1 month ago
21
If you've read a book that was published any time before the late 70s, maybe 80s, you'll notice that the way it's written just feels off. Or at least I do. I'm talking about books like the Chronicles of Narnia, The Dune saga, Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot books, etc.
When people talk in those books, it just seems off. I never feel the same level of emotion from those characters as I do reading more recently published books.
Harry Potter sometimes feels like that, but sometimes its emotions are much more. I don't know what the reason for it is, but they don't feel like they were written by such skilled authors. Good Omens is another one that sits between, and I suppose Neil Gaiman's other books as well. Sometimes, they feel really immersive, but other times they feel flat, as if all the characters are reading off of a script with a monotone voice.
And when you watch the Visual Media adaptation, you can really see how bland the source material sounded. This applies to all the books I've mentioned: The Chronicles of Narnia, Dune Parts One and Two, The Murder on the Orient Express (Although I haven't watched that one, the trailer told me enough), Harry Potter, Good Omens (On Prime Video) Coraline, Stardust, etc. I don't know if this is just because more emotions can be conveyed on screen rather than on a page, but it's still interesting.
Has anybody noticed this in other books? Does anyone have an explanation maybe for why older books are like this?
(P.S. I don't know if this post counts as Literary Criticism, Literary Theory, Discussion or Literary History. I want to put them all but I sadly cannot.)
[link] [comments]
