The flawless novel

[Adagio]

I always read how most novels are flawed. Sometimes I recognise the flaws in the novels I am reading. I would like to know if any novels have been claimed as "flawless" - the perfect novel. Is there such a thing? What makes a novel perfect?

[JBI]

The closest thing I can come up with is Gustav Flaubert's Madame Bovary. Novels, even the best of them, are all flawed. Notice, for instance, Cervantes didn't properly label his chapters, and threw in poetry, and Dickens and other earlier masters were prone to cliffhanger sub-endings which botch the flow of the language, because we are not reading them in serialized form.

Generally, poetry is the art of choosing the best word and putting it in the best place. Novels too try to achieve that, but you're dealing with too much space, and too many words. I think Flaubert came the closest to choosing perfectly, and then perhaps The Great Gatsby, though that novel has a few too many flaws in content.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes, the more you write the more potential it has to be flawed, a long prose work is near impossible to maintain complete control over. What about Austen as a near perfect novelist? George Eliot?

[higley]

I suppose that same question could be asked of any matter, particularly art. Are there any paintings that are so close to perfect that the line between them is barely distinguishable? There are some that I consider to be, but others might disagree--and largely this lies in a matter of taste, and whether the standards of perfection can be objectively measured. Some of the books I have liked the most were more flawed in their construction than ones that widely are very favorably regarded.

In a sense, I think absolute perfection in a novel would be terribly boring. If there's nothing to object to, not one tiny thing, there's hardly any point in reading it, because the book would not have prompted any real reflection on my part. I find my mind is most inspired when it has something to object to. :)

[MissScarlett]

There are some critics, professors, etc. who say novels should be flawed because they are about human beings and human beings are flawed. I think that only goes to characterization, though, not to construction.

I agree with JBI that the most perfect novel is Madame Bovary.

I think sometimes flaws make a novel better and more interesting.

[JBI]

The point though, is that one could not change one word from W. C. Williams' Red wheelbarrow without ruining. Same thing with longer poems, the most perfect being Keats' Odes, to me, particular To A Nightingale. One could go further, and suggest something like Wordsworth's Ode is perfect.

I think though, that English, as a language, prescribes a sort of ruggedness, and a liking for almost perfect. I think, when I think of perfection in literature, of Japanese or Chinese poetry, where the same vocabulary and words and phrases were used to create millions of different poems, each being closer to the most perfect. With prose though? Someone is bound to make an error.

That's really the tyranny of the Western tradition. It favors large works over small works. I know sooner or later St. Lukes will be here, or J Camilo and will mention Borges' essay on the subject. In truth, perfection isn't really obtainable. There is always more. The longer the work, the more holes.

[BienvenuJDC]

I guess it depends what kind of flaws of which you are speaking. The development of the characters within their settings is important. Are they real? Are they genuine? But on the other hand, how can someone judge whether a character is flawed. There are plenty of REAL people who are NOT genuine. The depth of the development of the setting, the time, the place and the detail of description leads to the number of flaws that one may find. For instance, consider Hugo's character in Les Miserables, the Bishop of Digne and his household. Even the number of chairs in his estate, his budget and his expenditures are detailed. The importance is the basic idea that this man dedicated his ALL to benevolence. Any flaws should be disregarded. For what one sees as a flaw, another might see as possibly realistic. There is no science...no formula to art. Sometimes there is no formula to science. Critics never seem to agree, so how can the flaws be judged.

[prendrelemick]

Those who strive for perfection, must settle for excellence.

[stlukesguild]

I must go with JBI's suggestion of Madame Bovary... although Lolita might be in close running. As JBI suggests "perfection" is not necessarily the measure of that which is the greatest art. William's Red Wheelbarrow may be "perfect" as suggested in that not a single word in superfluous. Nothing can be added or taken away without destroying the work. The same is not true of Don Quixote or the Divine Comedy... and yet the latter works are far, far greater artistic achievements. The Borges essay which JBI mentions (and which I have no time at present to look up) makes a similar argument and this discussion has popped up here several times.

[Snowqueen]

I prefer to read the works of faulty geniuses rather than flawless writers.

[*Classic*Charm*]

For those of you making the argument for Madame Bovary, is this having read a translation or in the original French?

Just curious:)

[Mr Endon]

Boy, I really have to read Madame Bovary.

A follow-up to Classic Charm's question: is it too hard to read in French?


Everyone knows there's no such thing as a 'flawless novel' - this is but a truism. Much more interesting would be if y'all'd answer the OP's question which some of you have only adressed in passing: 'What makes a novel perfect?'

Nothing should be superfluous. Arguably, there ought to be some sort of symmetry and everything should be related. This means that every element should be connected to one another (as in an organism), but each element should also be able to exist on its own and thus be more than merely a counterpart.

This, of course, if you're looking for 'perfection', whatever that might be. 'Perfection', to my mind, implies a system, and maximum efficiency.

I can only hope this makes any sense.

[andave_ya]

Is flawlessness possible?

[Tsuyoiko]

Wouldn't a flawless novel seem forced, and wouldn't that make it flawed? That thought makes me doubt whether a flawless novel is possible.

I think the closest a novel could come to perfection is if every character and every scene is absolutely essential. But again, as Higley says, that would make it pretty boring. Part of what makes a novel interesting is wondering things like, "Why's that character there?" or, "What's the significance of such-and-such scene?" If all that is obvious then there's no challenge.

[prendrelemick]

Jane Austin is as near a flawless writer as is possible. But their are moments in her novels that I can't quite believe in, so not perfect then.

I read Madame Bovary years ago, and wasn't aware of its perfections. I'll have to revisit.

[kelby_lake]

I'd say Lolita's definitely in the running.

[Mathor]

A Clockwork Orange. Simply because I can open it any any point in the book and find it intriguing. It reads in almost musical fashion. Some may see it a complete trainwreck. For whatever reason it is not for "me". I don't believe there is any way to judge flawlessness except for individual preferences. Because perhaps the real flaw in books some times is they are "too perfecT"

I think of it in the same way I think of music. Rock music exists on mistakes and on accidentals. But if not for the mistakes, I do not think I could call Abbey Road "flawless". A perfect record, like Bruce Springsteen's "Born To Run", it's perfect, yes, but is it "interesting"? So does anyone care? :)

[ThousandthIsle]

For those of you making the argument for Madame Bovary, is this having read a translation or in the original French?

Just curious:)

I was wondering the same thing. I read a translation of Mme Bovary (which claimed to be a very excellent updated translation of Flaubert's language, though I don't have the name of the translator with me right now), but I had that sad feeling the whole time that I'll never truly be able to appreciate its 'perfection' in English.

[ThousandthIsle]

I prefer to read the works of faulty geniuses rather than flawless writers.

Sometimes they can be one and the same. :)

Lolita may be a perfect piece of writing, but it is genius. Madame Bovary is also profound.

For me, Gatsby is one example that I felt could have been 'perfectly written,' but the content did not equal the skill.

[kelby_lake]

Agree about Gatsby. It's a wonderful poetic prose style that heightened an otherwise very simple plot.

[PoeknowsProse]

Add another vote for The Great Gatsby. It's probably the best written book I've ever read. But like you both say, I wish the content would have been a little more meaningful.

[stlukesguild]

I'm not quite getting this notion that a work of art can be "too perfect" or that it is the "flaws" that make a work of art interesting. Mozart's music is often an example of artistic perfection. Nothing is superfluous. This does not mean it lacks a spark... originality... daring. Anything but. Puccini, by comparison, is not brilliant because of his crappy libretto's... rather he succeeds in spite of them. Don Quixote is not made stronger by the inclusion of Cervantes egregious poetry... but rather these flaws are forgotten in contrast to the strength of the work as a whole. A "perfect" work of art is not simply a work of art that follows an obvious formula to perfection. Madame Bovary is anything but lifeless or boring.

[JBI]

Yes, StLukes, but Tosca loses something when you realize that she could not possibly have climbed from the jail cells to a jumping platform in the Castel di San Angelo - I looked into it when I went there - she would have had to run for a good 15 minutes up many ramps and flights of stairs, and even then, the structure widens as it goes down, her body would have tossed along the wall and she probably would not have died if she jumped from too low - she would probably have had to taken a backway path to get to a high enough jumping platform, and what then? 15 minutes, 20 minutes? Assuming you can navigate the place, which by the way is essentially a fortress, through all the guards with guns trying to kill you.

Doesn't that take away something?

[Stargazer86]

Generally, poetry is the art of choosing the best word and putting it in the best place. Novels too try to achieve that, but you're dealing with too much space, and too many words. I think Flaubert came the closest to choosing perfectly, and then perhaps The Great Gatsby, though that novel has a few too many flaws in content.

I was never a huge fan of The Great Gatsby though I can appreciate it. Just was wondering what exactly you mean by "a few too many flaws in content"? I'd be interested to get your further perspective on it

[kelby_lake]

I'm not quite sure what that means either. Is that to do with factual accuracy or not liking the plot/characters?

[JBI]

I was never a huge fan of The Great Gatsby though I can appreciate it. Just was wondering what exactly you mean by "a few too many flaws in content"? I'd be interested to get your further perspective on it

For instance, racism, antisemitism, sexism, things which cannot really be ignored. When the car passes with a black man inside it with a white woman, and Nick thinks "Only in America" or something like that (I don't feel like quote digging), one cannot help but find that racist.

As for the language though - every word is handpicked.

[stlukesguild]

For instance, racism, antisemitism, sexism, things which cannot really be ignored. When the car passes with a black man inside it with a white woman, and Nick thinks "Only in America" or something like that (I don't feel like quote digging), one cannot help but find that racist.

I don't think that has the least bearing in terms of aesthetics. If it did, Dante would certainly be seriously flawed. The goal of the work of art is not to reinforce our own beliefs or values. It should be an honest expression of the artist's own perceptions. Certainly racism, sexism, religious intolerance, class-based snobbism should be open to critical discussion...

[JBI]

For instance, racism, antisemitism, sexism, things which cannot really be ignored. When the car passes with a black man inside it with a white woman, and Nick thinks "Only in America" or something like that (I don't feel like quote digging), one cannot help but find that racist.

I don't think that has the least bearing in terms of aesthetics. If it did, Dante would certainly be seriously flawed. The goal of the work of art is not to reinforce our own beliefs or values. It should be an honest expression of the artist's own perceptions. Certainly racism, sexism, religious intolerance, class-based snobbism should be open to critical discussion...

Yes, but blatant bigotry in a text cannot be overlooked. Like I said, I think it a somewhat flawless novel, but there is something unsettling, and damaging knowing that the argument the book is putting forward, is applied to people who are racist, sexist and antisemitic, without any questioning of why this is so. One cannot, for instance, not question portrayals of Africans in Hart of Darkness, despite how good the prose is. What is portrayed in the book is as much a part of what makes it flawless as is its prose style.

As for these things not being in critical discussion, why not? Harold Bloom argues for something which he calls "aesthetics", and for books to be judged on "aesthetic grounds" and not political ones, but one would realize, if they read anything he wrote on T. S. Eliot or Ezra Pound, that everything he mentions them, he hammers home how they were anti-Semites, and terrible people, and in Pound's case, dismissed the Cantos as an antisemitic text, and therefore of little value, despite only a few anti-Semitic lines in the text as a whole.

I see no problem looking at content of novels, and finding that the picture they paint has racist, sexist, or other bigoted elements, and therefore concluding that over time, the text has suffered from its aesthetics becoming offensive to modern readers. That is valid, as those portrayals are part of the book.

[mayneverhave]

As Stlukes said, flawlessness and perfection are about economy and choosing le mot juste. I'm of the opinion that perfection in art is impossible (at least in literature), because there is currently no logically perfect language that can precisely describe physical events.

That being said, some of my favorite writers, two being Joyce and Faulkner, have the latent capability of overwriting at almost all instances. This all works perfectly well as long as the author is a strong one. But like The Brothers Karamazov (which is a fantastic novel), their books are hardly flawless.

[stlukesguild]

Yes, but blatant bigotry in a text cannot be overlooked. Like I said, I think it a somewhat flawless novel, but there is something unsettling, and damaging knowing that the argument the book is putting forward, is applied to people who are racist, sexist and antisemitic, without any questioning of why this is so. One cannot, for instance, not question portrayals of Africans in Hart of Darkness, despite how good the prose is. What is portrayed in the book is as much a part of what makes it flawless as is its prose style.

I agree that we must question what is being said from our perspective but I question passing aesthetic judgment based upon the same. Yes, Conrad's portrayal of blacks is sexist by our standards... but Conrad was not writing here and now. His writing is from the perspective of his own time and place. If we are to value the work of literature... the work of art... as offering a window into the perceptions of others... and not merely demanding that it reinforce our own standards/values/beliefs... we must be able to separate what is being said from how it is being said to a certain degree. Can we honestly expect that the the artist not be a product of the time and place in which he or she lived? Am I to imagine that Dante's willingness to place Mohammad... the political figures that he found destructive to his ideals... and even the virtuous pagans are to be seen as "flaws" from my own "enlightened" perspective? Is it not more than likely that our own values would be seen as less than meritorious by these same past cultures to say nothing of the future. In other words... I'm very wary of passing judgment upon art based upon issues of morality... especially from a "holier-than-thou" position.

As for these things not being in critical discussion, why not? Harold Bloom argues for something which he calls "aesthetics", and for books to be judged on "aesthetic grounds" and not political ones, but one would realize, if they read anything he wrote on T. S. Eliot or Ezra Pound, that everything he mentions them, he hammers home how they were anti-Semites, and terrible people, and in Pound's case, dismissed the Cantos as an antisemitic text, and therefore of little value, despite only a few anti-Semitic lines in the text as a whole.

Bloom, from what I remember, admits to cringing at Shylock... and certainly at Pound... and is more than distressed at Eliot's Neo-Christianity... but he also admits that he read and loved every last word of Eliot again and again. I felt he was more put off by Eliot as an anti-Romanticist... someone who could dismiss Blake or Shelley... while Bloom himself is an admitted late-Romantic critic who embraced Hart Crane over Eliot.

I see no problem looking at content of novels, and finding that the picture they paint has racist, sexist, or other bigoted elements, and therefore concluding that over time, the text has suffered from its aesthetics becoming offensive to modern readers. That is valid, as those portrayals are part of the book.

And when the situation changes...? When/if we find ourselves once again in the throws of a Neo-Conservative revolution and even approaching a new theocracy... are we then willing to accept that any number of works are suddenly to be deemed seriously flawed under those conditions... or is it just a one-way development with an assumption that we will become an ever increasingly kinder gentler society?

[JBI]

And when the situation changes...? When/if we find ourselves once again in the throws of a Neo-Conservative revolution and even approaching a new theocracy... are we then willing to accept that any number of works are suddenly to be deemed seriously flawed under those conditions... or is it just a one-way development with an assumption that we will become an ever increasingly kinder gentler society?

Exactly - judgments change - works do not remain "perfect" or cannot remain perfect, as even language changes drastically over time. Texts are always dynamic, as are tastes. What makes certain books great, is there ability to adapt to changing tastes, and still be great. Shakespeare, for instance, suffered from changing tastes in the 18th century, and had his endings modified, and his structures revamped. The poet Alexander Pope even published his "Shakespeare" which essentially remolded the whole thing into closed couplets (and, for a little ironic trivia, lead to horrible criticism, which would lead him to write the Dunciad). Dr. Johnson had many problems with what were termed Shakespeare's Quibbles, that is, his use of puns, as did much of the 18th century intelligentsia.

Taste is rooted in time period, but some books somehow have power to transcend tastes. If society changes drastically however, I am sure many texts will simply be forgotten. As it is, many "Western" texts will be forgotten, as soon as people realize that you cannot just look at literature as occidental, and oriental anymore. Certainly changing climates effect texts, as do other texts. To us, it is perhaps the bigoted perspectives in the book that may make us cringe, for others, it may be the obsession with money, who can say.

That being said, like I said, I think it a pretty damn good novel, and pretty close to perfect. That doesn't mean it cannot be criticized though.

[dfloyd]

but certaily not flawless, if your definition of lawless is not one scene, one description, or one dialog have any wasted words or words not necessary. Most critics of American literature consider The Geat Gatsby as Flawless. As for me, my choice is Uncle Wiggly in Connecticut.

[Lynne Fees]

Boy, I really have to read Madame Bovary.

A follow-up to Classic Charm's question: is it too hard to read in French?


Everyone knows there's no such thing as a 'flawless novel' - this is but a truism. Much more interesting would be if y'all'd answer the OP's question which some of you have only adressed in passing: 'What makes a novel perfect?'

Nothing should be superfluous. Arguably, there ought to be some sort of symmetry and everything should be related. This means that every element should be connected to one another (as in an organism), but each element should also be able to exist on its own and thus be more than merely a counterpart.

This, of course, if you're looking for 'perfection', whatever that might be. 'Perfection', to my mind, implies a system, and maximum efficiency.

I can only hope this makes any sense.

I've never read it Madame Bovary, and I need to.
Perfection seems like a scientific concept to me, not a literary one. Literature is way too subjective to find perfection. I agree with you as far as the symmetry and interrelation of the plot being necessary to have a great novel, but a "perfect" novel? No.

[emily00]

Perfection in a novel is, I agree, hard to define. Perhaps it is useful to think of what constitutes 'perfect design' in any sphere? Something which marries form and function, as perfectly as possible. Like collie dogs. Or pot-bellied teapots with long spouts. Babies' feet. Or lazy-fish corkscrews. You will no doubt have your own favourites!

Steinbeck's 'Of Mice and Men' seems to me to be near perfect in its conception and its construction. It's clearly rooted in its place (a Californian ranch) and its time (1930s), yet its significance is universal. The protagonists are Everyman figures. The themes are classical : the hostile universe: man's inhumanity to man; the fragility of dreams; the inevitability of disaster. It begins and ends in a place like Eden, but in the three intervening days, events stride on and life changes irrevocably. Steinbeck steps right back from his narrative; it appears effortlessly to tell itself, sparely, beautifully, unselfconsciously. Not a word is wasted, nor left out.

I agree that 'Madame Bovary' and 'The Great Gatsby' are also strong contenders for the title.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Perfection in a novel is, I agree, hard to define. Perhaps it is useful to think of what constitutes 'perfect design' in any sphere? Something which marries form and function, as perfectly as possible. Like collie dogs. Or pot-bellied teapots with long spouts. Babies' feet. Or lazy-fish corkscrews. You will no doubt have your own favourites!

Steinbeck's 'Of Mice and Men' seems to me to be near perfect in its conception and its construction. It's clearly rooted in its place (a Californian ranch) and its time (1930s), yet its significance is universal. The protagonists are Everyman figures. The themes are classical : the hostile universe: man's inhumanity to man; the fragility of dreams; the inevitability of disaster. It begins and ends in a place like Eden, but in the three intervening days, events stride on and life changes irrevocably. Steinbeck steps right back from his narrative; it appears effortlessly to tell itself, sparely, beautifully, unselfconsciously. Not a word is wasted, nor left out.


Hmm, I only think it rises above average. I agree that there are a lot of big universal themes in this piece, but there is little beauty in this novella, even if beauty resists definition.

[emily00]

but there is little beauty in this novella, even if beauty resists definition.

In other words, little of what you consider to be beautiful, but cannot express?!

I accept, beauty is ultimately in the eye of the beholder; it's a subjective thing. However...if we approach it from the 'beauty is truth' angle, and if you agree there are some 'big universal themes' in the novel, then those important truths must surely contribute to its beauty.

What do you consider detracts from its design or execution?

[Tournesol]

Humans, who write novels, are flawed. So, a product[a novel] of the human mind [which is flawed] must, most likely, also be flawed.

[emily00]

Humans, who write novels, are flawed. So, a product[a novel] of the human mind [which is flawed] must, most likely, also be flawed.

Yes, I would agree with that, as a principle, but it would render the original question unanswerable or even meaningless, which I do not think it is. Prehaps it should be prefaced with 'Given the inherent imperfection of the human mind, which novel do you think is the most perfect example of its kind?

Then we must look, as people on this thread have done, to plot/structure, characterisation, evocation of setting(s), the importance of the themes and the narrative style.

Of these, I suspect it is the latter in which is the most difficult for a writer to demonstrate, or a reader to see, 'perfection'.

[LitNetIsGreat]

In other words, little of what you consider to be beautiful, but cannot express?!

I accept, beauty is ultimately in the eye of the beholder; it's a subjective thing. However...if we approach it from the 'beauty is truth' angle, and if you agree there are some 'big universal themes' in the novel, then those important truths must surely contribute to its beauty.

What do you consider detracts from its design or execution?

It's a bit too obvious in its execution. The book is used as a set piece for GCSE study in English it's very easy and obvious, it feels like a text book read to me, there is nothing sublime about it. It's quite a good solid book, don't get me wrong, but there's nothing extra there.

[emily00]

It's a bit too obvious in its execution. The book is used as a set piece for GCSE study in English it's very easy and obvious, it feels like a text book read to me, there is nothing sublime about it. It's quite a good solid book, don't get me wrong, but there's nothing extra there.


Interesting. I agree, it can appear simple, but all I would say is that simplicity can be a feature of excellent design. When I first read the novel, I would have agreed with you that it was 'easy and obvious'.* Now, having read it many times, I'm not so sure. I think it is more complex than you give it credit for. Not in the sense of its narrative style, but in the way it unselfconsciously presents us with a microcosm of the human world and asks : how can this world resist disintegration - how can individuals on the far fringes of that world, be accommodated? In the end it does not offer any easy answers and it is undeniably bleak.

But then, all the best literature is tragic...:)

*The fact that it is a set text at GCSE English Literature should not mean that it cannot be read at a level above that, of course.

[Dionido]

I think that it isn't really possible to talk about a "flawless novel", inasmuch as literature (especially prose rather than poetry as JBI pointed out at the beginning of the thread) is not a science and inevitably all novels are filtered through the subjectivity of the reader, who is then called to "like" or "not like" certain aspects of it.

If flawless perfection consists in a complete adherence to certain models, or to a certain narrative/formal/thematic scheme, then I would see it as a deep contradiction of what literature and art in general means to me.

If by flawless we mean simply something we can't seem to dislike in any way whatsoever, well I think that depends fully on individual tastes and interests. MissScarlett said that many think that "novels should be flawed because they are about human beings and human beings are flawed"; in fact I think that what allows us to favour certain novels over others is our own individual predisposition to overlook their so-called flaws and interpret them as characteristic qualities.

[kelby_lake]

I'd say we have to say flawless with regards to the knowledge of humanity's flaws and obsessions, expressed poetically. Thus, I'm leaning towards The Great Gatsby, because it does have flaws, but the analysis of the human condition is spot-on.

[sixsmith]

I'd say we have to say flawless with regards to the knowledge of humanity's flaws and obsessions, expressed poetically. Thus, I'm leaning towards The Great Gatsby, because it does have flaws, but the analysis of the human condition is spot-on.

Funny because on reading the title to this thead i immediately thought of "Revolutionary Road" which is often compared to Gatsby. To my mind Yates' novel is the greater achievement; not only his prose matchless but the cumulative effect is more revealing, more compelling than Fitzgerald's undeniably superb novel.

[emily00]

Actually, I've decided that I'd like to nominate 'The Remains of the Day' as well.

[Dr. Hill]

Pushkin's Eugene Onegin could be, but that's a novel in verse. Does it count?