I just reviewed A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, a novel about growing up in poverty in the early 1900s, published in 1943. I've also recently read David Copperfield and Demon Copperhead. I had to read them together because the latter is a retelling of the former and I wanted to have the proper background to appreciate that. (Reviews will follow, eventually.)
David Copperfield is classic Dickens, with plenty of cruelty, humor, and optimism. Demon Copperhead is similar -- but so much grittier. The reading experience is completely different. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn falls between them in a publication timeline, but is much more like Dickens in tone.
What's the difference between past poverty and present poverty, anyway? Was past poverty really more genteel? (I'm thinking Little Women here, too.) Was there a greater community feeling that made it less ugly? Did they have more hope back then that things would improve if they just worked hard at life? Do the alienations of modern life make poverty worse?
Or is the difference simply realism -- meaning the writing style, rather than the facts? Are we more willing now, in modern writing, to dwell on or simply include the details of, for example, scavenging through garbage? Was a death by consumption less gruesome and sad than a death by drug overdose -- or is there a layer of judgment there, as well?
What else accounts for the different vision presented by these books?
This quote from A Tree Grows in Brooklyn seems worth noting here:
One day after one of those "rescues" Francie asked Mama:
Definitely food for thought, and maybe a topic to explore in a future review.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Talk to me! I love external validation.