“I am now convinced that reading Big Old Books . . . is a useful habit for all Christians, especially those who desire to understand our current culture”
“We in the West are not good at waiting for anything. We want our reaction and we want it now. And so, when we take up a B.O.B. [Big Old Book] which doesn’t move out of first gear until page 250, we protest this modern malady.” - Ref21
- 1 view
I have read Bleak House. I enjoyed it. It was long. I’ve read a lot of Dostoyevsky, too.
But I have long suspected, without running down this hypothesis, that the economic pressures of serialization do not encourage concise and focused writing.
I also find the 19th-century British style to be terribly circumloquacious. I’m looking at you, Dickens and Austen. Don’t get me wrong: I think Pride and Prejudice demonstrates outstanding human insight and is in many respects delightful to read. But I think I appreciate John Steinbeck and Cormac McCarthy more.
There, now I’m way out on a limb. :)
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
[M. Osborne]Try a classic Chinese novel. The meandering plots, subplots, and insane profusion of significant characters (many of whom promptly drop out of the story, never to reappear again) might awaken your appreciation for the tight focus of 19th-century British lit. ;)I have read Bleak House. I enjoyed it. It was long. I’ve read a lot of Dostoyevsky, too.
But I have long suspected, without running down this hypothesis, that the economic pressures of serialization do not encourage concise and focused writing.
I also find the 19th-century British style to be terribly circumloquacious. I’m looking at you, Dickens and Austen. Don’t get me wrong: I think Pride and Prejudice demonstrates outstanding human insight and is in many respects delightful to read. But I think I appreciate John Steinbeck and Cormac McCarthy more.
There, now I’m way out on a limb.
To be fairly serious, one thing that’s struck me for a few years is that sometimes, fiction can be more “truthy” than non-fiction—with the obvious exception of sci-fi and fantasy—because it is crucial that the audience find that it is plausible. So if you have a reasonably contemporary work of fiction, you at least have an idea of what people at the time thought was plausible.
I’m also a fan of English fiction, though sometimes the “criticality” of minor noblemen and noblewomen marrying an appropriately big annuity escapes me, and I’ve periodically enjoyed German fiction as well. It is a wonderful way of getting a feel about how people think. (even if they’re making sure they marry a sufficient annuity)
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I love fiction and believe that it’s an edifying activity that more Christians should engage in. Realizing, though, that not only my time but brain “power” is limited, I reserve reading fiction for my right-before-I-fall-asleep activity. At the moment, I’m reading the Kristin Lavransdatter Trilogy by Sigrid Undset.
Fiction helps you enter into the circumstances and motivations of others in a richer and more empathetic way. Someone once paraphrased Flannery O’Conner, that when she was asked if she could reduce a story to a particular theme or proposition, she said that if she could have, she wouldn’t have written the story. Perhaps I’ve tracked down the original quotation here.
I prefer to talk about the meaning in a story rather than the theme of a story. People talk about the theme of a story as if the theme were like the string that a sack of chicken feed is tied with. They think that if you can pick out the theme, the way you pick the right thread in the chicken-feed sack, you can rip the story open and feed the chickens. But this is not the way meaning works in fiction.
When you can state the theme of a story, when you can separate it from the story itself, then you can be sure the story is not a very good one. The meaning of a story has to be embodied in it, has to be made concrete in it. A story is a way to say something that can’t be said any other way, and it takes every word in the story to say what the meaning is. You tell a story because a statement would be inadequate. When anybody asks what a story is about, the only proper thing is to tell him to read the story. The meaning of fiction is not abstract meaning but experienced meaning, and the purpose of making statements about the meaning of a story is only to help you experience that meaning more fully. (“Writing Short Stories,” Mystery and Manners 96)
And not related to the above, @Bert: when I read Jane Austen, I have a hard time distinguishing the upper class of those days from the perpetually unemployed people of today. Both seem to drift around from activity to activity without any kind of meaningful work to do.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
I don’t like or appreciate older literary fiction very much. I despise Dickens and find him ponderous. I read Lord Jim by Conrad, and thought it was quite good. I’d rather stab myself in the eye than read Austen or the Bronte sisters. I read Hawthorne years ago, and have pondered reading him again (very haunting). I read Irving and liked him. Hated Melville. Hated Cooper. Whitman was meh, but I don’t like poetry. Frankenstein was depressing. Steinbeck is depressing. Fitzgerald is depressing; The Beautiful and the Damned was infuriating.
If I want to think, I’ll read non-fiction. If I want to relax, I’ll read escapist fiction.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]I don’t like or appreciate older literary fiction very much. I despise Dickens and find him ponderous. I read Lord Jim by Conrad, and thought it was quite good. I’d rather stab myself in the eye than read Austen or the Bronte sisters. I read Hawthorne years ago, and have pondered reading him again (very haunting). I read Irving and liked him. Hated Melville. Hated Cooper. Whitman was meh, but I don’t like poetry. Frankenstein was depressing. Steinbeck is depressing. Fitzgerald is depressing; The Beautiful and the Damned was infuriating.
If I want to think, I’ll read non-fiction. If I want to relax, I’ll read escapist fiction.
Thought I would mention that if you have enjoyed Conrad, Nostromo and The Secret Agent are both good reads. Nostromo is probably the more “gripping” of the two but SA is a really interesting look into the inner-workings of an anarchist and particularly “propaganda of the deed.” I didn’t get Heart of Darkness at all. Everyone raves about it so I guess I’m just dense.
Lord Jim is a stunning example of somebody who has no vehicle for atonement, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Jim was a man who was haunted by a terrible failure. He had no way to solve that guilt. It’s a beautiful foil for the Gospel. The problem is that nobody reads literature, so Lord Jim is a useless point of contact with the congregation or even normal people. Superhero movies, yes. That’s sad.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[josh p]Thought I would mention that if you have enjoyed Conrad, Nostromo and The Secret Agent are both good reads. Nostromo is probably the more “gripping” of the two but SA is a really interesting look into the inner-workings of an anarchist and particularly “propaganda of the deed.” I didn’t get Heart of Darkness at all. Everyone raves about it so I guess I’m just dense.
No, I agree: HOD is incredibly overrated. I don’t think it’s bad, but it’s hardly to the level of Conrad’s other stuff. It “caught a moment” due to its prominent themes of colonialism and psychology, to my mind.
Now Victory I think severely underrated. The conclusion is a bit odd, but the characters and situation are fascinating.
Also on a rather comic note, Conrad apparently had a strong distaste for Dostoevsky. Various critics have wondered about that, but if you recall D’s unflattering treatment of Poles in (one? I forget how many), I don’t think the antipathy should be surprising.
Yeah I agree Tyler. I always read things and wish I could reference them but most people aren’t acquainted enough with good books to do so anymore. It is too bad. I recently read “Pere Goriot” by Balzac. It has a character named Rastignac who is the typical social climber. I understand that in France, it is common to call someone a “Rastignac” to identify that trait in them. I haven’t seen literature becoming part of the language here.
[Andrew K]No, I agree: HOD is incredibly overrated. I don’t think it’s bad, but it’s hardly to the level of Conrad’s other stuff. It “caught a moment” due to its prominent themes of colonialism and psychology, to my mind.
Now Victory I think severely underrated. The conclusion is a bit odd, but the characters and situation are fascinating.
Also on a rather comic note, Conrad apparently had a strong distaste for Dostoevsky. Various critics have wondered about that, but if you recall D’s unflattering treatment of Poles in (one? I forget how many), I don’t think the antipathy should be surprising.
Glad it wasn’t just me! I think you hit the nail on the head. It’s popularity was probably due to anti-colonialism.
I’ve never read Victory so thank you I’ll put it on my list. When I like an author I tend to want to read all their books in time. I have one more Dickens left (Martin Chuzzlewit). Pretty funny about Dostoyevsky. He’s another one that I’ve read only half way.
I read a lot of Conrad in high school and have forgotten most of it. Heart of Darkness, The Secret Sharer, The Secret Agent. What astounded me was his vocabulary. And English was his third language.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
[TylerR]Lord Jim is a stunning example of somebody who has no vehicle for atonement, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Jim was a man who was haunted by a terrible failure. He had no way to solve that guilt. It’s a beautiful foil for the Gospel. The problem is that nobody reads literature, so Lord Jim is a useless point of contact with the congregation or even normal people. Superhero movies, yes. That’s sad.
I am reminded of making literary jokes in conference calls with people in Thailand, Malaysia, and the U..S. Ironically, those who spoke English as a 2nd/3rd language got them far more often than my U.S. colleagues. I wouldn’t altogether abandon literary references, but in today’s climate, I’d have to recommend explaining them a bit more.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Andrew K]No, I agree: HOD is incredibly overrated. I don’t think it’s bad, but it’s hardly to the level of Conrad’s other stuff. It “caught a moment” due to its prominent themes of colonialism and psychology, to my mind.
Now Victory I think severely underrated. The conclusion is a bit odd, but the characters and situation are fascinating.
Also on a rather comic note, Conrad apparently had a strong distaste for Dostoevsky. Various critics have wondered about that, but if you recall D’s unflattering treatment of Poles in (one? I forget how many), I don’t think the antipathy should be surprising.
On your recommendation, I read and finished Victory this week. Really good book! Thanks!
Discussion