Hello reader,
Today I want to talk to you about classics.
On my very aesthetic adventure, I realized for what may have been the first time how much I really do love classics. A few days ago, I was catching up with a friend who read Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen for the first time and was pleasantly surprised to find it not as romance-based as the movie. We discussed why that is, and that sparked a post idea.
Recently, I was talking with some fellow writers about Peter Pan and Alice's Adventures In Wonderland, and quickly found myself gushing about the latter (this is not because I do not also love Peter Pan, but rather is the result of the direction which the conversation went).
I then thought I should write to you about my thoughts on Alice's Adventures In Wonderland.
With all of the above in mind, you can expect more posts regarding classics, all which will be tagged as the "Concerning Classics" (or "CC") series. And for today, we're going to talk about how classics compare to modern fiction.
This will be very rambley as I am writing this in the very early hours.
One thing that I think really separates classic books from modern books is the intention of the story.
In the modern day, we tend to write fictional stories just for entertainment. But often times, classical fiction has some kind of meaning or intent. Sometimes it's tucked away, an underlying theme that affects the atmosphere. Sometimes it's blatantly direct. And yes, sometimes perhaps there is no real intent behind a classic story. But it is something that largely sets the older works apart from the current ones.
May I give you some examples?
Look at Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë. This is a story about a woman whose constants in life are loss and mistreatment as she embarks on the path of life, striving to be an honorable and Godly woman and to always do right.
In that case, the theme of staying true to your convictions, to staying true to the standards you have set and to the God which you have devoted yourself to, is quite obvious.
The intent, then, is much the same.
In the case of Great Expectations by Charles Dickens... well, there are many themes (another trend within classical literature). One, though, is contrast. Contrast between who we are and who we become. Throughout the story we follow Pip, who starts as a young and poor boy but later receives an income from an unnamed benefactor or benefactress.
He grows in many ways throughout the story. The best way I can think to describe this (forgive me if this makes no sense, as I said it is the wee hours of the morning when I am writing this) is that there can be severe contrast between shades of the same color. Baby blue and navy blue contrast against each other extremely, but they are both still blue.
Pip in the beginning and Pip throughout the story are both still Pip, he is recognizable all the way through as such, and yet who he becomes and who he was is still contrasted so extremely (it's really very fascinating, perhaps I will do a discussion post dedicated to Great Expectations).
The intent of this story could be a great many things, but I believe that one of the intentions is indeed to show the contrast of a person's individual growth.
And what of Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen? The theme is largely showing that both sides of a story are faulted. "Pride" and "prejudice" could refer to either Elizabeth or Darcy, for they both have pride and prejudice, which is something made clearer the more you advance in the story.
The intent is the same.
Even Alice's Adventures In Wonderland by Lewis Carroll has an underlying theme.
Now before my fellow Alice fans get riled up about how Carroll literally made this story to be stuff and nonsense, please, read on.
I do not deny that this story was originally told to be pure lunacy (if you do not know how the story came to be, please do check back for another post later, for I have every intention of doing an Alice In Wonderland post which will go over that). In fact, just the opposite.
Because you see, that is the theme: Nonsense.
The meaning of this story, of the majority of Carroll's fictional work as far as I am aware, is that not everything needs to make sense. Not everything needs to be logical, factual, smart. Some things can just be pure fun.
And that is the intent of the story Alice's Adventures In Wonderland, to remind you that you do not always need to make sense.
And there are so many other examples, such as Peter Pan's conversation regarding childhood and growing up, Frankenstein's discussion about monstrosities and what makes them, To Kill A Mockingbird's general life discussion, Tuck Everlasting's moral of mortality and living, Lord of The Ring's moral of hope and doing what is right... The list could go on and on.
Something you may be thinking about all this is the fact that modern fiction has themes as well. To which I say yes, it does. But the thing that I believe truly draws a line between modern work and classic work is that classical literature's theme and intent are the same thing.
For example, The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collin's main theme is a girl who no one expected anything from standing against oppression and tyranny.
While that is a very inspiring thing, and I am sure Suzanne Collins was hoping for it to be, the difference is that it was written more to tell a story than it was to have a conversation with the reader.
This isn't at all a bad thing, so please do not think I'm bringing down modern fiction, but it is an interesting thing.
If you're not sure of what I mean, consider the differences between how stories were written then and now.
Jane Eyre is also a story about a girl who no one expected anything from, and while she isn't causing wars and all that she is still taking many hits in a more realistic way.
Because of this (as well as the writing style of that particular novel), we're going to use it in comparison with The Hunger Games.
THG is first person present tense. This means that you're "there" with Katniss through it all. You're seeing it as it happens and you're seeing it from her perspective.
Katniss is focused on what is happening around her, and as far as she is concerned there is no reader, there is only the here and now and the people right in front of her.
Jane Eyre is first person past tense. This means that Jane is recounting her story to you, the reader, and this narrative choice opens up the ability for her to talk directly to you about what is happening in the story with the hindsight she now has (this is literally how the story is written).
The former is written to be an experience, the latter is written to be more of a conversation.
While The Hunger Games has great themes, it's intention is to be entertainment.
Jane Eyre is entertaining, and indeed Charlotte Brontë surely intended it to be so, but it's intention is also largely to convey its themes.
The reason I don't say THG is trying to convey something and be entertainment in equal parts, but that Jane Eyre is, is because of the difference between society back then and society today.
As I said, the majority of classics have an intent. Through my rather basic understanding of the time in which most of these classics were written, and through my knowledge of the authors and the stories themselves, I have come to believe that making social commentary in your book is just what you did back then.
Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens, Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen, Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain, and Alice's Adventures In Wonderland and Through The Looking Glass are all classics which have at some point had letters from the authors included in the printed copies.
These letters were each public statements regarding the author's opinions on something to do with society.
Oliver Twist's I cannot remember clearly (it has been some time since I read the letter), but I seem to recall that it had several letters in which Mr. Dickens called out society for numerous things regarding his story.
Northanger Abbey had a letter saying that the opinions expressed in the story did not necessarily still represent the author's opinions in the present day.
Tom Sawyer's note expressed Mark Twain's desire that his story, while intended for young boys, would be enjoyed by all men and women and that it would bring them back to the days when they themselves were youths.
Alice's Adventures In Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass had an Easter letter encouraging children who were fans of the story to enjoy Easter Sunday, because one just shouldn't be solemn on such a wonderful day.
These letters all express further what the authors have expressed in the narration of their books (although in Austen's case, it was to say she once did express her opinions in her work and now did not necessarily still hold to those opinions).
These, as well as the many other examples of this, show that social commentary in a narrative was just the norm.
Whereas today, we are more entertainment based. Once more, this doesn't mean that authors don't hope a reader will be inspired or that they don't represent their own opinions in their work. But the focus is different.
Even an author who is just telling the story the way it goes (I am a writer of this sort) isn't necessarily inserting a moral, intent, theme, meaning, or social commentary to their story, but are rather just following the path the story naturally would take.
To conclude the post, I think the main intention of every classic at the end of the day is to cause the reader to think. I don't think I've ever walked away from a classic without having thought deeply at some point during the reading process.
Due to all of the above, classics bring so much to the conversation. From topics as heavy as death itself or as light as literal nonsense, they are written so strongly from their author's perspective that something new, something intriguing, is always presented. Maybe not throughout the story, maybe it's just one sentence, but it's always there.
I think that this is a goal of the authors' for the same reason I think the social commentary is intentional. And I think that is often is for modern authors as well. But again, in the modern day stories are written to be experienced. In the classical era(s), it seems they were written more to be heard.
So while one makes you think as if its happening to you, the other allows you to think as an outsider but with all the inside knowledge.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**Some days later, though I do not recall how many.**
That is all for this rambled discussion regarding the intentions of classical fiction and how said intentions set classical work apart from modern.
I know that this was rather messy and I'm sure I failed to correct paragraph breaks and odd grammar, but I did attempt to make it more readable than it was when I wrote this at a time in which the sun and moon were both asleep, while maintaining the character of it.
That is to say, I tried, but I didn't try all that hard.
I do so hope you enjoyed it nonetheless, and that it caused to be to interested in some classics if you were not previously. And if you were, or if this post brings you to pick up a piece of classical literature, please do tell me what you think on this matter.
In a coming post (not sure when it will be coming) I will be discussions classical book-to-film adaptions, which will further go into the social commentary and writing style that were mentioned in this post.
Do you have any particular things concerning classics which you would like my thoughts on? Please do let me know.
Kind regards,
- E.P.
