The Classics discussion

I don't know about you but I've never read Henry James before. How does his style and characterization strike you?

I read Portrait of a Lady in college, and I remember the writing was brilliant, but dense and complex. I've still got the Norton Critical Edition on my shelf over there, go figure.

I read his short story "The Turn of the Screw" and it was intense. His writing was very ambiguous and leaves much for the reader to figure out.

If you read Daisy Miller, I think James' writing style is very clear. In Portrait of a Lady, the sentences are much longer and more complex and fold back on themselves, but I think if you forget about that face and "just read" the writing is so good, it just carried you along.

I agree that The Turn of the Screw left so much to the reader to figure out. I don't think I've got it all figured out yet.

James is always a bit ambiguous, but never more so than in that gem.

The ending really frustrated me, too, Amanda. It STILL does! LOL

Daphne du Maurier was once asked about her ambiguous ending of The House on the Strand and she said, "I don't know! What do you think?" Oh, I was hoping to read a more definitive answer, but that book isn't nearly as ambiguous as The Turn of the Screw. You know, I don't think I felt the children had been violated, but I really can't remember for sure what I thought other than frustration. I've been meaning to reread that book.

I heard that too about Turn of the Screw and agree. There are alot of bits that kinda of reveal one's own character. Like why was the little boy kicked out school.The mind could have drawn up alot of conclusions. And I too was very frustrated by the ending.

The Turn of the screw was definately ambiguous, but it was very much a psychological novel, and these tend to leave room for you to interpret them in your own light a little more than 'regular,' linear plot driven ones.

Portrait of a Lady was very intense. It too, contained its fair share of ambiguities. I may need to do more research into it for Graduate School, because I feel that there are things I am not getting about that literary masterpiece. One of my profs from undergrad used to say it is one of his favourite novels, and I LOVE Victorian Literature so I made sure I read it. I did enjoy Daisy Miller; it was not as complex as some of his other work but, the themes came through just as well.

I'm just starting this one and am liking the writing style so far. I have never read any of Henry James before but I do have Turn of the Screw on my bookshelf, so I'll have to pull that one down once I'm done with this one.

I enjoyed James's writing style very much. Elegant, subtle, and every word was important. I listened to it on audio, and found myself rewinding many times to make sure I caught every nuance.

I love James' writing style. I agree with you, Kathleen in that it's elegant. Very elegant.

Consider this, that Henry James never won the Nobel Prize for his writing and theory. Many may not be aware of this, but he was a very good literary critic and wrote theoretically about Literature, particularly the novel. Yet another famous Nobel snub.

Milt wrote: "Consider this, that Henry James never won the Nobel Prize for his writing and theory. Many may not be aware of this, but he was a very good literary critic and wrote theoretically about Literature,..."

There are so many Nobel snubs in Literature (I'm not really up on the other prize categories except the Peace Prize). Most apparent to me right now is William Trevor. I think he should have won long ago. The prize seems to be more political than anything.

Agreed, James' writing style is very refined, descriptive and peppered with hints of poetic metaphors. However, I found the story so boring I almost stopped reading it. Sorry. I love classics, but think that James' strong point is in the realm of grammar and not story-telling. Guess I'm more of a story person.

Linda, I had to push through to the end as well. I love the writing but didn't like the story at all. I don't think that has ever happened to me before! :)

I loved the story in Portrait of a Lady. I have to admit it's quiet and slow-moving, though. I couldn't read Henry James all the time. Sometimes I just want a lighter book - just as good, but different - that concentrates more on story than character development. I have my favorite mysteries for that and I wouldn't give them up.

Hmmm... I'm considering what Linda and Sadie said and I understand totally. Whenever one reads Victorian or Edwardian fiction first of all, the language is daunting. Even the fiction of that time where the plot is important tends to be a little slow, because of diction and looooong circuitous sentences. Considering James' concern with the psychological instead of plot adds yet another complication. However, I plow through because the writing, and moments of profundity are really worth it in the end. I do take wholeheartedly though, that James is generally difficult to read.

I agree with you, Milt. Victorian writing, especially has all those diversions. The narrator will get carried away telling us about his family or train travel during the Victorian times or what he had for dinner. If I have the time, I like those diversions, but I can understand that some people might find them tedious.

Sadie wrote: "Linda, I had to push through to the end as well. I love the writing but didn't like the story at all. I don't think that has ever happened to me before! :)"

There have been times when the opposite has happened to me - I liked the story, but didn't like the writing style - The Road, for example. (I realize that's not Victorian or neo-Victorian, but I really dislike the writing style in that one, but liked the story.)

As much as I like Portrait of a Lady, I wasn't overly fond of Isabel Archer. She made such poor choices in life.

Maybe that is what James was trying to do Gabrielle, try to show under what conditions a woman might make such a questionable decision. By delineating the pressures she faced from her society, her family and her own world view, a 'lady' could make a bad choice or two.

Yes, I think you're right, Milt. A lot of people tell me they couldn't stand Madame Merle, but I felt sorry for her. Perhaps, had the story continued, or had Isabel been a real person, I would have come to feel bad for her as well. I certainly felt for Daisy Miller.

You know Gabrielle, I did feel sorry for Madam Merle after a while. I saw her as bitter and jaded because of her experiences. Because of this, the happiness of others hurts her. We can all relate how even with those close to us, when we want something really bad and it eludes us, when those close to us get it, there is that tinge of jealousy. Madam Merle is the embodiment of this, multiplied and that makes her a memorable, layered, complex and somewhat sympathetic character.

I found Madame Merle quite complex, Milt. Much more so than Isabel, but then Isabel was quite a bit younger and she was complex enough for her youth.

I agree with your assessment of Madame Merle.

I agree with everyone above about Victorian writing--slow moving, circuitous, daunting. However, the middle of the Victorian era was the beginning of my favorite kind of writing, Naturalism. Don't give up on the Victorian era without reading Emile Zola, Theodore Drieser, or Frank Norris. Their writing is the antithesis of Henry James.

I really like all the Victorians, and I like Henry James. I just don't want to read him on a daily basis, but then I don't like to read any author on a daily basis.