I agree with you completely. It may be because I'm dated, too, but to me the "datedness" sets the scene and the mood. We don't complain about Victorian settings in Dickens. After several more years, our older books will be a valuable guide to our life and times.

For me, it depends on the book...and the period of time the book is supposed to portray. I was one of the people in the Seton thread who thought some of her books are dated...I've read three of them, and thought all but Katherine (which I loved) were a bit dated. I also started Green Darkness but gave up right around page 60..that one I thought was really dated, for some reason. Even the physical descriptions of the characters seemed dated (to me).

I'm sure I've encountered other authors I also thought were a bit dated, but off the top of my head I can't think of any others. I do enjoy reading the classics, and I've never thought they seemed dated (that I remember).

Maybe part of the reasons Seton's books seem dated to me is because I wasn't alive yet when they were written (I was born in 1976)---probably if I had read them even 20 years after they were written they wouldn't seem so dated to me.

Kelly

I agree. That is part of the appeal of literature or light reading--we enter another world, another place, another time.

As for Nancy Drew, I had fun last fall re-reading many of the 29 books in the series that I owned as a girl. For Christmas, I asked for a new non-fiction book, "Girl Sleuth: Nancy Drew and the Women Who Created Her" by Melanie Rehak. It tells the story of Mildred Wirt Benson, who wrote most of the first 30 books or so, and of Harriet Stratemeyer Adams, who was responsible for many subsequent volumes. It was a very interesting book, written in a lively way and full of fascinating details for those of us who have never outgrown Nancy.

I was a Nancy Drew Fan as a girl. Loved the books and they
will always have a special place in my heart.

ginny12-I would like to read "Girl Sleuth:Nancy Drew and the Women Who Created Her". Thanks for the tip and it is now on my reading list.

Boo

Seton 'dated'? (I've never read Green Darkness however) No, its historical fiction. Of course books written in another time and place are going to be different from what you are used to. But that is the fun of reading about them - a new world, a new set of circumstances, a new point of view, even new langauge.

>Maybe part of the reasons Seton's books seem dated to me is because I wasn't alive yet when they were written (I was born in 1976)---probably if I had read them even 20 years after they were written they wouldn't seem so dated to me.

Wow - so do you then consider any book written before 1976 'dated'? The mind boggles. Actually, I think we may have a different definition of the word. To me a book is dated when the ideas of the book are way past due. Certain themes appear in every age (which is why Shakespeare is never dated, always ageless). The books can be about different times, as long as it shares those themes that we can all relate to in some way.

Now, if you are talking about 'dated' writing styles, I'd agree. I cannot read Victorian writing without a great deal of effort, and to me think its horribly dated. The books written in the twenties are different from those written now. And I do think that Seton writes with a different style then we might see today. But again, its the themes that really make a book relavant to any time. The writing style can be over come.

I think the only thing that really dates books are the social conventions. I know there were a lot of young adult novels out there in my youth that focused on female virginity and chastity, as well as lack of focus for women beyond marriage. The attitude of society and especially men, towards women who actually had sex before marriage seems as dated as the Victorians. And the women in those books all seem to agree that marriage is the only safe and secure career! And these changes occurred not only in my lifetime, but in my own adolescence and young adulthood!

Some older books seem very dated to me. Others written at the same period do not, or if they have an old-fashioned quality, that seems to add to the charm. I'm not sure exactly what quality causes this, though as GranJan mentions, certain attitudes toward women certainly contribute. Many of us, myself included, are serious fans of a certain writer whose subject was the courtships and marriages of virtuous middle class women two hundred years ago, yet Jane Austen never seems dated to me. Perhaps it was that she observed and reported the world around her with a clarity rarely matched by any writer.

I'll have to think more about this. There have been authors I once loved whose books seem hopelessly out of date to me when I attempt to re-read them a decade or more later. Others continue to enthrall me. Woodnymph2, you've given me something to ponder.

Rosefolly

Perhaps it is not the "datedness" of a book that bothers. I believe we all "start" a book prepared to suspend our beliefs, and we really hope for a good read. Yet we have limits to this attitude. The limits are flexible, and can change depending on such factors as the skill of the writer in developing the themes, how up-front the writer is in his story elements, and probablly most important, how much of a resonance there is between the story and the reader.

I imagine that is why poor historical fiction is so abysmal, and good historical fiction becomes a "read again and again" book. For me, I get weary from separating the historical from the fictional facts. A good example of this is the book I am now reading by Michener, "Mexico"...my head is starting to hurt! This in comparison to my all time favourite historical fiction "Before the Sun Goes Down"; I almost feel excited when I read it.

Bob

I would never consider Jane Austen, Dickens or, come to that, Shakespeare's works to be 'dated', as they were written of their time.
To me it means a book that was written using either the slang of the day that is now showing its age, or in many humorous books that seem not nearly as funny as when they were first published.
Someone, on another thread, mentioned No Bed for Bacon by Carol Brahms and another might be Gentlemen Prefer Blonds or even Cold Comfort Farm. All these had readers rolling in the aisles at the time but for us coming to them 'cold' today, we cannot see what tickled the fancy of our parents/grandparents.
I feel that for a humorous of book not to 'date' it has to be very well written for eg Grossmith'sDiary of a Nobody, B Mac D's The Egg and I or any of the writings of PG Wodehouse.
As for older books, like GWTW being non-PC. All I can say is "Thank God for that" which as I write I realise is probably considered a non-PC remark in the US.
I don't think the UK/Aus has quite reached the PC/non PC levels as you have in America but we are heading that way.
As some of you might know, 2007 is the year in which we 'celebrate' two hundred years since the abolition of slavery in the British colonies (mainly the W Indies).
Of course no-one today would condone slavery but some people seem to confuse the issue by refusing to mention it ever took place. As in the City of Liverpool a couple of years ago. They were planning some big civic history of their City, but when it was pointed out that a large part of the wealth and growth of the port had been through the slave trade it was decided that no exhibition could go ahead as it might be insulting to black people.
If no-one is able to post a reply I will know that I have overstepped the US code of PCness. But I don't apologise . . .except to Mary for taking over her thread!

I agree that a book that is very well written doesn't date, but one that is not written so skillfully does. I find that Anya Seton doesn't hold up for me anymore though I adored her books when I was a teenager. I also loved all the John Dickson Carr/Carter Dickson mysteries, but they now seem very dated to me. On the other hand, Carr/Dickson's contemporary, Dorothy Sayers holds up, even though much of them is, of course, dated.

Edith Wharton's powerful novels are never dated, though she writes about social conventions long vanished. Her take on her world is so incisive that it's surgical.

I feel that for a humorous of book not to 'date' it has to be very well written for eg Grossmith'sDiary of a Nobody, B Mac D's The Egg and I or any of the writings of PG Wodehouse.

Re The Egg and I: Vee, some latter-day readers begrudge MacD's humor, because they hate her "racism" and unPC attitudes. They seem to find fault with her for being a product of her times instead of thinking like a late-20th/early-21st century person -- no matter that she died in the 1950s. I've run across readers who feel the same way about Mark Twain's books: they can't separate their own modern "enlightened" attitudes or perspectives and assume that the writer who didn't know the things they know had a moral failing.

I find this the flip side of modern writers who insert anachronistic behaviors into period pieces and the readers who are pleased to find them there -- if they are even aware that they are anachronisms. Young readers are particularly prone to this because of their lack of experience and their wanting characters to behave just like they would. This is not a moral failing of the young -- they have a chance to outgrow it -- but some readers never do develop their understanding beyond this stage and probably never will.

>I find this the flip side of modern writers who insert anachronistic behaviors into period pieces and the readers who are pleased to find them there

This actually drives me more crazy than 'dated' books. I don't want modern speech or attitudes in a book from the Middle Ages. Exceptions are with a character that is obviously well ahead of his and her time (and there were certainly many like that, fortunately). I am not horribly picky I can forgive some errors (someone having a pocket watch a year or two before they were invented I can gloss over quickly) But when a choice is made by a character who'd never make that choice, when language is used that is very modern, when references to modern books are made, it tells me that the writer did not do her research. The ending of Year of Wonder is an excellent example - it completely threw me out of the book, it was so totally anachronistic, not fitting the character in that time and place.

On the other hand, GWTW, with all its unPCness and attitudes towards women and Blacks, is not dated, because you get the feel for that time and place. And the decisions made by Scarlett, selfish tho they were, fit, and made sense.

>I realise is probably considered a non-PC remark in the US.

veer, you've mentioned this a few times today. Realize that people here, like in Britain, speak the way they want to speak. We are in an informal conversation here, so I don't think anything we say here isn't 'correct'. And also realize that the media makes more of political correctedness' than the public does (except in cases of outrages racial offenses)

>they can't separate their own modern "enlightened" attitudes or perspectives and assume that the writer who didn't know the things they know had a moral failing.

If I chose not to read a book because its language or attitudes are not PC (see Huck Finn, Gone with the Wind, many others) I'd have missed at least half of the reading I have done over the years. I think we can safely read a book with unpleasant or dated attitudes without saying we agree with them, and safely allow children to read them knowing that they will not pick up those attitudes if they have already been taught otherwise. They are part of the time and the place.

BTW, I agree about humor books. Some like Art Buchwald's earlier works are good examples of dated reads. Others like Erma Bombecks writing are as ageless as raising children.

Humor that focuses on "trendy" funny things doesn't last-those I find very dated. Political satire doesn't hold its strength very long either.
On the other hand, I collect books written in the 1910s, 20s and 30s about the first generation of women who went in large number to college. Dated doesn't begin to describe the language, values expressed, and lifestyle reflected in these books-lights out at 9:30, secret midnight feasts, needing a pass to leave campus for that one special weekend allowed each semester, but only carefully chaperoned. But I adore them-there is such an innocence and fun about them.
I agree with Cindy-I am more annoyed by modern language, etc. in an historic fiction than I am by the fact that views on women's rights were very different in medieval times and reading about it may bring an involuntary frown to my face.
Vee-being "pc" is really an East-coast intelligentsia media invention.

PC is also very, very big at the universities, to the effect that some believe it is seriously stifling intellectual freedom. It is a problem even in the sciences, from what I have read and heard from friends in that environment.

I think I agree with Robert-E and VeeR, that in the hands af a skillful writer, books retain the flavor of their times without ever seeming dated. In a less skillful writer, the datedness shows through. That was what I was trying to say in my comments about Jane Austen, but I don't think I was very clear in my expression.

As for why one novel by a writer will seem dated and another not, as the discussion about Anya Seton found, well, not all novels by any writer will be equally well executed.

Rosefolly

Thing is, 'pc' started out with good intentions. The thought was changing words would change attidudes. Happy Holidays to remind us that not everyone celebrates Christmas, was never meant to offend Christians (in fact the term was used in the early last century by Christians).

Another example - in my field, we consider the child first before the disability so we say 'a child with a hearing loss' instead of 'a deaf child'. Its subtle, but I think its more accurate. Given the negative connotations of 'retarded', we now say 'mentally delayed', which in theory suggests that the person is merely delayed, his growth isn't stunted. In reality however, we now have children teasing others by saying 'you are so delayed' (instead of 'you are so retarded'). So obviously, words alone will not change people's attitudes, education about differences will. But words are a start.

Then there are the pc changes that drive me batty - I was in a women's radio group, trying to develop some programing on the local community radio station. I put up with 'womyn' barely. But what sent me running out the door was their insistance that we take the word 'disseminate' out of the flyer because of its root word. Erg

Avoiding the pc theme...

I definitely agree about the modern anachronisms being put into historical books. It happens more on TV - the (fairly) recent dramatisation of The Forsyte Saga was very good, but severely spoiled by the uninhibited lovemaking of the young couple, who were behaving like a couple in the modern day, not a couple in the early part of the century.

Having said that, books do date - if they are not good literature and don't have a relevant story, then they can just sound odd. The original Jennings books (Anthony Buckeridge) are awfully dated. They are books about a "prep" school in the fifties, and some of the slang references are almost impossible to understand. For example, in the very first book, there is the use of the word "spivish". It's an insult - someone whose behaviour is "spivish" is not quite acceptable. It refers to a "spiv" or black-marketeer during the times under ration in the UK. It's probably pronounced "spivvish" really and probably ought to be spelt like that - but Buckeridge when he wrote it assumed most people would know what it meant, and how it should be pronounced.

The datedness doesn't stop the books being very funny though - the situations the boys find themselves in and the attitudes of the various teachers are still timeless. But these are books where "updating" them doesn't do too much harm.

But just because attitudes date, it doesn't mean that literature dates. A Kind of Loving by Stan Barstow is a book about a Yorkshire boy in 1960 who gets his girlfriend pregnant and, of course, marries her, even though he doesn't love her. It doesn't cross anyone's mind in the book that he has any alternative. That, in many ways, is what makes the book so exceptional - it was a brilliant book even in 1960 - reading it now, it's an even better book, as it's such a wonderful reflection on those attitudes, and a fascinating contrast with modern times.

Cindy, as I have mentioned before our youngest son has Down's Syndrome. When I read The Egg and I I found B MacD's remarks along the lines of being so bored on her mountain farm she would be happier spending time with a 'Mongoloid Idiot' somewhat inappropriate, but as Frieda says she was writing in the '40's when such terms were common.
When Chris was a baby (he is now 24) I attended a talk given by someone from the Health dept of our County Council.
Not only was the guy over an hour late arriving but in his opening sentence used the 'Mongol' word. You should have heard the outrage from the Mothers.
As the chairperson or chair to be totally PC, had no idea of keeping order the meeting descended into chaos.
I felt sorry for the council guy who had not meant to cause offence, but I was more worried about my two hungry and bored toddlers and a baby who needed both changing and feeding.
I never found out how the meeting went.

Cindy, our local bookshop specialises in books for the 'Deaf World' . . . their description . . . and they have a sale on.

Here is a link that might be useful: The Forest Bookshop

martin is right, ya know. But to answer you - 24 years ago, was when I started in the field. It was a time of transition, when people were finally talking about closing the institutions and giving kids and adults a chance to be in the mainstream. During that transition horrible mistakes were made, and many people misstepped. But I can well imagine the reaction. Yikes (how is your young man doing btw?)

Ok, PC for another thread

And Veer, you are a naughty person, giving me yet one more resource where I can spend money! (thanks :) .

Thinking of another twist - are dated movies more of a problem than dated books? I love silent movies, and regularly watch Sunday Silents on TCM. I am often struck by how timeless some of them are - Sunrise, The General, The Kid, Pandoras Box, Nosferatu, Wings are among my favorite movies of all time, never mind just the silent era. But there are some movies of that time that are cringworthy. The one that comes to mind is Metropolis. Actually the movie itself is years ahead of its time. But the acting - oy. The over melodramatic overwrought gestures give it a very dated look. Another example is the original Phantom of the Opera. Is it just the gestures that make them dated? What is it about the others that still capture us in this time? Is it easier to accept movies that feel dated versus books that feel that way?

As far as movies go, I am reminded of the scenes in Singing In The Rain when the silent actors are trying to switch over to talkies-how hard it was to stop using facial expressions and gestures to tell the story and let the words "do the talking." Special effects, too can be hilarious in old movies-but my family still prefers the wonky BBC series of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe stories to the new, glitzy, glossy one. Mic shadows and all. And The Wizard of Oz.....and the old Doctor Who....and best of all, the original Flash Gordons. Like something 4th graders do now on their camera-phones with Legos.

My own two cents is that a well-written book is never dated. It is a window into its time, a glimpse of a past we may never have known without "dated" books surviving to tell their tales.

Maybe I am the one that is "dated"...

PAM

Two fine examples from children's literature:

Enid Blyton - hopelessly dated, in my opinion. Her writing was never particularly brilliant, and the plots... well, there was only one which she recycled over and over. Her books do not say enough about their own time, but they don't speak to ours either.

Edith Nesbit - very old-fashioned, but still fresh and delightful. Her characters speak Edwardian English, but they are modern children with big personalities. A few years ago I was appalled to find that as a result of a television serial of her Five Children and It, the book was available in a rewritten version with modern English but without any of its original qualities.

Martin, I agree with you about updating TV productions to suit a modern audience. We have just finished a 3-part version of "Kidnapped" on the ABC. Well done, but the promos featured Jamie saying "We'll have to stop meeting like this" and after Catriona shoots a man dead "I'm not just a pretty face!" I haven't a copy to check out if these phrases are in the book but I doubt it. Is it acceptable to do this to encourage a young viewer who might otherwise not fancy watching an old classic?
I do love reading the old detective stories where the Inspector and his trusty sergeant catch a bus to the scene of the crime and have to find tuppence to use a call box to report to headquarters! So restful! Although I don't care for ladies in their fifties described as 'elderly' as Heyer did in one of her mysteries. Was that a nineteen-thirties outlook? Do other RP's in their seventies like me feel 'elderly' a fair description? Not these days, surely?
BTW Referring to you missing out on the new Potter, won't there be a release to the Greek bookshops? I can see you braving the heat and traffic of Athens to get your 'fix'!

My mom at 50 certainly could be called elderly. Me at the same age? No. I think thats from an earlier time, however, when I was 20 I thought 50 was old. So its all relative!

I don't like hearing anachronisms in movies any more than I like reading them. But I don't think its the language that bothers kids in old movie adaptations of classic books. I think its the way they are acted (way overdone, usually), and the way the time period is presented.

annpan, I'm 70, certainly don't feel "elderly," and got quite vexed when I read in yesterday's paper that a local group is open to the elderly who are past 63. Today was better, though, when an obituary notice for a woman who died a week before her 102nd birthday said that she had climbed the Great Wall of China in her late 80s. Oh, please, let that be me.

Carolyn, Amen to your wish!
Cindy, I think that you are correct in saying that the view of age is relative. Today I was reading a story and I quote a character, speaking of a work colleague "latterly his mind has been going to seed, rather: he was getting on for seventy, you see". I checked and found that the author was 30 when he wrote this! I don't feel that seedy in myself although I must admit to some momentary lapses of concentration but I had that condition in infants school too, so what does that prove?

I think part of being "elderly" is the person. My grandma is 86 and still walks about her several acre farm and climbs on the roof to fix it - I definitely don't see her as elderly. However, my other grandma is only in her 60's, but she whines and mopes about and acts like an invalid half the time - definitely see her as elderly.