<p>Not long ago, I read George Gissing’s “The Odd Women,” which was written in the 1890s. “The Odd Women” has several remarkable passages. For example, note the following:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although books written in our times also have their merits, I miss the floridness and sentimentalism (which, at times, is mawkish) of older works. </p>
<p>What do you think? Are there qualities in older writings that you would love to see in modern writing?</p>
<p>Personally, I hate that style of writing. Too flowery. YMMV.
Also an incredibly sexist passage. I’m rolling my eyes at it.</p>
<p>If you want to read more stuff like that join us at the CC book group! *The Luminaries<a href=“which%20we%20will%20be%20discussing%20in%20February”>/I</a> is very Victorian! (Though it’s a bit short on female characters.) You might also like Possession by A. S. Byatt which we read earlier - though that had more Victorian poetry than prose.</p>
<p>I love books written with an older sentence structure and even older words. Call me an old soul, but I love older works 
</p>
<p>But, there are still books to this day that are written with the floridity and sentiment that you enjoy.</p>
<p>EDIT: Just read mathmom’s post. Definitely going to check out The Luninaries. I LOVE books that are told in a Victorian style an set in the 16th/17th century. I don’t think I’ll join the book club. I already have four books I read for leisure that I need to get to after my ten required reading books this semester. :eek:</p>
<p>Oh, tut tut. I don’t find the passage sexist.</p>
<p>I also hate that style because I find it too flowery and verbose. It’s very difficult for my reading LD D.</p>
<p>The style reminds me of the Barbara Cartland books I read. lol.</p>
<p>I always love some of the words - like countenance, describing someone’s countenance was a real biggie back a few hundred years ago. And diseases like consumption instead of tuberculosis. </p>
<p>I often wonder how women of the Pride and Prejudice time period didn’t go stark raving mad with boredom.</p>
<p>
I agree with Niquii. The passage isn’t sexist at all.</p>
<p>I also love this style of writing, but I also like styles used today. The old style isn’t that popular (or marketable) anymore I guess.
Luckily there are plenty of books written in this style that are available to read. ;)</p>
<p>Wonderful thing about opinions- we’re all allowed to have them :)</p>
<p>To me, it rings sexist. Different strokes for different folks.</p>
<p>Yes, I like both old and new styles of writing. One moment I could be reason a Victorian-esque book, and the next I could be reading a modern style book. </p>
<p>I appreciate writers who are able to capture the style back then.</p>
<p>mathmom,</p>
<p>Thank you for the suggestion. The Victorians took things to another level.
I love learning about the Victorian era.</p>
<p>Even if it would be considered dated or sexist by today’s standards, isn’t the whole point that these books were written in another place and time? It wouldn’t be inappropriate for something written back then. To me, it’s part of what makes these old classics so fascinating - the comparison to the here and now.</p>
<p>Yes, it can be absolutely interesting roshke. I think this is where personal taste comes in. The last thing I want to do when pleasure reading is critically analyze its place in history. I just want to read for fun 
</p>
<p>For a literature or history class or something, I’d have a completely different take!</p>
<p>I agree with roshke on this: literature, just like style and technology, is a reflection of its epoch.</p>
<p>So then question: if it is (hypothetically) considered sexist by today’s standards, would we want to encourage people to continue writing like that? </p>
<p>(Of course people are free to write whatever they please, but should it be encouraged?)</p>
<p>In response to romani’s question, I have two questions:
What is “like that”?
What makes this style of writing sexist?</p>
<p>Writing set in a certain era and setting should be encouraged. Historical fiction allows a person to “fantasize” a world set in that time. It’s just another type of fiction. Another type of writing.</p>
<p>I was always taught to write clearly, and not contradict myself.
To not use more words than is needed.
Perhaps our editors are better now?</p>
<p>A hearty greeting, " softly" seems to contradict itself, IMO.
I also don’t consider “placid” and “beaming” to make sense.
One or the other.
;)</p>
<p>Does anyone here feel as if, in a sense, current writing has declined? …That it has lost something?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You must be reacting to the word “girlish” – it’s a defined term here, characterizing activity or physical reactions normally associated with girls. Such descriptions are “incredibly sexist”? I believe that you wish, in the use of the word “sexist,” to criticize a perfectly normative description. What do you find offensive? Were you most recently education at Berkeley’s English department, where gender, class, and race literature and criticism now displaces Shakespeare and the great books (basically, because most of these were written by white guys).</p>
<p>You can have a similar reaction reading newspapers of that era. (I don’t think it is the sexism or not that OP admires in the writing)</p>
<p>To me, people were more literate and had a larger vocabulary. Reading old news stories requires more brain “work” for me too, just like reading this passage required a little more work.</p>