I could write a dissertation to defy your review, but everyone has a right to their opinion. However, I think you should reconsider calling one of Austen's best novels an example of "terrible" writing. "Modern" writing has nothing on Austen, and if we measure everything against the so-called enlightenment of modern writers, then we might as well throw out City Lights because it's in black and white and lacks the CGI of Lord of the Rings. And yet, the style, poetry, and insight of Chaplin's film and Austen's novel will, I think, be read and watched far longer than 99.9% of the modern marvels published today. I don't understand why you feel modern writing has advanced so much further than Austen--unless, of course, you simply mean in our more enlightened views toward women and society? Yet even these were helped along by Austen's gentle questioning of gender roles, and the boldness of Anne who defies the conventional role of an early 19th century woman. It's not for nothing that Austen's sister, Cassandra, said of one of Anne's speeches, that "I wish those words had been written in gold."
Also, Austen's most beloved brother was a career naval officer who wrote letters to her throughout her life, and he kept all her letters until his death. She wrote the character of Wentworth as a tribute to him--idealized, perhaps, but born of her inner knowledge of their life and struggles. It was the closest Austen ever got to writing about the world of men, but which she might have ventured more into had she lived longer.
I can't speak for Olga, of course, but I got the impression from what she's written above that what she refers to as terrible is the construction, not the content. It is true, and I say this without either praise or indictment, that Austen's writing style is NOT as concise as modern styles. I adore Austen (except Emma) and I readily admit that I often struggle with the flow of the sentence structures; they're longer and string more clauses together, and if I've just come from reading a more modern story, I have to have more patience because the writing is just very different.
@Olga: I don't know Austen's reasons for picking a Naval captain, but a scholar or a clergyman wouldn't have had the opportunity to amass the fortune that was required to get Anne back (in the eyes of society). I'd also respectfully disagree about the compassion. I TOTALLY agree that a degree of ruthlessness was required for the piracy taking place, but I can also readily believe that those men were also capable of compassion in the compartments of their lives they chose to show it in.
Of course I'm talking about the mechanics of writing, not the content. Verbosity characterizes most writers of the 19th century, in any language, not just English. Our approach to sentence and paragraph structures, even to story construction changed dramatically since then.
@Murder - yes, I agree about a clergyman not being able to amass a fortune. Unless he inherited it unexpectedly. And yes, everyone is capable of compassion. Even a pirate. But gentleness is another matter. You can't be gentle, the way she portrays her characters, and command 50 cutthroat sailors in life and death situations.
I think the idea that modern writing is more advanced, concise, or simply "better" is just tunnel vision. After Hemingway, everyone had to write short, clipped sentences that "get to the point" and that became the norm. The idea that a complex sentence is verbose seems to me a reactionary view. I enjoy modern books, obviously, but I would argue that most modern writers can only plunk away like journalists, reporting rather than truly writing, and very few can do much more than spin an elaborate plot. As you suggest, Austen is a 19th century writer, and didn't write for the 21st century. However, as 21st century readers, I think the burden is on us to read outside of our century and to appreciate the aesthetics of another time and place. I find Austen very concise in that she shows us characters and situations very finely and sensitively; I mean, in barely 200 pages, Persuasion has more insight and characterization than in all the Twilight books put together, to say nothing of the Harry Potter saga, Game of Thrones, or anything else that tops 1,000 pages. And if that's not concise, I don't know what is. :)
I also think the idea that "tough" men can't be gentle is a little too simplistic. The first thing most people say about a mass murderer living next door is "he seemed so nice!"
At the risk of being argumentative, you are conflating my comments with Olga's. As I said, I won't speak for her, but since I used the word "concise", I'll speak for myself. "Concise" does not mean the same thing as "better".
concise
adjective
giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive.
"a concise account of the country's history"
Austen is NOT concise in her writing style; that's NOT an insult or a slam; it's an observation. It's also not a judgement; I love Austen's writing and I think it's beautiful, compelling, expressive, and in comparison to the world I currently live in, yes, verbose. Her observations, her characterisations, sure, yes, she can concisely and exactingly portray a character faster than just about anyone I've ever read - but her physical sentences are not concise. They just aren't; but then they weren't meant to be either. Doesn't mean it isn't sometimes a bear to read, even if every word is worth it.
Your comments come across as though this is an old argument for you, and you're certainly within your rights to get fired up over someone else's views if you disagree with them, as much as it's Olga's right to think differently. But please take care in rebuttal that you don't twist someone else's words.
And yes - I was going use the mass murderer example myself, but I couldn't write it as concisely as you did, lol. So I skipped over it - but I do agree. :)
Interesting arguments, folks, even if I don't precisely agree with all of them. It's fascinating how Austen inspires different, sometimes contrasting views. She was a true artist, and art, as I mentioned before, is subjective.
Also, Austen's most beloved brother was a career naval officer who wrote letters to her throughout her life, and he kept all her letters until his death. She wrote the character of Wentworth as a tribute to him--idealized, perhaps, but born of her inner knowledge of their life and struggles. It was the closest Austen ever got to writing about the world of men, but which she might have ventured more into had she lived longer.
@Olga: I don't know Austen's reasons for picking a Naval captain, but a scholar or a clergyman wouldn't have had the opportunity to amass the fortune that was required to get Anne back (in the eyes of society). I'd also respectfully disagree about the compassion. I TOTALLY agree that a degree of ruthlessness was required for the piracy taking place, but I can also readily believe that those men were also capable of compassion in the compartments of their lives they chose to show it in.
@Murder - yes, I agree about a clergyman not being able to amass a fortune. Unless he inherited it unexpectedly. And yes, everyone is capable of compassion. Even a pirate. But gentleness is another matter. You can't be gentle, the way she portrays her characters, and command 50 cutthroat sailors in life and death situations.
concise
adjective
giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive.
"a concise account of the country's history"
Austen is NOT concise in her writing style; that's NOT an insult or a slam; it's an observation. It's also not a judgement; I love Austen's writing and I think it's beautiful, compelling, expressive, and in comparison to the world I currently live in, yes, verbose. Her observations, her characterisations, sure, yes, she can concisely and exactingly portray a character faster than just about anyone I've ever read - but her physical sentences are not concise. They just aren't; but then they weren't meant to be either. Doesn't mean it isn't sometimes a bear to read, even if every word is worth it.
Your comments come across as though this is an old argument for you, and you're certainly within your rights to get fired up over someone else's views if you disagree with them, as much as it's Olga's right to think differently. But please take care in rebuttal that you don't twist someone else's words.