Quote:
|
Originally Posted by evollove
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."
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.
|
The form has changed, obviously, and there's no point looking for a 2015 War & Peace. Tom Wolfe sort of tries and gets a critical pounding for his trouble (even though I've liked most of his novels quite a bit). To be honest, in contemporary fiction, I'm less and less interested in the 'literature' stuff - for many of the reasons El Symbols points out. It is a bit of a club, written by and for the same kinds of people, expressing a similar world-view over and over again. I'm more interested in genre fiction now (genre in the commercial sense rather than what you mean - although it's not that far removed, formally). And some of it's extremely well written, especially the likes of James Lee Burke - who I'm currently a huge fan of. There's a genuine intelligence there, not the posturing I find with so many 'cleverer' writers. And because of the serial nature of his books (there's about 25 of his Dave Robicheaux novels) he's able to really develop his ideas in the same way that a multi-season HBO series can, compared with a feature film. And while more a straight stylist, history will surely declare James Ellroy as one of the greatest American writers of the last 30 years, even if his tone and subject-matter aren't for everyone.
So I'm not suggesting we should all ditch the lit and move to detective novels but I do think a lot of people who find something lacking in the more high brow stuff might be surprised by writers like Burke, Daniel Woodrell, and a few others, who are writing some really good books atm, imo, and are willing to tackle some big themes head on and from a multitude of positions.
But I agree about the enduring appeal of the 'classic' 19th C novel. It simply works. And while I understand the reluctance among contemporary critics to promote any kind of revival, I think readers miss out when writers like Wolfe are dismissed just because they're trying to saying something big and looking to writers like Thackeray for their inspiration, rather than someone more philosophically 'relevant'.
Oh, and my favourite character from a novel is Dickens' Mrs Gamp, in Martin Chuzzlewit