# Reading Classical Literature



## Xhale (Jul 23, 2010)

For all my life, classical literature has appealed to me the most. I love reading Dostoevsky, Twain, and many of the other heavyweights. However, I am beginning to think my reading choices have hindered my writing. Many people have told me I write in a style that is too poetic. I tend to include WAY too much in my stories. I know that this style was much more acceptable back in the days of Dostoevsky. Could my reading choices be a cause of this problem I have? Should I start reading more modern literature?


----------



## rachelthorn (Jul 23, 2010)

In my opinion, you tend to write in the same style of the books that you read. I personally like classical literature too but now most modern literature does not reflect the style of classical literature. You should read some modern literature in the genre that you tend to write because those styles are more acceptable in this era than the classical literature. I don't know why that is but that is how the publishing industry is.


----------



## Eluixa (Jul 23, 2010)

I think you would do well to write as the person you are, in the style you like. I like poetic too. And I like detail, but mostly if it has to do with people, life, and not furniture or lace. Can't say as I liked some of the classics, in fact, some drove me to distraction, but I think they introduced them long before I was ready to read them. I think they'd make more sense to me now. 
Good idea to see how some things are being written now, but I also think there are more people than you know that would appreciate what you have to say and how. 
If I cannot be true to myself, I might as well quit now, that is how I feel, at any rate.
I have a favorite writer and I met her, Robin Hobb. I took a book to have signed and she wrote, 'A very strange book' but it was a very important book to me. I wanted her to know it resonated, and so chose that one.


----------



## Callalily6 (Jul 24, 2010)

I'd heavily favored certain types of reading also, then branched out.  Now I read just about everything.  I still prefer a wordsmith, but I also value the storytellers too.  You can't go wrong with reading more.  Read everything!


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jul 24, 2010)

I much prefer storytellers to wordsmiths, but a combination is of course the best.


My advice is to read widely.  Maybe you'll find that modern or genre reading will improve or just change your writing in ways you like.  Maybe you won't.  But you can't know if you don't try.


----------



## Xhale (Jul 24, 2010)

Thanks for the advice guys. If any of you want to critique my piece in the fiction forum feel free


----------



## garza (Jul 24, 2010)

A bit of a culture shock here. 

When I saw 'classical literature' mentioned in the title of the post I immediately assumed Homer, Plutarch, Plato, Cicero, et al. The more modern authors mentioned are, of course, important, and there are long lists of writers of the past three centuries whose work ought to be read. But shouldn't the term 'classical' be reserved for those works that have stood that test, not of a hundred, two hundred years, but of a thousand, two thousand, years?


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 25, 2010)

Took me aback, too.
Maybe we could call those "vintage".

Personally, I'm striving for "mint".


----------



## spider8 (Jul 25, 2010)

garza said:


> A bit of a culture shock here.
> 
> When I saw 'classical literature' mentioned in the title of the post I immediately assumed Homer, Plutarch, Plato, Cicero, et al.
> 
> But shouldn't the term 'classical' be reserved for those works that have stood that test, not of a hundred, two hundred years, but of a thousand, two thousand, years?


 
 Shouldn't that be called ancient literature? I think you are probably just joking, or would like a debate on what the word 'classical' means.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 25, 2010)

Nooooo   that's what the term "classical literature" refers to.  "Ancient" would be far previous to that.
Does anybody around here ever try just a quick, simple, painless google check before contradicting people?


----------



## spider8 (Jul 25, 2010)

lin said:


> Nooooo that's what the term "classical literature" refers to. "Ancient" would be far previous to that.
> Does anybody around here ever try just a quick, simple, painless google check before contradicting people?


 
No, life's too short. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong. I'll get over it.


----------



## garza (Jul 25, 2010)

Spider8 - I'm not joking. At my house 'classical literature' meant what was produced during the golden age of Greek and Roman literature. You should read some of it. You might learn something.

As lin says, 'ancient' refers to the really old literature such as the Gilgamesh Epic.


----------



## J.R. MacLean (Jul 25, 2010)

I think the best way to develop a distinct writing style is to write directly from one's experience. Writing a journal and poetry out of sharply observed and deeply felt 'happenings' on a daily basis will naturally develop your individual powers of expression.


----------



## garza (Jul 25, 2010)

Without reading widely and deeply, I believe it is difficult for a person to develop the skills needed to write successfully. 

And giving it further thought, I have realised that the Euro-centric definition of 'classical literature' is too narrow. There is a vast, and, unfortunately, little appreciated literature from the far East. Only a few writers, and from them only a few works, are familiar to most western readers. 

A big problem is language. While courses in Latin and Greek are common in colleges, universities, and now on the Web, and while these languages are closely related to our commonly used modern languages and thus fairly easy to learn, ancient Chinese or Khmer would pose a severe stumbling block to anyone wanting to study the classics of the East in the original language. 

And, again unfortunately, there are few really good translations. Classical Latin can be rendered in modern Spanish painlessly, and into English with little loss. But the classical literature of the East is in languages whose very linguistic foundations are, literally, a world removed from our western way of thinking and writing. There are many translations of Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching, but my Chinese friends tell me that none of them quite express the original intent. They suggest that by reading every translation I can find I can, in my mind, approach near to the correct ideas, though to try and express them in English would simply indicate that I do not truly understand. 

'After all,' they say, 'the Way that can be named is not the true Way.'


----------



## J.R. MacLean (Jul 25, 2010)

> They suggest that by reading every translation I can find I can, in my mind, approach near to the correct ideas,


 
I'm not sure that would help. 'The Way', at least as far as I understand it, is beyond correct and incorrect, beyond ideas. It is something more like the background against which ideas and language itself occur.


----------



## garza (Jul 25, 2010)

Something like, yes, but that's not quite it either. 

While I have not fully grasped the principles, I have been able to, as a Taoist scholar told me to do, 'glance quickly from the corner of the eye then as quickly look away, and the words of the Master will leave an imprint behind'. Of course this is easier with Chinese characters than with English words, but even so I've had a glimpse of a corner of the vast tapestry painted by Lao Tzu. 

My Taoist friend tried to teach me Chinese, and finally offered to send his five-year-old son to tutor me.


----------



## Arvind (Jul 25, 2010)

"Classical literature" is often used to refer to works produced within the Greco-Roman tradition - Homer, Plato, Euripedes, Thucididyes, Aristotle, Plutarch..  that sort of thing. I've been in love with those all my life! I am a fierce reader of histories of all kinds: Military histories, Religious histories, "Cosmic" histories, Evolutionary histories.. but the history of the Roman State, from its measly monarchic beginnings in Latium to the great twin Christian Empires of late antiquity, and of the Greek Poleis, with their ruinous squabbles and mighty phalanxes, has always had a special place in my heart.

 And I agree with Garza. I'm of South Indian extraction and I was raised in the Middle East - so I speak both Hindi and Arabic. There are so many works, products of the Islamic Golden Age and of various Sanskrit literary "renaissances" that haven't been translated into English or in the latter case, even more disturbingly, into the local vernaculars (Hindi, Tamil etc.)!


----------



## spider8 (Jul 25, 2010)

garza said:


> Spider8 - I'm not joking. At my house 'classical literature' meant what was produced during the golden age of Greek and Roman literature. You should read some of it. You might learn something.


I think I'd prefer not to. I've other things planned: I'm going fishing tomorrow


----------



## Xhale (Jul 25, 2010)

I don't want to start a new thread to ask this--

Do you guys recommend reading books on writing? I have read King's book and "The Elements of Style". Should I try and read more or will reading novels be of more benefit?


----------



## garza (Jul 25, 2010)

So take along a copy of _The Compleat Angler_ by Izaak Walton. It's not classical literature, but it is a classic of its type. If you don't have the book, you'll find the complete text at:

The Compleat Angler by Izaak Walton - Project Gutenberg.


----------



## garza (Jul 25, 2010)

Xhale - The only manual I use now is Fowler. That's where you will find the best information about good usage. Hart's Rules is also good, but is more important if you are directly involved with printing. I've used both Fowler and Hart since childhood, but over the past 10 years have had less and less need for Hart. 

Why would you restrict yourself to reading novels? Or for that matter, restrict yourself to fiction? That's an awfully narrow path, it would seem to me. The broader and deeper your reading, the more ideas you will pick up about writing.


----------



## caelum (Jul 26, 2010)

Xhale said:


> I don't want to start a new thread to ask this--
> 
> Do you guys recommend reading books on writing? I have read King's book and "The Elements of Style". Should I try and read more or will reading novels be of more benefit?


 
Ultimately, I've always found hands-on practice the best way to learn.  Writing guides and novels can only help, though; just take what you can from them and move on.  It's up to you to discern what lessons are worth taking and what aren't.   Some writing resources are better than others; I found a few golden nuggets in Stephen King's book but also took issue with many of the things he said.  Then again, who are you going to listen to, Stephen King with his vast armada of bestsellers to his name, or caelum that guy from those forums ?  (Just so things are perfectly clear—you should listen to me.)

If you haven't checked it out, that "to read or not to read" thread here in the Writing Discussion board addresses some of these questions.


----------



## spider8 (Jul 26, 2010)

garza said:


> So take along a copy of _The Compleat Angler_ by Izaak Walton. It's not classical literature, but it is a classic of its type. If you don't have the book, you'll find the complete text at:
> 
> The Compleat Angler by Izaak Walton - Project Gutenberg.



I read some of it in the seventies when I was a kid, along with _Stillwater Angling_ by Richard Walker. Don't remember anything of the former though. I may just follow your link. In fact I will. Soon. Thx.


----------



## Sam (Jul 26, 2010)

Why would you read non-fiction if you write fiction? They're two completely different writing styles. I can understand reading true crime stories if you're writing crime, but not reading about Napoleon if you're writing a thriller.


----------



## Xhale (Jul 26, 2010)

Haha, exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## garza (Jul 26, 2010)

We put blinders on horses so they won't be distracted by what's beside them. But why put blinders on ourselves? Are we afraid of being distracted, afraid that possibly in the life of Napoleon we may find material that can be adapted to use in fiction? Are we afraid to learn?

Reading fiction has helped my writing all my life. I see turns of phrase that give me ideas for other ways of saying what I want to say. I see words working together in ways I'd not thought of before. 

I don't write fiction, but I sure as hell learn from it, just as I learn from poetry and from other non-fiction writers. 

I read, therefore I learn.


----------



## spider8 (Jul 27, 2010)

garza said:


> Why would you restrict yourself to reading novels? Or for that matter, restrict yourself to fiction? That's an awfully narrow path, it would seem to me. The broader and deeper your reading, the more ideas you will pick up about writing.



Sometimes non-fiction can read like novels anyway. I don't know if you've read _Armageddon_ by Max Hastings. It was about the Allies push into Germany in '44/'45. Parts of it was like a thriller because I knew it was true. Same with _Wicked Beyond Belief_, about the hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper, late seventies.

As they're not novels, you don't get 'Inspector Robson gazed at the dark, looming clouds and felt uneasy etc' It's just facts and made me think about how much description a book really needs. Again, knowing it's true gives them something I suppose a novel can't.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jul 27, 2010)

I read non-fiction if it's related, but otherwise not so much.  I don't even have enough time to read all the fiction on my list.


----------



## Sam (Jul 27, 2010)

garza said:


> We put blinders on horses so they won't be distracted by what's beside them. But why put blinders on ourselves? Are we afraid of being distracted, afraid that possibly in the life of Napoleon we may find material that can be adapted to use in fiction? Are we afraid to learn?
> 
> Reading fiction has helped my writing all my life. I see turns of phrase that give me ideas for other ways of saying what I want to say. I see words working together in ways I'd not thought of before.
> 
> ...


 
Let me put it to you this way, Garza: I'm a huge fan of rock 'n' roll and heavy metal. I play guitar whenever I'm not writing my novels. If I wanted to write a rock 'n' roll song, why would I go study opera, or pop, or soul, or jazz, or anything unrelated to the music I wanted to write? This is why we have divisions in all creative outlets. You wouldn't expect an abstract artist to study the Mona Lisa. Just the same way you wouldn't expect a thriller writer to read a romance novel. 

Now, I'm more open-minded than that. I do cross-read other genres: horror, mystery, and crime (I don't touch fantasy or sci-fi with a ten-foot barge pole). That helps me get a feel on how to write tense scenes which are scary, or how to place red herrings into the story, or how to use forensic techniques to identify someone. All things which are relevant to my storytelling. Having said that, I see no advantage of reading the Battle of Agincourt when I'm writer a thriller set in the twenty-first century.


----------



## garza (Jul 27, 2010)

Sam W - If you want to improve your guitar improvisations then study 'Die Kunst der Fuge', 'The Art of Fugue', by J.S. Bach, ca.1740, as countless other jazz, pop, and rock musicians have done. See how the contrapuntal lines, often in apparent conflict, work together. The concepts can be profitably applied to any kind of music you want to write.

The same it is with writing. Any writing on any topic in any style can generate ideas that can be used in any other style on any other topic. The writer's juxtaposition of turns of phrase and the way disparate parts can be molded into a unified whole can stimulate your own thoughts about how to say what you want to say.

If you want to write a novel about a character's search through a strange land looking for knowledge, for example, then I recommend _Attending Marvels - A Patagonian Journal_ by George Gaylord Simpson. If you do not want to write such a book, I yet recommend Simpson for his use of language. From that you can learn no matter the genre of your novels. 

And funny you should mention Agincourt. There's a plot line ready made for a novel, how blunder and miscalculation lead finally to a brilliant victory.

No wonder I can never be an artist, if I must hobble myself, restrict myself to some narrow slice of what is on offer.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jul 27, 2010)

Garza, you don't have to restrict yourself at all.  Good writer's are very often generalists, knowing a little about a lot and adding research when necessary.  Different writers will read different stuff, even changing their reading depending on what they're writing.  Just because you and Sam don't read the same thing, it doesn't mean you can't both be successful.


----------



## garza (Jul 27, 2010)

I do not restrict myself. That's my point. Why should I deny the possibility that someone writing in a genre totally different from my own writing will have ideas about the use of language that I will find useful?

My comment about not being an artist is in reaction to people who say you should only read certain kinds of books, that there's no point reading something different from what you write. Bull hockey I say to that.

That's why I can never be an artist. I refuse to hobble myself, to wear blinders. I'm a craftsman, and a successful one at that, if success be judged by the fact that from the age of 14 I've never had to go out and look for a job.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jul 27, 2010)

Garza, what I'm saying is, there's nothing claiming you can't be an artist if you read outside your genre.  I don't write YA or litfic, but I read it.


----------



## garza (Jul 27, 2010)

Okay, honest confession time. 

Every self-styled 'artist' I've ever met, especially writers and photographers, has a nose-in-the-air attitude and very narrow ideas about what has worth and what does not. Mention Faulkner and they'll tell you he's obscure, wordy, provincial. Mention Hemingway and they'll tell you hew writes like a child. Mention Salinger and they'll roll their eyes and say 'oh, my, he's so, so, undergraduate'. 

So I'm not an artist. I practise the crafts of writing and photography. And I read widely and deeply, searching for and digging out the words and phrases that will trigger a new way of expressing a thought, just as Bach's 'Art of fugue' will give any good musician ideas, no matter what the musical style of the musician.


----------



## caelum (Jul 28, 2010)

garza said:


> That's why I can never be an artist. I refuse to hobble myself, to wear blinders. I'm a craftsman, and a successful one at that, if success be judged by the fact that from the age of 14 I've never had to go out and look for a job.


 
This is a curious definition of artist.  An artist hobbles and wears blinders, does he?  Someone better go and inform them that's what they do when they're busy expressing themselves.  So far as I've always looked at it, the nature of expressing yourself, of being an artist, is all about thinking in original directions.  The _opposite_ of hobbling and wearing blinders.

However, I hate labels, at least the very limiting ones.  I would accept a child making mud puppets, as well as Hemmingway, as artists in the loosest sense.


----------



## J.R. MacLean (Jul 29, 2010)

garza: So if you are not an artist you then can't produce any art? Just artifacts, one presumes. Then twenty years after your death, those artifacts move people deeply and presto you are an artist! True artists have the title bestowed upon them because of the work they produce. Bestowed on them again and again, through generations. Whether we think of ourselves as an artist or whatever means squat. Only the work matters.


----------



## gregory.k (Jul 29, 2010)

In reading the first post I thought of two things which are probably contradictory in some ways. So, sorry about that in advance. 

1. I know you are supposed to consider your audience when you write, but I tend to think of writing as a pretty selfish activity. It is something I do because I love to do it and I write what and how I want to write. If you worry _too _much about your audience its very possible to turn writing into a dull people-pleasing activity. That doesn't mean you should ignore your audience either. Its something of a balance that needs to be struck with every writer as she goes along. 

2. I tend to think of writing in a biological way. Writers take in food (they read books and stories and watch movies and generally eat up narrative) then they poop out their own stuff. What you create will always contain some essence of what you love, of what inspires you, of what you have absorbed into your own writer's soul. If you try and work against this process insincere and bland writing emerges.


----------



## garza (Jul 29, 2010)

J.R. MacLean - I'm referring to the bigoted attitude of so many of the people I've met who call themselves 'artists'. They form cliques, look down their noses at people like me who earn our daily by writing. They are narrow minded, having made up their minds that they, and only they, know what is of value and what is not. 

I don't want to be confused with that kind of person. I write. I take pictures. Writing and photography are crafts that I practise. I'm not an artist.

Faulkner listed his vocation as farmer. Hemingway was a journalist. Joyce called himself an artist, but he was skilled enough to earn the right to call himself whatever he wanted. So were the others. The people I'm talking about, most of the self-styled 'artists', do not have those skills. They are wannabes, pretenders. 

Twenty years after my death there will be few who will remember that I ever lived. That won't matter at all, since I won't be around to worry about it.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jul 30, 2010)

Garza, you're unfairly tainting that term because of some bad experiences you had with people who used it.


----------



## JosephB (Jul 30, 2010)

J.R. MacLean said:


> Whether we think of ourselves as an artist or whatever means squat. Only the work matters.



Exactly. There was a thread a while back about "what makes a writer." I said about the same thing regarding that.

I went to art school and as a result have a circle of friends and acquaintances that consider themselves artists. And while I think Garza is overstating things, there is a certain amount of elitism among some artists -- the attitude that if you don't like it, you don't understand it, etc.

But for the most part, the artists I know are just average folks interested in creating accessible art that can be appreciated by a wide variety of people -- not just art snobs. And really, those are the people who are most likely to make a living at it.


----------



## garza (Jul 30, 2010)

Elitism, that's the word. 

Perhaps I overstate the case through bad experiences with a few self-described artists. But those experiences have been sufficient to put me off the word, at least as a way of describing who I am and what I do.

J.R. MacLean is right. 'Only the work matters.'


----------



## JosephB (Jul 30, 2010)

Well, I don't understand that Garza -- that you can let your limited experience so color you thoughts and attitudes. We all have a tendency to do that, of course, but it's something I strive to overcome -- it's not something that I'm willing to just accept.


----------



## garza (Jul 30, 2010)

My experience has been limited to North America, Central America, South America, Africa, and Asia. Perhaps if I were to bicycle through Europe or tour the outback down under I'd have a different attitude. 

But after all, what I call myself and what I call what I do is of no importance. More important is the fact that this thread has drifted far out of the channel and is in danger of running aground.


----------



## JosephB (Jul 30, 2010)

garza said:


> ...bad experiences with a few self-described artists.



I wasn't talking about in general. Just in regard to this subject. As you can see, you said it yourself.


----------



## garza (Jul 30, 2010)

So was I. I've met 'artists' from Manila to Monterey. The real artists, the ones with ability and experience, are as you say. The ones who flaunt their title are a pain in the tuckus.

Edit - Oh, I see what you mean. Back on topic.

So why read the 'Articles of Tabor' if you are not writing the history of Bohemia or the development of Czech society? Because if you are going to invent a radical fanatical religious centre on some far distant planet you'll find all you need in the Fortress of Tabor.


----------



## Jimi Orgal (Aug 4, 2010)

Try Jane Eyre, but its a love story. The Tale of Two Cities by Charles  Dickens. Um...what else? The Odyssey, Frankenstein, The Scarlet Letter,  The House of the Seven Gables.


----------

