Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
stendhals quijote some balzac novels
|
My ex-English major mind tends to distinguish between "classic" novels and contemporary. These are rough categories that don't mean much; not sure where to put modernists, for example.
But those clearly "classic" novels are just so damn satisfying. There's something about that genre--the "well-made" novel--that pleases, even if the book isn't so great. I mean, Hardy isn't an especially good writer, but his novels are good because of the genre.
I can see how one can burn out on this stuff. The classic novel has its own conventions and cliches which can get wearisome. I can't imagine reading all of Dickens in a row, but reading Great Expectations, especially after a long dry spell, would be . . . I keep returning to that word "satisfying."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by demonrail666
The contemporary is always about sorting through.
|
I get what you're saying, but I think there's a difference of FORM between the classic and contemporary. No one writes like Jane Austen anymore (and I'm not sure they should), so formally speaking it does something that the contemporary doesn't.
The difference between Austen and Delillo formally is so immense, they sort of have to be read differently, don't you think?
---
Come to think of it, it's been years since I read a "classic" novel.
I never read RED AND THE BLACK, and I've been thinking about it. But for some reason Flaubert's SENTIMENTAL EDUCATION seems to be calling out to me from the bookshelf. I dunno. I'd like to read something where at the end, I sigh and pat my belly.