Many people have opinions over what makes you more entitled than the next. You get this snobbishness between the periods in literature. Most have debated who was able to have a richer more substantial literary life and whom has influenced it’s readers to greater things. Many need to ask themselves, “Who makes the greater social impact?” the Victorians or the writers in the 20th century, the Modernists. Many things can help the writers and novelists to preach to a wider audience. Contrary to popular belief, the Victorians enjoyed a much more varied, richer, and freer literature than readers in the 20th century. The Victorian writers shared a need to unfold the social struggles of the time. They all had something in common. Charles Dickens’
…show more content…
The Victorians did not just focus on one genre, this itself can prove that they led a much richer life. They did not just focus on the masterpieces of the authors, like what the Modernists do, that would be too minimal to fulfill any sort of goal of the writer. The earlier time period of literature focused on an array of genres to get many different things across to their readers; such as: histories, sermons, social critiques, political arguments, scientific and religious debates, aesthetic questions. All of the genres can relay a different meaning, and focus on the many different issues of the time period. One can argue that the Victorians do not have one focus because of the need to be everywhere with their genres, but they can say more through those than the modernists’ need to focus on only one genre, or masterpiece. Which these masterpieces may be unreadable to the average reader of the time. Works such as, T.S. Eliot’s Waste Land is a perfect example of complication. “…The poem presents a series of voices: the personality is a composite, a construct made up of a variety of selves…” (Crews 20), with this explanation the reader knows that the reading of the poem is a complicated one. Modernists tend to make the work more complicated then it needs to be something the Victorians didn’t seem to have trouble
The Victorians did not just focus on one genre, this itself can prove that they led a much richer life. They did not just focus on the masterpieces of the authors, like what the Modernists do, that would be too minimal to fulfill any sort of goal of the writer. The earlier time period of literature focused on an array of genres to get many different things across to their readers; such as: histories, sermons, social critiques, political arguments, scientific and religious debates, aesthetic questions. All of the genres can relay a different meaning, and focus on the many different issues of the time period. One can argue that the Victorians do not have one focus because of the need to be everywhere with their genres, but they can say more through those than the modernists’ need to focus on only one genre, or masterpiece. Which these masterpieces may be unreadable to the average reader of the time. Works such as, T.S. Eliot’s Waste Land is a perfect example of complication. “…The poem presents a series of voices: the personality is a composite, a construct made up of a variety of selves…” (Crews 20), with this explanation the reader knows that the reading of the poem is a complicated one. Modernists tend to make the work more complicated then it needs to be something the Victorians didn’t seem to have trouble