The Truth Unfolds: Objective Evaluation of Art

When enjoying a work of art, is it ever possible to pursue an objective evaluation, without any influence of one’s personality at all? And if so, to what extent? How do we judge what merit, if any, a work of art has?

If you’ve ever discussed a work of art with your friends or family, chances are somebody proclaimed at some point that art is subjective anyway. What’s the point of discussing it if the immediate perception varies from individual to individual?

At first, there seems to be merit in this approach. As an individual, certain works may speak to us more than others; one person’s poem is another one’s gibberish. What purpose could there be in discussing something which will vary in its perception from person to person?

Moreover, such discussions often stay firmly away from discussing any form of technique, instead concentrating on ‘the message’. If a person believes firmly in the underlying philosophy of the artwork, that person is much more likely to consider it a success, regardless of its technical qualities.

But these approaches are inherently problematic. First, while the perception of an artwork can vary, there are real-life differences which make one painting/poem/movie more powerful than another – things like technique, how well thought out the idea is, how it is presented. Second, evaluating an artwork along the lines of the idea alone is flawed, since the evaluation will result in the viewer merely feeling confirmed in his or her beliefs, rather than actually bringing something new to the debate and highlighting why something works.

‘The Canon’

What makes a work canonical? A cynic may view it as a form of conspiracy, whereby a circle of elitists makes a point of suppressing any dissenting voices and tries to maintain those writers who represent a certain group. But this hardly acknowledges why people actively seek out, say, Sappho’s poetry or George Eliot’s novels even centuries after their deaths and why they were popular in the first place. Or why, for example, Yeats’s plays aren’t performed particularly often, whereas his poetry is widely regarded as some of the most powerful literature ever written.

That’s not to say that many highly talented artists don’t get lost throughout the centuries. Seeking to revive the interest in forgotten artist is most certainly worth it. There are even cases when some established writers may use their influence to suppress others. But to see this as the norm, rather than the exception, is to undermine the sheer beauty of Shakespeare’s tragedies, Bach’s concertos etc.

So while we can hardly say that ‘the canon’ represents the greatest art ever created, we can say that among the canon are some of the greatest works ever created. So how to we establish what is great art? We can probably approach it along two lines: the idea and the execution.

Execution

The execution in creating a work of art refers to anything related to technique. The palette or brushstroke in a painting, the sound and rhythm in a poem, the shots and pacing in a film are all aspects of this. Along these lines, it is probably the easiest to make a strong point for the ‘objective quality’ of a work of art.

This also includes knowing when to break a rule. This, too, requires strong knowledge of the technique being broken, and how to break it to create a certain effect. Just creating the artwork without knowledge of any rules at all results in a convoluted mess, and I know of no great artist who hasn’t been thoroughly interested in technique at least to some extent.

The trouble with this is that most people don’t have enough time, energy or sheer (nerdy) interest in technique to get to grips with it, resulting in few people arguing from a technical standpoint – meaning that the only aspect which can truly be judged objectively goes unnoticed by most.

Idea

The idea – the underlying philosophy, politics, ‘moral’ – is the other aspect which critics often put to scrutiny, and it is here that we find it difficult to make an objective statement. Certainly – again regarding the technique – we can discuss how well an idea has been transferred to the reader via the artwork, but putting that aside, how does one evaluate an idea?

A Marxist may frown upon anything written by a conservative; a liberal may frown upon anything composed by a medieval writer. A firm critic of Emerson may find it extremely difficult to take anything by Walt Whitman seriously.

I suppose the success of any objective evaluation of the idea can only emerge through the open mindedness of the observer. Being open to new ideas means you’re more likely to get joy out of perceiving something you generally disagree with – but that is obviously difficult, if not impossible, to embrace completely. And, obviously, even with a good knowledge of technique, it doesn’t mean that one is capable of throwing one’s subjective opinion out of the window, either.

So… is it possible to evaluate art objectively?

Well, to a certain extent I would say yes. By ignoring the ‘message’ of the work of art entirely, one can definitely make a good and well-founded argument regarding the technical quality. But that doesn’t guarantee that the artwork will be enjoyed by all equally – or even by anyone, for that matter. A perfectly executed poem may still be incomprehensible or just plain unpleasant to read by merit of having less insight than a tax declaration.

The trouble with evaluating art purely objectively is that it’s… well, just plain uninteresting. Knowing how a certain technique is working doesn’t necessarily mean you can ‘feel’ it for yourself. The subjective experience must go into the evaluation, otherwise it isn’t useful – we are human, after all, and therefore want to know why we experience what, not the why without the experience.

Is objective evaluation even necessary?

‘Why do you even want to discuss art objectively? Do you just want to go out of your way to condemn certain artists?’ No, to the latter question. The purpose of discussing art in an objective way isn’t to create hierarchies, lists and the like. On the contrary, it’s to get to grips with the artwork and to understand why and how it is achieving its effects.

What’s the alternative? Viewing it as untouchable, as a sacred relic which may not be considered critically by anyone. It merely exists to be admired, and that’s the end of it. This is both unproductive and cowardly – since it evades the discussion – and results in a form of idealisation of the artist. But nobody is perfect, artists among them; putting their art up for scrutiny can help us see how they did what, and thus help us create more great art – or rediscover lost art with the same tools and see how they are just as powerful.

Moreover, without critical engagement – as objective as possible – with the work of art, it becomes difficult for us to gain a greater understanding of it. If you wish to know more about something, you question it – and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Closing thoughts

In the end, viewing a work of art entirely objectively isn’t impossible, but not necessarily desirable. However, that doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t discuss aspects which can be evaluated objectively, since it feeds into the appreciation of the subjective aspects of art – neither can exist without the other, and using them to achieve a greater understanding and interest in the art can help anyone in their endeavour to grow.

What do you think? Is art purely subjective? Am I wrong? Then please leave a comment below and tell me why. Did you like the article? Then please share it on the social media of your choice by clicking one of the tender buttons below.

How Useful Are Classifications?

Renaissance, Romanticism, Modernism: we often label any given movement, artist or work according to an overreaching label for the sake of classification. But how useful are these terms, if at all? How much authority should be given to them?

It’s 2nd August 1492. Two farmers meet, somewhere in Spain, after a hard day’s labour. The crops don’t look promising; a famine is threatening their lives. Everything looks dark and gloomy. Together they pray for the love of God to give them some form of consolation.

The following day, Columbus discovers America. The farmers, as usual, go about their daily lives, but things are changing. They feel a bit wiser than the previous day, and more awake to novelties. When they meet in the evening, one of them says to the other, ‘Thank heavens we live in the Renaissance! Wasn’t it dreadful in the Medieval period?’

Needless to say, the farmers from our little story never existed, but it demonstrates that using common classifications for a work of art, artist, or Zeitgeist, are not always particularly useful. It’s not as though the rise of a new philosophical or artistic movement made any immediate difference to the way people felt. No – to them, things would probably feel much the same.

This problem isn’t even limited to ‘ideological’ awakenings, but stark historical changes as well. What difference would the fall of the Western Roman Empire have made to a Roman peasant living in the southern tip of the Italian peninsula? Probably not much.

However, while using such classifications doesn’t come without its severe issues, they still have remarkable benefits. So, to help you make up your own mind about whether you think they make any sense, here are a few ideas for and against using classifications.

Lack of historical consensus

Most historians place the beginning of the Renaissance at the beginning of the 14th century. Others name the discovery of America. Others, again, place it at the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans in 1453. The problem, obviously, is that experts never seem to reach a consensus.

But they also disagree about ‘sub-periods’ included in a particular period. When was the Medieval period? Do we include the Anglo-Saxons in it? How far into the Renaissance do we extend it? If a poet like Yeats uses tropes from the Romantics, does that mean the Romantic period can last until the early-mid 20th century?

Also, how do we treat artists, philosophers and such who don’t adhere to the general tropes of a classified movement although they fit into the correct time period? Do they belong to another? Doesn’t that mean that the definition of the classification should change, since it obviously also includes others?

The problem lies in the fact that in any given time period or movement, there are too many individuals, many of whom have their own idiosyncratic ideals and ideas as to what their movement should include. Therefore, theorists can take their arguments in any number of directions in order to make a case for their own personal interpretation of how we should classify X and Y. There is no true or false answer; just perspectives from extremely different backgrounds.

Lack of fundamental impact on lived experiences

For the most part, the overarching labels for certain philosophical or artistic movements wouldn’t affect the general population. Michaelangelo wouldn’t have thought of himself as a Renaissance man as much as an Italian living in the late 15th / early 16th century; Dickens wouldn’t have considered himself as a Victorian, but as a Brit living in the 19th century.

That’s not to say that these movements had no impact whatsoever on the general population, but that they didn’t to the extent that one might think. For most people the transition to a new period would have seemed seamless – with the exception being large-scale events, of course, such as the French revolution.

As such, we need to acknowledge that classifying certain people as members of a certain group isn’t particularly useful, since to them the transition wouldn’t have been of immediate consequence. Yes, they would feel progress and change, but not from one day to another, and not in the sense that they’d see it as the result of a particular philosophical or artistic movement.

Lack of philosophical consensus

This goes back to my first point. There are probably no two philosophers or artists who shared the same ideas within the same movement. This is even more evident in rather broad labels, such as the ‘Modernists’. What would the Harlem Renaissance have in common with Dada or the Surrealists? Probably not much.

Finding common ground, therefore, can prove to be neigh impossible. With a movement as large as Modernism, we soon reach a point where we can locate different schools, all Modernist, which have virtually nothing in common. In other cases, some movements were even created as a rejection of a former school with the same overall label (such as Vorticism versus Futurism).

And yes, the differences among smaller movements also make classifications difficult. Whistler was only a part-time Impressionist; Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s later Pre-Raphaelite paintings were much more idealistic than the movement’s earlier focus on hyper-realism would demand.

Need for taxonomy

One strong reason for using such classifications is our innate need for taxonomy. This is certainly the case with the Sciences, where we need to define certain objects as precisely as possible in order to understand and contextualise them. While artistic and philosophical movements are highly complex – as we have seen – it’s not entirely impossible.

The ideal thing to do would be just to identify the period and the name, e.g. T.S. Eliot – American-born poet in the first half of the twentieth century. But that’s quite a mouthful – so we can say he was a Modernist poet, although we haven’t defined Modernism yet (and good luck with that!).

On the other hand, it would probably be possible to cite overarching labels, subcategories etc. – e.g. Modernity (the modernisation of the Western World) – Modernism (all philosophical movements stemming from Modernity) – Vorticism (a particular movement within Modernism) – Wyndham Lewis (an artist who was part of the Vorticists). Setting this up for each artist and philosopher would, of course, take a long time to do and be of questionable use, but for people obsessed with taxonomy – why not? But yes, it still doesn’t solve the problem of artists changing throughout their lives and occasionally switching movements (if they even see themselves as part of a school).

Need for simplification

Related to the above point, having categories, classifications or labels makes it easier to understand what any given person is talking about. If I declare that Langston Hughes was a Modernist, others probably know that I’m talking about the time period and very rough classification, not that I am saying he has a lot in common with Pound or Williams.

In that sense, it saves time. When talking to people casually about art you’re (usually) not approximating a precise definition for everything, so using simple and wide-reaching labels for things serves one simple purpose – simplification. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this. Although it’s not ideal using classifications, it makes our lives easier, enables quicker and simpler communication, and therefore does very well serve a decent purpose.

Closing thoughts

As we have seen, classifications are of limited use, but not completely useless. It’s always important to remember that they serve the purpose of assisting you in identifying ‘things’, not shoehorning those ‘things’ into a box. As such, all these movements and periods are in a state of flow, not blocks which follow each other directly.

Do you agree or disagree? Can you think of other arguments for or against using classifications? Then why not leave a comment? Otherwise, if you liked this post, why not share it on social media? Then please click on one of the tender buttons below.

Art for art’s sake: James Abbott McNeill Whistler

Aesthete. Idiosyncratic charmer who had a habit of making enemies. Sometimes friend of Oscar Wilde’s. Sometimes impressionist, sometimes advocate of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. James Abbott McNeill Whistler had a large range of sources and reformed his style many times throughout his career. But what makes his art so appealing to this day?

Like so many American artists of the late 19th century, Whistler felt drawn to Europe. Due to his father’s work, he spent many years in various countries during his youth, including Russia and the United Kingdom. After moving to Paris in 1855 to study art, he never returned to the United States.

Although he travelled across Europe multiple times and sought inspiration from various locations, his heart always seemed to be drawn to London. Consequently, he painted many of his most famous works there, undoubtedly inspired by the variety of artistic movements working in London around that time.

Despite the range of sources he took for inspiration, many critics place him firmly within the aestheticist camp. As such, he firmly believed in the gospel of doing ‘art for art’s sake’ and befriended many prominent decadents, among them Oscar Wilde – but he also had a habit of making enemies. After a lecture by Wilde, Whistler believed the dandy was poking fun at him, resulting in a lasting feud. Allegedly Basil, the painter who is murdered in Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray, is partly an ironic depiction of Whistler.

Not only an aestheticist

But Whistler was also acquainted with artists from other schools, such as the Impressionists (Monet, Manet and Degas), the Pre-Raphaelites (Dante Gabriel Rossetti), the French symbolists (Stephane Mallarme and Marcel Schwob), and many more. This culminated in a style which is idiosyncratic, fascinating, and unquestionably his.

Unlike the typical focus on high realism of his contemporaries, Whistler always emphasised the impression of art and believed that all art should strive towards the conditions of music. Hence, many of his paintings are titled with terms from music theory – such as nocturne or symphony.

Whistler emphasised simplicity and the economy of means, the importance of technique, and harmony. He insisted that the artist should interpret what he saw rather than depict it ‘as it is’. He was also a strong theorist, publishing a range of material on art theory and advocating his vision to the best possible degree.

But it won’t do to discuss an artist in theory, so here are three of his Nocturnes which I find particularly engaging. Let’s take a look, shall we?

Nocturne: Blue and Silver – Chelsea

This is the first of Whistler’s popular Nocturnes, painted in 1871. Rather than depicting a realistic vision of the Thames, he tried to capture the overwhelming beauty of the Thames by night. By titling it ‘nocturne’ he separated the work from any sense of subjectivity it may have had from the painter and makes it entirely artistic through his use of technique.

The view shows a section of Chelsea with Chelsea Old Church on the right. The details are kept to a bare minimum, and yet it unquestionably evokes the sense of the river and the night time. You get a sense that the city never really sleeps, as indicated by the individual lights which brave the otherwise pervading grey and blue of the scene.

Nocturne in Black and Gold – The Falling Rocket

This slightly later painting from 1875 depicts the Cremorne Gardens, one of the old pleasure gardens which have since closed their gates. It is the final of the London Nocturnes and displays a firework display in a foggy night sky, again with little detail but individual streaks of light breaking the otherwise dark palette.

Through the lack of clear lines, Whistler makes it difficult for us to distinguish between the individual aspects of the painting, but his use of light, shades and especially the smoke nevertheless marks out the general layout. You feel a slight sense of bleakness as you look upon the painting with its dark colours, but the surprising explosion of the rockets wakes you to a moment of realising the beauty of the scene.

Nocturne: Blue and Gold – Old Battersea Bridge

Here we have another Nocturne from the period around 1872-1875, this time of the Battersea Bridge across the Thames. Sadly, the bridge has now been replaced by a more modern one. Whistler is more interested in detail, so it is possible to make out the Chelsea Old Church on the left and the fireworks in the background.

Again, the dark palette makes the entire scene feel tranquil and quiet, if it wasn’t for the firework display. The fisher in the foreground seems to be going quietly about his business and the Thames is generally surrounded by an aura of solitude. It demonstrates the diversity of the city – some people are still awake to celebrate with fireworks, whereas others are quietly starting their daily labour. The whole painting, as such, oozes atmosphere and invites you to spend the night time roaming around the Thames yourself.

Closing thoughts

As you can see, with Whistler you can often find paintings depicting one area and one time of day, with similar moods, which yet all tell their own story and give a different aspect of one big picture. I hope you find him as engaging as I do, and that you found this article informative. Do you have anything to add, any personal impression about the artist or his work? Then please leave a comment. Otherwise, why not share it on social media? Then please click on one of the tender buttons below.

Why reading is important

You may have noticed that I have a thing for reading. If you are just starting out and want to know some of the benefits or wish to convert someone with a book-o-phobia of reading, you may want to find justification in the following text.

First of all, Happy New Year! I hope you had a wonderful festive season and were able to relax with your loved ones. To start off 2019 with a lightweight and yet important topic, I would like to discuss some of the most important reasons why you should start reading.

I mean, many people talk about the importance of it – but why exactly? What concrete benefits do we get when we indulge in a book? After all, in a quickly changing world where technology offers instantaneous entertainment and pleasure, one needs to know why one should dedicate so much time to a hobby which will take longer to deliver.

Therefore, I’ve compiled a list of some of the most important reasons to read. Without much further ado, here we go!

Reading can teach you things

This should be obvious, but reading can teach you a whole range of things. Even in fiction, you may be confronted with details as to how particular things are done, or it may give you a metaphorical representation of real-life situations you may find useful to read about ‘in theory’.

The reason why reading is an effective method to learn stuff is because it forces you to slow down and concentrate. Rather than half-listening to a lecture or falling asleep while watching a documentary, your brain is active as you decipher the meaning of a given text in front of you. Furthermore, while reading you learn ‘alongside’, i.e. without searching for the knowledge, you nevertheless get it, which can stick in your brain much more effortlessly.

Reading improves your use of language

Another obvious one but reading greatly improves your language use – not just in terms of vocabulary, but also in grammar, style and, syntax. You learn new words and new ways of forming sentences and thus get to know the whole potential of any given language.

Considering we read, write and speak every day of our lives, this is obviously incredibly important. If your articulation is more impressive and comes across as more elegant, you are bound to have more success in life than if you utter strange guttural sounds whenever someone asks you for something.

Reading helps you focus and concentrate

Ironically, one of the main reasons some people dislike reading is also one of its main benefits: focus and concentration. Unlike films where you can just switch off (although you may lose touch and not find your way in), books require your undivided attention.

Regular reading will train your brain to attain and maintain focus. By staring at a page and watching how words form sentences and create a whole story, you are teaching yourself to remain sturdy and concentrate on what you are reading. These are skills increasingly lost in our tech-driven world.

Reading encourages your creativity

Reading enhances your ability to think creatively and rekindles your imagination. This is based on the fact that words are, well, just words, rather than concrete sounds or images. But as the text forms a story (in fiction, at least), your imagination creates an entire world in your mind.

‘So what’, I hear you say? Well, thinking creatively and using your imagination is another key skill required during your entire life. Problem-solving skills, abstraction, thinking ‘outside the box’ are all linked to your creative intelligence. And reading will help you!

Reading is cheap and fun entertainment

For those who are already into reading it may seem more obvious than to newcomers, but reading is unbelievably entertaining – and also unbelievably cheap. Buying books second-hand or borrowing them from the library are only two ways to get hours of entertainment for little or nothing.

In our day and age when we have access to the internet, free or cheap reading material is even more abundant. Getting tired while reading on-screen? Then buy an ebook-reader – they are comparatively cheap and imitate the feeling of reading a printed book. There’s really no excuse; reading has never been cheaper than now.

Reading can provide room for bonding

You know how people bond over similar interests, like smokers always seem to hang out together? Well, the same can be said for readers. But instead of asking what films you’ve seen recently, you can now discuss your newest finds in the world of literature.

Talking about books with your peers is great exercise for your mind. Not only are you practicing your memory, but you are also gaining a greater understanding of the book through your conversation partner’s approach to it.

Closing thoughts

As you can see, the benefits of reading are manifold. There are virtually no downsides to picking up a book and indulging in this great pastime. Just make sure not to lose yourself completely when you get addicted and forget to live.

Did you enjoy the article? Know of any other good reasons to read? Then why not leave a comment in the section below? Otherwise, why not share it on the social media of your choice? Then click on one of the tender buttons below.

It’s Christmas – Get into the spirit with these top reads

At long last, it’s Christmas. Time for mince pies, Christmas pudding, mulled wine – and heart-warming Christmas tales from across the centuries. Here’s a list of some of the best to get you right in the mood.

I’m not going to lie: I love Christmas. From the seasonal food and drink to the bright-lighted decorations, from the special Christmas offers to the Christmas carols, everything is wonderful. Is it superficial and just a lot of commercialism? Perhaps in part, but I do think there’s something underlying the holiday season which is a bit more genuine.

Especially when it comes to our Christmas stories, there’s been a good number of great ones throughout the years. Some come particularly close to capturing ‘what Christmas is actually about’. They’re usually heart-warming, fun and endearing. Not to mention most of these stories have brilliant film adaptations, meaning that you can enjoy both reading and watching them!

So without much further ado, here’s my list of some of the best Christmas classics to read this December!

Valentine Davies – Miracle on 34th Street

Probably better known as the 1947 film of the same name, Davies wrote this short novella after the script for the film. You can see why – it’s an endearing tale, and it earned him an Academy Award for Best Story, and it proved to be hugely popular. There’s no question about it: this film is very ‘Christmasy’.

It tells the story of a little girl who is highly doubtful of the myth surrounding Santa Claus. Her mother hires a man called Kris Kringle to pose with kids at a store – but he claims to be the real Santa. Needless to say this leads to the threat of institutionalisation, but the girl and her mother come to his aid. It’s moving, funny and entertaining, and reading it is just as good as watching the film. Just avoid the remake…

J. R. R. Tolkien – The Father Christmas Letters

It’s endearing to what lengths parents will go to ensure their children have a lovely time at Christmas. J. R. R. Tolkien with no exception, and starting in 1920 he wrote a ‘letter from Father Christmas’ each year until 1942 for his own. They were released posthumously for the whole world to enjoy.

The stories aren’t always told from Father Christmas’s perspective, but sometimes from the perspective of his secretary (an elf, as one might quote rightly expect). They narrate the adventures of Father Christmas, his helpers, a North Polar Bear and his cubs. Some of the stories even feature references to WWII and battles against goblins. The Letters are imaginative and enjoyable, and the story of their creation is absolutely moving – earning them a spot on this list.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle – The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle

Oh my god! It’s a Sherlock Holmes story – set around Christmas time! What more could you get? …well, to be fair, as far as exploring Christmas itself goes, this is probably not the strongest entry on this list, but it does contain Arthur Conan Doyle-typical depictions of Victorian/Edwardian London during Christmas time.

It’s probably best to think of this as the late 19th-century equivalent to modern-day Christmas TV specials (such as Dr Who, Downton Abbey etc.) – and it’s brilliantly entertaining. It tells the story of how a priceless blue carbuncle is stolen and a reformed thief is believed to be the culprit. It’s even one of the more humorous Sherlock Holmes stories with plenty of witty remarks and hilarious situations. Great for a light read.

Dr Seuss – How the Grinch Stole Christmas!

I must confess, I’m not the biggest Dr Seuss fan around. It’s just not something I grew up with, and as an adult, while I find some of his rhymes playful and enjoyable, they just don’t do much for me. Nevertheless, I can hardly ignore how important How the Grinch Stole Christmas! is in the world of children’s literature, and I do enjoy this one quite a bit.

The Grinch is a bit like a cartoony version of Ebenezer Scrooge and plots to steal everyone’s presents to ruin their Christmas, only to realise that they still enjoy it by being there for each other. It’s genuinely quite heart-warming to see him realise ‘the true meaning of Christmas’ – and the original cartoon adaptation is almost perfect. Certainly a must-read at some point, especially with/for younger children.

Hans Christian Andersen – The Little Match Girl

Not so much an actual Christmas story as a story set around Christmas, this is no doubt the most depressing of all on this list. It tells the story of a little girl selling matches in winter who ends up freezing to death. She uses her matches in a final act of trying to warm herself and sees some endearing visions of a better life.

Hans Christian Andersen’s writing is amazing, and this story is no exception. There are probably few fairy tales that evoke emotions as well as this, and it certainly makes people want to give money to charity – an excellent achievement by any standard, especially for a Christmas story.

Charles Dickens – Christmas Stories (incl. The Chimes and A Christmas Carol)

I hate to be predictable, but I’d easily put Charles Dickens on the top of this list on any given day. After all, he did practically invent some of the Christmas traditions we still celebrate today (at least in the West), and his stories are moving, funny, astonishingly well-written and all-around just enjoyable.

While there are quite a few good ones to choose from, predictably A Christmas Carol is by far the greatest, and perhaps the most famous Christmas story of all time (well… apart from THE Christmas story). Not only that, but it’s also an excellent story to adapt for television – which you probably already know. I always get excited when seeing new adaptations and like to watch a new one every year.

Closing Thoughts

I hope you found this list enjoyable and will seek out at least some of these to read this December. Christmas is a time of joy to the world and has many great elements to it, and these stories all capture the spirit of the season excellently well. Merry Christmas!

Did you like the list? Think of a book I should have added? Then leave a comment in the comment section below! Otherwise, if you liked it, why not share it on social media? Then click on one of the tender buttons below according to your favourite choice.