# Jane Austen: Criticism, Writing Rules, & the Classics



## TheCatholicCrow (Aug 13, 2015)

I saw this article on Buzzfeed and found it unreasonably hilarious. I have six sisters, all of which are big readers. To say that we're all huge Austen and Bronte fans would be an understatement. To give you an idea - as I write this one of them is literally nagging me because I haven't read _Persuasion_ yet. I say this to frame it in context - I don't know if this is the most brilliant thing ever or if it just hits close to home. 

Anyway ...  I found it very amusing. I might be reading too much into it but I think it raises a good point about diluting and radically altering your writing based on critique feedback (as well as just how idiotic critiques can be at times). All of the modern Lit "rules" that people live and swear by have a tendency to make everything sound bland and repetitive. I have no doubt that The Tenant of Wildfell Hall would give many modern critiquers a heart attack - I literally counted eleven commas in one sentence. ELEVEN! That was just one of the sentences that caught my eye. There were probably longer ones in there. Every chapter seems to begin with a description of the weather and there are no shortage of adverbs or erudite vocabulary. Blatant violations of "rules" that we all know are supposed to make your writing "weak". 

Many of the Classics violate these rules yet I would wager they are stronger than the average book on the shelves of B&N which was presumably written with the "rules" in mind.  

Some Classics are better than others but I would like to see writers (and readers) reading more of them and finding inspiration between the pages of the masters - that is - to return literature to an artistic form rather than viewing it as a means for profit. [Wow - that sounded so Indie.] The point I'm trying to make here is that not everything should blindly follow the "rules" and just because books don't follow them doesn't mean they're "weak". 

That being said, I would make an exception for Hawthorne's _Scarlet Letter_ which was probably the worst thing I've ever read. The narrative voice was obnoxiously heavy handed - literally telling the reader who they're supposed to sympathize with (the weasel minister who victimizes his lover & the unfaithful wife who hates her spouse- the only one justified in being pissed with her). The "villain" is supposed to be Chillingworth- the only character I actually felt sympathy for. But Hawthorne spent more time dictating to the reader the exact emotions and reactions we were supposed to be having than actually allowing us to experience the piece and come to these conclusions on our own. A great case that would have benefited from "Show, don't tell" - I regard this book with great disdain- does it show? 

But in general ... we have all of these modern rules that are supposed to make our writing stronger ... but is that really the case? Do you think rules are for newbies or should everyone follow them?  

Should we follow the "rules" and hope for success or should we say "screw it all" and write for ourselves? Do the "rules" _really_ make our writing better or does it just add stress and constrain our creativity? Any thoughts?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 13, 2015)

Personally, I hate almost every classic I've ever tried to read.  The style today is a lot different than the style was even fifty years ago.

I like the modern style.

The "rules" are based on helping authors write in the modern style. Does that make the writing better? I don't know. Does it help the author more easily meet the expectations of the modern audience? I don't know that either.

I know that following those rules will help make me like your book better. So if that's your objective (as it absolutely should be  ), it's a slam dunk!

A year ago, I would have told you that you absolutely should follow all the rules.  The more you follow the rules and the more rules you follow, the better.

Now if you were interested in my advice, I'd say:

1. Figure out what absolutely delights you about your favorite books.
2. Incorporate into your writing those things that delight you.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 13, 2015)

My opinion on critique groups and writing rules:

Go into a critique session understanding that any presented rules are from that writer's viewpoint, or what works for the style & voice they're developing. If their suggestions do not match your goals, ignore them. Further, a good critique partner will take the time to ask if you agree with them & discuss your vision. A good submitter will provide that sort of information after critique. No one wants to waste time, so if a particular piece of advice is not helpful, both you and the reviewer can put it away and focus on other aspects.

Secondly, critique groups have three main purposes for me. First, they illuminate clarity issues I can't see as the author. Second, they can be great for pointing out problems of plausibility or inaccuracies. Third, good partners can let me know if the story and characters are invoking emotion, and when they aren't. 

Point being, I'm not a new, inexperienced writer. I don't need to be taught how to write. I need extra eyes, eyes in the heads of other people who have knowledge of story & character, or at the very least, passion. 

Yes, new writers often join critique groups as a way to learn. That's fine. Feedback is a great teacher, but it isn't the sole reason for these groups. 

In the end, it's the writer's responsibility to guide critiques, to instruct partners on what they need, and accept only that advice that leads to the art they wish to produce.


----------



## Incanus (Aug 13, 2015)

Cool discussion.  I only glanced at the link, but I agree with much of what CC is saying here.

In my view, many, if not most of the classics display greater writing ability than the modern books, rules or no.  They tend to use a wider variety of sentence structures, greater scope of language, a higher level of skill all around.  The stories themselves aren't necessarily better or worse, just the style.

For whatever reason, I respond more to the artistic aspect of books than the emotional formulas.  I imagine, though, that I'm probably going to have a life-long issue in my writing for not making the emotional connections that many would be looking for.  Basically, picture Mr. Spock as an author of a fantasy novel!--possibly emotionally flat, but likely to have some other fascinating aspects (with any luck).

That being said, my upcoming novel should have an easily relatable MC who gets thrust into a situation that just about anyone could sympathize with.  I described it recently to my awesome crit friend, and she seems to think it a good, solid idea.


----------



## Gryphos (Aug 13, 2015)

I haven't read any Jane Austin (I think I'm one of the few people who wasn't forced to read Pride & Prejudice in school - instead we read Frankenstein, which sucked) but usually I tend to hate so-called 'classics'. It's just the sprawling, impossible-to-follow sentences and over descriptive to the point of obscuring the actual action, which tends to come up with older stuff. I'm a modern guy, and I like modern stuff, including fiction. That's not to say I can't appreciate the impact certain novels have had on literature. The aforementioned Frankenstein is quite possibly the origin of science-fiction, and I can respect it for that. Just don't ask me to read it again, I won't put myself through that.


----------



## TheCatholicCrow (Aug 13, 2015)

To clarify ... when I say the average modern book I'm not referring to any of you fine people here or your works because obviously we're all brilliant.


----------



## cupiscent (Aug 13, 2015)

Comparing classics - of any era - to modern books isn't comparing apples with apples. What about all the other books that were being published at the same time as Jane Austen that we've never heard of, because they haven't survived? You're taking the enduring, loved, arguably "best of" an era, and comparing them to the general mass of material at present.

Not to mention that the classics having been classics have shaped and imprinted themselves on the modern consciousness - whether you've read Austen or not, you've read, watched and otherwise consumed a whole lot of stories that were inspired by, derived from and generally influenced by her work. Whether you enjoy her work or not, its shapes and styles have colonised your brain.

Plus, the most obvious question: would Jane Austen write in the same manner if she were writing today? Shakespeare wouldn't - he was making the ribald jokes and blockbuster stories of his day. His work would probably look more like mainstream comedy movies than high literature. Similarly, given Ms Austen's independence and subject matter, she'd probably be writing chick lit, and she'd be writing in a very different style - she was already snarky and tongue-in-cheek for her day, imagine what she'd be like now!

But my point is more: all the classics authors, were they writing today, would be learning to write in a very different environment, in terms of influences, styles and markets. What they _could_ write would be completely different. It's impossible to compare. So saying that modern literature is wearing a straitjacket of "rules" when it can produce and sell everything from post-modern literature to epic fantasy seems a bit strange to me.

There are good points made in responses already on this thread: especially that critiquers are just opinions, and your job as the author is to use those opinions to decide whether you're doing what you want to do as well as it can be done; and that you need to fill your work with the things that delight you in literature. Hopefully, you'll do them well enough and they'll delight enough other people for your work to be saleable.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 14, 2015)

> Point being, I'm not a new, inexperienced writer. I don't need to be taught how to write.



I've been at this a while now, but I'm not nearly finished learning how to write. Speaking just for myself, I welcome anyone who wants to try to teach me anything. I never know when I'll encounter that one comment that improves my writing.

As far as my writing goes, I'm a whole heckava lot better than I used to be, but, hopefully, I'm not nearly as good as I'm going to be.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 14, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> I've been at this a while now, but I'm not nearly finished learning how to write. Speaking just for myself, I welcome anyone who wants to try to teach me anything. I never know when I'll encounter that one comment that improves my writing.
> 
> As far as my writing goes, I'm a whole heckava lot better than I used to be, but, hopefully, I'm not nearly as good as I'm going to be.



Yeah. I didn't mean to imply I'm beyond learning. More precisely, I don't need to hear about fundamentals and style choices. I've chosen my own rule set. I'm developing my own style based off that vision. If I'm going to learn more in that vein, it's because I'm challenging myself, trying something new, and bringing it in for feedback.


----------



## TheCatholicCrow (Aug 14, 2015)

I apologize if this is horribly illogical or incomprehensible. Honestly it's 3AM and I haven't been using much English today so transitioning my thoughts back to it is weird. I said "rules" and while that's true to some extent I think a term that might also have worked would have been something like "trends". 



cupiscent said:


> But my point is more: all the classics authors, were they writing today, would be learning to write in a very different environment, in terms of influences, styles and markets. What they _could_ write would be completely different. It's impossible to compare. So saying that modern literature is wearing a straitjacket of "rules" when it can produce and sell everything from post-modern literature to epic fantasy seems a bit strange to me.



Of course we have more genres. We also have more a literate population. Your apparent confusion over "rules" suggests I cut too many lines before clicking enter but also that you did not actually read the article (or perhaps did not read it thoroughly). It touched on issues such as making Mr. Wickham more grey, check listing - "you should add a black character - perhaps as the servant", combine these 2 sisters, and "make one of the sisters a brother- named Jim" for no apparent purpose other than to increase diversity and because somewhere along the way someone once said this is how we should write. Anyone remotely familiar with the story would know that if the Bennet family had a son, Mr Collins would not inherit the property and the girls wouldn't be scrambling to find husbands before Mr. Bennet kicked the bucket. Thus, the entire story would have appeared more marketable but rather less like a ball ... I mean ... like the classic story that it is. 

Are the others forgotten because we only cared about Austen (or whomever is in question) or do we only care about her works because that is all that remains? That might the case for older stories (such as Beowulf, The Iliad) and while some were destined to be handed down to us because they were different or daring (such as The Divine Comedy being written in a vernacular tongue or the Marquise de Sade's Justine - for being controversial and erotic) I don't know that that's always the case. 

Likewise, if it were just a matter of ideal market conditions, I find it unlikely that these books would live on for so many generations. The Valley of the Dolls was huge when it was released and while I could be wrong, I don't think I know a single person who has read it and somehow I don't see that one becoming a prominent classic for future generations though it'll likely be reduced to a footnote in textbooks.

I think I said above- I think readers (and writers) would benefit from reading more widely and consuming a healthy dose of classics. 

Probably 75% of what I read comes from second hand book stores, estate sales, or Project Gutenberg (among other public domain sites). [The other 25% are borrowed from siblings or bought on Amazon.] When possible, I do read many of the otherwise "forgotten" books from previous generations. One of my favorites is "The Squirrel Cage" but as you appear to reject books not written for your generation, I'll spare you the recommendation.

My point was not that all older books are automatically better which is precisely why classics are classic- they're generally the books that remain relevant if not in story and theme, then at least as representations of the eras in which they were produced. However, as a matter of circumstance, taste, and preference, not all classics are great (just like not all modern lit is great).(See earlier comment concerning Scarlet Letter.) All the same, I believe everyone would benefit from reading more of them. [Side note: Why the hell should I spend my time reading Pride and Prejudice and Zombies when I could just read P&P? I'd personally rather read the book that others found inspiring than read the commercial spin off. I'm weird like that.]

I didn't compare it to the modern masses- I said the _average_ (fiction) book on the B&N shelves (which doesn't include all of the books rejected prior to making it there or those that are self-published [as far as I'm aware you need to be associated with a publishing company of some sort in order to get a slot on the shelves] nor does it include books which were only epublished). It _does_ include an awful lot of adverb-free erotic novels with werewolves and teenage vampires though... 

 Yes, we have developed much more varied interests in the modern era, but how many of us have read articles or books or taken courses on writing? Globalization is bound to form us differently now. We're a different people writing to a different generation but if I choose to open with the weather (as long as I do it well) that should be my choice. I shouldn't have to fight off accusations that I've done it "wrong". Likewise I enjoy reading the passive tense but just because some modern readers have limited exposure to it doesn't necessarily mean I need to delete it from my writing altogether.   

I don't think its a matter of anachronism. I think it's a matter of improved communication. I suspect that a generally reclusive family like the Brontes would probably provide criticism for each other while I can receive criticism from any number of strangers with the click of a button (many of which will give advise like Tim in the article). [Add zombies for instant hit.]  

I was never complaining about critiques (negative or positive- I really enjoy seeing how people react). Nor was I complaining about rules in general. I'm sure many of us have internalized the rules and follow them without even realizing it. I've learned them like anyone else in the modern era but I refuse to succumb to the belief that any single tip, when followed is guaranteed to improve your writing. Wipe out all adverbs and you'll be a New York Times Bestseller! Add a [insert interest group] character because your readers are going to expect it. Somehow I don't think so. If you do so organically, great but otherwise - how much does it really matter? Modern writing which is above average is likely coming from writers that are comfortable enough to lose themselves in the story they want to tell. 

I would continue but my eyes are getting heavy and I no longer have clue what I'm even rambling about so I'm better off stopping here.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 14, 2015)

> More precisely, I don't need to hear about fundamentals and style choices. I've chosen my own rule set. I'm developing my own style based off that vision. If I'm going to learn more in that vein, it's because I'm challenging myself, trying something new, and bringing it in for feedback.



I really think I've found my style as well.  It's really working for me.

On the other hand, I'm completely open to changing it if I discover something better, and feedback has already helped me refine it.

For example, a lot of beta readers commented on the overuse of short choppy sentences and paragraphs. I'm not eliminating such, but I am trying to cut them back a bit.

I just feel that the moment I mentally cut myself off from any advice, even on style or "craft learning," I'm hampering my ability to advance.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 14, 2015)

> I refuse to succumb to the belief that any single tip, when followed is guaranteed to improve your writing. Wipe out all adverbs and you'll be a New York Times Bestseller! Add a [insert interest group] character because your readers are going to expect it. Somehow I don't think so. If you do so organically, great but otherwise - how much does it really matter?



Depends on the rule and where the writer is in his/her learning.

The two biggest mistakes I see newb writers making:

1. Telling when they should be showing.
2. Not nearly enough conflict.

I see way too many newb writers objecting to "rules" and refusing to follow even the basics. "I can tell if I want to." Absolutely. Do what you want. But the chances that readers are going to find your efforts engaging are remote at best.  And sure, fill that first chapter with backstory that gives minute detail about the world you've built with absolutely no conflict. But I think very few people are going to make it past the first few paragraphs.

A lot of it depends on a writer's goals. If the writer wants to be read, the writer would do well to gain an understanding of why the rules exist before dismissing them.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Aug 14, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> I see way too many newb writers objecting to "rules" and refusing to follow even the basics. "I can tell if I want to."



That was me once upon a time (about two years ago or so).

I've gotten a lot better at the showing instead of telling part - heck, I even wrote a guide for the front page about it: A Beginner’s Guide to Writing Descriptions — Part 2

(I'm still lousy at the conflict part.)

I think the main reason (I feel) I've gotten better is that I now have a better understanding of the reasoning behind these rules, and the reasons for them. It's not just a rule for conforming to contemporary expectations. It's a rule that helps you understand how readers consume text (and sure, that might still conform to contemporary expectations, but that's another discussion).

It's not even necessarily about writing, but about psychology and imagination. It's about triggering the right associations in the reader and trick them into building the story themselves.

Getting to that point took some doing though. I had to evaluate and re-evaluate a lot of what I thought about myself and my writing, and it wasn't always easy, but I'm happy I kept at it.

I feel that by respecting** the rules and the advice I received I was able to become a better writer.

EDIT: **not necessarily following


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 14, 2015)

Svrtnsse,

I think I followed a similar path. It seems like every "rule" that I truly came to understand went something like this:

1. Posted something for feedback.
2. Someone said, "You're breaking this rule."
3. Researched the rule. Figured out, "Hey Someone was right!" I need to be following this rule.
4. Tried to follow the rule. Posted for feedback.
5. Feedback said, "Still not following the rule correctly."
6. Bummer. Go  back to 4.
7. Eventually gained a full understanding of the rule and the reasons behind it, and my writing improved.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Aug 14, 2015)

So, right, I went and read the actual article as well...

I'd like to refer to Item #5 here: 
https://www.writingclasses.com/toolbox/tips-masters/neil-gaiman-8-good-writing-practices


----------



## TheCatholicCrow (Aug 14, 2015)

Svrtnsse said:


> So, right, I went and read the actual article as well...
> 
> I'd like to refer to Item #5 here:
> https://www.writingclasses.com/toolbox/tips-masters/neil-gaiman-8-good-writing-practices


 (I love Neil Gaiman  ) This is well put. 

I didn't mean to suggest that anyone is above the rules or that we shouldn't take the time to learn and respect them. If I know a piece will never see the light of day I'll write it any way I please. If I plan to share it on my blog or post it somewhere for a critique I'll cut it down (eliminating bits about the weather) and tip my hat to the rules. (Filters and passive voice have been my big flaws.)



> I think the main reason (I feel) I've gotten better is that I now have a better understanding of the reasoning behind these rules, and the reasons for them. It's not just a rule for conforming to contemporary expectations. It's a rule that helps you understand how readers consume text (and sure, that might still conform to contemporary expectations, but that's another discussion).



Well put. The same goes for strictly adhering to genre expectations.This makes more sense to me and is an idea I could stand behind. The rules are there for a reason. Only theoretically I don't think people (after taking the time to learn them) should be hung up over whether everything follows the rules precisely which (though poorly articulated) was the point I believe I was trying to originally make. Every so often you run into people (like "Tim") who insist your story must have XYZ if you want to make it. I can't make any promises but I strongly suspect that I won't be putting out a zombie lesbian lovers story anytime soon (though if someone chooses to that's their business). It would probably sell better than anything I currently produce. But being told that I _must_ open a Thriller with a murder is just silly. 

I write for myself but I do plan to publish somewhere down the line. (Of course) I have a fantasy series in the works but atm I'm actually focusing on revising a Noir novel. (Sorry if you're all sick of hearing this.) Many people have kindly pointed out that this market is dead and I'm about 60 years late but I've never been one to arrive anywhere on time. There were many things my mother tried to teach me but that one didn't stick.  

I think when I get to that point I'll try to sell it as a Crime/Thriller rather than Noir. As it is I wrote it somewhere in between but I'm giving as I push through this next draft I'm giving it a darker feel. Thus far I think I've been lucky in that most of my critiquers have said (the parts I've posted) are engaging and entertaining to read (generally not the case with my Fantasy writing). Hopefully I actually have something decent going but with my luck it's just a fluke. Who knows? I certainly don't!


----------



## Incanus (Aug 14, 2015)

Cupiscent makes some very good points, as usual.  However, I think there is a certain amount of comparison between the classics and the modern that is unavoidable.  I read books one at a time.  I am a slow reader.  I can't read every book, so I have to be a little choosy about what I'm going to read.  I read modern books to know what's going on currently.  I read the classics to build a solid literary foundation.  I read fantasy 'cause that's my genre.  I find plenty to compare:  old or new, they have characters, plots, themes, settings, style, beginnings, middles, ends, etc.  Fiction, no matter when or where it came from, has common elements.  These things can be compared.  I find it a bit difficult to alter my standards based on when a book was written.  I can alter my expectations accordingly, but my standards, not so much.  I feel that if I read higher quality books, spend my time with higher quality art, then I might just be able to pick up on some of it, possibly increasing my own quality a tad.


----------



## cupiscent (Aug 15, 2015)

TheCatholicCrow said:


> Your apparent confusion over "rules" suggests I cut too many lines before clicking enter but also that you did not actually read the article (or perhaps did not read it thoroughly).



Indeed, I was replying to the discussion here, not the article - I've always viewed the point of that article as being to beware critique that isn't about helping to tell your story (indeed, as you point out, fundamentally missing the point of your story) but about changing it into some other story. And especially to beware That Guy In Your MFA (as immortalised and mocked on twitter) who only sees value in the masculine literary experience. The conversation about rules and context seemed more interesting.


----------

