Classics and the Western Canon discussion
This topic is about
Theodore Dreiser
Tea room
>
Theodore Dreiser
date
newest »
newest »
FWIW, my impression is that Dreiser is still considered part of the canon/classics of American literature. His work shows up on reading lists of classics, and Harold Bloom included “Sister Carrie” on his list of the Western Canon: https://www.openculture.com/2014/01/h.... On the other hand, I don’t think he is as widely read as he used to be.
Re his style — there are some great contemporary essays/reviews of his work by H. L. Mencken. IIRC, Mencken felt Dreiser’s novels succeeded in spite of his style rather than because of it.
Susan wrote: "[...] Mencken felt Dreiser’s novels succeeded in spite of his style rather than because of it."
Thank you, Susan – exactly the sort of feedback I hoped for. Still open to more perspectives, should they come.
The index of Mencken's collection of essays seems interesting (shame I don't have easy access to the printed edition), and his epigraphic judgement (above quote) definitely fitting. I've just started Dreiser's third novel – first in a trilogy – published one year after the previous: new setting (pre-civil war Philadelphia), new themes, obviously very much the same plain style.
I must confess hearing of Dreiser for the first time only in my forties and despite having always been a dedicated reader of classics. His possible inclusion in the western canon does take me by surprise – I love surprises – and makes me think about the definition(s) of canon.
I'm adding one more reference for comparison:
Edith Wharton, b.1862:
• "Ethan Frome", 1911 (the year of "Jennie Gerhardt")
Thank you, Susan – exactly the sort of feedback I hoped for. Still open to more perspectives, should they come.
The index of Mencken's collection of essays seems interesting (shame I don't have easy access to the printed edition), and his epigraphic judgement (above quote) definitely fitting. I've just started Dreiser's third novel – first in a trilogy – published one year after the previous: new setting (pre-civil war Philadelphia), new themes, obviously very much the same plain style.
I must confess hearing of Dreiser for the first time only in my forties and despite having always been a dedicated reader of classics. His possible inclusion in the western canon does take me by surprise – I love surprises – and makes me think about the definition(s) of canon.
I'm adding one more reference for comparison:
Edith Wharton, b.1862:
• "Ethan Frome", 1911 (the year of "Jennie Gerhardt")
After "Sister Carrie" (1900), and "Jennie Gerhardt" (1911), last April I did read Dreiser's third novel "The financier" (1912), first part in a trilogy.
After the matching pair represented by "Sister Carrie" and "Genie Gerhardt" (french naturalist literature has a history of novels with the name of a woman in the title), the first chapters of Dreiser's third novel seemed different, but then the plot quickly shifted back to his default themes and situations. I enjoyed the story – not the plain journalistic style – though, and will certainly continue the journey through Dreiser's works.
Yesterday, something I read in an introduction to Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson's drama "The Bankrupt" (1875), cornerstone of European naturalist theatre, brought Dreiser back to my mind and helped me contextualise his personal interests within the trajectories of western literature. Interestingly, Bjørnson was a journalist as well.
In the 1870's, Danish literary critic Georg Brandes recognised and defined the existence of a subgenre of the "bourgeois drama", trademark of French realism, and called it "the drama of money". Its origin can be traced back to Balzac's "Mercadet le faiseur" (1848), Augier's "Le gendre de M. Poirer" (1854), Dumas fils' "La question d'argent" (1855) and Sardou's "La famille Benoîton" (1865). The new subgenre later became a staple of French naturalism, «focused on the role of money and wealth in the life of bourgeois society. Money lost or gained, family fortunes squandered and the scandals that ensue are here the real hinge of the dramaturgical mechanism, the source of the plot and the end to which the characters' fates tend» (my translation).
Bjørnson's "The bankrupt" was first represented in the US in 1876. Dreiser's "The financier", 1912, can still be read – my opinion – as the transposition of Bjørnson's story from the stage to the pages of a novel, with some flourishes added. I wonder whether the next volumes in Dreiser's trilogy – "The titan" (1914) and "The stoic" (1947) – will still follow the same patterns characteristic of the genre.
After the matching pair represented by "Sister Carrie" and "Genie Gerhardt" (french naturalist literature has a history of novels with the name of a woman in the title), the first chapters of Dreiser's third novel seemed different, but then the plot quickly shifted back to his default themes and situations. I enjoyed the story – not the plain journalistic style – though, and will certainly continue the journey through Dreiser's works.
Yesterday, something I read in an introduction to Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson's drama "The Bankrupt" (1875), cornerstone of European naturalist theatre, brought Dreiser back to my mind and helped me contextualise his personal interests within the trajectories of western literature. Interestingly, Bjørnson was a journalist as well.
In the 1870's, Danish literary critic Georg Brandes recognised and defined the existence of a subgenre of the "bourgeois drama", trademark of French realism, and called it "the drama of money". Its origin can be traced back to Balzac's "Mercadet le faiseur" (1848), Augier's "Le gendre de M. Poirer" (1854), Dumas fils' "La question d'argent" (1855) and Sardou's "La famille Benoîton" (1865). The new subgenre later became a staple of French naturalism, «focused on the role of money and wealth in the life of bourgeois society. Money lost or gained, family fortunes squandered and the scandals that ensue are here the real hinge of the dramaturgical mechanism, the source of the plot and the end to which the characters' fates tend» (my translation).
Bjørnson's "The bankrupt" was first represented in the US in 1876. Dreiser's "The financier", 1912, can still be read – my opinion – as the transposition of Bjørnson's story from the stage to the pages of a novel, with some flourishes added. I wonder whether the next volumes in Dreiser's trilogy – "The titan" (1914) and "The stoic" (1947) – will still follow the same patterns characteristic of the genre.
1. Do you know when the first two novels where written exactly? Eleven years gap between their publication and so few differences conveys the impression of a rather limited stylistic evolution. Because of the delicate subject, ten thousand words had to be cut from the second novel to have it published – perhaps this delayed the publication?
2. I find Dreiser listed among the classics of American literature – Is this still valid today? Do you consider him part of an "American canon"? Is the average American reader familiar with his works? Are they part of syllabuses?
3. Would you personally include him in the western canon?
Some classics for comparison purposes:
(*) = on forms of extramarital love
Hjalmar Söderberg, born 1869:
• "Gertrud", published 1906; (*)
• "The Serious Game", pub.1912; (*)
Marcel Proust, b.1871 (same year as Dreiser):
• "Swann's Way", pub.1913;
William Somerset Maugham, b.1874:
• "Of Human Bondage", pub.1915;
Robert Musil, b.1880:
• "The Confusions of Young Törless", pub.1906;
• "Unions: Two Stories", pub.1911; (*)
James Joyce, b.1882:
• "Dubliners", wr.1905-06, pub.1914; (*)
• "Exiles", wr.1914, pub.1918. (*)
Dreiser's style reminds me very much of Somerset Maugham's: short, plain sentences, naturalist focus on social aspects; both retrospective or altogether epigonal (at least their 1911 and 1915 novels respectively) when compared to the early works of their [canonical] contemporaries Söderberg, Proust, Musil and Joyce.