Would Dickens Get a Literary Agent Today?

This post is partly inspired by an article Rachelle Gardner wrote for her blog a few months ago called “You Are Not Tolstoy or Dickens.” I want to throw out some thoughts on what it means for a book to be considered a “classic” novel, and to what extent we as writers (speaking to my writer buddies) need to emulate these classics. You know what I mean when I talk about “classic” novels? I mean those books you had to read in school, in college, and probably for your MFA (though I’m guessing; I’ve only completed The Portable MFA in Creative Writing). We’re talking Bronté (all of them), Dickens, Austen, Hemmingway, Shelley, Melville, Tolstoy, and so on. Many of these books are great, and well worth the time and, sometimes, effort to read them. Others of them, if we’re honest with ourselves, are a real struggle to get through and leave us wondering “why did I have to read this?” (In fact, back in August, Nathan Bransford polled his blog audience to find out which books they thought should be removed from the canon of “classics you ought to read.” I recall Wuthering Heights didn’t fare too well–though I quite enjoyed that one!) So are these “classics” the standard we’re aiming for when we write? What is it that makes these “classics”?

Let’s take that last one first. What is it that makes a book written perhaps 80, 100, 200 years ago, “classic”? What does that mean? I don’t know that I can give a dictionary definition, but I can tell you what I understand by the term. First, these are books that have a certain quality that enables them to stand the test of time. The settings and the language might be dated, but there’s something about them, the characters, the writing, that keeps people coming back to them generation after generation. I’m tempted to say that this quality is a literary “x-factor,” because, after all, if we knew what it was, we would all be writing timeless classics. Beyond that, there are books among the “canon of classics” that encapsulate a period, an attitude, or an event in a way other books don’t. There are books that broke the mold, setting themselves apart from their contemporaries in their style or subject matter. And there are books that influenced literature or the arts for generations to come. I’m not citing examples–if you’re fairly well read, I’m sure examples come to mind. These are just qualities that I suggest make certain books “classics.”

So, if these books are so universally loved, shouldn’t we as writers seek to write books like them? Should we adopt the style and format of classic novels? If you want to be published in the 21st century, probably not. As Rachelle points out, times are different. Mass communication, the media, the internet, and high-speed travel have all caused us to gain a perspective on the world that our forebears didn’t have, which affects the expectations of the modern reader. Our readers are also not accustomed to working their way slowly into a story. If nothing’s happening within the first few chapters, they lose interest. Again, this is just the world in which we live, where life is a lot more fast-paced. Many of our favorite television shows and movies reflect this (Doctor Who fans can compare the much slower pace of 1960’s Who with the modern version). Good or bad, like it or not, that’s the way it is. Do I even need to mention the fact that even our most eloquent spoken English doesn’t compare with the kind of rhetoric you find in some of the earlier classics. I mean, you don’t spout Shakespearean soliloquies at the check-out, do you? And if you addressed your boss like a character from a Jane Austen novel, you might get some strange looks. I could go on for ages about language, but here’s an important point: language is about communication. And that segues nicely into what I think about this whole topic.

Why do we write novels? I think the vast majority of writers write novels because they have stories they want to tell. Yes, most writers write because they feel compelled to write–it’s what they are and what they do. But writing stories is another form of communication. Its another way we as people pass on to others ideas, thoughts, feelings, experiences–and a well-written novel can be a powerful means of doing this. So what is a well-written novel? Is it a Dickens or an Austen? A Faulkner or a Wilde? I propose that a well-written novel is one that communicates. It’s a novel that takes concepts, feelings, and experiences, and wraps them up in a package that the reader can access–but not only access but understand, feel, and experience. Perhaps even come away changed.

Dickens shone a light on the poverty and destitution that existed in Victorian England in a way that people could understand, and for which they felt shock and sympathy. Harper Lee presented depression-era Alabama in a way that is compelling. You are there with Scout Finch, experiencing all that she experiences, seeing the world through her eyes. I’m sure she could have easily written a thesis paper presenting the evils of racism. But To Kill a Mockingbird makes you feel the injustice of racism in a way that a series of bullet points can’t. That’s good storytelling, and that, in my mind, is what makes a classic novel.

So, our goal isn’t to write classic novels, but to write stories we feel compelled to tell, in a way that reaches people. We use words that are meaningful to our audience, not to Austen’s audience. The imagery and the dialog we use is that which makes sense to our readers. If what we write is only comprehensible to a generation of readers that lived two hundred years ago, what’s the point? Sure, we show we can write in that style, but are we really communicating? Are we really telling stories?

I’m not saying we shouldn’t read classic novels today. Like all the reading we do, reading the classics can only improve our sense of storytelling, and our awareness of what makes for good character portrayal, good structure, and so forth. But that should be true of every good book we read, whether it’s in the canon of classics or not. And I’m sure there are books that you read today, books that the literati in ivory towers frown upon, that in generations to come will be studied along with Dickens, Austen, and Tolstoy. These books will, I’m sure, one day be considered “classics”–not because the authors tried to write classic novels, but because they tried to write good stories, and succeeded.

There are my thoughts. What do you think? What do you think makes a classic novel? And to what extent should we attempt to emulate the classics?