I apologize. I simply feel that
a person must read the best books by these writers before they can form any viable opinions about them. Quite honestly, I cannot give you an accurate judgment when it comes to Richard Yates. And this isn't my fault. I've been on a waiting list for Revolutionary Road (from the library) for over two months. I hope I'll enjoy him as much as you did, Colette. I am quite impressed by Andrei Makine, for example, and he's a recent writer.

but I was just trying to say that, compared to those classics I have tried, I prefer more recent writing.

In all likelihood, you and I are somewhat similar. I've concluded that I prefer classic literature because that's what I've read the most of, and you've concluded that you prefer contemporary fiction because that's what you're most familiar with. We both need to broaden our horizons, don't we? Do take a look at some of the "classics" on my 50 Favorites, by the way. I suspect you'll find a few there that will (possibly) change your opinion about "classic" literature.

I have not read Bleak House and I agree it does not sound funny.

It's an incredibly tragic book. Indeed, it would be impossible not to be affected by it for weeks after finishing it. It's also interesting to note
that there's a very harrowing aspect of Dickens' novel, Nicholas Nickelby. In this novel, Dickens depicts the tortuous lives of boys who are sent off to boarding school. Of course you think it must be exaggerated when you read it. However, one of my friends who lives in England tells me that she's actually visited graveyards where there are lines of tombstones commemorating the lives of all the young boys who died in boarding schools like the ones depicted in Nicholas Nickelby.

On a James-related note, the character of Milly Theale in The Wings of the Dove was based on a young heiress that James met. In the book, she is dying of cancer (the disease is only hinted at). I don't know whether or not the psychopathic Kate Croy, who pursues Milly for her inheritance,
was inspired by an actual person or not. In all probability, she was. But as you can see, the plot of this book, which I'm only hinting at, is psychologically brutal. You might have trouble believing that this is the same James who wrote The Turn of the Screw. But the James who wrote
The Wings of the Dove is the one I speak of when I talk about his "deep understanding of human nature." I cannot even think of a writer who has painted a more subtle, more believable portrait of a psychopath than James did with Kate Croy. The amazing thing is (and this could only happen with James), the reader can't help but empathize with her.
Intricate fiction indeed.

I was referring to Great Expectations as a bit of fun, but was not intending to make commentary on all Dickens' books!

Fair enough .

My post was meant to be fun - in that you prefer classics to more recent authors and I am the opposite. I thought we might find books to offer each other to show what we like and why. I am only giving my opinion - I don't really mind what other people prefer and would not try to convince anyone that what I prefer is better.

Colette, I'm fully cognizant of the fact that I took your post too seriously.
I'm like a tigress defending her cub when it comes to my favorite authors and books! But I would certainly love the idea of us finding books to recommend to each other. That would be absolutely delightful! I, too, believe that there's room for everyone's taste where literature is concerned. No two people are alike. And there's no "right" or "wrong" type of literature to read or to enjoy. I recently had an interesting debate with a friend about "good" and "bad" literature, and we decided that both
terms are pre-defined...and should probably be banished! The only thing is, we couldn't think up any terms to replace "good" and "bad." Thus, we're stuck with them--at least for the moment .

A Side Note: "A bit of fun" does not mean funny to me. I didn't find Great Expectations funny.

I didn't, either. It's actually a very sad book, even though there's a lot of humor in it. Dickens is quite good at combining pathos and wit. Even in Bleak House, there are at least a few moments that are....well, not utterly bleak!

Colette, thanks for your considerate response to my overly zealous post.
I'm a passionate and feisty lass, and I sometimes let my fervor get the best of me .

Warmest regards,
Titania

[Colette Jones]

Colette,
Forgive me if I overreacted. Strangely enough, I've been called upon to defend my views about various things quite a bit lately. Thus, I may be a wee bit sensitive in this regard. I appreciate the fact that you don't want to start any sort of quarrel--neither do I.

I've had to steadfastly defend my views on something very important over the last year, so I sympathise! It is now over, thank goodness. (Famous last words).

I simply feel that
a person must read the best books by these writers before they can form any viable opinions about them. Quite honestly, I cannot give you an accurate judgment when it comes to Richard Yates. And this isn't my fault. I've been on a waiting list for Revolutionary Road (from the library) for over two months. I hope I'll enjoy him as much as you did, Colette. I am quite impressed by Andrei Makine, for example, and he's a recent writer.

I've only read two of Yates' books (Revolutionary Road and The Easter Parade). The difference between him and Dickens where I am concerned (and I speak for me alone) is I am left wanting to read Yates' entire catalog whereas I'm not sure I'll pick up another Dickens.

On a James-related note, the character of Milly Theale in The Wings of the Dove was based on a young heiress that James met. In the book, she is dying of cancer (the disease is only hinted at). I don't know whether or not the psychopathic Kate Croy, who pursues Milly for her inheritance,
was inspired by an actual person or not. In all probability, she was. But as you can see, the plot of this book, which I'm only hinting at, is psychologically brutal. You might have trouble believing that this is the same James who wrote The Turn of the Screw. But the James who wrote
The Wings of the Dove is the one I speak of when I talk about his "deep understanding of human nature." I cannot even think of a writer who has painted a more subtle, more believable portrait of a psychopath than James did with Kate Croy. The amazing thing is (and this could only happen with James), the reader can't help but empathize with her.
Intricate fiction indeed.

You've sold me on this one - it sounds fantastic. I am intrigued by Henry James, not just his fiction, but his life, and that of his brother William.

Although I am not tempted to read another Dickens, I'm quite tempted with James as you can see, and others we corresponded about such as Zola and Thomas Mann. I like books which leave me wanting to read another of the author's books and that just didn't happen with Great Expectations.

I wonder if Stewart would like to move these posts to a new thread - "Personal taste - Classics v Contemporary" or something like that (although I don't want it to sound like a contest - both are good).

[Stewart]

I wonder if Stewart would like to move these posts to a new thread - "Personal taste - Classics v Contemporary" or something like that (although I don't want it to sound like a contest - both are good).

Consider it done, since it is.

[Colette Jones]

Consider it done, since it is.

Thanks Stewart.

I have always wondered who decides what and when something becomes "classic". Is it based on number of years in print, or possibly number of years since publication? Is Graham Greene a writer of classics, for example?

[titania7]

I've had to steadfastly defend my views on something very important over the last year, so I sympathise! It is now over, thank goodness. (Famous last words).

The important thing, of course, it so remain steadfast . Sounds like you did it, Colette!

I've only read two of Yates' books (Revolutionary Road and The Easter Parade). The difference between him and Dickens where I am concerned (and I speak for me alone) is I am left wanting to read Yates' entire catalog whereas I'm not sure I'll pick up another Dickens.

There's nothing quite like that feeling you have when you know you want to read everything a writer has written. I know what this is like--I've felt it too many times to count! Dostoevsky, Balzac, Marai, Thomas Hardy, D. H. Lawrence, Henry James....those are just a few authors whose entire oeuvres of work I want to read.

You've sold me on this one (The Wings of the Dove)- it sounds fantastic. I am intrigued by Henry James, not just his fiction, but his life, and that of his brother William.

Yes, I love William James, too! In fact, I highly recommend his writing. When I was in theatre I read him nearly every night. It was a way to keep my sanity . As for Henry, many of his shorter works are excellent, but his novels are where he shows his genius. Of his short stories, I do recommend the one called "The Beast in the Jungle." It's been known to change a few peoples' lives. Although I won't discourage you from reading ANY of his books, The Wings of the Dove and The Portrait of a Lady are great places to begin.

Although I am not tempted to read another Dickens, I'm quite tempted with James as you can see, and others we corresponded about such as Zola and Thomas Mann.

Oh, there are so many "classic" authors whom I suspect you would enjoy! Knowing a bit about your taste, I would heartily recommend Flaubert, Maupassant, Stendhal, and Zola....and possibly even Dumas and Victor Hugo. Even if you don't like Dickens, I still think you would enjoy Thomas Hardy. He's a bit of an obsession for me. And D. H. Lawrence--wow, have you ever read him, Colette? I remember when I first read Women in Love--there were actually moments when I couldn't believe I was reading a writer who could write that beautifully and that powerfully.

The Russian authors are another area to explore. Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Turgenev cannot be overlooked. I've long been aware of the fact that I need to learn about more contemporary Russian authors, too. So, maybe we can learn about those together, Colette! Eric has told me about Rybakov, and I'm already devoted to Solzhenitsyn. I know there must be many others. I have enjoyed the short stories of Tatyana Tolstoya.

I like books which leave me wanting to read another of the author's books and that just didn't happen with Great Expectations.

It's all about personal preferences, Colette. Dickens simply isn't your "cup of tea," obviously. The important thing is that you haven't "written off" classic literature because of him. And that's what I'm delighted about!

I wonder if Stewart would like to move these posts to a new thread - "Personal taste - Classics v Contemporary" or something like that (although I don't want it to sound like a contest - both are good).

I must extend my thanks to Stewart in this regard. You certainly are on top of things!

~Titania

[Sevigne]

Who decides what and when something becomes a Classic? Why the readers of course! They just keep on buying a certain book or a certain author and, as a child becomes an adult, a book moves from the Latest Thing to a Classic.

Thanks Stewart.

I have always wondered who decides what and when something becomes "classic". Is it based on number of years in print, or possibly number of years since publication? Is Graham Greene a writer of classics, for example?

[Sevigne]

I much prefer the Classics finding them to be more satisfactory on the whole. But I think that a reader's diet should include both contemporary and classics as a well rounded diner has both sweet and savory on his plate during a meal.

[Colette Jones]

Who decides what and when something becomes a Classic? Why the readers of course! They just keep on buying a certain book or a certain author and, as a child becomes an adult, a book moves from the Latest Thing to a Classic.

So is a book defined a classic by still being in print after so many years, or ? (I really don't know, sorry if it's a silly question).

[nnyhav]

Let's take Dickens for example - I've only read a few but I find them a bit of fun rather than thought provoking.

Whew, for a moment I thought you meant Eric's posts

I'm with Sevigne on this one, time filters out a lot of fluff. I'd add that literature talks to itself, and often depends on what's already been said, so to fully appreciate the new requires a familiarity with the old, and not only for allusion or context but even for form (how can one tell what rules are being fiddled with if one doesn't know the rules?). But as CJ says, it also depends on what one means by 'classic', as in academical circles what comprises the canon, and what of the new should displace what of the old, has been an ongoing source of controversy. How ongoing? cf Swift's The Battle of the Books ...

[Irene Wilde]

Hmmm....this is an interesting discussion! Titania, what's the cut-off line between "contemporary" and "classic" for you? To me, some works become "instant classics." Is there a date line? Does "contemporary" mean the writer is still walking among us?

If you are instantly turned off because the ladies aren't wandering about in bustles and petticoats, you are missing some great literature. <-- this means I'm joking with you, not trying to get that famous dander of yours up.

I would put "Against the Day" side by side with anything other great work and that came out just a year, maybe two years, ago. And "Pale Fire" -- written in the post-atomic age, is certainly a classic.

[SilverSeason]

I'm with Sevigne on this one, time filters out a lot of fluff. I'd add that literature talks to itself, and often depends on what's already been said, so to fully appreciate the new requires a familiarity with the old, and not only for allusion or context but even for form (how can one tell what rules are being fiddled with if one doesn't know the rules?). But as CJ says, it also depends on what one means by 'classic', as in academical circles what comprises the canon, and what of the new should displace what of the old, has been an ongoing source of controversy.

I don't see the classic vs contemporary as an opposition. Time does filter out a lot of fluff. So something does not become classic by staying in print, it stays in print because readers continue to find reading it rewarding.

Of contemporary authors I have enjoyed -- Murakami, Rushdie, Naipaul, among others -- some will be recognized as classics as the years go by and others will drop away. To some extent, it is beyond their and our control, since future events both social and literary will influence what future readers find relevant.

I also recognize a second tier of recent or contemporary writers whose work I enjoy but doubt they can become classics. Could I be wrong? Examples: Delillo, Allegra Goodman, Alison Lurie, Wallace Stegner, A. S. Byatt. Who's for any of them?

[Sevigne]

I love A.S. Byatt. She is a contemporary but she is always looking over her shoulder at what went before in literature.

[titania7]

Hmmm....this is an interesting discussion! Titania, what's the cut-off line between "contemporary" and "classic" for you? To me, some works become "instant classics." Is there a date line? Does "contemporary" mean the writer is still walking among us?

I don't think a writer has to still be living to be called "contemporary." For example, I would definitely call Kurt Vonnegut contemporary, as well as Solzhenitsyn. At the same time, these two writers are also "classic." As you see, the line of demarcation between the two categories is slim, at best--and yet, it can be crossed.

If you are instantly turned off because the ladies aren't wandering about in bustles and petticoats, you are missing some great literature.

Believe it or not, I get tired of the bustles and petticoats quite frequently! My favorite type of literature isn't Victorian--it's Russian. And the reason for this is because I feel that Russian novels are timeless. I'd almost always prefer to read a Russian writer over any other. I realize a lot of them, such as Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, wrote in the time period when bustles and petticoats would have been the dress du jour, but when you get to writers like Solzhenitsyn, you're talking about something quite different. Even Maxim Gorky, when you think of his novel, Mother (what a masterpiece), and his play, The Lower Depths, was bridging the gap between "costume" fiction and modern fiction/drama.

<-- this means I'm joking with you, not trying to get that famous dander of yours up.

You're playing with fire, girl! You ought to know better than to joke around with a tigress!

I would put "Against the Day" side by side with anything other great work and that came out just a year, maybe two years, ago. And "Pale Fire" -- written in the post-atomic age, is certainly a classic.

I've never read any Pynchon, but I will say that Pale Fire is certainly a classic. Goodness, it was written by Nabokov, wasn't it? We're talking about the same author who wrote the sizzling Lolita. If Nabokov doesn't fit into the "classic" writer category, I think we oughtta start examining what we really do mean by that word (i.e., classic).

More to come....

~Titania

PS Thanks for joining in, Irene.

[Sevigne]

As Ezra Pound said:

"Literature is news that stays news." The Classics reward reading wherever and whenever they are read.

I've never been out whaling. I'm terrified of the sea. But I did read Moby-Dick four times in five years until I got everything Melville had to say to us.

Of contemporary books, Cloud Atlas has left an aftertaste, an echo that I hear at least once a week.

So is a book defined a classic by still being in print after so many years, or ? (I really don't know, sorry if it's a silly question).

[titania7]

I also recognize a second tier of recent or contemporary writers whose work I enjoy but doubt they can become classics. Could I be wrong? Examples: Delillo, Allegra Goodman, Alison Lurie, Wallace Stegner, A. S. Byatt. Who's for any of them?

I have the feeling Byatt is excellent, even though I've only read portions of Possession. Truman Capote, always a harsh critic, had great things to say about Alison Lurie. He said, in an interview with Lawrence Grobel (from the book, Conversations with Capote), "I think she (Lurie) is one of the five best young American writers."

Here's my personal opinion. I've read a collection of Lurie's stories, as well as her novel, Foreign Affairs. Although she has her moments, I don't think she's going to make a lasting impression on literary history. I am planning to read more of her work, however.

...Just my ten cents,

~Titania

[Beth]

''This could end in a hail of bullets,''...

Back to Bola?o!

[Beth]

Okay, just can't let this one go. When I first read Titania's comment,

This is because, from my experience, the writers of the past have a deeper understanding of human nature than the authors of today.

I had to read it again to make sure I was seeing straight. If this were the case, I submit that none of us would even be here, exploring new and old authors with equal interest and deriving enrichment from both. In fact, just the idea, Titania, that you would patronise and insult my friend Colette and suggest that she couldn't possibly be as enlightened by an author of her choosing as you are by authors of your choosing? Help us all! I appreciate your well read status. Colette is also staggeringly well read and incorporates wisdoms from this every day in her relationships with friends, family, and issues in her community. I know this for a fact.

Speaking of Richard Yates, I read Revolutionary Road two years ago and I believe that its brutal portrayal of a type of narcissism (think Yuppie couples nailed to a 't') will haunt you and ring true when you are able to get a copy. It's a brilliant work, as are The Easter Parade, and Collected Stories.

Thankfully this didn't turn into a blazing battle, thanks to both of your good graces and good sense, but I just had to pop up from the cow pasture and give a more fulsome expression to the ''Holy Shit!'' moment I felt.