On the American Novel

[PabloQ]

I recently found myself turning 50 years old. As part of my self-examination, I was disappointed to find that I never really did anything with my desire to be a writer or an English teacher or a critic. My reading habits had spanned a range of time periods and genres, but I wasn't knowledgeable in any one particular category. In fact, I could telll you what I'd read, but for the most part I couldn't tell you much about it other than whether I liked it or not. I found myself uncomfortable that my favorite hobby was yielding little in personal growth.

So I decided to focus on the American novel. I got to thinking about the novel in general and sensed (from my narrow view of the literary world) that there was huge gap between the mid-19th century ending with Twain and the well-known novelists of the 20th century -- Hemingway, Steinbeck, and Faulkner. I did a little digging and research and discoverd that in that range of time that American schools of realism and naturalism emerged. I made a list of authors to learn more about and decided to read two books by each author to get a sense of the author, to identify authors to circle back and read, and to identify other authors and works to circle back and add to the list.

Over the past 18 months, I have read a shelf of books. I have a shelf of books to go, some by the same authors I've already read and some by authors yet to discover. I continue to pick up more as I go to used book stores. These stores are good sources of lesser known works by well-known authors and I like picking them up for cheap.

I've found that some of the authors I've enjoyed have very week forum threads associated with their work or none at all. I've tried to sustain conversations in those forums, but it doesn't seem that there's a whole lot of interest in the authors and works I've been reading.

I've found that the development of the American voice in the novel maps to the growth of the US as a country. Most early novels were written by New Englanders educated in one of the big three Ivy schools (Harvard, Yale, or Princeton) and seemed to fairly parochial. As the country pushed westward, aspiring would go east to get educated at the Ivies, but return to work on newspapers or magazines in the Midwest. Southern novelists seemed to emerge after the turn of the century for the most part. I lack the experience to comment on the rest of the 20th century although I read modern authors of the 60s and 70s at one point (Barth, Pynchon, Tom Robbins, Brautigan, etc.) Today, the critically acclaimed novel gets lost in the shuffle of myriads of genre books, suspense, mystery, fantasy, romance, the like and getting published is tied to a perception of sales potential. It's sad that Americans depend on Oprah Winfrey to find their literature for them, but she did find Steinbeck and Faulkner. :lol: Of course, Mark Twain is the exception to almost everything I said in this paragraph.

So here's the question or the point or whatever. Discuss an American novel that you enjoyed and expand on it. What did you like about it? Did you want to read more works by the author or was one enough? Maybe you have a favorite American novelist whose body of work you enjoy or much of it. Discuss.

I'd also like to identify what I'm not looking for. If poster x enjoyed Moby-Dick, I don't care if you didn't like it unless you are going to explain why you didn't like it. I also don't want to hear how I should have French existentialists or Russian novelists. I didn't. I'm neither. There are other threads (quite popular and well contributed to) on those topics. I'd like to maintain a sustainable, positive discussion of the American novel. Help me out here.

[Virgil]

Here's something I have mixed feelings over. Twain's Huck Finn. Hemingway calls it the root of all American fiction, or something to that effect, I forget exactly. He emphaisizes the language of the novel, all those dialects and slangs and Americanisms. I do think it is an important novel, it is even a great novel. It really captures the great American themes of freedom, independence, race, morality, individualism, self reliance, the wilderness and nature as a spiritual/transcendental outlet. I love the characters of Huck and Jim, and I do love the language of the novel as Hemingway points out. Twain really is almost poetic in places. But I do have a problem with some of the scenes. They seem a little childish, the way Huck deals with some of the characters he encounters down the river. The minor characters seem contrived at times. But the problem I really have is the ending. The Tom Sawyer making a game of the situation seems tacked on, seems corny, seems anti-climatic. I really wish Twain had worked a proper ending. What do you think?

[JBI]

I dunno - I personally see Huck Finn as the prototype innocent, and the novel as an establishment of the standard in coming of age fiction. In many ways, it echoes Goethe's work, and establishes itself as a sort of pastoral of American literature, that keeps getting referred to and mimicked, time and time again.

[Bitterfly]

But I do have a problem with some of the scenes. They seem a little childish, the way Huck deals with some of the characters he encounters down the river. The minor characters seem contrived at times. But the problem I really have is the ending. The Tom Sawyer making a game of the situation seems tacked on, seems corny, seems anti-climatic. I really wish Twain had worked a proper ending. What do you think?

I agree. I used to consider Mark Twain as an author for children, actually, and was quite surprised when I discovered he was considered a great American classic. I understand better why now, actually, as I read the first part of your post. It had never struck me before.

As for your question, PabloQ, it's too difficult to answer! It's hard for me to choose between all the authors I loved. I think I particularly like your "barely-American" authors, such as Nabokov, James or Poe (who's not appreciated to his full value in the US, apparently), maybe because of their sophistication and their use of language. And I'm also learning to appreciate Faulkner, even though I haven't read much of him; I'd be hard pressed to say why, though. Because he's experimentative? Because his voices are always surprising? Because he's funny? Because his vision of the world is totally uncanny and deformed (at least to my eyes)?

I find there are many "naive" or fake-naive voices, actually (maybe that's what was meant by American innocence on another thread). Is it a way of being different from the Old World? Also some quality like earnestness, or seriousness, which used to put me off a lot, and was one of the reasons I didn't like US literature at first.

[LitNetIsGreat]

An interesting post which I will get back to later if I may, but I have one question first for anyone: do you find that the 'best' American writers have come not as part of the American culture, but as a reaction to it - in the so called counter-culture? I immediately think of writers like Salinger, Hemingway, Kerouac (OK Canadian but deeply concerned with the American way of life) Steinbeck and Miller to highlight my point.

[Bitterfly]

Well, what would you define as American culture? That which relates to American myths, for instance? Who would you classify as NOT part of the counter-culture? Someone like Fenimore Cooper, or like the Transcendentalists? Those who actually helped establish what we think of as American culture? And don't you think almost all authors write in reaction to established culture - the norms and commonplaces of their time? And don't you think the authors you cited have contributed to what we think NOW as American culture? The idea of a "counter-culture" is a problematic one for me, because I think all great authors are part of it at first, because what they write is new, before being sucked into established culture. The authors you cited are considered nowadays as emblematic of American culture, I'd say; and I'd choose far less popular writers, such, possibly, as Lovecraft or Poe, if I really wanted to study American counter-culture.

I don't agree with you that the authors you listed are the greatest American authors, apart maybe from Steinbeck and Hemingway (ok, that's two out of five :p ) - I would put Hawthorne, Faulkner, even Sherwood Anderson above them.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well, what would you define as American culture? That which relates to American myths, for instance? Who would you classify as NOT part of the counter-culture? Someone like Fenimore Cooper, or like the Transcendentalists? Those who actually helped establish what we think of as American culture? And don't you think almost all authors write in reaction to established culture - the norms and commonplaces of their time? And don't you think the authors you cited have contributed to what we think NOW as American culture? The idea of a "counter-culture" is a problematic one for me, because I think all great authors are part of it at first, because what they write is new, before being sucked into established culture. The authors you cited are considered nowadays as emblematic of American culture, I'd say; and I'd choose far less popular writers, such, possibly, as Lovecraft or Poe, if I really wanted to study American counter-culture.

I don't agree with you that the authors you listed are the greatest American authors, apart maybe from Steinbeck and Hemingway (ok, that's two out of five :p ) - I would put Hawthorne, Faulkner, even Sherwood Anderson above them.

No, I did not intend that they were the greatest American authors just the ones that sprang to my mind first, certainly in terms of "counter-culture" or of that mould.

I don't think that all authors react against established culture no, perhaps the best or bravest do, and by doing so break the boundaries imposed upon them by society, but not all of them or even the majority do in my option. Of course the thing with anything counter-culture is it inevitably becomes part of the culture it seeks to rebel against, anything counter-counter eventually, if it is big enough, creates a market which dilutes the initial rebellion. Take the attitude of the punks wearing dog collars to represent the slavery to the system, eventually they became a fashion item available to buy (at twice the cost) on the high street.

I was just pondering that maybe in America with the strong Hollywood narrative and massive influence that this has on its culture that the 'best' authors are the ones that have sought to find a voice outside of this machine.

[Emil Miller]

So here's the question or the point or whatever. Discuss an American novel that you enjoyed and expand on it. What did you like about it? Did you want to read more works by the author or was one enough? Maybe you have a favorite American novelist whose body of work you enjoy or much of it. Discuss.


Sorry PabloQ,

There's very little chance of posters adhering to your requirement. Already it is degenerating into discussion of counter-cultures and people wearing dog collars etc. The potential for circumlocution on this subject is nothing short of colossal unless contributors are prepared to stay with the subject.

[LitNetIsGreat]

:brickwall

I appologise, please forgive me. :angel:

(However I did just say "one question" and I would return to the thread later, once I have a text in front of me, so that I may give examples of what I like about Kerouac - I can't expand without the text to any degree can I?)

[kelby_lake]

I read half of 'The Old Man and The Sea.' Apparantly it is the 'most profound story ever told', according to the blurb, but I just found it dull. There was no reason for me to read on- so I didn't.

I liked the sound of Fiesta (which is on my list) and, in case I'd misjudged poor Hemingway, I read half of 'A Farewell to Arms'. I quite liked it actually- there wasn't anything show-offy about the prose at all, just written with confidence. I will read the second half but I got distracted by other books.

I'm really into American Literature (inculding Drama) and am working my way through the novelists (working my way through means reading at least one novel). I've read: Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, bit of Hemingway, Henry James, Harper Lee (I've read all her works ;) )...

I believe I have Kerouac and Faulkner still to conquer...

[PabloQ]

Sorry PabloQ,

There's very little chance of posters adhering to your requirement. Already it is degenerating into discussion of counter-cultures and people wearing dog collars etc. The potential for circumlocution on this subject is nothing short of colossal unless contributors are prepared to stay with the subject.

Actually, I thought the question of counter-culture to be interesting. American novelists (with all due respect to Poe and Lovecraft they need to be discussed elsewhere) started righting novels intended to either bring attention to flaws in the current culture or mock the current culture in some way. If you look at what Frank Norris tried do in The Octopus and The Pit and what Upton Sinclair tried to do in The Jungle and other novels. The Jungle is a blatant referendum on socialism and in the end has very little to do with how they slaughter cattle. You can't get any more radical and counter-culture than that in this country.

I think what American novelists (at least the ones we're going to talk about) hold a glass (either a mirror or magnifying glass) up to American culture and let the reader interpret how they feel about it. In Sinclairs case, he uses a hammer. "Hey, reader, enjoying that canned beef you're having for supper? Great, let me tell you where it came from. Still hungry? Let me tell you how we exploit European, non-English speaking immigrants to produce that tasty product." Other authors, like James, are way more subtle. Most others are somewhere in between.

Virgil, I need to circle back around to Huckleberry Finn now that I'm reading the works I have recently. One thing you won't find in most works that Twain did, is an African-American character. In the entire list of books that I've read on that shelf, only Puddn'head Wilson takes on the subject of race and it does so in a terrifying way. I laughed during this book, but just like I've done on occasion with Kurt Vonnegut, I wondered what I was laughing at by the end. The other novels might have a black person, is a character needs his bags carried or her shoes sign or is just observing the smiling face on the Cream of Wheat box. White authors write stories about white people and white culture such that when you run across a word like "darkie" it wakes you up. I know that Sinclair Lewis eventually took on the subject in one of his later works, but I have to dig through a used book store to find it. (It's title escapes me.)

Finally, I know the subject is broad, but Virgil hit the nail on the head. Share an American novel and your thoughts. We'll run down the rat hole and discuss dog colors and African violets, but we'll get back on topic. So far we're living up to my expectations. Fun!

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes, I like the idea of the glass/mirror and I also totally agree upon the subtlety of James, The Turn of the Screw is certainly a master-work, not something you should read quickly at all, so much depth there. Anyway, as I promised I said I would share my thoughts on an American writer now that I am at home and not at work, so I'll go with Hemingway.


I have read most of Hemingway’s novels and some of his short stories let me see: A Farewell to Arms, True and First Light, Men Without Women, Green Hills of Africa, Fiesta (twice), A Moveable Feast (thrice) and The Old Man and the Sea – (what no Whom the Bell Tolls?) and maybe another one hidden somewhere on my bookshelf?

I like Hemingway despite his many critics and criticisms, some of them warranted, and consider him a fair/good writer overall, though not perhaps a great writer. I personally find Hemingway at his best when he is not trying to write fiction, when his prose appears simple and effortless and not forced as it often can be. This sort of writing seems to come across in his more biographically-based novels such as A Moveable Feast or Fiesta. I like the simplicity of things, of life, of the sun, of friendship in Hemingway:

We started up the road into the woods. It was a long walk home to Burguete, and it was dark when we came down across the fields to the road, and along the road between the houses of the town, their windows lighted, to the inn.

We stayed five days at Burguete and had good fishing. The nights were cold and the days were hot, and there was always a breeze even in the heat of the day. It was hot enough so that it felt good to wade in a cold stream, and the sun dried you when you came out and sat on the bank. We found a stream with a pool deep enough to swim in.
(From Fiesta Ch 12)

Maybe it is because I am a country boy trapped in a city that this sort of peace, derived from this simple writing appeals to me greatly, but it is little images like this (and the romanticism of Hems life) which is why I enjoy Hemingway. Actually the life of Hemingway does come into it perhaps more than it should, my overt romantic image of the literary life is at it again, though would it not be grand to flow around the continent living and writing? Hemingway manages not to play upon this however, his writing and the images it depicts are much more earthy, more pure and natural than any posturing, posing was not of his nature and it is felt in his simplistic life-view.

My criticism of him would be that sometime the plainness of prose can become a little tedious during heavy dialogue scenes and some of his characters are too “Hollywood” at times. It has been suggested that his female characters are especially shallow and this may be so, but on the whole there are little snatches of images like the one above that make it worth while reading Hemingway. Perhaps the reason I have not read (apart from the first few pages) of For Whom the Bell Tolls is because I feel that this is another one of Hemingway’s novels in which he tries to write a novel, if you get what I mean, I have found little to recommend in A Farewell to Arms or large sections of his other works, some of his short stories, sketches really, are also good. These are just my thoughts on Hemingway.


(Now back to the exciting world of dog collars, check out the link below for an exciting twist to the whole thing.)
http://www.thepunkypup.com/

[Emil Miller]

Finally, I know the subject is broad, but Virgil hit the nail on the head. Share an American novel and your thoughts. We'll run down the rat hole and discuss dog colors and African violets, but we'll get back on topic. So far we're living up to my expectations. Fun!


OK, if you are prepared to run down the rat hole that's fine but be prepared for some vacuous and very extensive posts. A recent long-running one on American Literature was eventually closed by Logos because it ended up on Canadian politics.
For my own part, I would agree with your summation of Frank Norris and Upton Sinclair as anti-establishment writers. The difference being, it seems to me, that Sinclair was a rabid socialist whereas Norris was merely writing on what he saw as flaws in American society.
Norris doesn't present society in black and white terms and he shows his characters faults as well as their virtues, which why they are so believable.
His portrait of downtown San Francisco in McTeague is masterly and although the eponymous main protagonist remains the centrepiece of the story, Norris is too clever not to create other equally powerful characters as a counterweight. McTeague's pending demise in Death Valley is an unforgetable 'coup de theatre' and rouses the reader's sympathy for him even though he has killed his wife and his former best friend.
The potential for greed inherent in a nascent society exploiting the newfound resources of America is a feature that also figures in his other works The Octopus and The Pit which form the first and second parts of a trilogy that remained uncompleted due Norris's untimely death.
The plight of the wheat farmers in the Octopus as they fight for fair distribution costs from the railroad is the background for a number of themes including birth, death, and resurrection. The scene in which Vanamee literally wills his young lover Angele into existance from the grave is one of the most remarkable in American literature.
The Pit is the second novel of the unfinished trilogy.
Curtis Jadwin, the leading character of The Pit, is presented at the start of the novel as a level-headed real estate investor who shuns the wild speculation in commodities taking place in the Chicago Board of Trade.
He becomes involved at first in a small way and makes quite a killing dealing in wheat. He doesn't need money but he becomes intrigued by the workings of the wheat pit at the Board of Trade and starts to speculate with ever larger sums until eventually he actually corner's the whole of American wheat production. The story of how this affects himself, his wife, friends and business partner is perfectly conveyed and the battles between the bulls and the bears in the wheat pit is vividly and excitingly presented. I think Frank Norris is America's equivalent to Emil Zola and for anyone interested in American writing and who hasn't yet read him, you do yourself a disservice by continuing not to do so.

[PabloQ]

Brian, Thanks for the entry on Norris.
McTeague was a great book. On the light side, I couldn't figure out how he got to be a dentist. With what we learn about his character and his simplicity, it makes me wonder given the level of training the modern dentist under goes. I couldn't figure out how he quite pulled off the occupation given his childlike behavior. At times I felt he was a forerunner to Steinbeck's Lenny in Of Mice and Men.
And what the hell is steamed beer?
The Octopus is my favorite novel so far. Even though I knew the railroad was going to win out, the characters were developed in such a way that I kept hoping that they would work something positive out of the situation. Thank you for the reminder of that stunning scene with Vanamee. I remember it caught my breath the way it seemed so real, whether it was or not.

[PabloQ]

Neely,
Thank you for the entry on Hemingway. He's on my "to-read" shelf and to be honest, I don't think I've ever heard of "Fiesta". I'm going to have to hunt for that one.

[Bitterfly]

Fiesta is the same book as The Sun also Rises.
I also quite enjoyed it.


American novelists (with all due respect to Poe and Lovecraft they need to be discussed elsewhere)

I hadn't understood the thread was limited to writers who were only novelists, sorry. Were you aware, by the way, that Poe wrote a novel? It's called The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym. And Lovecraft as well? His is called The Case of Charles Dexter Ward.

[PabloQ]

Yes, but neither Poe nor Lovecraft are best remembered as novelists, but as short story writers.
Fiesta, then, is on the "to read" shelf.

[Bitterfly]

I don't think that all authors react against established culture no, perhaps the best or bravest do

Yep, that's what I meant too. I didn't express myself clearly, sorry.


I was just pondering that maybe in America with the strong Hollywood narrative and massive influence that this has on its culture that the 'best' authors are the ones that have sought to find a voice outside of this machine.


Shouldn't you be giving more contemporary examples then, if you're thinking about Hollywoodian narrative? I know Hollywood's been around for quite some time, but I don't think it had quite the same influence in the thirties as it has nowadays. Or maybe you mean something wider, like the cult of appearances, the necessity for a happy end (like comedy in general, when you think about it) that brings resolution and a sense of order, the teleological narrative. What would be really interesting would be to be able to define that "Hollywood narrative" in order to see how some authors deconstruct it or critique it.

What I also like about Faulkner - I'm reading As I lay Dying - is that he goes against classical narrative (maybe the Hollywoodian style!). I love the splitting up effect the multiple narrators give - all the different voices you hear, and the fact that he really manages to give a distinct personality to each voice; the different plots (the preoccupations of each character) and how they merge or split from one another. And that the incomprehension of several characters is echoed by the difficulties the reader faces in understanding what's happening, sometimes. But at the same time the style is so... simple! The words used are almost never complicated. The discrepancy between the complexity of the narrative and the simplicity of the language is quite incredible. And the mixture of real beauty, real comedy, and real grotesque is also quite perplexing at times. In The Sound and the Fury, I find there's the same mixture of tragedy - impending doom - and comedy.

And there's the amazing and so beautiful passage towards the end where Darl has his last say, and you don't know if he's mad or not, but he's speaking to himself.

To read, really, even more than Hemingway.

[Virgil]

No, I did not intend that they were the greatest American authors just the ones that sprang to my mind first, certainly in terms of "counter-culture" or of that mould.

I don't think that all authors react against established culture no, perhaps the best or bravest do, and by doing so break the boundaries imposed upon them by society, but not all of them or even the majority do in my option. Of course the thing with anything counter-culture is it inevitably becomes part of the culture it seeks to rebel against, anything counter-counter eventually, if it is big enough, creates a market which dilutes the initial rebellion. Take the attitude of the punks wearing dog collars to represent the slavery to the system, eventually they became a fashion item available to buy (at twice the cost) on the high street.

I was just pondering that maybe in America with the strong Hollywood narrative and massive influence that this has on its culture that the 'best' authors are the ones that have sought to find a voice outside of this machine.

You know Neely, this is a fascinating thought. I don't know aboout counter culture, but there does seem to be a strain of American literature that rebels against an established norm. And even more established novels. For instance Huck Finn and The Scarlet Letter and possibly even Moby Dick. But why is this necessarily American? Can't one look at Madam Bovary and say it strives to challenge existing French conventions of the 19th century? Isn't D.H. Lawrence's Sons and Lovers challenging to English conventions? Isn't Ullysses challenging to Irish conventions? But then aren't most novels then about something that isn't typical?

Not withstanding novels that are consciously counter culture, I think that the root of this is the nature of story. What makes a story, especially something complex and long like a novel? It's not just a sequence of events delineated. My normal day, going to work, returning to my wife and reading the newspaper and having dinner and going to bed isn't a story. But me hooking up with a black slave and going down the Missippii, or having an out of wedlock baby and the woman having to wear a scarlet letter or going off to get revenge against a white whale, now that is a story. Story requires by nature some out of convention disturbance, sort of like the opening notes of Beethoven's Fifth symphony, to get a sequence of events interesting enough to craft into an experience, an experience interesting for a reader to spend money on and take the time to read.

[Emil Miller]

Brian, Thanks for the entry on Norris.
McTeague was a great book. On the light side, I couldn't figure out how he got to be a dentist. With what we learn about his character and his simplicity, it makes me wonder given the level of training the modern dentist under goes. I couldn't figure out how he quite pulled off the occupation given his childlike behavior. At times I felt he was a forerunner to Steinbeck's Lenny in Of Mice and Men.
And what the hell is steamed beer?
The Octopus is my favorite novel so far. Even though I knew the railroad was going to win out, the characters were developed in such a way that I kept hoping that they would work something positive out of the situation. Thank you for the reminder of that stunning scene with Vanamee. I remember it caught my breath the way it seemed so real, whether it was or not.


Yes, I had some difficulty equating McTeague's profession with his simple mind but it is not beyond the realms of possibilty, if one considers the period, that qauck doctors and unregulated dentists would be found in outlying locations. By the time McTeague arrived in San Francisco, he had already acquired the rudiments of dentistry and nobody questioned his competence until later in the story.
As for steamed beer here is an extract from Wikipedia:

Historic steam beer, associated with San Francisco and the U. S. West Coast, was brewed with lager yeast without the use of refrigeration. It was an improvised process, originating out of necessity, perhaps as early as the Gold Rush. It was considered a cheap and low-quality beer, as shown by references to it in literature of the 1890s and 1900s

[mayneverhave]

What I also like about Faulkner - I'm reading As I lay Dying - is that he goes against classical narrative (maybe the Hollywoodian style!). I love the splitting up effect the multiple narrators give - all the different voices you hear, and the fact that he really manages to give a distinct personality to each voice; the different plots (the preoccupations of each character) and how they merge or split from one another. And that the incomprehension of several characters is echoed by the difficulties the reader faces in understanding what's happening, sometimes. But at the same time the style is so... simple! The words used are almost never complicated. The discrepancy between the complexity of the narrative and the simplicity of the language is quite incredible. And the mixture of real beauty, real comedy, and real grotesque is also quite perplexing at times. In The Sound and the Fury, I find there's the same mixture of tragedy - impending doom - and comedy.

And there's the amazing and so beautiful passage towards the end where Darl has his last say, and you don't know if he's mad or not, but he's speaking to himself.

To read, really, even more than Hemingway.

As I Lay Dying is fantastic, glad you like it. I prefer The Sound and the Fury? The former is often propped up as Faulkner's best and it may be the best techincal exposition of his style, but I prefer The Sound and the Fury by a great margin.

For Hemingway as well, The Sun Also Rises appears to be his best - well at least what I think is his best. Pure, minimalistic, understatement. Very possible to love both writers despite their significantly different styles.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Shouldn't you be giving more contemporary examples then, if you're thinking about Hollywoodian narrative? I know Hollywood's been around for quite some time, but I don't think it had quite the same influence in the thirties as it has nowadays.

Oh yes, the beats would have perhaps been more appropriate than Hemingway, I was going to talk about Kerouac which would have fit much more with what I said previously, but I chose Hem independently from the counter-culture argument, I just fancied talking about Hemingway in short.

You know Neely, this is a fascinating thought. I don't know about counter culture, but there does seem to be a strain of American literature that rebels against an established norm? And even more established novels. For instance Huck Finn and The Scarlet Letter and possibly even Moby Dick. But why is this necessarily American? Can't one look at Madam Bovary and say it strives to challenge existing French conventions of the 19th century?

Yes, I am interested in such ideas too glad you feel the same way. It’s not necessarily American at all. I can see how novels like Madam Bovary would challenge the conventions of French society, just as Hardy would do to British Victorian society. I think such rebellions happen all over the world in almost every culture, its like of form of social evolution, it’s just that American culture is so strong with the backbone of the Hollywood narrative coming though that there is more to rebel against here maybe.

What makes a story, especially something complex and long like a novel? It's not just a sequence of events delineated. My normal day, going to work, returning to my wife and reading the newspaper and having dinner and going to bed isn't a story.

I don’t know, Virgina Woolf did.

Story requires by nature some out of convention disturbance, sort of like the opening notes of Beethoven's Fifth symphony, to get a sequence of events interesting enough to craft into an experience, an experience interesting for a reader to spend money on and take the time to read.

I wouldn’t say that just because something is an unusual story that it necessarily qualifies it as counter-culture, but I think I know what you mean. It is interesting that you raise the idea of spending money on something for that itself creates the market for it to dilute its initial rebellion. I would say though that if someone is writing something unusual in order to find a market to sell that book, you have to ask how much this is counter-culture and how much it is simply trying to find a new angle in the traditional market.


For Hemingway as well, The Sun Also Rises appears to be his best - well at least what I think is his best. Pure, minimalistic, understatement. Very possible to love both writers despite their significantly different styles.

yes I would agree, I think it is too.

[Bitterfly]

As I Lay Dying is fantastic, glad you like it. I prefer The Sound and the Fury? The former is often propped up as Faulkner's best and it may be the best techincal exposition of his style, but I prefer The Sound and the Fury by a great margin.
.

I didn't know As I lay Dying was supposed to be his best and I'm very surprised, just like I was flabbergastered when I found out it had been written after The Sound and the Fury, and not before. I'd taken it for some kind of rough draft, if you see what I mean! So yes, I agree with you, The Sound and the Fury seems far more complex, and more of a masterpiece.


I think such rebellions happen all over the world in almost every culture, its like of form of social evolution, it’s just that American culture is so strong with the backbone of the Hollywood narrative coming though that there is more to rebel against here maybe.

I think most great authors in all countries went against the expectations of the reading public at the time they were writing, and the Hollywood narrative (which you still haven't defined, by the way) seems to be just one more type of established thought-form, not particularly more powerful than those that have existed in other countries. Look at Rousseau going against the primacy of reason prevalent in the French eighteenth century; Zola shocking everyone (including American authors of the period) with his crude descriptions of life... and there are countless other examples (I suppose you could look at all the censored books to see those who went against the prevalent norms of their time).

Just a thought about what you call the Hollywood narrative: if you look at som early American novelists, you see that their sombre outlook on life is often what contrasted with what is seen as typically American optimism and faith in progress. What we see as Hollywood narrative, its main traits I suggested before (linear narrative that makes sense and that gives the impression that the world is understandable and orderable despite its apparent chaos, for instance) may only be a reflection of what Americans wanted to think from the nineteenth century onwards, and which was rejected by some more clairvoyant, or more pessimistic, or more influenced by European thought, authors, such as Hawthorne, or Poe, or Melville, or even Charles Brockden Brown. I suppose the naturalist authors, or even those of the Lost Generation, were also seen as going against the "natural" American optimism.

I wonder whether American novelists were not also caught in an imitation process they had to rebel against to some extent. If you look at the first great American novelists, they were all influenced by European genres, some of which caught on later in the US than in Europe (the gothic romance, the naturalistic novel...). I suppose it must have been hard for them to develop a separate voice (I know some of them, including James, complained that there was nothing to write about in the US!! :p ).

[LitNetIsGreat]

Hollywood Narrative

Well I am partially talking about a standardised narrative form with most of the elements found here:
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/filmnotes/classical.html

In particular:

1. A character has certain traits and reacts to certain situations as an agent of action and decision.
2. A protagonist is the central character, active, goal-oriented, positive motivations. The antagonist is in conflict with the central character's effort to solve a problem.
3. A story must have resolution, an ending, closure for characters and situations.
4. Genre is a standard formula for a particular kind of story.

But I am also meaning the mythology, in the Roland Barthes sense of the word, which is contained within the story. I’m talking about the values that are present either on the surface, the “hero” fighting the “baddie,” the idea that such polar opposites even exist, and the things hidden slightly under the surface of the text/story, the values of American society, the work ethic and so on. I am talking about a very clichéd, narrow-view of looking at the world, of taking the complexities of the human race and pigeon-holing them into “good,” “bad” and “right,” and “wrong”.

Most of all though I am perhaps implying the idea of conforming to the expectations of the system in which you are brought up in and rejecting this, at least this is what I had in mind with the counter-culture.
Have to go.

[Tallon]

I have read most of Hemingway’s novels and some of his short stories let me see: A Farewell to Arms, True and First Light, Men Without Women, Green Hills of Africa, Fiesta (twice), A Moveable Feast (thrice) and The Old Man and the Sea – (what no Whom the Bell Tolls?) and maybe another one hidden somewhere on my bookshelf?



I've not read as much Hemingway as you, but i found For Whom The Bell Tolls his best work (or at least my favourite, perhaps i'm bias because i like the spanish civil war as a subject). I suggest you read that one as soon as possible ;):D.

[Bitterfly]

Hollywood Narrative

Well I am partially talking about a standardised narrative form with most of the elements found here:
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/filmnotes/classical.html

In particular:

1. A character has certain traits and reacts to certain situations as an agent of action and decision.
2. A protagonist is the central character, active, goal-oriented, positive motivations. The antagonist is in conflict with the central character's effort to solve a problem.
3. A story must have resolution, an ending, closure for characters and situations.
4. Genre is a standard formula for a particular kind of story.

But I am also meaning the mythology, in the Roland Barthes sense of the word, which is contained within the story. I’m talking about the values that are present either on the surface, the “hero” fighting the “baddie,” the idea that such polar opposites even exist, and the things hidden slightly under the surface of the text/story, the values of American society, the work ethic and so on. I am talking about a very clichéd, narrow-view of looking at the world, of taking the complexities of the human race and pigeon-holing them into “good,” “bad” and “right,” and “wrong”.


Thanks, Neely, that was interesting and confirmed what I already thought (always pleasant! :p ). Don't you think though that the Manichean values you speak about can be found in all "simplistic" literature, regardless of country of origin? Or do you believe that Americans are more prone to it? Would you have examples of American novels that follow that logic? Oh, maybe stupid question - I suppose most "bad" novels do...

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes the idea of the Hollywood narrative (as described above) is not of course an invention of the American system, as you say many of the ideas such as “story must have resolution, an ending, closure for characters and situations” are standardized ways of writing that have been around forever, it is just in the US it was perfected. I just think that many of the best writers to come out of the US seem to have sought a voice outside of this or even directly rebelled against it strongly as in the beat writers.

I remember reading and greatly enjoying Shelley’s Frankenstein, (not American but bear with me) in particular I enjoyed the pathos in the relationship between Victor and Elizabeth, their separation while he was in Scotland constantly worrying over her and dreading every letter he received should it be bad news. This I remember thinking is what love is about (in a strange sort of way) love felt in agony of being apart from one another in bitter circumstances. This I vaguely remember stretched on for around one hundred pages as Victor sought the people he wanted in the far corners of the UK.

I then made the big mistake of buying the Kenneth Branagh film version and was interested in seeing how this element of the novel was developed in the film. Of course the entire one hundred page pathos of this aspect was reduced a 2 min love scene complete with close-ups, soft lighting, nice music and professionally applied make-up (despite the appalling weather conditions). The whole thing had been Hollywoodized.

You don’t have to read far into the majority of ‘popular’ books on the best seller lists to see this Hollywoodized aspect, or really just plain cliché and poor writing, coming though. Just pick one up at ramdom, there’s your example. There are a lot of great contemporary writers out there of course, it is just a case of cutting through the majority, in order to get to the few.

[mortalterror]

Yes the idea of the Hollywood narrative (as described above) is not of course an invention of the American system, as you say many of the ideas such as “story must have resolution, an ending, closure for characters and situations” are standardized ways of writing that have been around forever, it is just in the US it was perfected. I just think that many of the best writers to come out of the US seem to have sought a voice outside of this or even directly rebelled against it strongly as in the beat writers.

I remember reading and greatly enjoying Shelley’s Frankenstein, (not American but bear with me) in particular I enjoyed the pathos in the relationship between Victor and Elizabeth, their separation while he was in Scotland constantly worrying over her and dreading every letter he received should it be bad news. This I remember thinking is what love is about (in a strange sort of way) love felt in agony of being apart from one another in bitter circumstances. This I vaguely remember stretched on for around one hundred pages as Victor sought the people he wanted in the far corners of the UK.

I then made the big mistake of buying the Kenneth Branagh film version and was interested in seeing how this element of the novel was developed in the film. Of course the entire one hundred page pathos of this aspect was reduced a 2 min love scene complete with close-ups, soft lighting, nice music and professionally applied make-up (despite the appalling weather conditions). The whole thing had been Hollywoodized.

You don’t have to read far into the majority of ‘popular’ books on the best seller lists to see this Hollywoodized aspect, or really just plain cliché and poor writing, coming though. Just pick one up at ramdom, there’s your example. There are a lot of great contemporary writers out there of course, it is just a case of cutting through the majority, in order to get to the few.

As a person who watches about 150 new films every year, I'm convinced that Hollywood creates the best films in the world. When I hear people run it down, I wonder how many foreign and independent films they've actually seen. Such statements reveal a profound ignorance about the state of film in America today, and the many advances we've made in the twentieth century. When they say that Hollywood never makes any really good movies, I wonder what they mean by good. I wonder if they've made their mind up beforehand or if they are even looking for good films. Maybe they don't like Nobel Prize winning author Jose Saramago and so they didn't go to see Blindness this year. Maybe they don't like Cormac McCarthy; so they skipped No Country For Old Men last year, which came out at the same time as Love in the Time of Cholera. Who can say, with a straight face, that Hollywood does not tell good stories?

For every good genuinely independent or foreign film you can name, I will give you two good Hollywood films. We aren't just good at telling stories. We're the best. We dominate at it and are the envy of the world. People from other countries with any talent come here because they can't make the kinds of films they want to make where they come from. They can't get the funding, or government permission, or enough talent in one place. Milos Forman is a Czech who came to this country and made Amadeus and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Ask him what he thinks of Hollywood. We are a global brain drain, where talent pools and the possibilities are endless. You can't throw a shoe in Los Angeles without it hitting some writer, or director, or an unemployed actor. It's a marvelous thing. Everyone watches our films, everywhere. They do that because even our mediocre pictures tend to be better than their good ones.

Bitterfly is right. Most movies or books in general tend to be lousy. The difference is that in Hollywood we make more films than anywhere else. We make more bad ones, but we also make more good ones. Just remember, we made Glengarry Glen Ross. We did it. That wasn't somebody else. That wasn't France or Britain or Belgium. That was the USA. Last year, the big foreign films were Lust Caution, 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Tropa de Elite, and Atonement. The big indy films were stuff like I'm Not There and Control. You're really going to put those above mainstream American fare like There Will Be Blood? Hollywood made The Aviator, Master and Commander, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, L.A. Confidential, Schindler's List, Goodfellas, Star Wars, Gone With the Wind, Casablanca, High Noon, Citizen Kane, A Streetcar Named Desire, Julius Caesar, The Searchers, Network, The Godfather, Jaws, and Patton. What more do you want?

The movie industry isn't an enemy to art and thought. It is the greatest multimedia form since Opera, the flower of American culture, and it is in bloom.

[Bitterfly]

Very good vindication of the American movie industry. I especially liked your "Who can say, with a straight face, that Hollywood does not tell good stories? ". That's what I should have said, on another thread, about American and British novels vs. French ones: they often tell good stories. It's no use saying plot and storyline and invention or imagination count for nothing - without these elements, you have very dry "art works" (and I hesitate to call them that) indeed. That's the main problem with the film industry in France, by the way - no stories to write home about, just egocentric drivel most of the time.

But where I think you could nuance a little though, mortalterror, is on the constraints censorships apparels imposed to the Hollywood film throughout the 20th century, making it into what Neely defined as an (happy)end-oriented, Manichean narrative machine. I remember being astounded when I learnt that the "happy end", for instance, was imposed, if I remember well, towards the beginning of the Cold War (I'm really not sure about the date, but don't have time to check, sorry). You're right in that wonderful films have been produced, and of course censorship is not at all what it used to be, but there I think there are certain moralising elements in Hollywood films which are its downside.

(I'm sorry, I'm in a hurry and know, alas, that I haven't expressed myself very clearly. Pardon my English! :p )

[PabloQ]

But, of course, the topic is "On the American Novel". I do have a thought on this Hollywood idea, and it's not exclusively American, but predominantly so. The novel to a large degree has become more of an entertainment than an art form or form of artistic expression. I don't want to cast a wide net of generalization, but the majority of American writers turn out entertaining novels, mysteries, horror, fantasy, romance. They are published under the auspices of its marketability. And if it gets really popular and sells well, there's the big bucks of the movie rights. The critically acclaimed writers of the American novel seem to be aging and dying off. For me, this is one of the reasons I drove myself into a specific period of the American novel.

I recently read This Side of Paradise by F. Scott Fitzgerald. It's not a great story. It's not full of action or complexity of plot. But I felt I was reading an artfully superb, lyrical novel and I enjoyed the hell out of it. American authors of the early to mid-20th century were lured to Hollywood by the glamour and the money -- Fitzgerald, Faulkner, and Tennessee Williams (ok, he's a playwright) spring to mind immediately.

However, this thread is not meant to mourn the death of the American novel, but to celebrate it. So let's get back to the topic and share the American novels and authors we enjoy.

I want to throw a thought out there. It seems as though the best-loved novels of some of these authors come early in the author's career. The Sun Also Rises gets a lot of love, but The Old Man and the Sea seems less popular. The Sound and the Fury was, I believe, written early in Faulkner's career. Theodore Dreiser is best known for Sister Carrie his second novel. Huckleberry Finn was early in Twain's writing career, but he eventually went broke and wrote unmemorable novels reviving Tom Sawyer as a character. So the question I want to throw out there to feast on is whether these writers' best works are their early works or is it the strong early works that establish the writer as a novelist and the work continues to mature as the writer ages? Whatcha think?

[Virgil]

I don't know Pablo. All novelists get old and lose something, so can't one consider this a fatalistic outcome? Perhaps it does strike American authors more so. I can add to your list Steinbeck and Hawthorne and Melville. But Henry James had a brilliant ending to his career and perhaps Saul Bellow did as well. I don't think it's anything in the American experience that would cause this. Tolstoy's latter novels weren't his best and neither were Virginia Woolf's or DH Lawrence's or Conrad's, and Flaubert had only one great novel. I'm not sure I agree with the premise. But I do think that American novelists strive for that one great novel and so there may not be much left in them afterward. Faulkner's best work may not have been at the end, but he had quite a few great novels. For me he's the greatest novelist ever.

[Emil Miller]

I don't know Pablo. All novelists get old and lose something, so can't one consider this a fatalistic outcome? Perhaps it does strike American authors more so. I can add to your list Steinbeck and Hawthorne and Melville. But Henry James had a brilliant ending to his career and perhaps Saul Bellow did as well. I don't think it's anything in the American experience that would cause this. Tolstoy's latter novels weren't his best and neither were Virginia Woolf's or DH Lawrence's or Conrad's, and Flaubert had only one great novel. I'm not sure I agree with the premise. But I do think that American novelists strive for that one great novel and so there may not be much left in them afterward. Faulkner's best work may not have been at the end, but he had quite a few great novels. For me he's the greatest novelist ever.

Sorry to disagree with you about Flaubert ,Virgil, but I think that L'Education Sentimentale is better than Madame Bovary.

[Virgil]

Sorry to disagree with you about Flaubert ,Virgil, but I think that L'Education Sentimentale is better than Madame Bovary.

Really? I've never read it. It never seems to come up in lit classes. Maybe one of the French lit netters can comment on that.

But I did look it up in Wikipedia and this is what they say:


Sentimental Education (French: L'Éducation sentimentale, 1869) was Gustave Flaubert's last novel published during his lifetime, and is considered one of the most influential novels of the 19th century, being praised by contemporaries George Sand,[1] Emile Zola,[2] and Henry James.[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentimental_Education

I'm quite surprised. I stand corrected. Thanks. I will have to put this on my reading list. :)

[JCamilo]

and the never finished Bouvard and Pecuchet is quite impressive as well. This thing about one novel is accidental, Dostoievisky and Dickens can not be put in this bag.

[Tallon]

I think the problem with a lot of novelists is that they throw out all their best ideas early in their career, and although they become more skilled their ideas become less interesting. Some people seem to go slightly mad with fame or critical recognition and over reach themselves later in their career. But some just keep recyling the same few ideas as their skill gets better, this seems to be the best way.

[_Shannon_]

For me, a real turning point in my reading came when I read Dreiser's Sister Carrie. It is one of those books that really kind of kicks your butt, and stretches you--while at the same time being very readable. It made me not only want to read more of him-but to read all of the now overlooked authors who were very important to those authors in the canon who are now far more widely read-John Dos Passos, Thomas Wolfe, John O'Hara (which feels like a guilty pleasure), Sherwood Anderson, Erskine Caldwell, Katherine Anne Porter, etc.

It actually turns out to be a really good fit, as much of the poetry I most love comes out of this time, too--and I see these authors along with WC Williams as really essential in the creation of a uniquely American tradition in writing.

LOL! It's early, and I have no idea if this at all answers your original question. :blush:

[LitNetIsGreat]

As a person who watches about 150 new films every year, I'm convinced that Hollywood creates the best films in the world. When I hear people run it down, I wonder how many foreign and independent films they've actually seen. Such statements reveal a profound ignorance about the state of film in America today, and the many advances we've made in the twentieth century. When they say that Hollywood never makes any really good movies, I wonder what they mean by good. I wonder if they've made their mind up beforehand or if they are even looking for good films. Maybe they don't like Nobel Prize winning author Jose Saramago and so they didn't go to see Blindness this year. Maybe they don't like Cormac McCarthy; so they skipped No Country For Old Men last year, which came out at the same time as Love in the Time of Cholera. Who can say, with a straight face, that Hollywood does not tell good stories?

For every good genuinely independent or foreign film you can name, I will give you two good Hollywood films. We aren't just good at telling stories. We're the best. We dominate at it and are the envy of the world. People from other countries with any talent come here because they can't make the kinds of films they want to make where they come from. They can't get the funding, or government permission, or enough talent in one place. Milos Forman is a Czech who came to this country and made Amadeus and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Ask him what he thinks of Hollywood. We are a global brain drain, where talent pools and the possibilities are endless. You can't throw a shoe in Los Angeles without it hitting some writer, or director, or an unemployed actor. It's a marvelous thing. Everyone watches our films, everywhere. They do that because even our mediocre pictures tend to be better than their good ones.

Bitterfly is right. Most movies or books in general tend to be lousy. The difference is that in Hollywood we make more films than anywhere else. We make more bad ones, but we also make more good ones. Just remember, we made Glengarry Glen Ross. We did it. That wasn't somebody else. That wasn't France or Britain or Belgium. That was the USA. Last year, the big foreign films were Lust Caution, 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Tropa de Elite, and Atonement. The big indy films were stuff like I'm Not There and Control. You're really going to put those above mainstream American fare like There Will Be Blood? Hollywood made The Aviator, Master and Commander, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, L.A. Confidential, Schindler's List, Goodfellas, Star Wars, Gone With the Wind, Casablanca, High Noon, Citizen Kane, A Streetcar Named Desire, Julius Caesar, The Searchers, Network, The Godfather, Jaws, and Patton. What more do you want?

The movie industry isn't an enemy to art and thought. It is the greatest multimedia form since Opera, the flower of American culture, and it is in bloom.

I wasn't really attacking the Hollywood film industry as such, but the dominant ideology which comes there, as present in the politics of the American system. I am talking about the 'American Dream' and the way that the narrative reduces complex issues, such as the complexities of what it means to be human, as "goodie" or "baddie." Even down to the fact that movies were used to provide positive propaganda in Vietnam and the cold war. Also the religious conservatism and the right-wing work ethic all combines to create something to rebel against, look at the writings of the beats, of people like Bukowski, even of Steinbeck, of Arthur Miller - the bleakness of the American Dream as represented in Death of a Salesman and so forth. This was my main argument, not essentially attacking the movie industry of which the vast majority of my favourite films come from: The Talented Mr Ripley, Pulp Fiction, The Godfather, Fight Club etc. Of course it is not the job of Hollywood to make good movies, the only priority is to make money. If a good film comes out of the by-product of making money then so be it. America is the best at making movies because it has the most money and that’s it.

It is interesting though when you look at films like Fight Club, which is essentially a counter-culture film, anti-conformist, anti-capitalist, making a huge financial success within the Hollywood system. It goes back to what I was saying earlier about anything rebellion with the counter-culture it simply becomes diluted by the system. Fight Club is a punks dog collar.

[_Shannon_]

Really? I've never read it. It never seems to come up in lit classes. Maybe one of the French lit netters can comment on that.

But I did look it up in Wikipedia and this is what they say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentimental_Education

I'm quite surprised. I stand corrected. Thanks. I will have to put this on my reading list. :)

I just read it--it rocks! I think it falls into the category of really important books to subsequent authors, which is no longer widely read.By many it is considered the first modern novel.

[Emil Miller]

For me, a real turning point in my reading came when I read Dreiser's Sister Carrie. It is one of those books that really kind of kicks your butt, and stretches you--while at the same time being very readable. It made me not only want to read more of him-but to read all of the now overlooked authors who were very important to those authors in the canon who are now far more widely read-John Dos Passos, Thomas Wolfe, John O'Hara (which feels like a guilty pleasure), Sherwood Anderson, Erskine Caldwell, Katherine Anne Porter, etc.

It actually turns out to be a really good fit, as much of the poetry I most love comes out of this time, too--and I see these authors along with WC Williams as really essential in the creation of a uniquely American tradition in writing.

LOL! It's early, and I have no idea if this at all answers your original question. :blush:

Yes, Dreiser was a terrific writer; Sister Carrie had the same effect on me.
His other great book An American Tragedy should be required reading for those interested in American literature. The fact that Dreiser has fallen out of favour is neither here nor there, he is a major figure in American naturalism and his stories leave a powerful impression on their readers.

[JCamilo]

I think the problem with a lot of novelists is that they throw out all their best ideas early in their career, and although they become more skilled their ideas become less interesting. Some people seem to go slightly mad with fame or critical recognition and over reach themselves later in their career. But some just keep recyling the same few ideas as their skill gets better, this seems to be the best way.

That is not true at all, it is just an accident the "when" the greatest work will happen. Some guys like Dickens and Dostoievisky will keep producing good books and it is pretty much clear the russian dude didnt wrote his best stuff early. If we believe his own opinion, Robert Louis Stevenson died while writing his best work. There is more examples (and we just should not limit it to novelists - Goethe best work is certainly not his first work)... Melville for example was never aware that he achived the production of a great novel, so he kept trying, trying, trying. And Joyce never lost any ambition at all...

[Tallon]

That is not true at all, it is just an accident the "when" the greatest work will happen. Some guys like Dickens and Dostoievisky will keep producing good books and it is pretty much clear the russian dude didnt wrote his best stuff early. If we believe his own opinion, Robert Louis Stevenson died while writing his best work. There is more examples (and we just should not limit it to novelists - Goethe best work is certainly not his first work)... Melville for example was never aware that he achived the production of a great novel, so he kept trying, trying, trying. And Joyce never lost any ambition at all...
Yeah but they're writers of genius. Even some great writers seem to recycle their ideas/themes a lot.

[JCamilo]

But the same can be said about Tolstoi and Tolstoi last works was nowhere close even to Ivan Ilitch (for unique reasons, because someone unique as Tolstoi live their own logic). In the end there is not a way to analyse when higher quality will happen...

[Emil Miller]

"I wasn't really attacking the Hollywood film industry as such, but the dominant ideology which comes there, as present in the politics of the American system. I am talking about the 'American Dream' and the way that the narrative reduces complex issues, such as the complexities of what it means to be human, as "goodie" or "baddie." Even down to the fact that movies were used to provide positive propaganda in Vietnam and the cold war."

I don't want to get too involved in Neely's argument,as stated above, because it has little to do with the original thread, but some of the best films ever made were created for propaganda purposes; Alexander Nevsky dir. Segei Eisenstein, Triumph of the Will dir.Leni Riefenstahl and The Way to the Stars dir.Anthony Asquith: Russian, German, and British respectively.
So it isn't only the USA that has used the cinema for propaganda; it was going on long before the Vietnam war.
There was also plenty of subtle propaganda being used in American cinema during the 1930s and 40s by left-leaning writers, directors and actors, resulting in films such as The Grapes of Wrath and the formation of the Un-American Activities Committee.
The "goodie" versus "baddie" comment is, perhaps, best exemplified by Shane, brilliantly adapted from Jack Schaefer's novel by George Stevens, where the hero actually wears a white hat and the villain a black one but, so what ?, it's a great film.

[Mopey Droney]

It is interesting though when you look at films like Fight Club, which is essentially a counter-culture film, anti-conformist, anti-capitalist, making a huge financial success within the Hollywood system. It goes back to what I was saying earlier about anything rebellion with the counter-culture it simply becomes diluted by the system. Fight Club is a punks dog collar.Fight Club wasn't a success when it first came out because it wasn't diluted by the system. Fincher didn't allow key changes from the execs, and as such it tanked with a large mainstream audience in the theaters. Its later popularity on VHS and DVD came out of the strength of its merits which were advertised through word of mouth. It's so popular now that it's hard to remember that in 1999 it was considered a bona fide cult film. Now, it is of course true that it came out of the Hollywood system. What is wrong with that, inherently? I have a feeling that if the exact same film were released independently you wouldn't say so. I would go so far as to say the artistry of the film depends upon it being a studio film, as much of the cinematography and special effects wouldn't have been possible outside of the studio system. It's also easier to get more talented actors. I just don't buy the "nothing within Hollywood can be uncompromisingly rebellious" notion. All rebellion can be bought and sold, all rebellion can be turned into a fashionable commodity, within or without Hollywood, in or outside America.

[LitNetIsGreat]

To risk being shouted at for being off topic but:

I just don't buy the "nothing within Hollywood can be uncompromisingly rebellious" notion. All rebellion can be bought and sold, all rebellion can be turned into a fashionable commodity, within or without Hollywood, in or outside America.

It does, that is exactly my point. Nothing much can be a rebellion because it is immediately engulfed by the system it seeks to rebel against. Thus Che, one of the ultimate symbols of socialist rebellion, has become a HUGE marketable commodity and can be found on anything from T-shirts to key rings to mugs and thermal socks. Kerouac initially rebelling against the work ethic culture of America (see still on topic) becomes a very rich and respected writer and cult figure of American literature and highly praised by the very system he sought to rebel against. There is no escape.

Fight Club may not have been a success when it first came out, whether this is true or not it is news to me, but it has certainly shifted enough DVDs since and who benefits from that? Where does the money go back to the very place it sought to rebel against?

The "goodie" versus "baddie" comment is, perhaps, best exemplified by Shane, brilliantly adapted from Jack Schaefer's novel by George Stevens, where the hero actually wears a white hat and the villain a black one but, so what ?, it's a great film.

True that's all that really matters whether the art form is good or bad, there is little place in my book for issues of morality in the arts, for me the art should always come first. Though, having said that it is the ideology within simple things like this which makes it all the more easy to see "goodies" and "baddies" in real life, this propaganda is all well and good to a certain extent in fiction, but it is in the reality when this is played out that it becomes all the more sinister.

[Mopey Droney]

Kerouac was not acclaimed by what he was specifically rebelling against. The Beats only became acclaimed after they changed the critical fabric. Comments such as "there is no escape" make rebellion seem more futile than it is, make it seem like the establishment is static when it isn't. Pointing out that yesterday's rebellion is today's status quo sounds to me more like a call to rebel than a reason not to.

[JBI]

Since when were these Beatnicks acclaimed? Only some critics acclaim them, mostly American, while others have criticized them. I think perhaps the one who has enjoyed the best posthumous career was Ginsberg, primarily based on Howl.

I see them essentially as precursors to stronger poets and writers who came later. There is some good stuff, but I don't know how far we can stretch that - there is still of course the cult following of young, mostly male, readers who enjoy those books, but to what extent can we call that acclaim?

[Mopey Droney]

Good point. They are not universally acclaimed. There really isn't too much of an Establishment anymore is there? That said in Academia the post-structuralist schools are pretty into Burroughs. Most of the acclaim for the beats though comes from the authors that followed them like Updike, Roth, some of the postmodernists, etc.

[PabloQ]

To risk being shouted at for being off topic but:

Here's your shout. Tweet. Penalty flag. Five yard penalty. One of the curiosities that kills threads is when a really interesting topic doesn't spin itself off to another thread. I encourage, MT, Neeley, et al. to do so.:wave:

Another five yard penalty on those of you who are tossing about this Flaubert fella, and that doggone Dostoyevsky, and that little Dickens, and Joyce. Please, oh please, don't kill my thread with that age old argument about Ulysses.:eek:

But I'm glad I perked up the conversation with that little observation. It's not a hard and fast rule, but it is curious. The exception that is on my mind is Sinclair Lewis. He wrote six books you've never heard of before he wrote Main Street and Babbitt, the latter of which he won the Pulitzer (and he refuesed it). His other successes, Arrowsmith, Dodsworth, and Elmer Gantry quickly followed. I know I want to read Dodsworth because it's the third in a somewhat unrecognized trilogy. Main Street deals with life in a small town. Babbitt deals with middle -- middle age, mid-size city, middle class, mid-life crisis. Dodsworth is supposed to deal with the upper crust in Babbitt's city of Zenith.

Two other books in the Lewis collection I want to read. It Can't Happen Here is a look of what would happen in America if fascism took over and he wrote before the Nazis took power in Germany. The second book is Kingsblood Royal, which is supposed to be a novel dealing with relations between the races.

One other factor in how one picks what one likes from an author's body of work regardless of country sometimes your age is a factor in what you enjoy. I know that when I reread some of the works that I will eventually reread, I'll be reading them from a more mature perspective. I know when I was in my 20s, my personal perspective on literature was not what it is today. Sometimes a work speaks differently to you when one is older and more mature. Just a thought.

[PabloQ]

For me, a real turning point in my reading came when I read Dreiser's Sister Carrie. It is one of those books that really kind of kicks your butt, and stretches you--while at the same time being very readable. It made me not only want to read more of him-but to read all of the now overlooked authors who were very important to those authors in the canon who are now far more widely read-John Dos Passos, Thomas Wolfe, John O'Hara (which feels like a guilty pleasure), Sherwood Anderson, Erskine Caldwell, Katherine Anne Porter, etc.

It actually turns out to be a really good fit, as much of the poetry I most love comes out of this time, too--and I see these authors along with WC Williams as really essential in the creation of a uniquely American tradition in writing.

LOL! It's early, and I have no idea if this at all answers your original question. :blush:
:banana:

[LitNetIsGreat]

Here's your shout. Tweet. Penalty flag. Five yard penalty. One of the curiosities that kills threads is when a really interesting topic doesn't spin itself off to another thread. I encourage, MT, Neely, et al. to do so.:wave:


Fair enough old boy, though I wasn't totally off topic, I was talking of the beats there you know.

[PabloQ]

It was just a 5 yarder. It's not as though I'm not enjoying the discussion, but it seems to be taking on a life of it's own.
Hey, wait a minute, who are you calling old???!!!!:)

[LitNetIsGreat]

Since when were these Beatnicks acclaimed? Only some critics acclaim them, mostly American, while others have criticized them. I think perhaps the one who has enjoyed the best posthumous career was Ginsberg, primarily based on Howl.

I see them essentially as precursors to stronger poets and writers who came later. There is some good stuff, but I don't know how far we can stretch that - there is still of course the cult following of young, mostly male, readers who enjoy those books, but to what extent can we call that acclaim?

Well I know that Kerouac is studied on a lot of degrees in literature in the UK so I suppose that counts for something in some way. Also popular consensus seems to give him and others of the beat mould a little critical credit, take this entry from your favourite website wiki (really I am pis*ing people off today aren't I?)

Jack Kerouac was an American author, poet and painter. Alongside William S. Burroughs and Allen Ginsberg, he is considered a pioneer of the Beat Generation.
Kerouac's work was very popular, but received little critical acclaim during his lifetime. Today, he is considered an important and influential writer who inspired others, including Hunter S. Thompson, Tom Robbins, Lester Bangs, Richard Brautigan, Ken Kesey, Haruki Murakami, and writers of the New Journalism. Kerouac also influenced musicians such as the Grateful Dead, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Jim Morrison, Tom Waits, Simon & Garfunkel, The Smiths, Death Cab For Cutie, and Ulf Lundell.

I know that such entry stands for little but generally from what I have read Kerouac is considered a fair writer with a little critical acclaim, though I wouldn't argue his case as amongst the best - agreed, even if personally I have a soft spot for him.

Anyway, back to topic, what is your favourite breakfast cereal? :argue:

[LitNetIsGreat]

It was just a 5 yarder. It's not as though I'm not enjoying the discussion, but it seems to be taking on a life of it's own.
Hey, wait a minute, who are you calling old???!!!!:)

Hey I know, threads tend to do that, it is hard for me not to sprout off in all directions (and I always try to keep politics out of it honest) though I will stand firm to your instructions. What's a 5 yarder anyway some sort of American Football thing? Anyway, I wasn't calling you old, that is just a Lincolnshire thing, (most of my family have bu*gered off to Lincoln) it just means "mate" I suppose. :)

[Emil Miller]

"One other factor in how one picks what one likes from an author's body of work regardless of country sometimes your age is a factor in what you enjoy. I know that when I reread some of the works that I will eventually reread, I'll be reading them from a more mature perspective. I know when I was in my 20s, my personal perspective on literature was not what it is today. Sometimes a work speaks differently to you when one is older and more mature. Just a thought."


This is very true and one of the reasons that I have spent so much time over the years re-reading certain novels that affected me profoundly on first reading. It certainly pays dividends as far as getting a fuller understanding of both story and, more importantly, the author's style.

[Jozanny]

Pablo, I went back and read your initial post, which I have done about three times now, and perhaps part of the reason you are fighting a losing battle with topic drift is because members aren't sure precisely what you are after. I myself am not entirely clear on that.

Hawthorne and Melville basically defined the nature of American Exceptionalism, which makes me sound like a college textbook, but there is little to get around that particular fact. Hawthorne was about guilt, which is another way of looking at what it cost to make the United States a country, and Melville considers the price of American obstinacy, and that price doesn't look too pretty when Ahab essentially demands the right to defy God, if necessary. Then we get the American realists a little later on. Twain, James, Dreiser, Howells, Dos Passos, and so on. Then come the modernists, the greatest of most subversive of those being Faulkner, and reading The Wild Palms is proof enough of how subversive he is, and why the great Toni Morrison is basically in his debt. If Faulkner damns the feminine principle in its entirety, Morrison turns the tables, damns whites, and the masculine principle of any sort. Then you have the post-modernists, the greatest of these, in my estimation, being the late John Gardner--and that is because I only know a little of DeLillo, but even in that little, I am not sure DeLillo's deliberate precision is more powerful than Gardner's ironic referencing of our Anglo-Saxon blood guilt.

We have already settled the question of American motifs. Perhaps, when Bitterfly is available, she can make her bullet list, because I forget the last one, but I think three of them were:

1. Settling the American frontier
2. Exposing and deconstructing the American dream
3. Examining American innocence/obstinacy.

In defense of mortalterror and his provocateurs, I don't think you can eliminate Hollywood from the discussion of our literary ethos. Nathanael West even has a great little novella about Hollywood, which I think is one of the few things mortal and I agree on, called The Day of the Locust. Apparently my professors, who are dead, and mortal's, of whom I know nothing, float the same syllabus between them.

I also don't think you can say the contemporary novel has degenerated into crass commercialism--since that has been with us since Irving and The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. If you want critical approaches, I am sure a college library would allow you to research its periodical database. The lustre, for me, is a bit diminished, and I'd like to read Orhan Pamuk, who, ironically, had to take refuge at Columbia University before the Turkish government, wisely, decided to come to its senses--but then again, Pamuk may just be another Anglophile who knows how to get his hands dirty. That, I don't know.

[Virgil]

I'm intrigued to hear that people consider Ahab a character symbolizing American obstinency. What obatinency do you think that Melville had in mind? Moby Dick I believe was published in 1851. The only obstinency of the time that comes to mind is in the personality of Andrew Jackson. I've seen elements of Andrew Jackson's personality in several charaters in American Literature, but it never struck me to consider Ahab. Sure he's obstinent but really the central thrust of Ahab's character was the American impulse to reach beyond nature, to strive beyond man's limitations. This impulse is, I believe, in the American character, and not just in literature. I don't think it's a surprise that the US was the first and still only people to make a human landing on the moon, a striving to conquor the fronteer. Ahab in many respects represents the impulse to spread and settle the continent, manifest destiny westward. It's that kind of striving that I believe Melville is after with Ahab. Does it take a sort of obstinency to achieve it? Yes, and I don't think Melville is in complete sympathy with Ahab. Certainly there are consequences. Ahab is almost satanic in his quest. But I don't think Melville is necessariy in disagreement with Ahab either. Melville loves the satanic. What a great character Ahab is, perhaps the greatest of American literature.

Here are some great quotes that come from Ahab:


Aye, aye! It was that accursed white whale that razeed me; made a poor pegging lubber of me for ever and a day!... I'll chase him round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition's flames before I give him up. And this is what ye have shipped for, men! to chase that white whale on both sides of land, and over all sides of earth, till he spouts black blood and rolls fin out.

And notice how Ahab is striving to conquor nature in this:

Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way? Or is it, that as in essence whiteness is not so much a color as the visible absence of color; and at the same time the concrete of all colors; is it for these reasons that there is such a dumb blankness, full of meaning, in a wide landscape of snows--a colorless, all-color of atheism from which we shrink? And when we consider that other theory of the natural philosophers, that all other earthly hues--every stately or lovely emblazoning--the sweet tinges of sunset skies and woods; yea, and the gilded velvets of butterflies, and the butterfly cheeks of young girls; all these are but subtile deceits, not actually inherent in substances, but only laid on from without; so that all deified Nature absolutely paints like the harlot, whose allurements cover nothing but the charnel-house within; and when we proceed further, and consider that the mystical cosmetic which produces every one of her hues, the great principle of light, for ever remains white or colorless in itself, and if operating without medium upon matter, would touch all objects, even tulips and roses, with its own blank tinge--pondering all this, the palsied universe lies before us a leper; and like wilful travellers in Lapland, who refuse to wear colored and coloring glasses upon their eyes, so the wretched infidel gazes himself blind at the monumental white shroud that wraps all the prospect around him. And of all these things the Albino whale was the symbol. Wonder ye then at the fiery hunt?

And again here:

Hark ye yet again- the little lower layer. All visible objects, man, are but as pasteboard masks. But in each event- in the living act, the undoubted deed- there, some unknown but still reasoning thing puts forth the mouldings of its features from behind the unreasoning mask. If man will strike, strike though the mask! How can the prisoner reach outside except by thrusting through the wall? To me, the white whale is that wall, shoved near to me. Sometimes I think there's naught beyond. But 'tis enough. He tasks me; he heaps me; I see in him outrageous strength, with an inscrutable malice sinewing it. That inscrutable thing is chiefly what I hate; and be the white whale agent, or be the white whale principal, I will wreak that hate upon him. Talk not to me of blasphemy, man; I'd strike the sun if it insulted me.

"Thrusting through the wall,: that is the gist of Ahab's character. I absolute love that last line: "Talk not to me of blasphemy, man; I'd strike the sun if it insulted me." Perhaps my favorite quote from any American novel.

[PabloQ]

For those of you who read my original post and don't understand what I'm looking for, these last two entries would be it. Thank you, Jozanny and Virgil.

[Emil Miller]

I have just finished reading This Side of Paradise and the thing that is most striking is the difference between it and Scott Fitzgerald's other novels; I do not include the short stories here.
In a recent thread on American Literature there were some contributors who did not like The Great Gatsby and who may not have read This side of Paradise. It is instructive to note that, although there is a lot of Fitzgerald in both books, they really are very different, but there are only five years between the publication dates.
This Side of Paradise is a Bildungsroman (sorry, I cant think of an English equivalent) whereas Gatsby is, as we all know, the story of a man who dies for an illusion.

In TSOP we see the psychological development of Amory Blaine, a young man of independent means who goes to Princeton and finds it to be a magical place. However, all the potential promise that he displays is compromised by the tragedy of losing one of his friends in a motoring accident, the death of his parents and the onset of WW1 when other friends leave to fight in France.
He also volunteers but remains unscathed and the subsequent break up of his engagement to the love of his life further undermines his self-confidence.
Eventually, he loses his inheritance and, refusing to sell the family country home and having thrown up his job in an advertising agency, is reduced to living a proletarian existence in New York, but through his misfortune he discovers what sort of person he really is.
That is the basic storyline but there is a lot more to it in terms of his psychology as he develops from amusingly callow youth to adulthood.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'm reading Naked Lunch by William Burroughs at the moment, any one else read it or have views on the novel? Often I think that with stream of conscious novels you just have to go with it, feel the beat and rhythm of the words and images, I think that we are so used to finding and identifying with plots that it takes a while to follow these style of books. Seems to be highly regarded from what I have read of it. It's a Christmas present.

[Jozanny]

Neely:

Back in the day when I still paid for cable television, I saw the movie adaptation of what is, apparently, a Burroughs cult favorite, and I just could not connect to the themes running through the narrative. It is sad that Burroughs really shot his wife in the head at a party and all, but drug-induced stupors have been done to death a million times and again since your country gave the world The Beatles, The Stones, and The Who. Whether these self-conscious tortures are American or British, some fifty years in they start to feel stale, at least to me.

However, since I've never sat down and actually read Burroughs, if you think he has anything truly original to offer, I am open to the idea. One thing that stood out in the movie was the design of the rectum (more properly the other word which would kick in the auto-censor), which took on a life of its own as an all consuming orifice, but it just did not seem to amount to all that much to me. Gratuitous comes to mind. Overly indulgent. Something along those lines--though I could envy you since I no longer have any liberal friends who would think about giving me a book like that! Happy reading. :)

[Dr. Hill]

I got Henry James' "The American" for Christmas. I understand that Henry James was considered a British writer, however?

[JCamilo]

Meh, only Americans can be americans and still be considered english...

[Virgil]

I got Henry James' "The American" for Christmas. I understand that Henry James was considered a British writer, however?

No, he's definitely aan American writer. He did immigrate and live in England, but I think just about all his important works are from an American perspective. Anyone care to back me up on that?

[Jozanny]

No, he's definitely aan American writer. He did immigrate and live in England, but I think just about all his important works are from an American perspective. Anyone care to back me up on that?

Ditto. Critical consensus is that he is an American literary giant. His brother William is still widely regarded as the father of American psychology, and on the whole the James's were Anglo-Irish Americana.

Contemporary British critics of Henry James rejected him as a British author.

Technically, he died as a British citizen, but modern scholarship cedes him to the US in terms of his literary acclaim, and any serious reader of James can see this as self-evident. Most of his major characters, good and bad, are Americans, sometimes Europeanized Americans, but Americans nonetheless.

His major bomb novel, The Princess Casamassima, bombed, in point of fact, because he had no capacity to critique English socialist agitation, and it is one of the few major works by James which I think fails, utterly, because James tried to apply to politics what he could successful apply to the aesthetic appreciation of his caste--and it cannot really be done. You cannot argue that anarchy and monarchy are relatively ambiguous simply because civilization has a price. The Princess of the title is American in fact, but she lost that native sense a long time ago in the first novel in which James introduced her, Roderick Hudson. In Casamassima nationality is nearly irrelevant--one of the few times, for James, that this is so.

I own an edition of The American, but I would have to go back and skim to remember which one it is, since so much of James peoples my aging grey matter.

I should try to write a short article for The Henry James Review, I should, but what stops me is anything I'd have to offer the PhD's have no doubt covered 50 times over divided by 200 additional thesis statements, but maybe I should try anyway. I want to defy Dr. Hathaway and say that The Golden Bowl is ultimately a nihilistic vision of marriage.

Should I shut up now? :D

[LitNetIsGreat]

Neely:

Back in the day when I still paid for cable television, I saw the movie adaptation of what is, apparently, a Burroughs cult favorite, and I just could not connect to the themes running through the narrative. It is sad that Burroughs really shot his wife in the head at a party and all, but drug-induced stupors have been done to death a million times and again since your country gave the world The Beatles, The Stones, and The Who. Whether these self-conscious tortures are American or British, some fifty years in they start to feel stale, at least to me.

However, since I've never sat down and actually read Burroughs, if you think he has anything truly original to offer, I am open to the idea. One thing that stood out in the movie was the design of the rectum (more properly the other word which would kick in the auto-censor), which took on a life of its own as an all consuming orifice, but it just did not seem to amount to all that much to me. Gratuitous comes to mind. Overly indulgent. Something along those lines--though I could envy you since I no longer have any liberal friends who would think about giving me a book like that! Happy reading. :)


Yes well of course it is very difficult to read due to the style of writing, simply trying to identify "what is going on" is hard enough. Naturally this form of writing is reflecting the mind of a crazed drug addict so the style of writing should tally with this, which it certainly does.

Of course this sort of thing has been "done to death" as you say but this coming from the 50's is at least an original, and at the time ground-breaking piece of writing. Like much of the beat style it is certainly over-indulgent and somewhat purposely obscure, also Burroughs, apparently, deliberately attempted to shock readers of ‘middle America’ with his vulgar use of language. As with some of Kerouac's more stream of consciousness works or obscurer passages I do find myself being drawn into the flow of the words and language, even if most of the time I don't know what the hell I have just read at the end of it.

I have not made up my mind on this novel yet, as indeed I haven't about the beats in general, I like some of it, some of it works and some of it doesn't. I wouldn't overly defend or criticise the works to any great length - to me the works just are. It's certainly a different Christmas gift and I wouldn't swap it for a three-pack of Marks and Spencer's socks or a mug.

[Dr. Hill]

Oh ok, I've heard that some considered him a British author due to his style as well. Joseph Conrad was considered a British author even though he was born in Poland, I know this one because we're studying him in Brit Lit. :P

[PabloQ]

Henry James, American novelist.
OK, I've been thinking about influences on the American novel and I tend to think that the French have had more influence than the British on the American novel. Coming out of the Revolutionary War, America had a prevailing antipathy toward the UK and would be disinclined to embrace its arts. For the most part, the American novel emerged in the mid-19th century and took off after the American civil war. I don't see the influence of Dickens, Trollope, or Thackeray on the American novel. I can't think of an American work that is comparable to what those authors were turning out during the Victorian age.
However, just in this thread, there are references to both Flaubert and Zola. Now I'll admit that the only French novel I've read is the Three Musketeers, but I have Zola on my radar. I know that his work in naturalism had a strong influence on Frank Norris and Upton Sinclair. I've also read that Balzac's work had an influence on William Dean Howells, specifically Pere Goriot.
The lost generation of ex-pats of the 1920s and '30s -- Gertrude Stein, Hemingway, Dos Passos, Fitzgerald -- didn't hang out in British tea rooms, but rather gathered in Paris. I'm currently reading the 42nd Parallel by Dos Passos and it seems to treat France warmly. There is great enthusiasm in the novel when American enters into World War I, primarily because folks consider it noble to rescue the French and the Belgians. Americans cry when they hear the Marsellaise.
So I'm curious, what other French influences can you site on the American novel.
(Sorry folks, but I just don't have anything to offer on the beats).

[PabloQ]

I should try to write a short article for The Henry James Review, I should, but what stops me is anything I'd have to offer the PhD's have no doubt covered 50 times over divided by 200 additional thesis statements, but maybe I should try anyway. I want to defy Dr. Hathaway and say that The Golden Bowl is ultimately a nihilistic vision of marriage.
Jozanny, don't be afraid to beat the dead horse. Others apparently have. I'd be interested to know if you think the questions about James' sexuality has any influence on this nihilistic vision of marriage. Don't blow the article, but what do you think? From the James that I've read in the past year, I wouldn't think James's view toward marriage to be favorable at all.

[Virgil]

Henry James, American novelist.
OK, I've been thinking about influences on the American novel and I tend to think that the French have had more influence than the British on the American novel. Coming out of the Revolutionary War, America had a prevailing antipathy toward the UK and would be disinclined to embrace its arts. For the most part, the American novel emerged in the mid-19th century and took off after the American civil war. I don't see the influence of Dickens, Trollope, or Thackeray on the American novel. I can't think of an American work that is comparable to what those authors were turning out during the Victorian age.
However, just in this thread, there are references to both Flaubert and Zola. Now I'll admit that the only French novel I've read is the Three Musketeers, but I have Zola on my radar. I know that his work in naturalism had a strong influence on Frank Norris and Upton Sinclair. I've also read that Balzac's work had an influence on William Dean Howells, specifically Pere Goriot.
The lost generation of ex-pats of the 1920s and '30s -- Gertrude Stein, Hemingway, Dos Passos, Fitzgerald -- didn't hang out in British tea rooms, but rather gathered in Paris. I'm currently reading the 42nd Parallel by Dos Passos and it seems to treat France warmly. There is great enthusiasm in the novel when American enters into World War I, primarily because folks consider it noble to rescue the French and the Belgians. Americans cry when they hear the Marsellaise.
So I'm curious, what other French influences can you site on the American novel.
(Sorry folks, but I just don't have anything to offer on the beats).

That is quite an interesting thought Pablo. I had not thought of that. However, I do think that 18th century English novel may have influenced the Americans, apparently more so than the 19th century novels. Robinson Crusoe must have definetely influenced the many wilderness and seafaring American novels, and Tom Jones I know influenced Mark Twain. Tom Jones/Tom Sawyer? James was influenced by George Eliot and Dickens, but I think James is more of an anomoly when it comes to American 19th century writers. I do think the English Romanticism provided a philosophic underpinning to the American writers. In fact, I don't think that the Transcendalist movement would have occured without the Romanticism from England and Germany. Once we get to the early 20th century American writers I may have to quibble with you. There's no question that Joyce influenced quite a few writers and the works of both Faulkner and Fitzgerald would have been completely different without that of Joseph Conrad. Conrad is really the father figure in terms of novels for Faulkner and Fitzgerald.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I once heard a short lecture on the differing theme of escape in both American and English literature during the ‘modernist movement.’ Basically it was argued that American writers sought escape via vast journeys think Steinbeck and Hemingway, whereas the English writers’ journeys would be short, internal escapes, think To the Lighthouse, Woolf. The anomaly was Conrad, a hybrid of the two.

[JCamilo]

Could compare with south America, the XIX century French novels are too big to be ignored but finding which was more influential, you could always put down some russians and germans up as well. Not to mention there is no such thing as influence as genre only - Poets will have influence upon prose writers, and there goes.

[Jozanny]

Jozanny, don't be afraid to beat the dead horse. Others apparently have. I'd be interested to know if you think the questions about James' sexuality has any influence on this nihilistic vision of marriage. Don't blow the article, but what do you think? From the James that I've read in the past year, I wouldn't think James's view toward marriage to be favorable at all.

Thanks Pablo. Nothing I post on LN would *blow* any of my projects. I simply have too many going, and even as an armchair critic, I may know more than all but the most diehard about James, but I have to leave that knowledge in peace for a little while. I splurged and purchased a critical work on Lampedusa because I myself started a little piece about my latter day introduction to The Leopard, and need to say something about Italian modernism because it feels neglected, and I am Italian.

The Golden Bowl, nevertheless, is a difficult novel for an already difficult and effusive author. Whether it is the greatest work of Henry James can be debated, but it is certainly up there with his master works, which are, in no particular order, Portrait, Ambassadors, Wings, Beast in the Jungle, Screw, and The Aspern Papers. His output was much more than these titles, but these represent the genius of what he could do.

Now, the simple answer to your question is yes. James's orientation did lead to a kind of subversion of Victorian notions of propriety--but it is more complicated than creative pair bonding. Wealth and acquisition are extremely important subtexts in James's marriages and other romantic relationships. Hathaway's argument rests on the last words of Maggie's father before he returns to the US. He tells his daughter she has a lot of good *things*--implying that she should hang on to what she has. I take Dr. Hathaway's point, and respect the man dearly, because his dedication to James is a gift to all--but the notion that a good marriage is good because of one's assets is a bit cracked, in my book, just like *the crack* in the golden bowl itself, and I suspect, that James knew this, in his old age. The last lines in the book have Maggie looking at her husband in *pity,* even though HE can see only HER--as opposed to his lover, which is what Maggie wanted--I think the pity suggests Maggie goes further still than her father, and that a marriage propped up by a healthy bank account and fine things, is, in fact, not much to bank on. I think it was James's way of throwing up his hands at the end of his life and saying, in essence, that maybe caste and position gets in the way of what love is supposed to be. It was his last novel, a kind of swan song which upends everything he invested himself in, re: his money, his class, his sense of refinement. With James, one has to dig, and sometimes the hole gets rather deep.

[Emil Miller]

Henry James, American novelist.
OK, I've been thinking about influences on the American novel and I tend to think that the French have had more influence than the British on the American novel. Coming out of the Revolutionary War, America had a prevailing antipathy toward the UK and would be disinclined to embrace its arts. For the most part, the American novel emerged in the mid-19th century and took off after the American civil war. I don't see the influence of Dickens, Trollope, or Thackeray on the American novel. I can't think of an American work that is comparable to what those authors were turning out during the Victorian age.
However, just in this thread, there are references to both Flaubert and Zola. Now I'll admit that the only French novel I've read is the Three Musketeers, but I have Zola on my radar. I know that his work in naturalism had a strong influence on Frank Norris and Upton Sinclair. I've also read that Balzac's work had an influence on William Dean Howells, specifically Pere Goriot.
The lost generation of ex-pats of the 1920s and '30s -- Gertrude Stein, Hemingway, Dos Passos, Fitzgerald -- didn't hang out in British tea rooms, but rather gathered in Paris. I'm currently reading the 42nd Parallel by Dos Passos and it seems to treat France warmly. There is great enthusiasm in the novel when American enters into World War I, primarily because folks consider it noble to rescue the French and the Belgians. Americans cry when they hear the Marsellaise.
So I'm curious, what other French influences can you site on the American novel.
(Sorry folks, but I just don't have anything to offer on the beats).

This is a very cogent piece of reasoning but, as I am too drunk to answer it right now, I will return to it tomorrow.

[Virgil]

This is a very cogent piece of reasoning but, as I am too drunk to answer it right now, I will return to it tomorrow.

:lol: You sound like a character from a Hemingway novel. :p

[Dr. Hill]

He totally does. Farewell to Arms.

[NickAdams]

Hemingway has been mentioned more than enough, but he is one of my favorite American authors. I saw a disagreement as to the degree of influence the British had on the American novel, but it seems that the real interest on this thread has been the 20th century American novel so will only mention Washington Irving and James Fenimore Cooper (<-----that was the mention).

I read, and very much enjoyed, The Sun Also Rises (trivia: most are familiar with the title being a reference to generations, but few know that it is also a reference to Mr. X's genitalia. Hemingway wanted the reprints to read: The Sun Also Rises and Your **** if You had One) a few years ago and found him an inspiration. I've went through his short-fiction, novels (not all), non-fiction, letters, biographies and even collect first editions of his books.

There is, what I believe to be the common misconception of Ernie, the belief that Hemingway wrote weak, lacking authority and strength, underdeveloped female characters, but I disagree. Brett, of The Sun Also Rises, is not subordinate to the men that surround her, royalty included, and she is a well developed and complex character.

I found the book humorous and Hemingway's prose has punch and purpose. Hemingway's is an icon of American literature, but beyond the influence of Twain and the mentoring by Anderson and Stein, we find the influence of Journalism and foreign lit (ex: Kipling, a childhood favorite) which had an enormous effect on both his form and content, not to undervalue Anderson and Stein.


I think the problem with a lot of novelists is that they throw out all their best ideas early in their career, and although they become more skilled their ideas become less interesting. Some people seem to go slightly mad with fame or critical recognition and over reach themselves later in their career. But some just keep recyling the same few ideas as their skill gets better, this seems to be the best way.

Young writers, lets say passionate, have to hone their craft and these ideas are the best material for that. I can't say whether or not they're throwing away their best stuff, but it is very likely to be their most personal.

[Virgil]

I read, and very much enjoyed, The Sun Also Rises (trivia: most are familiar with the title being a reference to generations, but few know that it is also a reference to Mr. X's genitalia. Hemingway wanted the reprints to read: The Sun Also Rises and Your **** if You had One) a few years ago and found him an inspiration. I've went through his short-fiction, novels (not all), non-fiction, letters, biographies and even collect first editions of his books.


:lol::lol: I never caught that pun. It is aprapos. You have completely altered the novel for me now. :D

[PabloQ]

...but we have an exciting new concept on the table. Getting hammered and reading threads on litnet. Maybe some of the more intellectual entries will make some sense now. I doubt the dumb stuff will get any smarter.:lol:

Once we get to the early 20th century American writers I may have to quibble with you. There's no question that Joyce influenced quite a few writers and the works of both Faulkner and Fitzgerald would have been completely different without that of Joseph Conrad.

Virgil, good quibble, Joyce had an influence on Dos Passos as well. I wasn't trying to exclude other influences, but I was making an observation about the French.

[Emil Miller]

Henry James, American novelist.
OK, I've been thinking about influences on the American novel and I tend to think that the French have had more influence than the British on the American novel. Coming out of the Revolutionary War, America had a prevailing antipathy toward the UK and would be disinclined to embrace its arts. For the most part, the American novel emerged in the mid-19th century and took off after the American civil war. I don't see the influence of Dickens, Trollope, or Thackeray on the American novel. I can't think of an American work that is comparable to what those authors were turning out during the Victorian age.
However, just in this thread, there are references to both Flaubert and Zola. Now I'll admit that the only French novel I've read is the Three Musketeers, but I have Zola on my radar. I know that his work in naturalism had a strong influence on Frank Norris and Upton Sinclair. I've also read that Balzac's work had an influence on William Dean Howells, specifically Pere Goriot.
The lost generation of ex-pats of the 1920s and '30s -- Gertrude Stein, Hemingway, Dos Passos, Fitzgerald -- didn't hang out in British tea rooms, but rather gathered in Paris. I'm currently reading the 42nd Parallel by Dos Passos and it seems to treat France warmly. There is great enthusiasm in the novel when American enters into World War I, primarily because folks consider it noble to rescue the French and the Belgians. Americans cry when they hear the Marsellaise.
So I'm curious, what other French influences can you site on the American novel.
(Sorry folks, but I just don't have anything to offer on the beats).

I don't think it can be said that the French had more influence on the development of the American novel than the British if one considers that British writers such as Wilde and Dickens were invited to make tours of the USA. In the wider context of an american disinclination to embrace UK culture, the operettas of Gilbert and Sullivan were subject to pirated versions in the USA; much to G&S's annoyance.
It is reasonable to say, however, that the continuance of British imperialism after the war of independence was looked at askance in the USA and there may well have been, on the part of some Americans, a refusal to acknowledge British achievements in the arts. The USA's subsequent support for the French revolutionaries opened up cordial relations between France and the US that must have drawn american attention to the writing as well as other art forms in which the French excelled.
Emil Zola's influence on american writing is beyond doubt but the Dumas novels and Victor Hugo's works were also influential.
The interesting thing is that the influence seems to have been one way as there doesn't appear to be any noticeable change in French writing as a result of their interaction with the US.

[mortalterror]

The interesting thing is that the influence seems to have been one way as there doesn't appear to be any noticeable change in French writing as a result of their interaction with the US.

I don't know how you could be more wrong. Poe practically set off the Decadent movement single-handed. He was a major influence on Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Gautier, the Comte de Lautréamont and others. If one writer could be that influential, then I'm certain that there were others. I just wouldn't know because I'm not a student of French literature.

What does seem to be peculiar is that even though three times as many Americans have German heritage as they do British heritage, German culture has made a lesser impact here.

[Virgil]

For the life of me, I could never understand the French infatuation with Edgar Allan Poe. :lol: What exactly do they see in his work?

[Jozanny]

I enjoy Poe, but to me he is a fairly superficial writer, which is not to say he isn't talented, but I find him morbid, and perhaps gothic--is he gothic?--without the depth to go with it, though I suppose he set the stage for modern detective fiction. Hawthorne is morbid, but he has the power of motif which just isn't there in Poe.

[Virgil]

I enjoy Poe, but to me he is a fairly superficial writer, which is not to say he isn't talented, but I find him morbid, and perhaps gothic--is he gothic?--without the depth to go with it, though I suppose he set the stage for modern detective fiction. Hawthorne is morbid, but he has the power of motif which just isn't there in Poe.

I pretty much agree with that Jozy. I would love to know why the French think he's so deep?

[Jozanny]

I pretty much agree with that Jozy. I would love to know why the French think he's so deep?

You are asking the wrong member dear. The French have American fads. Jerry Lewis is one, and I never cared for either his comedy or his telethon. He takes a lot of heat from disability activists on the pity factor--however, muscular dystrophy is lethal--to give him his due there.

I drift! I fear the wrath of Pablo!:D (Hides behind Virgil's dog...):p

[Virgil]

You are asking the wrong member dear. The French have American fads. Jerry Lewis is one, and I never cared for either his comedy or his telethon. He takes a lot of heat from disability activists on the pity factor--however, muscular dystrophy is lethal--to give him his due there.

I drift! I fear the wrath of Pablo!:D (Hides behind Virgil's dog...):p

:lol: I wasn't just asking you, but lit net in general. Let me get behind my dog too before Pablo gets here. :D

[Sepulchrave]

I've never been a big fan of Hemingway, to be honest. I'm a fan of understatement and subtlety in fiction, but when it goes to that kind of an extreme...not my taste.

Now, Fitzgerald, on the other hand...I love his work.

[Emil Miller]

I don't know how you could be more wrong. Poe practically set off the Decadent movement single-handed. He was a major influence on Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Gautier, the Comte de Lautréamont and others. If one writer could be that influential, then I'm certain that there were others. I just wouldn't know because I'm not a student of French literature.

What does seem to be peculiar is that even though three times as many Americans have German heritage as they do British heritage, German culture has made a lesser impact here.

Well, I have read quite a lot of French writers but, apart from Maupassant who dabbled in the occult and in whom I had a special interest, I have steered well clear of decadence as I am more interested in writing that has a civilising influence upon the reader rather than the opposite.
I should think that, despite a preponderance of immigrants from Germany, it is the language difference that has diluted German culture in the US.
With the 2nd generation speaking English the bond with their parents' cultural heritage was weakened and this weakness increased with each succeeding generation .

[JCamilo]

about Poe, it is not just the french who are that touched by him. Every single short story writer after him had a gratitute to Poe, but he would not stop just there. Even a Dostoievisky of life would be bound to have his roots on Poe way to protrait a realistic/psychological narrative. The list is too big, Stevenson, Borges, Cortazar, Nabokov, Tchekhov, Machado de Assis, Fernando Pessoa... hardly is too think who was not under his influence.
Now, Undeepth? I would only understand how to answer it if I could understand what is deep.
But he is not the only North-American writer who had influence outside America. Whitman and Dickinson are very important for the poetry . Melville was very relevant as well. Already mentioned Henry James, lately T.S.Eliot...

[Emil Miller]

For the life of me, I could never understand the French infatuation with Edgar Allan Poe. :lol: What exactly do they see in his work?

As I have already said on this thread, I don't do decadence and I have no particular interest in Poe, but in the days of my mispent youth, I did see a couple of film adaptations of his stories, and they were amazingly camp, with Vincent Price hamming it up for all he was worth. If Roger Corman ( the director) couldn't do better than that with the material, it suggests that the material wasn't up to much in the first place.

[Jozanny]

Brian:

I remember some of those films, and the fault may lie more with Price than with Poe as the original source material; then again, I fail to see how one can do "House of Usher" straight, without going over the top. Poe was all about over the top, and I enjoy his work as entertainment--but all I take away from it is that it is overwrought hysteria, no doubt much of it chemically induced--in thinking about it though, I suppose a decadent sensationalism runs though the best of his stories.

BTW: The only serious acting I've ever seen Price do was his playboy role in Laura, but I have some slight affection for his camp roles later. He made spooky rather fun.

[Virgil]

For the life of me I can't recall decadence in Poe. He is sensational, but where's the decadence? For me he's just shallow. I do think he was important to the craft of short story writing, but there is an element of a hack to his work. Perhaps hack is too strong a word. Forgive me Mr. Poe. :)

With that said, "The Fall of the House of Usher" is a fine story that I don't think is shallow.

[Emil Miller]

Brian:

I remember some of those films, and the fault may lie more with Price than with Poe as the original source material; then again, I fail to see how one can do "House of Usher" straight, without going over the top. Poe was all about over the top, and I enjoy his work as entertainment--but all I take away from it is that it is overwrought hysteria, no doubt much of it chemically induced--in thinking about it though, I suppose a decadent sensationalism runs though the best of his stories.

BTW: The only serious acting I've ever seen Price do was his playboy role in Laura, but I have some slight affection for his camp roles later. He made spooky rather fun.

Jozanny,
You are right about Vincent Price's role in Laura. Given the right material and director, he was a very good actor, but to say that he later made spook roles fun is to highlight the paucity of genuine commitment to the roles he subsequently played, in the name of Poe's catch-penny sensationalism.

[JCamilo]

For the life of me I can't recall decadence in Poe. He is sensational, but where's the decadence? For me he's just shallow. I do think he was important to the craft of short story writing, but there is an element of a hack to his work. Perhaps hack is too strong a word. Forgive me Mr. Poe. :)

With that said, "The Fall of the House of Usher" is a fine story that I don't think is shallow.

hehe, look how much Mark Twain is influential... he was the one calling Poe poetry just as jingle's writing...

Anyways, here where it lies clues to Poe greatness. Some people will see him as gothic later romantic writer (added by his own life story), some a camp horror writer that is good just for Corman's kind of movies. Yet, poetic writers as craft as Mallarme or Baudelaire, those interessed on pure symbolic use of language see Poe as a companiion, then we have realistic writing, specially the scietificism Poe believed to understand, working with him... then we have a picky and brainny kind of writer like Nabokov, a storyteller like Stevenson and a metaphysic like Borges all pay tribute to him and T.S.Eliot saying that Poe best work was his literary criticism. Someone that manages to be influential to many,ok. But with so many different aspects. Depending the bias they all find something valluable on poe (and something they dislike)
so any approach that will reduce Poe to one style, to be the father of X,Yor Z, to genre is bound to fail. The americans shall thank the rest of world of saving up the reputation of this dude yet.
One of the works I most admire of Poe is Eureka. A Scientific Thesis about the origem of Universe that he asks to be read as a poem is read. That is probally the most unique thing he ever did...

[Virgil]

hehe, look how much Mark Twain is influential... he was the one calling Poe poetry just as jingle's writing...

Anyways, here where it lies clues to Poe greatness. Some people will see him as gothic later romantic writer (added by his own life story), some a camp horror writer that is good just for Corman's kind of movies. Yet, poetic writers as craft as Mallarme or Baudelaire, those interessed on pure symbolic use of language see Poe as a companiion, then we have realistic writing, specially the scietificism Poe believed to understand, working with him... then we have a picky and brainny kind of writer like Nabokov, a storyteller like Stevenson and a metaphysic like Borges all pay tribute to him and T.S.Eliot saying that Poe best work was his literary criticism. Someone that manages to be influential to many,ok. But with so many different aspects. Depending the bias they all find something valluable on poe (and something they dislike)
so any approach that will reduce Poe to one style, to be the father of X,Yor Z, to genre is bound to fail. The americans shall thank the rest of world of saving up the reputation of this dude yet.
One of the works I most admire of Poe is Eureka. A Scientific Thesis about the origem of Universe that he asks to be read as a poem is read. That is probally the most unique thing he ever did...

I'm not reducing Poe to anything and I am not influenced by any other critic, either for or against Poe. I'm an intelligent reader and every time I read Poe I say what's the big deal about a narrator who kills an old man and chops up his body and places the pieces under the floor and then goes on to imagine he hears the dead man's heart beating? That's "The Tell-Tale Heart." Or what's the big deal about a story where a drunk man kills a cat and the cat comes back to haunt him? That's "The Black Cat." Or what's the big deal about a prince name Prospero who gathers a thousand people and locks them together to prevent getting the dreaded Red Death. That's "The Mask of Red Death."

That's all sensational junk. A good deal of his work is that of a hack.

[Dr. Hill]

Wow. I had not looked at this topic lately. Really? Tell-Tale Heart sensationalist junk? I thought that was one of his deepest stories, echoes of Crime and Punishment there.

[JCamilo]

I'm not reducing Poe to anything and I am not influenced by any other critic, either for or against Poe. I'm an intelligent reader and every time I read Poe I say what's the big deal about a narrator who kills an old man and chops up his body and places the pieces under the floor and then goes on to imagine he hears the dead man's heart beating? That's "The Tell-Tale Heart." Or what's the big deal about a story where a drunk man kills a cat and the cat comes back to haunt him? That's "The Black Cat." Or what's the big deal about a prince name Prospero who gathers a thousand people and locks them together to prevent getting the dreaded Red Death. That's "The Mask of Red Death."

That's all sensational junk. A good deal of his work is that of a hack.

How come your are not reducing Poe if you just reduce his works to summaries of the stories? What is the big deal of two shepards discussing problems they had that season? Or About a buch of guys fighting over a pretty girl and destroying a city during the process? Or about some aged lunatic that went mad and starts to see every stuff he saw like the stories he found in books ? Or about a dog who eats the newborn kitties? If the same kind of analyse of vallue was given to Tchekhov or Wordsworth we would discover they only wrote about sensational junk. Or idiotic boys.
Now, I do not think it is lack of inteligence aknowledging influece. Quite otherwise. We are not born free of the past, so anyone here saying their reading habits and notions are not under influence of others will be just bragging. This does not means being a dumb reader, but you can only move foward if you know from where you started.
The Mark Twain remark was not direct to you neither my post - Just quoted yours because it was closeby and you are arguing about how different you saw Poe to other poster.

[Sepulchrave]

Really? Tell-Tale Heart sensationalist junk? I thought that was one of his deepest stories

Agreed.

Personally, I'm a fan of Poe. Very interesting concepts floating around in the short stories that I've read from him.

[Virgil]

How come your are not reducing Poe if you just reduce his works to summaries of the stories? What is the big deal of two shepards discussing problems they had that season? Or About a buch of guys fighting over a pretty girl and destroying a city during the process? Or about some aged lunatic that went mad and starts to see every stuff he saw like the stories he found in books ? Or about a dog who eats the newborn kitties? If the same kind of analyse of vallue was given to Tchekhov or Wordsworth we would discover they only wrote about sensational junk. Or idiotic boys.
Now, I do not think it is lack of inteligence aknowledging influece. Quite otherwise. We are not born free of the past, so anyone here saying their reading habits and notions are not under influence of others will be just bragging. This does not means being a dumb reader, but you can only move foward if you know from where you started.
The Mark Twain remark was not direct to you neither my post - Just quoted yours because it was closeby and you are arguing about how different you saw Poe to other poster.

Those stories are much more than what you reduce them to. The Poe stories are not. At least as far as I can tell. Go ahead, tell what makes "The Tell-Tale Heart" such an interesting story?

[jon1jt]

Listen, I'm American and let me tell you the truth: Faulkner, Twain, Steinbeck---all a bunch of bores. I mean no disrespect to the people who appreciate those authors because a lot of people (esp on this site) disagree with my selection of Kerouac as writing the only great American novel. Hemingway, he's great too, but there's no novel of his that stands out, packs the energy that a Kerouac novel has in it.

A good self-test to determine who you truly believe to be the greatest novelist that ever walked the earth is to consider whether you've gone that next step in reading his/her other less known books. And if you haven't, well then very likely you've read a really good book at best.

Another good test of an author's greatness is social impact. Kerouac's On The Road is unparalleled. And if it weren't for his Dharma Bums novel, there would be no 'off the beaten path' or rucksack wanderer, at least in America.

[JCamilo]

Those stories are much more than what you reduce them to. The Poe stories are not. At least as far as I can tell. Go ahead, tell what makes "The Tell-Tale Heart" such an interesting story?

Really, are them? I am still trying to find out how the story of a dude trying to kill a whale that ate his leg is special. Anyways, It any attempt to argue that arguments that Tchekhov used to write his stories are anything but simplistic and irrelevant without nothing behind is just going to boil water.
I suppose because you do not see how the Telll-tale Heart is told is what is relevant, Poe is writing just junk.

[JCamilo]

Listen, I'm American and let me tell you the truth: Faulkner, Twain, Steinbeck---all a bunch of bores. I mean no disrespect to the people who appreciate those authors because a lot of people (esp on this site) disagree with my selection of Kerouac as writing the only great American novel. Hemingway, he's great too, but there's no novel of his that stands out, packs the energy that a Kerouac novel has in it.

Frankly, the american search for the great american novel is a joke from the point of view of an outsider. A country that produced Emily Dickinson should care less about novels...


A good self-test to determine who you truly believe to be the greatest novelist that ever walked the earth is to consider whether you've gone that next step in reading his/her other less known books. And if you haven't, well then very likely you've read a really good book at best.

Sounds silly no? I am sure there is a lot of people who are fascinated with an author so they read even his minor works. In the end, you will discover, people read what they like and they already defend the authors they like.
Plus this sounds like saying the reason why Shakespeare is great is not because he wrote Hamlet, but because I have read Love Labour lost...


Another good test of an author's greatness is social impact. Kerouac's On The Road is unparalleled. And if it weren't for his Dharma Bums novel, there would be no 'off the beaten path' or rucksack wanderer, at least in America.

What is social impact? Economic Growth? Keynes must be a great novelist...

[Emil Miller]

Listen, I'm American and let me tell you the truth: Faulkner, Twain, Steinbeck---all a bunch of bores. I mean no disrespect to the people who appreciate those authors because a lot of people (esp on this site) disagree with my selection of Kerouac as writing the only great American novel. Hemingway, he's great too, but there's no novel of his that stands out, packs the energy that a Kerouac novel has in it.

A good self-test to determine who you truly believe to be the greatest novelist that ever walked the earth is to consider whether you've gone that next step in reading his/her other less known books. And if you haven't, well then very likely you've read a really good book at best.

Another good test of an author's greatness is social impact. Kerouac's On The Road is unparalleled. And if it weren't for his Dharma Bums novel, there would be no 'off the beaten path' or rucksack wanderer, at least in America.

Kerouac wrote the only great American novel ??????
That must be one of the sillier comments made on this forum. I am old enough to have been around when the Beatniks first appeared and I can tell you that few people took them as seriously as they took themselves.
Apart from that, On the Road is old hat. It had been done much earlier by WH Davies in Autobiography of a Super-Tramp and one might also consider R L Stevenson's Travels With a Donkey. It was only a later generation, looking for something rebellious to identify with, as youngters often do, that started
to give it a cult status that it probably does not deserve.

[Jozanny]

JCamilo:

I heart Edgar Allan Poe, I do, but in the field of American letters he is rather a minor great author, as opposed to a great master. Dostoevsky wrote about a murderer too, but there is a world of difference between what one takes from an anti-hero like Raskolnikov and what one takes from a short tale about a murdering ghost like Ligeia, which I mention because I happen to have reread it by chance earlier this year, in an old musty short story collection.

Crime & Punishment is not just a story about a killer. Raskolnikov is a complex individual who commits murder on the basis of his own ideas of self-justification, which do not pan out, either in his conscience or in his personal situation. The novel is, on one level, his journey from being a grandiose fool to becoming a human being of humility, and his redemption as a human being. Dostoevsky perfects many things in this book, the technique of a third person limited view, for which Henry James owes him a great debt, the realism of the psychological suffering, the accurate depiction of urban life in Russia, and so on.

Then we have Ligeia, a tale told in first person by her widowed husband. Now, it is a great atmospheric tale. Ligeia is unusual, pale, with big eyes, feverishly passionate, something of a mystery to the narrator exposing her to us. She gets really sick, struggles, dies. Her husband buys a monastery, remarries unhappily, and the phantom Ligeia poisons wife #2 and takes over the body. It is a great little story, but still superficial. We never truly understand why the husband is an unreliable narrator, or how, or why Ligeia chooses to remain among living mortals, at least in cycles. If she has such power as to take over corpses, why does she become mortally ill in the first place? Why does her widow remarry at all if he is a miserable recluse of a drug addict?

These problems don't occur in what we are presented with in the life of Raskolnikov, or Madame Bovary, or, for that matter, Ahab. Melville creates in Ahab the first great American anti-hero. His defiance is both its own greatness and its own evil, and Moby Dick is layered throughout with why Ahab's tragic obsession with this (supernatural?) leviathan is what it is. There is the sermon of Jonah in the belly of the whale in the opening of the book, justifying New England's Calvinistic morality, which Ahab breaches because his vengeance is a more worthy object. There is Ishmael's live and let live pantheism, which is probably what saves his life, that he respects any godhead in its varied manifestations, there is the fall of Starbuck, whose decent and righteous moral code is simply and literally overcome by Ahab's manifestation of his own will--the book is much more than a crazed amputee chasing after a supposed malevolent creature, so to put Poe on the same footing as American, and other masters of realism and modernism, is simply misplaced.

[PabloQ]

It's probably my own fault for bringing up the French. I was looking for:
a) More linkages between French works on American novels (surprised Proust didn't come prancing out of the weeds).
b) Solid examples of British influence on American novelists.
Didn't get much of either, but did get a good reminder not to forget about Joyce, who is Irish, and his influence on post-1900 authors. Ironically, I'm working my way through Dos Passos' USA and the forward points out that one of his favorite novels was Vanity Fair, which he read over and over. Well, there you go.
Having said that and the impression that this novel is making on me, I'm going to bet it's a smidge better than On the Road. I'll reserve judgement on that until I've finished both works, but my money is on USA. I always had the impression that On The Road was to literature what The Grateful Dead was to rock and roll -- you had to be stoned out of your skull to enjoy it. I could be wrong.
THIS JUST IN FROM OUR BALTIMORE BUREAU:
POE - NOT A NOVELIST
Dark Muse has an entertaining forum here:
The Black Cat" by Edgar Allan Poe. Join the discussion here:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...t=37422&page=9
where she discusses a Poe story. Be forewarned that she's a fan and she doesn't much like my interpretation of The Black Cat because I suggest that it is deeper than a drunk killing his cat. I don't disagree with many of the points made about Poe, but I think he might have an insight into guilt and madness (or near-madness) that goes beyond what other author's might explore. And now having said that, shoo Poe discussion. Go elsewhere.
I'll penalize myself 10 yards for opening the door to the Poe discussion so you two can come out from behind the wolf.
Any body else want to minimize Moby-Dick? You've spawned two great comments to date by Virgil and Jozanny. Go for three?
Last shot, if you want to react to the Grateful Dead comment, open a discussion in General Chat.

[Virgil]

:lol: I'm sorry Pablo. I knew you might get upset with what went on with your thread. I will restrain myself to (1) not slighting Poe and (2) restricting discussion to American novels. :)

[JCamilo]

JCamilo:

I heart Edgar Allan Poe, I do, but in the field of American letters he is rather a minor great author, as opposed to a great master.

Meanwhile to other literary traditions Poe is a great master. The Americans - we had a thread here a few weeks ago where JBI claimed the americans had a stronger romance tradition than short stories. Of course, lots of great short stories writers existed in USA, but JBI had a valid point: the Search for the American Romance (altough they are blind to the perhaps greatest of all, Melville) is the turning point of America. The aim to greatness is there. Short Stories? We see how much Poe is undervallued and he is most likely the most influential American Writer ever and one of the fews one can say in a Breath that he is the greatest in what he did (in this I mean no ranking, but if one tell us Poe is the most important short story writer ever, you may think it is Tchekov or Kafka or Borges, but you most certainly will agree, Poe is close by and the person saying this is not claiming the most insane thing ever)... Anyways, that is a matter of perception, very few writers is, like Poe, able to spawn so many different interpretation and vallues to so many different styles and cultures. Not one guy who was good at one thing thus a circle to writers followed him; but one that could be important to Romance writers with realistic approach, camp novels, Metaphysics, poets devoted to languagem and symbology and critics. If that is not a Master, I have no idea of what will be. (by the way, I know your argument is not how he is or not a master, it was just a way to bring the main argument...)


Dostoevsky wrote about a murderer too, but there is a world of difference between what one takes from an anti-hero like Raskolnikov and what one takes from a short tale about a murdering ghost like Ligeia, which I mention because I happen to have reread it by chance earlier this year, in an old musty short story collection.

All that you are describing is the difference between a short story and a romance. A romance is one you can spawn the character, he can have several circustances leading to a character so called development.A Short story demands another technique to frame a momment, a situation. I could easily change the thread to other giant of russian Literature, one which Status is equal with Dostoevsky: Tchekhov. And you can build the same argument over there. What we have is difference of style and not importance or quality.


Crime & Punishment is not just a story about a killer. Raskolnikov is a complex individual who commits murder on the basis of his own ideas of self-justification, which do not pan out, either in his conscience or in his personal situation. The novel is, on one level, his journey from being a grandiose fool to becoming a human being of humility, and his redemption as a human being. Dostoievisky perfects many things in this book, the technique of a third person limited view, for which Henry James owes him a great debt, the realism of the psychological suffering, the accurate depiction of urban life in Russia, and so on.

I must point that I do not think a work of literature can be reduce to just the snopsie of the history. Of course we can do it with anything, but that is limited. That was just a counter-argument to anyone reducing Poe tales to just the argument. That is ignoring his style, craft, and even Poe's view about the universe and reducing him to Stephen King and destroying his uniqueness.
James I remember also give hints towards Poe, of how he is able to present all the emotions (like the Tell-tale heart) of guilty in so few words. The economy of words, the carefull option for the right word of the right effect is exactly what places Poe as a master (to a point, lets remember, Nabokov is always critic of Dostoievisky vocabulary and picks Poe as reference) of a narrative that not only short story writers admired.


Then we have Ligeia, a tale told in first person by her widowed husband. Now, it is a great atmospheric tale. Ligeia is unusual, pale, with big eyes, feverishly passionate, something of a mystery to the narrator exposing her to us. She gets really sick, struggles, dies. Her husband buys a monastery, remarries unhappily, and the phantom Ligeia poisons wife #2 and takes over the body. It is a great little story, but still superficial. We never truly understand why the husband is an unreliable narrator, or how, or why Ligeia chooses to remain among living mortals, at least in cycles. If she has such power as to take over corpses, why does she become mortally ill in the first place? Why does her widow remarry at all if he is a miserable recluse of a drug addict?

You will never understand it because it is not relevant. When Poe wanted to empiracally explain anything he wrote detective stories. To Poe there is a body of unknown and unexplained things in the universe, to infinite for one to understand. Both him and Dostoieviksy are master of psychological narrative, but one is a master of romance, so the characters have ties and are bound to fall for pathetic (no critic here) relations and emotion burst. Poe is giving us a vision of surprise in face of the universe, of surprises and monstrosity. Every bit hidden in every story, piece by piece. (And in the poems too). If Poe is reduce to Lupin stories, then it is very hard to see beyond this.


These problems don't occur in what we are presented with in the life of Raskolnikov, or Madame Bovary, or, for that matter, Ahab. Melville creates in Ahab the first great American anti-hero. His defiance is both its own greatness and its own evil, and Moby Dick is layered throughout with why Ahab's tragic obsession with this (supernatural?) leviathan is what it is. There is the sermon of Jonah in the belly of the whale in the opening of the book, justifying New England's Calvinistic morality, which Ahab breaches because his vengeance is a more worthy object. There is Ishmael's live and let live pantheism, which is probably what saves his life, that he respects any godhead in its varied manifestations, there is the fall of Starbuck, whose decent and righteous moral code is simply and literally overcome by Ahab's manifestation of his own will--the book is much more than a crazed amputee chasing after a supposed malevolent creature, so to put Poe on the same footing as American, and other masters of realism and modernism, is simply misplaced.

Do you mean that a guy who is admired by guys like Baudelaire, Mallarme, Fernando Pessoa, Borges, Nabokov, Robert Louis Stevenson, Tchekhov, Machado de Assis, H.G.Wells, Cortazar, even T.S.Eliot, in other worlds, the very masters of realism and modernism can not be in the same foot as any american or world writer?
C'mom, a considerable ammount of Modernist literature was the short stories and Poe is, alongside Tcheknov and Maupassant the main name of it.

[JCamilo]

:lol: I'm sorry Pablo. I knew you might get upset with what went on with your thread. I will restrain myself to (1) not slighting Poe and (2) restricting discussion to American novels. :)


Well, maybe a Mod can split the tread and move the Poe discussion away but I think anytime you start to investigate links and influences there will be a tendency for the topic to walk away... I am waiting when the discussion will be about Ibsen.

[Jozanny]

Pablo may put me in the doghouse, but methinks a topic like the American Novel is simply too broad to be as restrictive as Pablo wishes. Poe may have written shorter stories, but I think we all agree, whatever our opinion on the individual works themselves, that he was, and probably still is, highly influential on novelists, other writers, and film makers.

Seriously Pablo, American novel writers do not simply spring out of the vacuum. All writers have influences, feed off each other.

[JCamilo]

Yeah, pretty much... Like Gordon Pym and Moby Dick, Benito Cereno and Melville and Poe...

[NickAdams]

:lol::lol: I never caught that pun. It is aprapos. You have completely altered the novel for me now. :D
If you only knew. ;)


Pablo may put me in the doghouse, but methinks a topic like the American Novel is simply too broad to be as restrictive as Pablo wishes. Poe may have written shorter stories, but I think we all agree, whatever our opinion on the individual works themselves, that he was, and probably still is, highly influential on novelists, other writers, and film makers.

Seriously Pablo, American novel writers do not simply spring out of the vacuum. All writers have influences, feed off each other.

I agree, but I think the point of the thread was to discuss individual American novels that we either like or dislike; influence is important when considering the development of a generation of authors, but it is superfolous in this thread. It took centuries after the European migration before America had any real identity. We have, in literature, Irving attempts at establishing American myths, borrowing from Europe in the case of Rip Van Winkle and Cooper's account of the European desruction and assimilation of Native culture. I think Cooper's legacy continued, directly or indirectly, through authors like Hemingway and Steinbeck. It goes without saying that foreign literature had a huge impact on the American Novel. Does anyone know when foreign literature, those not originally written in a romance language, received popular translations? The American expatriates learned a lot from foreign literature and Faulkner read Don Quijote once a year.

From an interview with Hemingway (mostly non-American authors):
Mice: Well what books are necessary?
Y.C.: He should have read War and Peace and Anna Karenina by Tolstoi, Midshipman Easy, Frank Mildmay and Peter Simple by Captain Marryat, Madame Bovary and L'Education Sentimentale by Flaubert, Buddenbrooks by Thomas Mann, Joyce's Dubliners, Portrait of the Artist and Ulysses, Tom Jones and Joseph Andrews by Fielding, Le Rouge et Le Noir and La Chartreuse de Parme by Stendhal, The Brothers Karamazov and any two other Dostoevski, Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, The Open Boat and The Blue Hotel by Stephen Crane, Hail and Farewell by George Moore, Yeat's Autobiographies, all the good De Maupassant, all the good Kipling, all of Turgenev, Far Away and Long Ago by W. H. Hudson, Henry James's short stories, especially Madame de Mauves, and The Turn of the Screw, The Portrait of a Lady, The American ...

Back to the focus of the thread:

I am currently reading The Portable Beat Reader, On the Road at present, and finding it a spirited read. The prose in unrestrained which characterizes the Beats. It's episodic, which also works for the generation, but I find an episodic memoir a funny notion. Having the opportunity to look back and select significant moments that contribute to the story is something most author seize, but not Kerouac; this is forgiven because of the Eastern influence, but the episodes seem like anecdotes.

Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was an American, "counter-culture", novel that I found no use for. His motive is heavy-handed without any real insight.

[Virgil]

I have always thought that On The Road was a fun read. But unlike Jon, I did not find it a great novel, either thematically or in terms of craft. But it captures a time and place and attitude. It is very Americana in its sort of anti-Americana sort of way. ;)

[NickAdams]

I have always thought that On The Road was a fun read. But unlike Jon, I did not find it a great novel, either thematically or in terms of craft. But it captures a time and place and attitude. It is very Americana in its sort of anti-Americana sort of way. ;)

I'm reading selected chapters of the novel, so I couldn't say anything about the novel as a whole, but it is fun. I think that is another feature of the Beats and the Eastern philosophy they were inspired by: sponteneity and enjoyment of the moment, because I don't know how On the Road holds up on reflection.

I think that a major force behind American literature, and this is especially true for the counter-culture, is entitlement.

[jon1jt]

What is social impact? Economic Growth? Keynes must be a great novelist...

You've said more than a mouth full about Kerouac, but I'll start slow, I can only deal in small doses, which is why I stopped reading your innanities about Kerouac a quarter of the way down the page. Anyway, you had initially peeked my interest when you mentioned that you witnessed the Beats first hand and how you and most Americans at the time didn't think much of him. Okay, fair enough, that's your opinion. But my opinion is that you're wrong, based on facts. I refer you to Empty Phantoms, a major collection of Kerouac interviews, TV and radio appearances that he gave to the Paris Review, the Steve Allen Show, Life Magazine, The Best American Short Stories, The Village Voice. and radio interviews (see youtube) to name a few. Kerouac also talked about his work to live audiences at places like Harvard, Columbia, and this is not to mention the literally thousands of requests he turned down. For that I refer you to his Selected Letters, but you must have read those. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah I read Keynes too. That's a bad example, hombre.

To NickAdams: I read that collection you're reading, which gives a half-baked impression of the Beats---and from your comment that Kerouac wrote "episodic" narrative tells me you're way way off the mark. Did you actually read Road or excerpts? Be honest.

To Virge: There is no book written in the 20th Century more American than On The Road. Yeah sure there's Newt Gingrich, but I'm talking about great American novel. Because Kerouac makes a reference to getting hauled in to pay a summons by a couple of Southern cops who caught Cassady speeding, or how Cassady took a joyride in a stolen car in Denver, or how Kerouac, Cassady and Cassady's ex-wife (LuAnne in book) drank, smoked, and drove naked across part of Texas, is hardly grounds to refer to this masterpiece---and it is a masterpiece---as un-American.

And you know what, I've been saying it on here for a long time and I'll say it again: Kerouac's On The Road is ranked #6 on the all-time Penguin list of great books, right next to Homer. Refer to my previous postings for the link.

Oh, and by the way, hey JCamilo: :sick:


To Jack Kerouac: R.I.P., my brother.

[JCamilo]

You've said more than a mouth full about Kerouac, but I'll start slow, I can only deal in small doses, which is why I stopped reading your innanities about Kerouac a quarter of the way down the page.

Ok, I know I am confusing, sometimes and oftentimes, but I really promisse you to, when I start talking about Kerouac for the first time, I wont write innanities about him. No commnets about his dressing style and favorite food. Deal?:thumbs_up


Anyway, you had initially peeked my interest when you mentioned that you witnessed the Beats first hand and how you and most Americans at the time didn't think much of him.

Here in Brazil, I do not think there was a beatinik movemment. I could not have witnessed then first hand. Even If I was old enough to do so. Anyways I like to listen to Patty Smith, does it count?


Okay, fair enough, that's your opinion. But my opinion is that you're wrong, based on facts.

I have no opinion watsoever about the beatnik literature. In fact a co-worker is asking me if she should read On the Road and told her that the book could be purchased very cheaply, which is a plus. Another thing is that writing in napkins and toilet paper is lovely. I would try it myself, sometimes I found myself without paper so I use anything that is closeby. Even the white walls of my bedroom, but I discovered those alternative materials are more febble than my memory and I was just writing for oblivion. But I like the attitude. The beat are not a priority on my reading wishes, I am an old aristocratic that finds rebellion amusing but well, now I feel it is my duty to have an opinion, so I can call it facts as well. But give me time, I will have to find a cheap edition of Jack to buy first.


I refer you to Empty Phantoms, a major collection of Kerouac interviews, TV and radio appearances that he gave to the Paris Review, the Steve Allen Show, Life Magazine, The Best American Short Stories, The Village Voice. and radio interviews (see youtube) to name a few. Kerouac also talked about his work to live audiences at places like Harvard, Columbia, and this is not to mention the literally thousands of requests he turned down. For that I refer you to his Selected Letters, but you must have read those. :rolleyes:

Now it will be hard, they aren't released in Brazil that I know and with the crisis buying books from America is somehow expensive and I have right now a lot of debts to cover.


Oh yeah I read Keynes too. That's a bad example, hombre.

At least something related to what I have said. I am curious how we can judge the vallue of a novelist taking the social impact as the criteria, because I have no idea what you mean by social impact. Somehow, Uncle Tom's Cabin is supposed to have a huge social impact and it is really not that great novel. But maybe because social impact is something too vague and I would like to understand exactly what it means.


And you know what, I've been saying it on here for a long time and I'll say it again: Kerouac's On The Road is ranked #6 on the all-time Penguin list of great books, right next to Homer. Refer to my previous postings for the link.

And Titanic won more Oscars than 2001. I do not doubt On the Road, I doubt lists.


Oh, and by the way, hey JCamilo: :sick:

Oh, do not be like that, being the first time we ever exchange ideas I would rather to cause you a illness that would screw up today's late party. Understand, I never said anything about Kerouac or On the Road or Beatniks but I do so will be only for joy and humor.

[jon1jt]

Another thing is that writing in napkins and toilet paper is lovely. I would try it myself, sometimes I found myself without paper so I use anything that is closeby.

Even US school textbooks make it clear that Kerouac did not write On The Road on a roll of toilet paper. That's a myth my friend. It was typed on one long strip of teletype paper.

Makes no sense for me to continue in this talk with you, you've shown me what you know. *coughpoopiecough*

Do read On The Road and someday I'll come out to Brazil to visit you, and we'll drink big quarts of tequila and be weary of each other.

[NickAdams]

To NickAdams: I read that collection you're reading, which gives a half-baked impression of the Beats---and from your comment that Kerouac wrote "episodic" narrative tells me you're way way off the mark. Did you actually read Road or excerpts? Be honest.


I'm reading selected chapters of the novel, so I couldn't say anything about the novel as a whole ...

I was honest from the beginning ^, and I know plot points are missed because in part three Kerouac makes references to part two, which isn't included in The Reader, so motives and development of anything is out of my reach. I don't think that "episodic" is way of.



And you know what, I've been saying it on here for a long time and I'll say it again: Kerouac's On The Road is ranked #6 on the all-time Penguin list of great books, right next to Homer. Refer to my previous postings for the link.


And does Penguin stand to gain anything as a publisher, aside from Library of America, of On the Road?

[JCamilo]

Even US school textbooks make it clear that Kerouac did not write On The Road on a roll of toilet paper. That's a myth my friend. It was typed on one long strip of teletype paper.

Makes no sense for me to continue in this talk with you, you've shown me what you know. *coughpoopiecough*

Do read On The Road and someday I'll come out to Brazil to visit you, and we'll drink big quarts of tequila and be weary of each other.

Oh, I bite and still smile, but still useless...

Dont you got that I am not the one who wrote anything about Kerouac and yet, you are addressing to me as If I was the author of the posts?

I may not know much and my world may not be filled with facts, but at least I know to what and who I am replying. IOW, You did a mistake dude and wasted two last posts attacking me for stuff I never wrote. :crash:

[jon1jt]

Oh, I bite and still smile, but still useless...

Dont you got that I am not the one who wrote anything about Kerouac and yet, you are addressing to me as If I was the author of the posts?

What are you saying, my friend, I don't understand. I said that someday I'd come to your country and we'd drink tequila together and make wild trips like old Indians getting drunk on vastness, storyful eyes, and warm ourselves at a fire painted on a bedsheet.


NICKADAMS: Alright, fair enough---so you've read parts. But I say if you're going to read On The Road I highly recommend the Scroll Version, which is the first draft, it doesn't get any better than that. The "books" you're talking about that Kerouac refers to are really sections separating the drives he and Cassady (Dean Moriarty) made across the country, but thematically it's stitched together by what they're ultimately searching for.

[NickAdams]

NICKADAMS: Alright, fair enough---so you've read parts. But I say if you're going to read On The Road I highly recommend the Scroll Version, which is the first draft, it doesn't get any better than that. The "books" you're talking about that Kerouac refers to are really sections separating the drives he and Cassady (Dean Moriarty) made across the country, but thematically it's stitched together by what they're ultimately searching for.

You're right, only three parts are included, so I didn't even know there were motives for the drive. The last part included ended with Sol stranded in Mexico City. I'm interested in reading the entire novel and glad that I have the option of the scroll version, but I really like Library of America ... but I'd rather read what the author intended. Have you had a chance to read the Kerouac and Burroughs novel -And the Hippos Were Boiled in Their Tanks- that was recently published?

[jon1jt]

You're right, only three parts are included, so I didn't even know there were motives for the drive. The last part included ended with Sol stranded in Mexico City. I'm interested in reading the entire novel and glad that I have the option of the scroll version, but I really like Library of America ... but I'd rather read what the author intended. Have you had a chance to read the Kerouac and Burroughs novel -And the Hippos Were Boiled in Their Tanks- that was recently published?


If you've noticed in your reading, Sal Paradise is more of an observer than he is active participant, unlike Dean. Sal is there, going along for the ride, and sure he gives his opinion sometimes, but he lets Neal steer because he's too busy taking in all this unfolding beauty happening around him. The friends, the landscape, the people---hobos, waitresses, prostitutes, fathers, mothers--death, love, hope, god, nature, especially friendship and what that involves, or does to each other. No one is left out of this lexus of America.

Sal says to Dean,

"Let's walk to New York and as we do so let's take stock of everything along the way---yaas."

People don't talk about America this way anymore, with this spirit of recognition---or maybe people don't talk about anywhere like this anymore. People get in their cars, board airplanes, maybe ride a giraffe on a safari, and get where they need to go. The end.

The entire section of Kerouac and Cassady driving to Mexico where Kerouac's left behind, is, in my estimation, Kerouac at his lyrical best. But the 1950s was just not ready and omitted most of it.

You'll have to fill me in if Hippos in their Tanks is any good or not, haven't gotten to it yet.

-----------


To keep this thread on track I'd like to ask, Should the American novel---or all novels for that matter---be required to instruct as well as entertain?---be, in a sense, a moralizing force, if they are to be given our serious attention, which is worth more than any book award. And it's in this sense Kerouac wins hands down.



Morality as shown through human relationships is the whole heart of fiction, and the serious writer has never lived who dealt with anything else.”

[Virgil]

To keep this thread on track I'd like to ask, Should the American novel---or all novels for that matter---be required to instruct as well as entertain?---be, in a sense, a moralizing force, if they are to be given our serious attention, which is worth more than any book award. And it's in this sense Kerouac wins hands down.

Should? No. That is entirely up to the artist and his vision. I don't believe there should be any yes or no to an artist's vision. We judge him on the execution of his vision.

[NickAdams]

You'll have to fill me in if Hippos in their Tanks is any good or not, haven't gotten to it yet.


It was published a week or two ago and now that I've become interested in The Beats, it started at a band rehearsal, I have put it on my list and will be reading it soon because of its short length. Have you read John C. Holmes?




To keep this thread on track I'd like to ask, Should the American novel---or all novels for that matter---be required to instruct as well as entertain?---be, in a sense, a moralizing force, if they are to be given our serious attention, which is worth more than any book award. And it's in this sense Kerouac wins hands down.

I don't think there should be any requirements in that regard. It is my greatest objection when it comes to Plato's, or Socrates, aesthetic theories. Fiction that instructs on established morality is little more than institutional propaganda. Is there an absolute morality? How can we require instruction of a variable? I find it to be censorship at the lowest level. Didactic literature is fine, but it should not be the measure of important literature. With all that said, I don't see how something new can avoid instructing. A fresh perspective, or the Beat life being revealed to squares is very informative. A great character sketch can also be informative. I find little of value in the modern pop novel which entertains, so ... I oppose the thought, but the books on my shelf do not support my argument.

[JCamilo]

Do not be so gloomy :D
Art only happens when communication happens (I feel love, it is pretty, etc is all transformed in some short of symbol), so I would find impossible to have books without transmition of a vallue, but I think it is far from being didactic everytime. The Comedy does not stand for the stuff that was taught.
Some very good writers are beyond the moral teaching , leaving the reader to learn watever they wish. That is why I think Melville's Benito Cereno or Billy Bud can be so controversial (the same goes for Heart of Darkness or many Kafka tales)... So, I suppose the moral in the end of story was just necessary for Aesop and his fables and not a particular demand or criteria of quality.