What is THE American novel?

[Bitterfly]

I don't particularly like the concept of "The Great American Novel", as that seems to be such a propaganda statement (I don't hear anyone mentioning the Great German novel, or the Great French novel, or The Great Canadian Novel, yet we all know the American term)

Maybe because they needed, not only to prove the greatness of their nation, but to establish their nation as something more than an ex(tra) European colony? If I remember well, there was a drive at the end of the 19th century to create a culture that would be distinct from the European one. For me, the quest for the typically American voice springs from an identity problem, one that didn't really exist for European nations. I wonder whether the same issue isn't apparent in other ex-colonised regions - the Caribbean, for instance, or the "négritude" movement in Africa and the Antilles.

[joseph90ie]

Lokasenna, you mention social constructs of Renaissance Europe. Man, that is not you talking. Whoever you're listening to or reading is feeding you swill and poisoning your individuality. I'm 28, and I remember with horror that I used to use those phrases you're using now - I used them up until the age of about 25, I think. That phrase about social constructs, are you honestly telling me it puts an image in your mind, something graspable and comprehensible in a plain, ordinary way? Because, if it can't be understood in such a way, then it's no business being in the mind in the first place. It's all rotten lies. Formal education can ruin a decent mind. Renaissance Europe? There was no such thing. There were people, absolutely no different to you or I in all their daily habits of farting and arguing and staring into space - there were people loving and living; no more, no less. All the other talk is to allow scholars waste paper and ink to make a living.

[JBI]

Maybe because they needed, not only to prove the greatness of their nation, but to establish their nation as something more than an ex(tra) European colony? If I remember well, there was a drive at the end of the 19th century to create a culture that would be distinct from the European one. For me, the quest for the typically American voice springs from an identity problem, one that didn't really exist for European nations. I wonder whether the same issue isn't apparent in other ex-colonised regions - the Caribbean, for instance, or the "négritude" movement in Africa and the Antilles.

This isn't the 1850s though - The States haven't been a colony for over 200 years. The concept of nationality, and The American way though, is still highly prevalent. I see what you are saying, but I think you just reinforce my point - such a concept is a mere political ploy.

Harold Innis worte:

IT is perhaps a unique characteristic of civilization that each civilization believes in its uniqueness and its superiority to other civilizations. Indeed this may be the meaning of culture - I.E., something which we have that others have not. IT is probably for this reason that writings on culture can be divided into those attempting to weaken other cultures and those attempting to strengthen their own. ("Industrialism and Cultural Values" , The Bias Of Communication, 132).

In truth, this makes sense within the context of American nationalism, and jingoist sentiment, which carries over to this day (though not as profoundly as it did earlier, and not as unanimously). The point though is, how dated is the concept - how dated is this image of America as a new Eden? I think American authors take enough issue with it - one thinks of Pynchon, DeLillo and McCarthy here - but the mere idea of one book encapsulating all of what America is, is no longer possible (or was it ever possible?) - someone is bound to be left out, and I'm sure we all know who it isn't going to be.

Seriously though, I don't want to pull out Daisy Miller again, and bring up the "I'm an American Boy" bit again, but I think that's the feeling behind these Best American Novel, or Best American short story, or Best American poems. Why not just read the best poems?

[kelby_lake]

I would call the Great Gatsby the greatest. Other serious candidates include The Scarlet Letter, Moby Dick, The Sun Also Rises, The Sound and the Fury, and The Grapes of Wrath.

Let's have Gatsby and Of Mice and Men

[Lokasenna]

hey Lokasenna! I don't know that we disagree. I think it's more a case of having conceptions which are so different, they don't contradict or clash, but are out of sight of one another, like we're not in the same solar system; as if it's not a question of who is closer to the light or the sun, but more like, we may be equally close to two altogether different suns in different systems. But that's euphemistic talk; we do disagree.

When you mention cultural background and stories not being able to exist beyond nationality and culture, I'm sure I agree; but I prefer to eschew those terms, since really, I never think they mean anything - they give me no clear images in my head when using those words and phrases. If language doesn't give me clear images, I steer clear of it and suspect humbug.

I never say a story or a character can exist outside anything or transcend anything - culture, or whatever the meaningless words might be. To say that we need to be aware of some of the details and history of the time to appreciate the truth of a story is simply not true. I know nothing of Spain, but understand Don Quixote, Sancho Panza - and their creator, Cervantes - I understand all these people like my next door neighbours of today. I see literally no difference between those characters of 400 years ago and the people I meet today: none whatsoever. If there were differences, I wouldn't read the book, because I would not be able to learn anything.

I don't know why you feel the need to talk about Hamlet being the best this or that. Who says that? Some men and women in educational institutions? Their opinion is no better than yours or mine. All I can say is, I enjoyed Bill Shakes's words as much as I've enjoyed many other mens' words and that's the end of it. William Shakespeare deserves no more praise than that, and would not want any, and rightly so. Anyway, Shakespeare isn't one of my favourite writers. Putting things into a hierarchy is false talk and snobbery. Your message showed not a sign of any of that; I just say, the elite intellectuals - the arbiters of taste - tell us what we should think, and we end up imbibing their bad habits, and limited ways of thinking and talking.

The humble are more intelligent than those people who, though they have cleverer brains than the rest of us, they have malevolent, intellectually competitive hearts, so they've nothing to teach me: I ignore them. It's like the race between the tortoise and the hare. In academia, they are all proud hares who take a nap and lose the race. Because really, it's no race.

I suppose it depends a fair bit on what persepctive you are trying to get out of a piece of work. I'll admit that I don't personally into the whole Barthist "Death of the Author" stuff - I personally believe that understanding the society that produces a work is, to a greater or lesser degree, necessary to the understanding of the work itself.

I guess that one's perspective is, like the concepts of good and bad literature, entirely subjective.

It's been at least eight years since I last read some Cervantes, but if memory serves, then Don Quixote arguably, in order to get the full impact of it, must be read with some knowledge of the chivalric tradition, and does have large elements of satire in it to do with the contemporary Spain. I'm not saying that you can't enjoy the novel without knowing about, but, if nothing else, it adds a different colour to your reading experience and understanding.

I apologise if my little Hamlet tangent got a bit side-tracked - no pro-Shakespeare agenda here! I do like most of his plays, but some (R&J springs to mind) are pretty awful. My main aim was just to try and illustrate that good literature, and using an example that most people would consider good, could be read in a social context. I could have gone for something in my field, like Njála, which requires at least a grounding in Medieval Icelandic politics and law to fully appreciate the storyline.

Definitely agree about the pretentions of some academics - I usually choose to ignore them!

Lokasenna, you mention social constructs of Renaissance Europe. Man, that is not you talking. Whoever you're listening to or reading is feeding you swill and poisoning your individuality. I'm 28, and I remember with horror that I used to use those phrases you're using now - I used them up until the age of about 25, I think. That phrase about social constructs, are you honestly telling me it puts an image in your mind, something graspable and comprehensible in a plain, ordinary way? Because, if it can't be understood in such a way, then it's no business being in the mind in the first place. It's all rotten lies. Formal education can ruin a decent mind. Renaissance Europe? There was no such thing. There were people, absolutely no different to you or I in all their daily habits of farting and arguing and staring into space - there were people loving and living; no more, no less. All the other talk is to allow scholars waste paper and ink to make a living.

I'm not saying there was a homogenous Europe, by any stretch of the imagination! And I'll agree heartily that people are generally people. What I was trying to express is the idea that the social structure of Europe at the time varied little from country to country. In a play about princes, kings and noble duty, I think it helps to be aware of these factors, particularly those which would have been self-evident to a contemporary audience, but perhaps less so to a modern one.

Yeah, I am still getting to grips with technical vocab, and maybe I am getting wrong. I'm only 21, so I guess I get another four years?

[Neely]

I do like most of his plays, but some (R&J springs to mind) are pretty awful.

Not in Shakespeare's top 10 maybe but "pretty awful" is surely way off? It's still a pretty decent play with some beautiful poetry.

Interestingly you mention Barthes, I don't think that Barthes is saying (in DOTA) that understanding of cultural or social knowledge about a work is redundant, just that the ultimate meaning must lie with the reader and not the writer. Which is surely true isn't it?

[joseph90ie]

I won't deny that, the more a reader knows about the time in which the book was written, the more he'll catch on to details. But that has nothing, in my view, nothing to do with what makes the best part of the book - the truthful part, and the only part worth preserving. I think the good writer is not going to depend for effect on the changeable aspects of human beings; he'll be aiming for the small, almost invisible bullseye, which remains perfectly still throughout all the ages - all the way back as far as homo sapiens had the same, unchanging physiology we have today: same cranial capacity, nervous system, muscle layout, and all that. That's an uneducated guess on my part, but it's what I believe.

If the people I see in ancient writings are not less than identical to the men I meet today, then things don't change or progress: change and progression must only be appearances to keep things looking fresh and maintain the motivation and healthy sense of belief of each new generation: a necessary illusion, but an illusion nonetheless. The timelessness of good writing bears witness to this, I think; I think that's the astonishingly valuable thing about good novels and why there's more truth in fiction than history, and why truth has a hieratic ascendancy over fact. History, in comparison, looks like a receipt of acts committed. But then, the best history is literature and art. So, I take back those ignorant remarks.

I can't agree with you: the only thing you need to understand good fiction is some awareness of your own heart. On the other hand, if you don't have that, and you have all the knowledge of the period, you're not fit to read the simplest novel.

[Lokasenna]

I won't deny that, the more a reader knows about the time in which the book was written, the more he'll catch on to details. But that has nothing, in my view, nothing to do with what makes the best part of the book - the truthful part, and the only part worth preserving. I think the good writer is not going to depend for effect on the changeable aspects of human beings; he'll be aiming for the small, almost invisible bullseye, which remains perfectly still throughout all the ages - all the way back as far as homo sapiens had the same, unchanging physiology we have today: same cranial capacity, nervous system, muscle layout, and all that. That's an uneducated guess on my part, but it's what I believe.

If the people I see in ancient writings are not less than identical to the men I meet today, then things don't change or progress: change and progression must only be appearances to keep things looking fresh and maintain the motivation and healthy sense of belief of each new generation: a necessary illusion, but an illusion nonetheless. The timelessness of good writing bears witness to this, I think; I think that's the astonishingly valuable thing about good novels and why there's more truth in fiction than history, and why truth has a hieratic ascendancy over fact. History, in comparison, looks like a receipt of acts committed. But then, the best history is literature and art. So, I take back those ignorant remarks.

I can't agree with you: the only thing you need to understand good fiction is some awareness of your own heart. On the other hand, if you don't have that, and you have all the knowledge of the period, you're not fit to read the simplest novel.

I dont think we're actually in a great degree of disagreement here! Of course feeling and emotion are the back-bone of understanding literature. But, as you yourself seem to be saying, knowledge of the specifics helps you to get at and appreciate the subtler details and delights.

@Neely:
It's more the storyline I dislike than the poetry! It's well written, I just think the protagonists are morons...

As for Barthes, at least in my interpretation of what he was saying, the more you know about the author, the more preconcieved ideas you take to the literature. I don't disagree; I was just using it as an example of an area where selective ignorance of a certain text might be encouraged. But for someone who specialises in the early medieval period, where we have so little contextual stuff to go on, it feels sort of wrong to ignore them!

[joseph90ie]

Well, agreement or disagreement isn't so important, once there's no venom in our conversation, which seems to be absent, I'm glad to say.

You say specifics helps you appreciate the more subtler details and delights. No, I'd say it enables you to observe all the unimportant, basic details. All the subtlety and delight - all the wisdom and best of humour - is not bound by detail. If it is, it's not worth much. All the good stuff, without exception, is preserved and speaks to the untutored and honest heart of every new human being. I think you're right, I think we do agree.

But you're not allowing yourself to speak, because you keep using terminology, which isn't doing you any favours. It took me a long time to kick that blasted habit, and I curse third level education for it; because it's not just about words, it affects the whole cast of mind and feeling.

[five-trey]

Lokasenna, you mention social constructs of Renaissance Europe. Man, that is not you talking. Whoever you're listening to or reading is feeding you swill and poisoning your individuality. I'm 28, and I remember with horror that I used to use those phrases you're using now - I used them up until the age of about 25, I think. That phrase about social constructs, are you honestly telling me it puts an image in your mind, something graspable and comprehensible in a plain, ordinary way? Because, if it can't be understood in such a way, then it's no business being in the mind in the first place. It's all rotten lies. Formal education can ruin a decent mind. Renaissance Europe? There was no such thing. There were people, absolutely no different to you or I in all their daily habits of farting and arguing and staring into space - there were people loving and living; no more, no less. All the other talk is to allow scholars waste paper and ink to make a living.

That's just going too far, my good sir. The people of one era have a different tendency from those of another.

If you compare 18th century Puritan America, to early 19th century secular America, you will see that they are in no way the same people. You might say that the individual of the time is similar to us, in some deeper and more esoteric ways, but traditions change.

The "acceptable" changes from decade to decade. The rules of society change. And most people of the time, change to satisfy the standard, creating a completely different culture.

[joseph90ie]

How do you explain that, in the space of two years, while Byron was in Venice I think, he estimated that he had at least 200 women? Do you really think his behaviour was exceptional for a strong-willed attractive man? Such people are to be found today, as they were back then, as they were in Shakespeare's time, as the were in Abelard & Heloise's time, and St Augustine's time, and Plato, at the time of Alcibiades.

You say 18thC Puritan America was very different to 19thC Secular America. But it's those terms and ways of describing as Puritan and Secular that I disbelieve in. Where do you get that info? It's not from the great novels. If you read The Scarlet Letter, and compare it with - well, I don't think I've read any American 18thC novel - but compare it with an 18thC English novel, like Tom Jones: the people to be found in both books are absolutely no different; the same human nature on display. There's no mention of puritanism and secularism at their most insightful part.

All such terms don't flourish until you read the parasitical commentaries, which is the writing least read in all times.

[phoenix151]

This is a great discussion. I like what JBI is saying about Faulkner, Melville, and Fitzgerald having localized voices and as Virgil states, the same goes for Huck Finn. I think about this topic often, and for me personally, the Great American Novel is Call of the Wild by Jack London followed by On The Road by Jack Kerouac.

Objectively, I have to agree with semi-fly

Shouldn't the American novel incorporate the westward movement of the mid-to-late 19th century?

According to this criteria, I would award the title of The Great American Novel to East of Eden by John Steinbeck.

As for the recent turn in this conversation, I have one statement:
America is not a country, it is an expanse of land - a landscape popupulated by individuals each with their own attributes and nuances of perspective. Therefore, the varied political climates, social spheres, and religious ideologies that have become our cultural watermarks should be omitted from consideration in this topic as they are more fabrications and generalizations than inherent truths. Patriotism and nationalism and all that jazz belongs in the arena of "The United States", NOT America. We seem to be confusing mountains and freedom with parades and flags.

[Neely]

That's just going too far, my good sir. The people of one era have a different tendency from those of another.

If I could rudely jump in here and throw in my thoughts of where Jose is heading, I think he is looking at the unchanging make-up of human nature, which I certainly would agree with. Human beings have the same basic drives as they always have and probably always will have, it's basic biology, it doesn't change. Therefore, we could look at literature written a few hundred years ago and identify, and more importantly relate to, the traits of those we see around us today. It doesn't matter what time or country you are born into at all, to state that "people of one era have a different tendency" is nothing but absurd, thought I appreciate that I may be taking that statement out of its original context. I believe you were talking about culture that changes, which is true, but you forget that even if culture does change people and biology do not.

[Virgil]

I don't particularly like the concept of "The Great American Novel", as that seems to be such a propaganda statement

Actually just the opposite JB. The term The Great American Novel came out of an insecurity that European cultures were far advaanced to the American culture of wilderness and agriculture and then industry. The term was a hope for an American to write something that equaled the Europeans. At some point the term stuck, mainly because it seemed that American wrters produced a single great work in their opus.

[JBI]

Actually just the opposite JB. The term The Great American Novel came out of an insecurity that European cultures were far advaanced to the American culture of wilderness and agriculture and then industry. The term was a hope for an American to write something that equaled the Europeans. At some point the term stuck, mainly because it seemed that American wrters produced a single great work in their opus.

Originally, yes, but look at the books being named - the term has long since lost its meaning - Faulkner, even, sits outside that. Melville perhaps is the last in the line - I don't particularly care for Twain, or for Hawthorne for that matter, but really, the fact that such a term can be applied to a modernist work is absurd - the notion should have, by your definition, died with the turn of the century, or at least the Great War, but still you hear this term thrown around a lot. What more could it mean than simply the great American vision, the great American piece of art. I don't see people speaking that way about, for instance, Manzoni, who is perhaps the most read Italian novelist, and I would think most certainly wrote the most read Italian novel, I Promessi Spossi, yet we don't go out and say, the Great Italian novel.

In truth, the term only works because of the language issue - England had great writers, and shared a language, therefore we must establish what we have and they do not, or what we produce as greatness equal, or greater than there own. In other words, we need to prove that Americans are somehow better in some things than others, which is part of the whole claiming the land mentality of the 19th century.

The term has gotten beyond a post-colonial frame, I don't think one can ignore the validity of Innis's view of culture as a have, or a they have not.

Post-colonialism is one thing, but, by your definition, this whole "which is the greatest" should have ended at least 100 years ago, which it has not.

I think the problem then becomes, for instance, a way to approach works like The Great Gatsby. One such as myself, would simply read it for what it is, yet another, perhaps influenced more by what you are speaking of, would read it as the Great American Novel, cowboy hat and revolvers, and all.

I don't think it's to large a stretch to equate the notion of The Great American novel with the notion of American Exceptionalism, which like other nationalist sentiments, is a propaganda device.