I don't know if anyone is interested in reading my further thoughts on Camilla, a novel by Fanny Burney, which I reviewed just a few hours ago. But it's still on my mind.
And I thought I'd approach it a bit broader, and possibly open it up for discussion about classics in general.
Can you compare classics with modern literature? Modern books? Meaning, is it fair to hold classics up to the same standards and judgments as modern literature? Or are classics in a field, a category all by themselves. If classics are in a field by themselves, a field that is ever-incorporating new titles as decades go by, and eliminating other titles that have fallen out of favor because no one is willing or able to 'prove' their relevance to today's readers, what should that standard be?
Should a classic be as pleasurable, as entertaining, as enjoyable as other types of books? If it doesn't, does that mean it's not as 'good' a book? Does a book have to be a page-turner to keep you reading? Can a book be 'good' and fail to keep your interest at times?
Reading is subjective of course. Interests vary from person to person. And even just in one person, interests change from month to month or year to year. The mood and timing has to be just right, there has to be a certain chemistry for a reader to connect with a book.
I'm all for books staying in print and staying available in some shape or form. I was very happy that Camilla was a book-book. I didn't want the hassle of reading the book in its entirety as an e-book or online. I wouldn't have done it. Couldn't have done it. So I'm all for having these obscure little books stay in print. They're not obscure to some people, but for the general hypothetical readership they are obscure. It's only if you've immersed yourself in literature--whether on your own or in a classroom setting--that you come to be on familiar terms with other writers. The more you read, the more aware you become of other books, other authors you might enjoy as well.
I read Camilla for two reasons really. One, I had read Evelina back in college and found it completely wonderfully delightful. And two, Camilla is one of the books mentioned in Northanger Abbey. I know that Jane Austen was a fan of Fanny Burney. So many of the women writers of the day were fans of Fanny Burney and Ann Radcliffe. They looked to women who had gone before, led the way.
Camilla, according to what I've read, was a HUGE HUGE hit when it was published. It was popular in the 19th century. Which shows me that it is taste and expectations that have changed through the centuries. Books are always always a product of their time. For the original audience, Camilla and Edgar and the like were the best of the best. For modern readers, however, I doubt people would be as quickly impressed. For one, I don't think people have the patience to deal with Edgar. They don't have the stamina to watch Camilla exclaim away page after page.
With the internet, with television, with movies, with video games, how is a book that is over 950 pages going to compete???
Camilla is a book that requires time, energy, commitment, and patience. You've got to think of it as an experience. A journey. A long journey. You've got to be in it for the journey. If you think of it as what is the quickest way to get from point a to point b, Camilla will frustrate you to no end. Camilla is in some ways like playing Chutes and Ladders. Sometimes you move up, but a lot of times you go sliding back down and you're practically back where you started. Every time the plot advances where it looks like there might be resolutions in sight, you go hurdling back down and everything is a tangled mess again.
Is it a bad thing or a good thing for a book to be complex, challenging, requiring diligence and patience? Do you have to have immediate satisfaction to keep reading? Do you have to approach it with the what's-in-it-for-me attitude?
I stuck with Camilla obviously. It was both frustrating but enjoyable at the same time. Eugenia was probably my favorite. But Camilla wasn't a bad heroine. I just kept wanting to shout at her. In the words of Super Grover's Super Mommy: DON'T DO IT!
Reading Camilla is like watching a soap opera. Every chapter, or more likely every few chapters, there would be a rising climax. You'd reach the point where you'd think SOMETHING would happen to further the plot, to move the action along, to change the course of the character's lives. But a good majority of time, those all fizzle out. The big reveal doesn't happen. The exciting scene you thought would happen, just doesn't. Nothing comes of it. Or if something does come of it, it's not the something you would have wanted. The story line goes a way you wouldn't choose. The writer takes it in a direction you really didn't want it to go. And you get frustrated.
No comments:
Post a Comment