Question about fiction

[Miller]

Ok so I was just about to start reading A Tale of Two Cities and after reading the first few paragraphs I had the dictionary out. First finding the meanings of the words then trying to work out how they applied to the passage.

 

I began to wonder about writing fiction itself. Do you think that a great book should have all these pit stops? I admire authors such as Steinbeck and Orwell as they seem to have the ability to use this language when they feel necessary and yet there writing remains accesible.

 

Do you think language has regressed? I'm trying to see the point in reading such classics but just now it seems like a bit of a chore and I wouldn't be able to skip over the words as I'm kind of obsessive in that way.

 

Basically I'm looking someone to drag me out of my slovenly ways with a logical arguement showing how the pro's outway the con's.

 

Thanks in advance if you took the time to read that. Even I became bored listening to myself complain.

[kurtz]

I think that although it is a drag sometimes to have to look up the words, it is a good way to improve your knowledge and vocabulary. Sometimes there are words in Dean Koontz books that I never heard of, but this way I learn new words. If you keep at it there will be fewer times you have to stop and look up words in dictionary.

[AbielleRose]

I agree with kurtz. Language is constantly evolving. It is a good thing, IMO, to challenge one's self by reading older books with period words (like Pride and Prejudice with it's words like 'felicity' and 'abhor') because not only do they help expand our vocabulary, but they also add color and help set the scene for the story. Certain stories wouldn't have as much magic if they were written (or translated) into modern English.

 

One of my favorite books of all time, Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan, was written in the 1700's and has been translated several times into modern English. Sure the story is the same in the end, but only the original version feels like the story the author intended it to be. (Sorry for the long rant. )

 

I say keep reading the classics even if you need to look up words because eventually (and you may not even notice at first) you'll start ignoring your dictionary because you'll have learned so much.

[BookJumper]

As a writer who's been both accused of and praised for her use of long, complex, jolting vocabulary, I'd hazard that - since one cannot possibly please everyone all of the time - most writers will operate a choice in terms of desired readership and go from there, which is why even in modern times you have good authors who write very simply (Richard Bach) and good authors who write very intricately (Jasper Fforde). I personally write from the perspective of someone who loves learning new words and means to communicate with kindred spirits who also love learning new words, but there are many authors who work according to principles of sparingness and concision so there's something out there for every disposition I think .

[Scarlette]

I agree with AbielleRose and BookJumper. I also wanted to add that I used to find the classics difficult to read, but have since became addicted to that elaborate style of writing and language use and now find it difficult to get into books written in a modern, minimalist style.

[Vanwa]

In addition to the points already raised above, modern use of the English language is somewhat abrupt.

 

Modern authors tend to go straight for the punch. For example, King (who I love by the way) opens The Stand, after the intial dialogue, thus:

 

First she glanced at the clock on the night table and saw it was quarter past two in the morning. Charlie shouldn't even be here; he should be on shift. Then she got her first good look at him and something leaped up insde her, some deadly intuition.

 

Immediately there is a sense of suspense and drama. But the language is basic. Look again at A Tale of Two Cities:

 

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way -

 

The text here is busy, and elaborate, but it is beautiful. The English language used to the most advanced of its time. We talk of language progressing, evolving, but I think it is the opposite when you apply the theory to fictional writing. We've gone from Dickens using English in this way, to King using the very basics to form his initial first few lines. Both are skilled writers, and are justly famed and reknowned for it.

 

Classical writing uses the text to draw in the reader, but the modern writer doesn't have the need for this. The human race has advanced tremendously since Dickens. Technology, religion, the way we percieve relationships. Dickens could never have begun a novel by having a man wake up his female counterpart. It would have been beyond controversial.

 

Additionally, during the time when Dickens was writing, education would have been extremely basic for the poor. Only the richer would be educated enough to grasp his language, and only the richer would have the money for books in the first place. It was a matter of practicality.

 

Dickens was limited in his target audience, where as King is far less limited. That doesn't make King any less of a writer of course.

 

Rather than look upon classics as a chore, try to view it more as a privilege. You're getting to read something that even at its time of publication most wouldn't have been able to read, by reading the classics you're on a journey to discovery. There will be some you like, some you don't, some you love, and some you don't. But each and every book, whether modern or classic, is both an achievement and a privilege, for the writer, and for the reader.

[Kylie]

Great post, Vanwa. I agree.

[Hyzenthlay]

I love how some authors use language almost like art. I hate to mention the obvious, but... Shakespeare. The way he uses elaborate, extensive and symbolic language to make his points is so beautiful to me.

 

I like simple, too. But I like the simple language when the message is understated, if that makes sense?

[smilerbabeuk]

I often pick up the meanings of words through context when reading. I have never had to get out the dictionary while reading. However, when I was writing essays/dissertation for a'levels and degree, I regularly had the dictionary out to check that the word I used meant what I thought it did. I don't remember getting any wrong. I think that makes me a lazy reader, but I've grown in confidence with language and vocabulary since I realised I know more than I thought. Hope that made sense!

I also think I had a headstart on understanding old fashioned language through bible reading from a very early age. I moved onto classic literature when I was about 11 or 12. My problem was less about understand the words, more not getting the subtext.

[vinay87]

Please don't lose your obsessive behaviour of looking up new words! I have been trying to develop that habit for years and I've constantly failed.

 

I've almost exclusively bought only classics for the last five years. This for a variety of reasons : 1. They're cheap. 2. They're somehow more interesting. 3. They've passed the test of time so should I get lost in time I can still discuss Hugo or Verne; I'm very skeptical about whether any of the present authors/books will last half as long.

 

I'm still far from reading and enjoying these books at the same speed that I'd enjoy a John Grisham book though, I say that is because my language hasn't improved much in the last decade. In reading classics, you not only read a wonderful and timeless tale, but you also improve your language.

 

As Vanwa said, present day writing exists because of the movement, the momentum, the rush. Classic literature exists because it is just beautiful and because most contemporary writers don't have it in them to write that way, present company included.

 

Also, in Dickens's time, only a few write. Today, any idiot with a macbook can start a blog and goes down the line of writing with some practise. I'm not saying there aren't any good books in the making out there, I'm only saying that while classics are like water in a desert, the books we have coming out annually now are like the Nile flood.

 

I mean, that was the best of times. This is the worst of times. Plagiarism if you will. Even so, Dickens will be studied and remembered, King will be enjoyed and possibly forgotten.