A CS thread on why poetry isn’t popular made me wonder about the popularity of the authors studied in literature class. In the 19th century, did most literate people read these authors? Did you see workingmen break open the latest book from Dickens or Wordsworth? How much did the reading tastes of the upper classes (the people who wrote most of literary history) and the masses differ? Were there a lot of “serious” authors read then whom history has decided weren’t that good after all?
It depends, obviously. SOME writers who were acclaimed and successful in their day are forgotten, and some writers who were obscure and penniless in their own time are acclaimed today.
On the other hand, in the 19th century, Charles Dickens was a huge star. His serials were like soap operas in America. Seriously, people would gather by the docksides waiting to find out what happened in the latest installment of “The Olde Curiosity Shoppe.” When he made public appearances to read from his work, he drew huge crowds.
When Oscar Wilde traveled to the Old American West, he drew huge crowds, even among ordinary miners and cowboys. Again, quite a star.
Moving to Cafe Society.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Mark Twain was popular enough to make a fortune as a writer, lose it, and make another fortune as a public speaker. He was also highly regarded enough to be received by presidents and royalty and receive an honorary doctorate from Oxford.
Alexander Dumas’ books sold so well that pretty much the only thing that kept Dumas writing was the fact that he could go through money at amazing speeds. But any time he’d go broke, he’d just write off a new chapter (they were published serially in the newspapers) and then go off to party some more on the profits.
Can anyone explain to me why it was common in the 19th century to publish popular fiction in three volumes, even when the book just ran to, say, thee hundred pages in total. Was this some moneymaking ploy by the publishers, or was it a way for the ordinary man in the street to be able to afford a book by buying it in parts?
I’m not sure if this fits a breakdown like that, but I’ve heard that some of Dickins’ classics were originally published essentially on a chapter by chapter serial version, in magazines, (thought not really like what we would think of as magazines today,) and then collected once the story was done.
It probably had something to do with making the expense fit into an 'ordinary man’s budget, but also was just part of the culture of the time. We have something else that currently fits into the ‘get a little bit at a time, and then buy the whole thing later’ - prime time television. 
Before the arrival of television or movies, I can see fiction magazines filling the same role: for the literate ordinary man in the street at least.
(The above may include WAGs)
Oscar Wilde wasn’t a fan.
Thanks for the above answers. I have also found some more information here
I suppose this format was favoured by the circulating libraries who could, in effect, lend out the same book to three people at the same time.
The three-volume model was a big problem for the hero of Grub Street by George Gissing – an excellent novel about writing and publishing in the late 1800’s.
Maybe that’s why relatively few Victorian writers are still being read. There had to be a lot of padding to accommodate that requirement. You might not notice if you read volume one and waited months for volume two – you’d just be glad to continue with the story. And volume two must have rehashed volume one for the forgetful reader.
Anybody know the titles of some three-volume novels that are still in print? Did Dickens write some?
Emma by Jane Austin was written in three volumes. An inscribed first-edition has just sold for a record price
Trollope was huge in his day.
Nitpick: That was Jane Austen.
Sorry, you are correct.
Actually, Twain was doing public speaking at about the same time he was being recognized countrywide as an author. The two went hand in hand. He describes his first speaking engagements in San Francisco and in New York well enough, and it was LONG before he became wealthy. But it’s true that he had to do a lot more publ;ic speaking (and writing) to recoup his losses later in life, finally pulling himself out of the hole he’d dug himself into (although he had help with the pulling out from Henry H. Rogers)