2017 (39)
2018 (68)
2019 (88)
2020 (79)
2021 (86)
2022 (83)
2023 (72)
We had the paperback 月亮宝石, when I was a child. I didn't even know the
original English title. I still remembered the name of Gaberiel Betteredge,
one of the narrators, as 伽百里尔 贝特里奇, a transliteration that made no sense
in Chinese except for invoking a fascination toward a remote alien world. It
took me a few tries to finish reading.
A plover-egg-sized Indian diamond, dedicated to a Hindu deity, was looted by the
British and passed down with its curse to an innocent girl. It was then lost for
a second time for a new generation of human weaknesses and, after the dust
settled, dramatically returned to the forehead of the statue of the moon god. It
was a mystery as well as love story. Like Greek and Roman mythologies, to me,
the Moonstone was a call of the wild as well as an escape from the daily drudery
to survive and get ahead. It invoked a longing to go overseas and see.
30 years later, I chanced upon the word "moonstone" one day and memories flooded
back. This time, I learned the name of the author, Wilkie Collins, and the
significance of the story as an early detective novel, and I wondered, into the
21 century, where the yellow diamond resided and if three Brahmins were still
watching day and night. Next, I borrowed the Everyman's Library edition.
The 1868 novel showed some age but was nonetheless the same page-turner which it
must be back then and which I couldn't say of some of the modern books I read of
the same genre. (I heard Taleb whispering: "I told you. Read nothing from the
past 100 years!" and "No skill to understand it; mastery to write it.") The
settings were given enough attention with few rare words that I had to look up
in the dictionary. Through the accounts of several narrators, the story
proceeded at a good pace and suspenses were never drawn-out. Humor fills the
volume, especially in Betteredge's and Miss Clack's accounts. Here is a
paragraph on page 14 to give a taste of the language.
If I had had a hat in my hand, nothing but respect would have prevented me
from throwing that hat up to the ceiling. I had not seen Mr. Franklin since
he was a boy, living along with us in this house. He was, out of all sight
(as I remembered him), the nicest boy that ever spun a top or broke a
window. Miss Rachel, who was present, and to whom I made that remark,
observed, in return, that SHE remembered him as the most atrocious tyrant
that ever tortured a doll, and the hardest driver of an exhausted little
girl in string harness that England could produce. 'I burn with indignation,
and I ache with fatigue,' was the way Miss Rachel summed it up, 'when I
think of Franklin Blake.'
Upon finishing the Moonstone, I was impressed enough to borrow the author's
magna opus, the 1860 novel The Woman In White.
I totally agree that "there must be a reason that classics last centuries." But I think that reason itself is not as important as the fact that these works have lasted. The results have spoken.
And to us who wish to learn the craft, classics are the safest bet for the simple reason that they don't waste our time. Even if we cannot create stuff as great, at least we learn to appreciate outstanding writings.
The idea is not new. 2000 years ago, Seneca advised his friend to limit his reading to a few well-known authors.
So does that mean the older the novel/literature is, the better? I know you read classics, like Shakespeare. I guess there must be a reason that classics last centuries.