Does Contemporary Writing Have Less Heart?

NorthStar7 · Jan 9, 2014

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that contemporary writing has less heart (read: sentimentalism), floridness, moral instruction, and candor than writing from the distant past? For example, note the following passage from an 1808 book:

When Aurora unveils her beauty, the exhibition becomes still more magnificent. Light is diffused in a regular gradation until Nature shines forth in all her splendor and reveals her grandest spectacle. The sun sallies out of the chambers of the east. A ray darts from above yon mountains which intercept our view and glides through the regions of the atmosphere with inconceivable velocity. A succession of sun beams irradiate the horizon. A flood of glory bursts from the skies, and the sun appears in all his majesty to pursue his diurnal course.

Here is another passage from a book written during the 1890s:

From the very doorstep, Everard became conscious of a domestic atmosphere that told soothingly upon his nerves...[Mrs Micklethwaite] looked far better in health than a few months ago. [She] was no longer so distressingly old; an expression that resembled girlish pleasure lit up her countenance as she stepped forward…There came a gentle warmth to her cheek, and the momentary downward glance was as graceful and modest as in a youthful bride.

Note this third passage from a book written during the mid-1800s:

But there is no power of law that can make the idle man industrious, the thriftless provident, or the drunken sober, though every individual can be each and all of these if he will by the exercise of his own free powers of action and self-denial. Indeed, all experience serves to prove that the worth and strength of a state depend far less upon the form of its institutions than upon the character of its men. For the nation is only the aggregate of individual conditions and civilization itself is but a question of personal improvement.

Contemporary writing, on the other hand, tends to be more matter-of-fact and to the point---which is not necessarily a good or bad thing. Just an observation.
Why do you suppose that writing has thus evolved? Personally, I suspect that the industrial revolution and the mass democratization of writing played a significant role.

What do you think? If you have a different opinion, feel free to voice it.

WriteRex · Jan 9, 2014

I suppose writing has evolved in the same manner that fashions and fads change over time. People change. Do you think you would like the same things as Grandpa and Grandma?

Caitlin Black · Jan 9, 2014

And keep in mind that a lot of the more formal stuff of the past was deeply entwined with being told what to do - which is something modern people try to avoid.

Like, a very strict upbringing could make people more formal and thus more likely to sentimentalise over the way things "always" have been, which is the distinct flavour I see in a lot of older writing. Cut to modern times, and people are freer than they've ever been to simply be who they want to be, which has the side-product of making the past seem "dumb" in popular ways of thinking.

(All of that is generalisation, of course.)

The other aspect that comes into it, I feel, is TV. TV promotes cultural attitudes in a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, but has been big on changing attitudes over time. Then the Internet follows on from that, and suddenly everyone's more individualistic than in the past.

...

Just my 2c.

Personally, I think the older-style writing is beautiful, but a lot of the upheld values irritate me.

Anninyn · Jan 10, 2014

Nope.

I find that contemporary fiction has more honesty. Perhaps it is less descriptive and sentimental - that's the way fashions change. But it is also less likely to be casually racist or sexist, to call for the extermination of the disabled in the middle of the text (even fiction from the 1800's used to do this). It is more likely to describe how something is, without cloaking it in a veil of false sentiment.

For example, Dickens and his descriptions of the noble, too-good-for-this-world, suffering poor, or his sweet, insipid, angel-in-the-house women are saccharine lies. I find a lot of modern work more honest and more compassionate about similar situations.

Also, do remember that the fiction that has survived till now is the best of the best - it's not a representative sample of everything that was published then. We won't know how it compares with modern work for another hundred years or so.

Caitlin Black · Jan 10, 2014

Couldn't agree more.

That's sort of what I was trying to say, but words failed me...

And yes, it's a good point about the older works being the best of the best from their time period. I hadn't considered that, to be honest - but it does explain why the writing is often incredibly evocative. I'm sure there are plenty of modern writers who write that well, but with the plethora of titles to choose from, "modern" books tend to take on an aggregate veneer of middling quality - at least that's how it seems to me. An average of the really great writing with the ho-hum stuff that hasn't left much of an impression on me. But yes - older time periods undoubtedly had their own ho-hum books.

Chris P · Jan 10, 2014

Writing styles change, since the public's tastes in how they like to experience stories changes. As much as I like the flowery descriptions of bygone days, I also like the direct, in your face realism of more modern novels. A nice balance is a refreshing read. I'm currently about 25% into John Updike's Toward the End of Time that does this pretty well, although he gets a bit off topic into the purple sometimes. But he's John Updike. He can do that.

KellyAssauer · Jan 10, 2014

NorthStar7 said:
Note this second passage from a book written during the mid-1800s:

Contemporary writing, on the other hand, tends to be more matter-of-fact and to the point---which is not necessarily a good or bad thing. Just an observation.
Why do you suppose that writing has thus evolved? Personally, I suspect that the industrial revolution and the mass democratization of writing played a significant role.

What do you think? If you have a different opinion, feel free to voice it.

In the Mid-1800's or Victorian Age, many writers found that the best paying way to make a living was to write a 'novel' for the local newspapers. These 'novels' were episodic or serialized - and the way to get more money from the publishers was to make them longer in both chapter and verse. How do you make a novel longer? You pad it with as much purple as your editor will allow.

Although the publication markets of the time were competitive, they did not have the same rivals contemporary writing does. There was no radio, tv, interwebz, netflix and etc to pull the audience away. Contemporary writing has to be more matter-of-fact and to the point to capture and keep a reader that doesn't have as much idle time to sit and read as the audience of the 1800's.

The way prose changed wasn't a matter of choice,
It was survival.

mirandashell · Jan 10, 2014

Ermmm.... Victorian is not the distant past. The Roman Empire is the distant past. The Victorian age is 150 years ago. Blink of an eye in human history.

mirandashell · Jan 10, 2014

And florid flowery writing does not equal more heart, IMO.

buz · Jan 10, 2014

NorthStar7 said:
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that contemporary writings has less heart (read: sentimentalism), floridness, moral instruction, and candor than writings from the distant past?

1. I don't think any of those things are equivalent or related...

2. The first passage you cited is merely purple/flowery prose, which can be some people's cup of tea (and still exists in some places), but yes, it's not really in fashion. I don't care for it, personally, unless it's accomplishing something specific about character voice and whatnot. Takes an awful long time to say "the sun rose" and doesn't do it in a particularly unexpected or refreshing way, for me.

3. The second passage is from a book called Self-Help, and if you look at self-help books today you can still find all sorts of instruction; moral, spiritual, physical, etc. So I'm not sure what comparison you're making there. But yes, most people don't want outright preaching in their novels. Preaching is generally uncomfortable and not terribly interesting to read.

4. What's "the distant past"? I think that candor is either the same or increasing in books

Very hard to generalize as a) individual books are different and b) I'm not sure what you mean by candor.

5. As for heart--no, I think contemporary books have a lot of heart. I have read many books that ripped my heart out and mashed it up into bits, books that kept me awake at night, books I couldn't stop thinking about, characters who I cared about deeply. As for sentimentalism--I'm not really sure what you mean by that either.

6. I don't think you can say that contemporary writing is "matter of fact" and "to the point"--individual books are so different, and authors can vary widely in their styles and voices. I will say that taking a paragraph to say that the sun rose is generally looked down upon though, yes

But I don't think that has anything to do with heart. Pacing, description, etc, yes, but in my opinion, the heart is in the story itself, not the flowery descriptions.

Anninyn · Jan 10, 2014

tha

Cliff Face said:
Couldn't agree more. That's sort of what I was trying to say, but words failed me...

And yes, it's a good point about the older works being the best of the best from their time period. I hadn't considered that, to be honest - but it does explain why the writing is often incredibly evocative. I'm sure there are plenty of modern writers who write that well, but with the plethora of titles to choose from, "modern" books tend to take on an aggregate veneer of middling quality - at least that's how it seems to me. An average of the really great writing with the ho-hum stuff that hasn't left much of an impression on me. But yes - older time periods undoubtedly had their own ho-hum books.

I've picked up older books from antiques sales and the like - books no longer in print, not considered classics - and they are just as likely to be mediocre or outright dreadful than anything written today.

You can also pick out complaints of that sort from their peers in literary criticism and reviews. It's great.

I have a copy of a 1904 book, 'A Sealed Book' by Alice Livingstone, and it's... well, it's alright, I guess. It's got lines like

Steered by this majestic person came an elderly maid with a bag of her own and a protecting manner which encompassed the beautiful girl, whose face and tall, slim figure attracted all eyes

which is difficult to parse.

ap123 · Jan 10, 2014

buzhidao said:
1. I don't think any of those things are equivalent or related...

2. The first passage you cited is merely purple/flowery prose, which can be some people's cup of tea (and still exists in some places), but yes, it's not really in fashion. I don't care for it, personally, unless it's accomplishing something specific about character voice and whatnot. Takes an awful long time to say "the sun rose" and doesn't do it in a particularly unexpected or refreshing way, for me.

3. The second passage is from a book called Self-Help, and if you look at self-help books today you can still find all sorts of instruction; moral, spiritual, physical, etc. So I'm not sure what comparison you're making there. But yes, most people don't want outright preaching in their novels. Preaching is generally uncomfortable and not terribly interesting to read.

4. What's "the distant past"? I think that candor is either the same or increasing in books Very hard to generalize as a) individual books are different and b) I'm not sure what you mean by candor.

5. As for heart--no, I think contemporary books have a lot of heart. I have read many books that ripped my heart out and mashed it up into bits, books that kept me awake at night, books I couldn't stop thinking about, characters who I cared about deeply. As for sentimentalism--I'm not really sure what you mean by that either.

6. I don't think you can say that contemporary writing is "matter of fact" and "to the point"--individual books are so different, and authors can vary widely in their styles and voices. I will say that taking a paragraph to say that the sun rose is generally looked down upon though, yes But I don't think that has anything to do with heart. Pacing, description, etc, yes, but in my opinion, the heart is in the story itself, not the flowery descriptions.

Agreeing with everything here--except I tend to enjoy more descriptive (?) writing than Buz. If it's in a story that calls for it.

buz · Jan 10, 2014

ap123 said:
Agreeing with everything here--except I tend to enjoy more descriptive (?) writing than Buz. If it's in a story that calls for it.

Well, hey, it totally depends on the book. Walter Moers babbles on and on about his weird-ass world but I enjoy it because it's immersive in that weird-ass world and it's the voice; it's different and refreshing to me. There's a difference, though, in babbling about an immortal tornado or a giant monstrous skull you can walk into with dreams inside or an underground labyrinth with books that kill you and babbling about the sunrise, so I think

Amadan · Jan 10, 2014

How does more florid and verbose writing equal "more heart"?

I like the classics, but I wouldn't want to read a contemporary novel written in the same style.

This, however:

Anninyn said:
I find that contemporary fiction has more honesty. Perhaps it is less descriptive and sentimental - that's the way fashions change. But it is also less likely to be casually racist or sexist, to call for the extermination of the disabled in the middle of the text (even fiction from the 1800's used to do this). It is more likely to describe how something is, without cloaking it in a veil of false sentiment.

For example, Dickens and his descriptions of the noble, too-good-for-this-world, suffering poor, or his sweet, insipid, angel-in-the-house women are saccharine lies. I find a lot of modern work more honest and more compassionate about similar situations.

is mostly nonsense.

Yes, Dickens had a serious pedestalization fetish, but Dickens had issues. But not all Victorian writers wrote such insipid female characters, and even Dickens wrote some good ones now and then (Betsy f***ing Trotwood! And Madame Defarge!) On the other hand, Dickens's sense of class consciousness and compassion for the poor made him one of those writers who literally transformed society. And if you think all of his poor characters were noble and suffering and too good for this world, you haven't read much Dickens. Yes, he used a few of those characters as soapboxes, like Tom-All-Alone, but he also showed the brutality and criminality that poverty produced. And Mr. Micawber, jovial as he was, was hardly a respectable, noble figure.

Jane Austen, conversely (who was not Victorian, but anyway) had a much more nuanced grasp of male/female relationships and the minds of women, unsurprisingly, yet was pretty much oblivious to the Imperial machine that produced all those pretty country manors she wrote about.

The times were more racist and sexist, so of course the writing generally was. But even there, you'll find many 19th century writers were not as horrible as people tend to assume.

Anninyn · Jan 10, 2014

Amadan said:
How does more florid and verbose writing equal "more heart"?

I like the classics, but I wouldn't want to read a contemporary novel written in the same style.

This, however:

is mostly nonsense.

Yes, Dickens had a serious pedestalization fetish, but Dickens had issues. But not all Victorian writers wrote such insipid female characters, and even Dickens wrote some good ones now and then (Betsy f***ing Trotwood! And Madame Defarge!) On the other hand, Dickens's sense of class consciousness and compassion for the poor made him one of those writers who literally transformed society. And if you think all of his poor characters were noble and suffering and too good for this world, you haven't read much Dickens. Yes, he used a few of those characters as soapboxes, like Tom-All-Alone, but he also showed the brutality and criminality that poverty produced. And Mr. Micawber, jovial as he was, was hardly a respectable, noble figure.

Jane Austen, conversely (who was not Victorian, but anyway) had a much more nuanced grasp of male/female relationships and the minds of women, unsurprisingly, yet was pretty much oblivious to the Imperial machine that produced all those pretty country manors she wrote about.

The times were more racist and sexist, so of course the writing generally was. But even there, you'll find many 19th century writers were not as horrible as people tend to assume.

I should have been clearer, rather than just toss off one of my opinions without clarification. Sorry about that! I've got very used to boiling down opinions come to through much thought and research into pithy statements for internet consumption, and it doesn't show my work.

I was using it more as an example of the literary tendencies of the time (I have read a lot of Dickens, and enjoy him, but his best female characters are usually his villains or at least not Good Women. I prefer Collins, anyway) and shouldn't have been so dismissive.

I feel my point stands, however. I feel very strongly that as time has moved on and society has gone with it, that fiction has gained heart and compassion, not lost it. In a few centuries, people will likely be having the same discussion about what works of fiction have survived. At least, while the ginat sentient fire nts aren't attacking.

I do not however think that 'the time was racist/sexist' should mean that a work should be allowed to go uncriticised for those attitudes. When they're taught in schools, strongly pushed as reading for modern people, their more problematic statements and attitudes should be pointed out and criticised.

Amadan · Jan 10, 2014

Anninyn said:
I feel my point stands, however. I feel very strongly that as time has moved on and society has gone with it, that fiction has gained heart and compassion, not lost it.

That only follows if you believe people today are inherently more compassionate than people in the past. This is an argument that could perhaps be made: social justice and concern for others is something of a luxury that only a wealthy, safe society allows. But I'm not convinced that writers today are broadly more compassionate and aware of injustice, though the specific injustices they focus on are different.

I do not however think that 'the time was racist/sexist' should mean that a work should be allowed to go uncriticised for those attitudes. When they're taught in schools, strongly pushed as reading for modern people, their more problematic statements and attitudes should be pointed out and criticised.

I didn't say they shouldn't be criticized or examined. Just that that isn't a good reason to dismiss them. I was speaking more to the assumption I often see (usually from people who don't actually read many classics) that everything written in the 19th century was "OMG SO RACIST AND SEXIST AND HOMOPHOBIC!"

KellyAssauer · Jan 10, 2014

*peeks in*

*reads responses*

*flips to page three of The Sun*

Ona Mission · Jan 10, 2014

That's hawt.

Beat Cella. Proud moment. Carry on.

NorthStar7 · Jan 10, 2014

By "[distant] past," I'm referring to books written during or before the early 1900s

mirandashell · Jan 10, 2014

NorthStar7 said:
By "[distant] past," I'm referring to books written during or before the early 1900s

I know.

williemeikle · Jan 10, 2014

NorthStar7 said:
By "[distant] past," I'm referring to books written during or before the early 1900s

In my own lifetime I've met and spoken to people who were born during and before the early 1900s. ( I believe I can get back to around 1880). People on here older than me will be able to get back further.

It's hardly distant past.

mirandashell · Jan 10, 2014

When I was little I knew an old lady who when she was little had known an old lady who when she was little had sat on the knee of an old man who when young had fought at the Battle of Waterloo.

Vito · Jan 10, 2014

williemeikle said:
In my own lifetime I've met and spoken to people who were born during and before the early 1900s. ( I believe I can get back to around 1880). People on here older than me will be able to get back further.

It's hardly distant past.

Me too -- my grandmother was born in the 1890s. When I was a kid she lived in my house until she passed away, one month before I started junior high school. Thinking back on my conversations with her, it's clear that technology has changed a lot since the 1890s but people haven't changed very much at all.

As far as flowery writing goes, I usually go for it: Cormac McCarthy's The Crossing, Herman Melville's Moby Dick, and Jack Kerouac's The Town and the City are some of my favorite novels, and they're all pretty darn...flowery.

Unfortunately I've never been able to get through any of Thomas Wolfe's novels, although he really could write some mind-blowingly beautiful stuff.

Siri Kirpal · Jan 10, 2014

Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

There's a huge difference between flowery and "with heart." As anyone who has sat through an overlong speech should know.

There's a huge difference between sentimentality and "with heart." What's looks like love isn't necessarily.

Compare The Secret Life of Bees with your average Victorian bit of schmaltz or even The Great Gatsby. Which has more heart?

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

RNJ · Jan 13, 2014

Siri Kirpal said:
Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

There's a huge difference between flowery and "with heart." As anyone who has sat through an overlong speech should know.

There's a huge difference between sentimentality and "with heart." What's looks like love isn't necessarily.

Compare The Secret Life of Bees with your average Victorian bit of schmaltz or even The Great Gatsby. Which has more heart?

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

I agree that flowery prose isn't necessarily the same as "heart". "Heart" is emotion: good, bad, beautiful, ugly. It isn't always love. Conveying a character's emotion so the reader feels the "heart" of the character is what makes good characterization. (I didn't say a good book.) "Heart" can be conveyed in flowery prose or fowl language, if it is done correctly.

And yes, I like good characterization regardless of the style or time period.

Does Contemporary Writing Have Less Heart?

Wild one

Stealing your twiglets.

Wild one

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred

The Anti-Magdalene

edits all posts at least four times

Stealing your twiglets.

Twitching

edits all posts at least four times

Stealing your twiglets.

The Anti-Magdalene

A Bit Squirrelly

The force is strong in this one.

Recalled to life

Swan in Process

addicted to love