After finishing the lengthy novel “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” by Harriet Beecher Stowe, we surprisingly, were given new reading material that was extremely short: Daisy Miller: A Study by Henry James, which is only forty three pages long. Today we were assigned to begin reading this novella, specifically the first three paragraphs, and analyze it. The most interesting and obvious thing about the three paragraphs was that Henry James loved to write extremely long sentences and describe surroundings in a rather dull structural manner. There are a couple examples from the excerpts which especially portray James’s monotonous illustrations.
” There are, indeed, many hotels, for the entertainment of tourists is the business of the place, which, as many travelers will remember, is seated upon the edge of a remarkably blue lake—a lake that it behooves every tourist to visit. “
This is just the second sentence of the novella, and already we can tell that Henry James is a huge fan of commas and long unnecessary descriptions. The downside of authors like this, is that once an individual begins reading a sentence, he or she gets bored and loses track of what is being told or described in the phrase. In other words, lengthy sentences and descriptions cause many to become uninterested.
“But at the “Trois Couronnes,” it must be added, there are other features that are much at variance with these suggestions: neat German waiters, who look like secretaries of legation; Russian princesses sitting in the garden; little Polish boys walking about held by the hand, with their governors; a view of the sunny crest of the Dent du Midi and the picturesque towers of the Castle of Chillon.”
It’s easy to understand what James is trying to describe here; however, it is somewhat bothersome that the sentence is almost a paragraph long and contains too many commas. Honestly, James should have made his portrayals of people and places a bit simpler.
Although the wording and phrasing in this novella seem too wordy so far, chances are that Daisy Miller is actually a wonderful novel, but not because of how the author uses his words. The way the introduction was planned and written is very simple and makes an easy opening statement which causes the story line to be smooth and flowing. In other words: As monotonous and outdated James’ means of writing style is, the way he structures the story line (so far) seems decent enough.
American Literature 
Charming analytical deductions, but I’d like to touch on a few things.
Firstly, foremostly, and finally; “extremely long sentences”, “dull structural manner” and “monotonous illustrations”. Unfortunately, here you are far from the truth. The “structural manner” James uses in his sentences does not deserve the adjective “dull” for any reason whatsoever. You may stab at this and retaliate with “your perceived truth is just your opinion”, but the fact remains that there are much, MUCH duller (and longer) sentence structures out there. For instance, take a classic Samuel Clarke:
“I shall not argue against it from the supposed impossibility of infinite succession, barely and absolutely considered in itself; for a reason which shall be mentioned hereafter: but if we consider such an infinite progression, as one entire endless series of beings can have no cause from without, of its existence; because in it are supposed to be included all things that are or ever were in the universe: and ’tis plain it can have no reason within itself, of its existence; because no one being in this infinite succession is supposed to be self-existent or necessary (which is the only ground or reason of existence of any thing, that can be imagined within the thing itself, as with presently more fully appear), but every one dependent on the foregoing: and where no part is necessary; ’tis manifest the whole cannot be necessary; absolute necessity of existence, not being an outward, relative, and accidental determination; but an inward and essential property of the nature of the thing which so exists.”
That’s one sentence. I would venture to say that even this excerpt is only monotonous in its (or rather Clarke’s) employment of semicolons. In popular literature, there are hundreds and hundreds of books that contain frivolously long sentences like the one above, though perhaps not as extensive. People have no problem reading such sentences. To quote you –
“The downside of authors like this, is that once an individual begins reading a sentence, he or she gets bored and loses track of what is being told or described in the phrase.”
It may be that through this statement you are branding the common, literate individual of not being capable to keep track of what is happening in a long, complex sentence. So how do you explain the glorious success of the likes of Dickens or Tolkien?
Back to Daisy Miller. You pointed out in your second paragraph that James must be a “huge fan of commas and long unnecessary descriptions.” “Unnecessary descriptions” implicates that the extent to which James described things was not called for and that his descriptions were not needed.
So, by saying something is “unnecessary” one is saying that the author could have left it out. Ok, but what is “a necessary amount” in this case? Enough descriptive, sensory imagery to please the reader? Enough material for the development of the story? Or perhaps a sufficient amount of words to make up a paragraph? If we’re talking about the development of the plot, some sensory details are obviously not essential. However, if we’re talking about James’s goal of writing Daisy Miller (which could range from earning money to personal satisfaction) we cannot make an accurate guess as to what is needed and what is not needed for the achievement of his goal, because we do not know James’s exact goal (you’d really have to be inside his mind). Essentially, the problem here is that as readers, we cannot deem what is needed or required. We can have our opinions-
“Seriously Hank, you’re gonna keep that? ‘Wandering about in the warm starlight like an indolent sylph’? That’s so gay.”
-but stating that an author too often alludes to the fact that the word “brothel” is a connotation of “elephants” in his book is only saying that we think his discretion in the matter is not appropriate.
In response to the illusive lie of “monotonous illustrations”, refer to aforementioned quotation.
Holy shnazzle