By Keith Fisher
There is a popular movie from 1989 staring Robin Williams called Dead Poets Society. It is a heart wrenching story about a group of boarding school students learning about life through appreciation of the great poets. Using that premise, I’d like to start a Dead Authors society. Like the movie, we could meet once a week (probably online) and discuss something (good or bad) we found in an old book. Maybe I’ll start a new blog—I’ll let you know.
I’m almost ashamed to admit it, but I avoided reading the classics in high school. Of course, I also avoided most of my homework in those days, I read Tom Sawyer and Future Shock, but I missed out on Moby Dick, Grapes of Wrath, and others.
To make up for my ignorance, I’ve been reading classics mingled among the other things I must read. I discovered an interesting thing while reading the Great Gatsby the other day. Although there is a good message and the book is a great treatise of the jazz age, F. Scott Fitzgerald filled it with flowery descriptions that probably earned him high praise in his day. Now he is dead, it’s time to take a look at his work under the desk lamp, and analyze it against the fiction of today.
One of my pet peeves is when I read a book written within the last twenty years and find the author committed one of the unforgivable sins. I constantly criticize myself for committing these sins because I know if I don’t change things like weak plot, POV shifts, and too much description, my book won’t be published. So, I’m left wondering how the book in question got published because it’s so much harder for us today.
Here I am, reading a classic—a book that is supposed to be an example of good writing—and those same feelings crop up. How did this guy get published? To be fair, I enjoyed the descriptions. Fitzgerald’s metaphors and similes are fantastic. I may write down many of them for future blogs, but does Gatsby hold the attention of a modern reader?
To be honest, if I wasn’t listening on my MP3 player at work, I might not have ever finished the book. Readers have such a short attention span today, a book must be near perfect to survive. An author cannot allow a reader to set a book down, or it won’t be picked up again. I’m afraid the classics would never hold up under the standards of today’s market. My friend thinks they would, but with all the rules for hooks in the first paragraph, etc, I still think my editor would find many wrong things.
So, high school students hate to read those books, while English teachers point to them as examples of great literature. It’s no wonder that many students quit reading after high school. Lest I give you the wrong impression, I must say it was hard to write during those times also. Readers took more time reading, and they scrutinized the prose. They held a paragraph in their mind for days, twisting it over, marveling at the symmetry.
But, my twenty-first century mind keeps trying to rush the author. It says, "Get to point already—I haven’t got all day." I found the classics are better if someone reads them to me. Don’t you love the way the narrator speaks in Dickens’ A Christmas Carol? I love to listen to it again and again. Words were not taken for granted in those days. But when I read it, I skip over those words in order to get to the meat of the story. Perhaps if we make high school kids listen to the story they might enjoy it more, but then, how would they learn to read?
Since I haven’t made any real point here, you might wonder which side I’m on. Like any good editor, I must offer praise as well as criticism. I hope we all learn to savor classical prose. It may be a better example of good writing than the entertaining stories we write today, but it would never make it on the best seller list. That’s okay though, most of the classics already had their day in the sun.
Good luck with your writing—see you next week.
6 comments:
"One of my pet peeves is when I read a book written within the last twenty years and find the author committed one of the unforgivable sins. I constantly criticize myself for committing these sins because I know if I don’t change things like weak plot, POV shifts, and too much description, my book won’t be published. So, I’m left wondering how the book in question got published because it’s so much harder for us today."
Unforgivable sins? More like changes in fashion. Here's the thing -- you may not enjoy it, but some authors are good enough that they can flout the conventions that get drilled into aspiring authors. Fitzgerald is one of them. Although his novels -- outside of The Great Gatsby which is very, very short for novel -- actually aren't very good.
I personally find some of the conventions that are drilled into beginning writers to be boring. I'm not fond of the transparent writing style that's popular in many circles -- give me flowery over so plain it's boring (albeit good flowery). I like authors who play around with POV (if it's clearly intentional and not just because the author is inexperienced). I think plot is overrated and too often gets in the way of story. I think description is under-valued and dialog is over-valued. etc.
None of this is to criticize your response to Gatsby. But to point out that writing styles and preferences change and not always for the better. And that good writing (and great novels) can be found among many literary styles/schools/periods.
Or in other words: modern readers need to become poly-readers.
To a large extent, I agree with William. The definition of "good writing" changes over time. What worked for Milton's or Dickens's audience doesn't work for today's. What's a "sin" today was a common (and "good") tool back in the day--among them large passages of description, POV hopping, and so forth.
So the trick is learning what elements from those writers STILL work today--those things that pass the test of time--and then use them while adapting to the way modern audience and publishing has changed.
that writing styles and preferences change and not always for the better. And that good writing (and great novels) can be found among many literary styles/schools/periods.
I beleive that was the point I was making. I guess it only proves that mt writing needs to improve in order for people to get the point.
Thanks for your comments
I hear a lot of the same in songwriting. For every rule someone quotes me, I can cite at least 10 major classic hits that break that rule.
I get a bit of an attitude about it, too, because they tell me that nobody's going to publish and pitch my songs unless I "follow the rules".
Well, often those rules help me write better songs. Sometimes I want to break them and I do it. I don't see people lining up to promote the songs of people in our little small-time group anyway...
I do, however, think it's very good to know the rules, and that when you break them, you should be doing that as a concious artistic choice, rather than simple ignorance.
A large portion of the books I read are in audio book format. It seems that if I have enough time to sit down and read a paper-based book, that I could have used that time more efficiently somewhere else. Maybe I'm just impatient.
As such, much of my "reading" is someone reading it to me as well. I honestly feel I can get thru some stories that otherwise I would not have been able to read on my own.
Alice in Wonderland was NOT one of those. I could not get very far into the story without having to turn it off. I was at the gym "reading" it and the book made me want to go home, so I listened to something else.
I'm sure it was a good story and lots of people loved reading about Alice. I mean, it's a classic, right? It's so well known. Somebody must have enjoyed reading it.
But I left Alice somewhere in her fantasy world. I hope she found her way out--or at least that she liked it there, because I sure didn't.
Keith,
You made a good point. Good writing can be found in every generation, even if the "rules" and styles change.
I enjoyed reading your blog, and would love for you to do a discussion of several more of the classics!
Post a Comment