The Writings of Lucy Maud Montgomery

  • This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.

Donald Miller

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2014
86
341
Sarasota
I know Anne of Green Gables doesn't fit in with anything scary or supernatural. But I've been reading Montgomery's work, and I'm just bowled over by her writing style and skill. She has what Truman Capote said he enjoyed about writing, "The music the words make."

She has that and a flowing way of weaving setting and characters together. If someone hasn't tried his hand at creative write himself, one might not realize the masterly quality of her work. It reminds me of the time when Mozart was active. All of the German children were expected to play an instrument, usually the piano, if the family could afford to have one.

Anyhow, I was just wondering what other people think of when they read something as graceful and well composed as Montgomery's writings.
 

AnnaMarie

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2012
7,068
29,564
Other
I love Maud's work. I've always been an avid reader, but Anne was one of the first characters who ever fully came to life for me. I visited many of the areas in the books, then also, the school where Maud taught.
 

Donald Miller

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2014
86
341
Sarasota
I love Maud's work. I've always been an avid reader, but Anne was one of the first characters who ever fully came to life for me. I visited many of the areas in the books, then also, the school where Maud taught.
Really. I didn't know there was anything real about the stories. They're based on real people?

Montgomery always regretted not writing a great book, but she's done better than most writers, and her work holds up-- and I think will hold up for as long as people read.
 

Bev Vincent

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,351
11,651
Texas
www.bevvincent.com
My daughter and I visited Cavendish, PEI this summer -- I hadn't been there in over 40 years. There's a new bookstore/museum opened across the highway from where the Anne house is. It's on the grounds of the house where LMM grew up after her mother died and operated by members of the family. I was surprised at how many books she wrote -- many more than the Anne series, and all but one set on PEI.
 

AnnaMarie

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2012
7,068
29,564
Other
Really. I didn't know there was anything real about the stories. They're based on real people?

Montgomery always regretted not writing a great book, but she's done better than most writers, and her work holds up-- and I think will hold up for as long as people read.

The places are real, but the people are not.

I haven't been on the island in quite a while. The first time I visited the Anne House it was just the house and the Haunted Wood. The White Way of Delight might have been there, but wrong season. After the tv show, which was filmed there and they redid the village, I never went back. It's too touristy for me.

Montgomery taught in Bedeque in a one room school house. For several years, we rented a cottage in Lower Bedeque, and one time we finally managed to stop in at the schoolhouse. I just love old stuff like that.

Anyway, she had a very sad life, and I think parts of Anne were based on herself.
 

AnnaMarie

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2012
7,068
29,564
Other
My daughter and I visited Cavendish, PEI this summer -- I hadn't been there in over 40 years. There's a new bookstore/museum opened across the highway from where the Anne house is. It's on the grounds of the house where LMM grew up after her mother died and operated by members of the family. I was surprised at how many books she wrote -- many more than the Anne series, and all but one set on PEI.

I am so jealous. I wanted desperately to get there this year. There was a family reunion, and I think a big acadian anniversary.
 

Bev Vincent

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,351
11,651
Texas
www.bevvincent.com
The 150th anniversary of the confederation conference was taking place in Charlottetown, too. I've probably been to Charlottetown before, but not since I was a kid, so I didn't recognize the city at all -- it's like a small-scale Halifax, though, so it seemed quite familiar. This was also my first trip across the bridge -- we always used to have to take the ferry.
 

AnnaMarie

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2012
7,068
29,564
Other
The 150th anniversary of the confederation conference was taking place in Charlottetown, too. I've probably been to Charlottetown before, but not since I was a kid, so I didn't recognize the city at all -- it's like a small-scale Halifax, though, so it seemed quite familiar. This was also my first trip across the bridge -- we always used to have to take the ferry.

That may have been the anniversary I was thinking of.

I miss the boat. Since my youngest never got to go by boat, one visit we took a day to take the fairy to NS. I had only ever been there once, a quick drive through when CN was on strike back in the seventies (I think). But my husband has lived almost everywhere in Canada, including Halifax for a few years.

Staropeace, I didn't know you were from down there. Can't imagine why anyone would ever leave. (I know...jobs...but)

Anne should be compulsory reading in schools here.
 

Donald Miller

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2014
86
341
Sarasota
My daughter and I visited Cavendish, PEI this summer -- I hadn't been there in over 40 years. There's a new bookstore/museum opened across the highway from where the Anne house is. It's on the grounds of the house where LMM grew up after her mother died and operated by members of the family. I was surprised at how many books she wrote -- many more than the Anne series, and all but one set on PEI.
Me too, about the books she wrote. It's a darn shame that the kids aren't learning how to write by using her books as examples instead of these awful Fantasy, Romance, and Vampire books. That stuff will drain whatever talent you might have had out of ya.
 

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
9,682
65,192
59
sweden
I have read all the Anne books ( at least i think it is all) but don't think they hold the same standard all the way through. They are good up to about the point when Anne and Gilbert gets married. After that i think they slowly start to lose the momentum they had. Not meaning they are bad, just that they are not as good as they were. And the first book is a standout. But thats almost always the case with a series i think.
 

Mr Nobody

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2008
3,306
9,050
Walsall, England
Me too, about the books she wrote. It's a darn shame that the kids aren't learning how to write by using her books as examples instead of these awful Fantasy, Romance, and Vampire books. That stuff will drain whatever talent you might have had out of ya.

The only hope comes from "Read a lot, write a lot". You have to read the crap as well as the quality to really learn the difference (and how to read with a truly critical eye). It's a question of balance...though I'd agree that you can overdo it with the dross, but never with the good.
 

Donald Miller

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2014
86
341
Sarasota
The only hope comes from "Read a lot, write a lot". You have to read the crap as well as the quality to really learn the difference (and how to read with a truly critical eye). It's a question of balance...though I'd agree that you can overdo it with the dross, but never with the good.
Can't really say I agree with you. Let's take writing for instance. If doing a lot of writing were the key, then it would follow that an author should get better with each book. That does not happen. Reading helps if it's done with great discretion and wisdom. I remember reading half a Danielle Steele book many years ago and thinking it was absolutely dreadful. I no longer hold that view. Not after having read so much drivel from amatuer writers. I have come to the conclusion that newbie writers could learn a lot from her--before moving on to more ambitions fare.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mr Nobody

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2008
3,306
9,050
Walsall, England
Can't really say I agree with you. Let's take writing for instance. If doing a lot of writing were the key, then it would follow that an author should get better with each book. That does not happen. Reading helps if it's done with great discretion and wisdom. I remember reading half a Danielle Steele book many years ago and thinking it was absolutely dreadful. I no longer hold that view. Not after having read so much drivel from amatuer writers. I have come to the conclusion that newbie writers could learn a lot from her--before moving on to more ambitions fare.

But, at least subconsciously, you'll have learnt a lot from reading that 'drivel'. It'll be along the lines of the 'what not to do' variety (which is by no means obvious), but it's still a valuable lesson and it's a mistake to dismiss it/them - just as, in sports, it's a mistake to dismiss unexpected defeats, or poor results relative to forecasts in business.
It's easy to say a piece of writing is poor. It's not so easy to say - or sometimes, to see - why.
The same is true of good writing. Quality is easy to spot because it works a kind of magic on the reader. The trick is to learn why it's so good. Is it just the style, or is it about the lexical choices? Is it those plus pace? What of theme? Descriptive writing? Of that, is there a lot, or little?

As for writing...writers may not get better with each and every book - it's probably impossible to do that; as SK has said himself, everyone produces a clunker once in a while - but they do get more experienced and, hopefully, more confident, aware of their abilities and limitations. (And you're never, ever the finished article, and even the very greatest have been prone to moments of severe self-doubt - in fact, it's probably true that the greater the writer, the more unsure of themselves they were.)
Writing a lot helps you build your style, gives you experience, and, yes, helps you improve over time.

Still 'n' all, don't take my word for it. As you know, SK goes over this same ground in On Writing.
 

Donald Miller

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2014
86
341
Sarasota
But, at least subconsciously, you'll have learnt a lot from reading that 'drivel'. It'll be along the lines of the 'what not to do' variety (which is by no means obvious), but it's still a valuable lesson and it's a mistake to dismiss it/them - just as, in sports, it's a mistake to dismiss unexpected defeats, or poor results relative to forecasts in business.
It's easy to say a piece of writing is poor. It's not so easy to say - or sometimes, to see - why.
The same is true of good writing. Quality is easy to spot because it works a kind of magic on the reader. The trick is to learn why it's so good. Is it just the style, or is it about the lexical choices? Is it those plus pace? What of theme? Descriptive writing? Of that, is there a lot, or little?

As for writing...writers may not get better with each and every book - it's probably impossible to do that; as SK has said himself, everyone produces a clunker once in a while - but they do get more experienced and, hopefully, more confident, aware of their abilities and limitations. (And you're never, ever the finished article, and even the very greatest have been prone to moments of severe self-doubt - in fact, it's probably true that the greater the writer, the more unsure of themselves they were.)
Writing a lot helps you build your style, gives you experience, and, yes, helps you improve over time.

Still 'n' all, don't take my word for it. As you know, SK goes over this same ground in On Writing.
We seem to have switched positions on the subject of studying literature. I've maintained that a formal study of literary elements is necessary in the sense of it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. As you've mentioned, it's possible for an alert person to catch all of this on his own. But a formal study indicates that someone really has become familiar with elements.

I think history indicates that people, as often as not, are not always able to spot great literature when they see it. Melville's publisher made five hundred copies of "Moby Dick." Only fifty sold in Melville's lifetime. Even an experienced artist can be unsure of whether he's on the right track or not. For instance, Jack Nicholson showed up to work on the set of "As Good As It Gets" one day and shocked the producer by offering to leave the project without pay. He thought his performance wasn't working. The Academy thought otherwise and gave him the award for best actor.

Right now, I'm reading "No Country for Old Men." It's mesmerizing. Yet there is no formal backstory. One needs to pick that up as one goes along. There's no traditional description of landscape or descriptions of what people are doing with a cigarette or cup of coffee. No descriptions of interiors not absolutely essential to the plot.

All of these considerations tell me that a writer, if he can, is far better off not relying upon the opinions of a publisher. If a writer knows that his work is headed toward or within the realm he wants it to be, he's been true to his own vision--and nobody can take that away from him. Joseph Conrad proved that. He left a stunning body of work behind him, each book a piece of art in its own way--and he never wavered from his vision of what he wanted to write about or the style in which he wanted to tell it. His style is unique in literature. He was mostly popular with fellow writers in his day, and even know, if not for "Heart of Darkness," he wouldn't be very well known--no more so than Ford Madox Ford.

.
 
Last edited:

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
9,682
65,192
59
sweden
We seem to have switched positions on the subject of studying literature. I've maintained that a formal study of literary elements is necessary in the sense of it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. As you've mentioned, it's possible for an alert person to catch all of this on his own. But a formal study indicates that someone really has become familiar with elements.

I think history indicates that people, as often as not, are not always able to spot great literature when they see it. Melville's publisher made five hundred copies of "Moby Dick." Only fifty sold in Melville's lifetime. Even an experienced artist can be unsure of whether he's on the right track or not. For instance, Jack Nicholson showed up to work on the set of "As Good As It Gets" one day and shocked the producer by offering to leave the project without pay. He thought his performance wasn't working. The Academy thought otherwise and gave him the award for best actor.

Right now, I'm reading "No Country for Old Men." It's mesmerizing. Yet there is no formal backstory. One needs to pick that up as one goes along. There's no traditional description of landscape or descriptions of what people are doing with a cigarette or cup of coffee. No descriptions of interiors not absolutely essential to the plot.

All of these considerations tell me that a writer, if he can, is far better off not relying upon the opinions of a publisher. If a writer knows that his work is headed toward or within the realm he wants it to be, he's been true to his own vision--and nobody can take that away from him. Joseph Conrad proved that. He left a stunning body of work behind him, each book a piece of art in its own way--and he never wavered from his vision of what he wanted to write about or the style in which he wanted to tell it. His style is unique in literature. He was mostly popular with fellow writers in his day, and even know, if not for "Heart of Darkness," he wouldn't be very well known--no more so than Ford Madox Ford.

.
We seem to have veered off the subject again but that often happens here. I think it is the term formal study that i disagree with. To write it is obviously good to read different sorts of literature and thereby get familiar with different angles to writing. But you don't need to study it. You can of course do it if it fits your temper. But i don't feel it is necessary. You can become a good, perhaps even great writer by just reading and writing. Trying and trying again. And i think great literature spans many genres, including SF and Fantasy. Of course you find a lot of bad writers but there are really good ones to. The same with the classics, sure they are classic but that doesn't mean they are great. Some are and some are not. What is considered great is very much an opinion and a signal of the times taste. For example, during a big part of the seventh century shakespeare was not played and almost forgotten. In his time and now he is raised to the skies. "Great literature" is a very relative term. It varies with time, person, and place on the globe. It is not something fixed in stone.