This may be a bit on the rambling side, but recent reviews I've read of other people's works, and other writing sessions I've been to, have gotten me thinking about this. 

My writing as a whole is definitely shaped by more classic authors - Jules Verne, Sir Anthony Hope, Rafael Sabatini, Robert Louis Stevenson, Alexandre Dumas, Sir Walter Scott, and others - than contemporary authors (it doesn't help that many of my favorite works by these authors are historical adventure ficiton, a genre that I myself favor as a writer). 

 There are certain things I've seen writers around here - myself included - get criticized for: omniscient narrators, the handling of exposition, or just certain stylistic elements that I have frequently come across in works by these authors.  This is not in any way a disparagement of such critiques.  After all, literary tastes and styles have changed, and it's fair to expect modern writers to write for modern readers (not to mention agents), not Victorian-era audiences.  Also, a number of classic writers published their works in serial format for periodicals, and they were paid by the word, which is why they sometimes tended to be overly verbose.

I just wonder if any of you consider it to be a liability to be influenced by older works as opposed to contemporary works (or at least a combination of both) - or if I'm just imagining it and the influence of classic writers has nothing to do with it. 

--edited by Ian Nathaniel Cohen on 5/26/2014, 6:27 PM--

I don't think classic writers are a bad influence, but like any influence their appeal to a given editor will change with time.   Like you, I've been influenced by writers of previous centuries (um...going back a LONG way.  My idea of classic writers would be mostly Greek and Roman.)  Those you've named are writers of romances (in the original meaning of the term, not the modern, so don't get upset.)  Exciting, adventurous tales set in exotic locations, painted in strong, brilliant colors.   It's possible to write exciting tales of adventure in exotic locations and combine that with some of the modern concepts of good fiction...you don't have to go all gray and beige and low-contrast.  In fact, a taste for color and adventure is a healthy counter to the flat, smudged grunge of one segment of modern writing. 

So as one of a multitude of influences, I think these writers are good for us in the 21st century.   But like a strong spice blend, they need mixing with other ingredients in a writer's creative soup kettle.   If all your influences come from any one type of writing, you risk becoming a paler copy of those who went before.  Become open to other influences as well, practice other techniques (staying in a deep interior viewpoint, for instance, or writing with sparse description rather than lush.)  You won't lose your love of the adventure tale, but you will acquire more tools and more insight so that yours will enrich that genre. 

Trust me, I know the original meaning of the word "romance," not to worry. 

I don't mean to sound like I don't read anything contemporary.  I actually have read some modern historical adventure fiction works, such as William Dietrich, J.D. Davies, Bernard Cornwell, and Arturo Perez-Reverte - I think I've read more books by Bernard Cornwell than any other author, if you don't count Walter Gibson's Shadow pulps.  But with the exception of Cornwell, I have a lot of issues with these modern writers - Perez-Reverte can devote pages to tangents and historical exposition, and he, Davies, and Dietrich are just too cynical for my tastes.  Even Cornwell can feel way too rushed at times, and his works have a tendency to stop suddenly.  I feel like they're good for learning what not to do stylistically, rather than what to do.

I guess that's something, but I don't know if it's all that helpful for my own writing.

--edited by Ian Nathaniel Cohen on 6/4/2014, 6:57 PM--

Perez-Reverte is one of my big favorites, too.  

But to go back to your original question:  I don't think classic writers are a bad influence on modern writers--I think they're a good moderating influence on some of the less interesting (to me) modern styles.   There are, however, people you may run into in critique groups and suchlike who have read one book of rules on writing and believe they have been handed Absolute Certainty with a bow tie on it.  Yes, editors have preferences...some more "modern" and some more "classic"...but if the work is good, some editor will be interested in it.   Fashions change, and change again.   So consider who's criticizing your work, and if possible (if it's people you know, not an agent or editor you don't want to pester), find out exactly why what they said they didn't like bothered them.   If it's "because so and so's book said so" then shrug it off, but it they say something like "Because I keep being confused about what's happening and where..." then that's a criticism to take seriously.  Sometimes people will quote "rules" and phrases they've seen or heard in reviews, when they actually do have a real reason for objecting to something but don't know a way to say it.