Saket Suryesh: "Why Writers Should Read the Classics"

Amadan said:

But I see a lot of books apparently written with no appreciation of the plots and tropes they are rehashing, while the ones in which the author clearly does know his or her classics tend to be better reads. This is true even in genre fiction.

Click to expand...

I think this is a good point. One of the benefits of being well-read is that you know what's been done before. While nothing you write is likely to be completely original, knowing how other writers (particularly classic ones) have handled similar plots and themes can be helpful for figuring out how to put your own mark on something.

And in that regard, I think you can extend "classics" to classics in various genres. I think, like you say, it can be helpful to read classics even if you write in a different genre. But it can also be helpful to read the classics in the genre(s) you write in.

jennontheisland said:

An English prof insisted to me that the Classics are worth reading because they were the best sellers of their time.... So, like Twilight?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that's universally the case at all. Some classics were popular fiction when they were published, yes. But some popular fiction has faded into obscurity, and some classics were "discovered" years after they were written.

For example, I'm not sure how well it sold, but Kate Chopin's The Awakening was controversial and received a lot of negative reviews when it was published. Though Chopin was apparently recognized as a good writer, a lot of people had a real problem with a story about a woman abandoning her family and seeking sexual fulfillment. The book was rediscovered in the 1960's, an era when Women's Lib was becoming popular and feminist literary theory was gaining a foothold.

To me it's important to read in pairs. A classic and a modern. Study how styles have changed over the years.

Obvious example: LOTR and Mistborn.

Define 'classics.'

So Shakespeare, Dickens, Brontes . . . yeah. But I have a wider definition of classics that includes writers like Sarah Waters, Yann Martell, Alice Walker, Robert Graves, Umberto Eco, Angela Carter, Kate Atkinson, Hilary Mantel . . .

Disagree that the classics are what the 'plebs' enjoy. Dickens et al wrote stories that stuck with people, and generation after generation read and bought their books enough to justify them to still be in publication 100 years later. I'll happily bet my salary that the 'bestsellers' of Dicken's days are unknown today.

Hmm. While I'm certainly not against studying the classics, I do think there's often a shortsightedness with people who become too enamored of them. It's expressed in the original article with:

They inspire us to overcome the sloth that makes us use words carelessly. A modern writer might get away with less under the garb of realism (e.g. “She was a bitch”), but that will not stay with you, not like “Coquetry runs in her blood, blends with her brains, and seasons the marrow of her bones” (Jane Eyre). Charlotte Bronte is no rush to finish her story.

Click to expand...

That's a strange reaction, to assert that Bronte's prose is better than a contemporary author's because she writes a longer sentence. Also, classics become classics for different reasons. Sometimes it's because they ushered in a movement and inspired the style or content of authors after them. This makes them important in literary history, but doesn't mean they're perfect. And it says nothing about the worth of contemporary literature at all. I do think it's a problem if we enshrine the classics into this category of perfect literature and then see newer writings as inferior. Instead of furthering education and progress, that would be a sure way to kill it. And that's my issue with the article. It sets up a false dichotomy of classic literature as good and timeless and modern literature as lazy.

gothicangel said:

I'll happily bet my salary that the 'bestsellers' of Dicken's days are unknown today.

Click to expand...

Dickens was a bestseller.

virtue_summer said:

That's a strange reaction, to assert that Bronte's prose is better than a contemporary author's because she writes a longer sentence.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's his point, entirely. But Bronte did put more effort into crafting her sentences, while modern writers trying to write commercially are forever being told that short sentences are better and wordiness is bad.

I'm so many mixed feelings though, like I'd rather call them historical novels. But then there is the hurdle of distinguishing a novel written in an older time contemporary for when it was written, and an actual "historical" novel in actually being written about an older time.

Like the subtle difference between it being the present 1960 contemporary fiction thats not romanticized, and a novel written about the 1960s that admires things like Soda Fountains. Or 90s and birkenstocks for that matter.

Brightdreamer said:

Probably a tangent, here, but am I the only one slightly saddened at the implication that "the classics" seem to automatically mean "the English-language classics", even to someone from India?

Click to expand...

It saddened me.

And definitely something I was going to bring up if you hadn't already. Contemporary English literature is orders of magnitude more diverse than it used to be, and I think it's far stronger for it.

I do think reading the classics are important, but not because they're "better". I'd argue what is being written in English today is as strong or stronger than English literature ever has been. Looking back, it's easy to forget how much crap has been forgotten, and how many classics are remembered for reasons other than their quality of writing. I think a writer would be far better served reading only contemporary works than they would be by reading only classics. Fortunately, most of us don't have to choose: we can read both.

Classics are remembered for different reasons. Sometimes because they were the first to do something, sometimes because they were the best at doing something, sometimes because of historical or cultural importance, sometimes for their political impact, etc. Shakespeare's plays aren't any more timeless than anyone else's: most of his plots were based on story lines and tropes that were already ancient when he used them. The timelessness is in his language.

So why read the classics? Because literature is a conversation. You have to know what has already been said before you can respond or say your piece.

Amadan said:

I don't think that's his point, entirely. But Bronte did put more effort into crafting her sentences, while modern writers trying to write commercially are forever being told that short sentences are better and wordiness is bad.

Click to expand...

I think you just need to pop into SYW for a moment to see that short sentences take plenty of effort.

Hapax Legomenon said:

I think you just need to pop into SYW for a moment to see that short sentences take plenty of effort.

Click to expand...

They do, but too much modern writing advice boils down to "keep it short and simple."

See: Building Great Sentences by Brooks Landon.

Amadan said:

They do, but too much modern writing advice boils down to "keep it short and simple."

Click to expand...

Plenty of contemporary writers don't, though.

That also depends on what your writing too. Chapter books for example depend on shorter sentences to be within the 7,000-11,000 word range.

I was reading a book about what to avoid when writing a novel and it was funny how some of the advice is completely the opposite of classic literature. Some of the classics from the 1800's have overly long descriptions of people or locations (but so does GRR Martin and Tolkien) or have such convoluted plot lines or coincidental plots. I like Charles Dickens and his social commentaries but his plots seem way too much like a soap opera. Mark Twain on the other hand would fit in as a modern writer with fast moving plots and characters that are exciting. I keep wondering if Dickens or Bronte were alive today and used the same style in writing their books, would editors turn them down or insist on a lot of editing?

They're just books. Like, maybe generally of higher quality than average, but the hero-worship thing makes me roll my eyes. There are plenty of books just as good being written today.

I think any writer should be widely read, but I'm not going to argue that "widely read" requires some specific set of books as a subset.

Honestly, "She was a bitch" does a whole lot more for me than that Bronte sentence.

Most of the classics I've read have only taught me how I don't want to write. The only classics I've ever enjoyed are classics in fantasy and science fiction. Some classic mysteries too (though not as much as the fantasy and science fiction).

I'd say better advice is to be familiar with the classics, even if that means just reading summaries. Life is only so long. Why spend it reading stuff you don't like?

If you like the classics and gain something from them, great. But this idea that you have to read them to be a successful author is ridiculous.

Now I do agree that you should read the classics in your genre. Fantasy writers should be familiar with Tolkien, Lewis, etc. Science fiction writers should be familiar with Wells, Asimov, Heinlein, etc.

I've learned a whole lot more from these authors (and many who aren't considered classic authors within my genres) than I've ever learned from the so-called classics of the literary canon.

Once again, I don't know of anyone who recommends reading the classics who says that modern writers should actually write like Bronte or Dickens. That would be like saying you should read Shakespeare and then write in 17th century English.

With every classic and "Oh my god, you have to read this" I read, I become less and less willing to read the next.

I don't care for them, really. Certainly not for Dickens, a man who could only have made it more clear that he was paid by the word if he included a tally of how much he made at the top of each page.

NRoach said:

With every classic and "Oh my god, you have to read this" I read, I become less and less willing to read the next.

I don't care for them, really. Certainly not for Dickens, a man who could only have made it more clear that he was paid by the word if he included a tally of how much he made at the top of each page.

Click to expand...

Victor Hugo makes Dickens look terse.

Also, they were paid by the chapter, not by the word.

Also, don't diss Dickens, man.

I must have been just a very strange kid. I liked stuff like Thomas Hardy, for instance, and once I'd been introduced to his books I sought out and read all his novels. In some of them the bathos is quite thick, let me tell you!

I also really enjoyed The Scarlet Letter, for another example. I felt with all of these books that they gave me a chance to peer into another time and way of life and I was utterly, thoroughly fascinated and enthralled.

YMMV and I have no skin in this game at all.

Amadan said:

I mentioned Hugo, Dumas, and Dostoevseky. The original writer did not, but probably would include them.

Click to expand...

Along with Goethe, Tolstoy, Cervantes, Perez Galdos, and the many other 20th century writers who have begun to achieve "classic" status in the estimate of critics and literary academics: Kafka, Hesse, Hamsun, Zamiatin, Solzhenitsyn, Undset, Kobo Abe, Chinua Achebe, García Marquez, etc.

Nor is it only writers who benefit from experience of classic literature. I'd argue it opens the minds of nearly everyone who takes the time and energy to read such material, regardless of vocation.

As for the allegation that the "classics" were the "best-sellers" of their day, analogous to Twilight, that's errant nonsense. Many things in high esteem today as great literature sold poorly, if at all, upon their first appearance. The obvious example is Moby Dick, by Herman Melville.

caw

caw

I dont see your name amongst the voters Mr Haskins.

Which makes me feel like an intruder on this thread you started.

Should I just ass-u-me how you would vote and proceed to vote myself, or should I consider you voting preference immaterial, and proceed to vote?


Bit of a Quagmire (Giggity). Wasn't there a 'classic' about that very conundrum?

Normally I'd have voted likewise. But the word 'critical' has different connotations.

Let me say, I do believe 'tis a lesser world for those who have not read as many of the greats as possible.

But even such a loss, may not necessarily result in lesser work.