1. Yes, you're right. I think the difference is largely that Lytton is a better writer. Overblown those descriptions may be, but they don't come across as intrusive. Rather, he manages to make them an enjoyable part of his general scene-setting. Interestingly, the edition I read (from 1891) included prefaces written for the previous editions of 1834 and 1850, and the 1834 one includes some fascinating explicit commentary on the issue. He is critical himself of authors who overdo the historical 'detail' in an attempt to look erudite, and speaks of having to restrain the same instinct in himself, preferring give the emphasis to his plot and characters. Harris' historical details, meanwhile, seem to get in the way of both.
2. Ah, thanks for that link. I knew the picture existed, but couldn't find an image of it myself. What I meant really, though, about Alma-Tadema, was more that the seeds of the kind of art in general which he later produced are very much detectable with hindsight in Bulwer-Lytton's descriptive style. It's very obvious that they are both parts of the same developing movement.
3. Yes, this is true, too - although he reads it as being specific to himself, rather than a widespread disaster. Mind you, that's entirely in keeping with his character, of course - even if the stars had foretold disaster for the whole town, he'd only have cared insofar as it applied to him!
4. Hey, I did include a question mark! Which, unpacked, is meant to indicate, "You can read it that way if you choose to - though I, personally, don't." ;-)
Will look forward to hearing any further thoughts you have about it.
no subject
1. Yes, you're right. I think the difference is largely that Lytton is a better writer. Overblown those descriptions may be, but they don't come across as intrusive. Rather, he manages to make them an enjoyable part of his general scene-setting. Interestingly, the edition I read (from 1891) included prefaces written for the previous editions of 1834 and 1850, and the 1834 one includes some fascinating explicit commentary on the issue. He is critical himself of authors who overdo the historical 'detail' in an attempt to look erudite, and speaks of having to restrain the same instinct in himself, preferring give the emphasis to his plot and characters. Harris' historical details, meanwhile, seem to get in the way of both.
2. Ah, thanks for that link. I knew the picture existed, but couldn't find an image of it myself. What I meant really, though, about Alma-Tadema, was more that the seeds of the kind of art in general which he later produced are very much detectable with hindsight in Bulwer-Lytton's descriptive style. It's very obvious that they are both parts of the same developing movement.
3. Yes, this is true, too - although he reads it as being specific to himself, rather than a widespread disaster. Mind you, that's entirely in keeping with his character, of course - even if the stars had foretold disaster for the whole town, he'd only have cared insofar as it applied to him!
4. Hey, I did include a question mark! Which, unpacked, is meant to indicate, "You can read it that way if you choose to - though I, personally, don't." ;-)
Will look forward to hearing any further thoughts you have about it.