I always read how most novels are flawed. Sometimes I recognise the flaws in the novels I am reading. I would like to know if any novels have been claimed as "flawless" - the perfect novel. Is there such a thing? What makes a novel perfect?
I always read how most novels are flawed. Sometimes I recognise the flaws in the novels I am reading. I would like to know if any novels have been claimed as "flawless" - the perfect novel. Is there such a thing? What makes a novel perfect?
Only an idiot has no grief; only a fool would forget it. What else is there in this world sharp enough to stick to your guts? - Faulkner
The closest thing I can come up with is Gustav Flaubert's Madame Bovary. Novels, even the best of them, are all flawed. Notice, for instance, Cervantes didn't properly label his chapters, and threw in poetry, and Dickens and other earlier masters were prone to cliffhanger sub-endings which botch the flow of the language, because we are not reading them in serialized form.
Generally, poetry is the art of choosing the best word and putting it in the best place. Novels too try to achieve that, but you're dealing with too much space, and too many words. I think Flaubert came the closest to choosing perfectly, and then perhaps The Great Gatsby, though that novel has a few too many flaws in content.
Yes, the more you write the more potential it has to be flawed, a long prose work is near impossible to maintain complete control over. What about Austen as a near perfect novelist? George Eliot?
I suppose that same question could be asked of any matter, particularly art. Are there any paintings that are so close to perfect that the line between them is barely distinguishable? There are some that I consider to be, but others might disagree--and largely this lies in a matter of taste, and whether the standards of perfection can be objectively measured. Some of the books I have liked the most were more flawed in their construction than ones that widely are very favorably regarded.
In a sense, I think absolute perfection in a novel would be terribly boring. If there's nothing to object to, not one tiny thing, there's hardly any point in reading it, because the book would not have prompted any real reflection on my part. I find my mind is most inspired when it has something to object to.
'...A cast of your skull, sir, until the original is available, would be an ornament to any anthropological museum. It is not my intention to be fulsome, but I confess that I covet your skull.' --Dr. Mortimer, The Hound of the Baskervilles
There are some critics, professors, etc. who say novels should be flawed because they are about human beings and human beings are flawed. I think that only goes to characterization, though, not to construction.
I agree with JBI that the most perfect novel is Madame Bovary.
I think sometimes flaws make a novel better and more interesting.
The point though, is that one could not change one word from W. C. Williams' Red wheelbarrow without ruining. Same thing with longer poems, the most perfect being Keats' Odes, to me, particular To A Nightingale. One could go further, and suggest something like Wordsworth's Ode is perfect.
I think though, that English, as a language, prescribes a sort of ruggedness, and a liking for almost perfect. I think, when I think of perfection in literature, of Japanese or Chinese poetry, where the same vocabulary and words and phrases were used to create millions of different poems, each being closer to the most perfect. With prose though? Someone is bound to make an error.
That's really the tyranny of the Western tradition. It favors large works over small works. I know sooner or later St. Lukes will be here, or J Camilo and will mention Borges' essay on the subject. In truth, perfection isn't really obtainable. There is always more. The longer the work, the more holes.
I guess it depends what kind of flaws of which you are speaking. The development of the characters within their settings is important. Are they real? Are they genuine? But on the other hand, how can someone judge whether a character is flawed. There are plenty of REAL people who are NOT genuine. The depth of the development of the setting, the time, the place and the detail of description leads to the number of flaws that one may find. For instance, consider Hugo's character in Les Miserables, the Bishop of Digne and his household. Even the number of chairs in his estate, his budget and his expenditures are detailed. The importance is the basic idea that this man dedicated his ALL to benevolence. Any flaws should be disregarded. For what one sees as a flaw, another might see as possibly realistic. There is no science...no formula to art. Sometimes there is no formula to science. Critics never seem to agree, so how can the flaws be judged.
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
Those who strive for perfection, must settle for excellence.
I must go with JBI's suggestion of Madame Bovary... although Lolita might be in close running. As JBI suggests "perfection" is not necessarily the measure of that which is the greatest art. William's Red Wheelbarrow may be "perfect" as suggested in that not a single word in superfluous. Nothing can be added or taken away without destroying the work. The same is not true of Don Quixote or the Divine Comedy... and yet the latter works are far, far greater artistic achievements. The Borges essay which JBI mentions (and which I have no time at present to look up) makes a similar argument and this discussion has popped up here several times.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
I prefer to read the works of faulty geniuses rather than flawless writers.
For those of you making the argument for Madame Bovary, is this having read a translation or in the original French?
Just curious
I'm weary with right-angles, abbreviated daylight,
Waiting for a winter to be done.
Why do I still see you in every mirrored window,
In all that I could never overcome?
Boy, I really have to read Madame Bovary.
A follow-up to Classic Charm's question: is it too hard to read in French?
Everyone knows there's no such thing as a 'flawless novel' - this is but a truism. Much more interesting would be if y'all'd answer the OP's question which some of you have only adressed in passing: 'What makes a novel perfect?'
Nothing should be superfluous. Arguably, there ought to be some sort of symmetry and everything should be related. This means that every element should be connected to one another (as in an organism), but each element should also be able to exist on its own and thus be more than merely a counterpart.
This, of course, if you're looking for 'perfection', whatever that might be. 'Perfection', to my mind, implies a system, and maximum efficiency.
I can only hope this makes any sense.
Is flawlessness possible?
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."
Wouldn't a flawless novel seem forced, and wouldn't that make it flawed? That thought makes me doubt whether a flawless novel is possible.
I think the closest a novel could come to perfection is if every character and every scene is absolutely essential. But again, as Higley says, that would make it pretty boring. Part of what makes a novel interesting is wondering things like, "Why's that character there?" or, "What's the significance of such-and-such scene?" If all that is obvious then there's no challenge.
"Books don't offer real escape but they can stop a mind scratching itself raw." David Mitchell
Jane Austin is as near a flawless writer as is possible. But their are moments in her novels that I can't quite believe in, so not perfect then.
I read Madame Bovary years ago, and wasn't aware of its perfections. I'll have to revisit.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
