Fiction is dead...again.

[sixsmith]

http://www.observer.com/2010/culture/where-have-all-mailers-gone

[JBI]

:p He shares similar views but for the wrong reason and completely different examples.

Fiction has always been a bastard child, it just happens that fiction became rehabilitated as a form for artistic creativity, then just lost control of itself, falling into boring patterns - it's a form, like letter writing, it needs to evolve.

That's why the article seems strange to me - I am suspicious of things being "dead." It's like suggesting Metaphysical Poetry is dead - it is a movement - it is a subsection of a long discourse. So are novels.

It's strange then - about a generation ago the novel morphed into an interesting form of the post-colonial/3rd world novel. What that created was an extension of an exhausted form. In Canada, a now dominant form is the verse novel, which shows an evolution of the form. Likewise, imagist poetry is no longer an active movement, but its presence remains.

All time periods need narratives, it's just the medium needs to evolve - in Canada, for Canadian literatue's purposes, I would say it has evolved - somewhere like China, I would say some aspects are lagging (for instance, many critics emphasize the Chinese preoccupation with China, and its politics as something of a defect of modern literature). My problem with novels is the form itself is kind of exhausted - I am just not creative enough to see the way out of it.

Probably people will just become more lax with the structure - classical novels, especially those from non-Western cultures seem to be multi-genre, such as The Tale of Genji, which is both novel and poem - a long poem in prose with beautiful interjections of poetry. A form like that will probably rehabilitate.

But honestly, realist prose, or straight, "simple prose" is boring. Novelists just need to be more creative, which is the case often, so I guess novels in the traditional sense are dying or dead, but what the novel evolves into is not dead - simply an evolved form of literature.

[_Shannon_]

This has an awful lot to do with the publishing industry....and the isolation of the New York culture world from the rest of normal (lower?) humanity, than anything else. Of course there are still people writing, and of course there are still people reading what they've written and being moved.


what the novel evolves into is not dead - simply an evolved form of literature.
While I do not agree that the novel is done for , here in the next decade or so, books are gonna seriously change as the switch is made to digital--that will be instrumental in the evolution of the novel. Books as we know them are about to begin undergoing a rapid fundamental change.

[spookymulder93]

Twilight, Harry Potter, and the Dan Brown books don't have a problem selling so why does everyone else?

[Night_Lamp]

Because people like a nice simple plot handed to them on a clean plate. They don't want to think while they read.

[spookymulder93]

As far as thinking goes how do you know someone won't get anything out of Twilight, Harry Potter, Stephen King, etc? Just because you don't see anything there doesn't mean anyone never will. Who knows some kid could get inspired by Harry Potter and then right the next great sci-fi classic.

[minstrelbard]

Maybe Lee Siegel is missing something: Maybe it isn't that fiction is dead or has become irrelevant. Maybe the New Yorker has become irrelevant. Siegel laments that TNY's "20 under 40" list is "inbred, house-approved" and wonders why it hasn't provoked a strong reaction, with other people angrily proposing their own lists of, presumably, highly-creative, original, non-New-Yorker writers. Well, maybe nobody's angry enough to do so, and the non-New-Yorker writers are too busy with their own work to pay attention to the New Yorker, because maybe Lee Siegel is the only person who still cares about what the New Yorker has to say about fiction. I mean, it looks like Siegel's entire argument is based on the pre-eminence of the New Yorker in the realm of fiction. If the New Yorker is not pre-eminent, Siegel has nothing to talk about.

Fiction is alive and well and relevant. Maybe the New Yorker, and Lee Siegel, are on life support and are drifting into whocaresville.

[Mr.lucifer]

Just because a story does not have philosophical themes does not mean its shallow. If a story could not be good without philosophical themes, then storytelling would be boring.

Being entertaining does not mean something is shallow.

[_Shannon_]

Maybe the New Yorker has become irrelevant. .

:iagree:

[JBI]

Twilight, Harry Potter, and the Dan Brown books don't have a problem selling so why does everyone else?

True, but Shakespeare has no problem selling, but, he is dead.

I can't see how that is exactly relevant.

[Scheherazade]

Because people like a nice simple plot handed to them on a clean plate. They don't want to think while they read.Why are we talking about "people" and "they" as if they are a different race?

Are we not "people"? What makes us different from "them"? Because we opened accounts on a forum that is mostly about literature and reading?

[Emil Miller]

Why are we talking about "people" and "they" as if they are a different race?

Are we not "people"? What makes us different from them? Because we opened accounts on a forum that is mostly about literature and reading?

The insertion of 'many' before the word 'people' would be accurate.

[liberal viewer]

Lee Siegel is a complete idiot who is just trying to make a name for himself. Fiction dead? It seems vibrant enough for me.
Funny that every epoch claims the death of the novel. Nouveau Roman, anyone?

[stlukesguild]

Yes... in my own discipline (visual art) there have been those who have been declaring that painting is dead for generations now... only to see it continue to dominate the dialog in the visual arts... to say nothing of the auction houses.

[spookymulder93]

True, but Shakespeare has no problem selling, but, he is dead.

I can't see how that is exactly relevant.

Is Shakespeare modern fiction? If so then I must be traveling through time. If he isn't modern fiction and Twilight, Harry Potter, etc is, then I can see why it's relevant.

[OrphanPip]

I've tried looking for more than what's on the surface, and what I found reeked of Christian Conservatism. The movies, at least, are practically wordy safe-sex adverts.

But hey, to each their own.

[ktm5124]

The author of the article doesn't even understand what fiction is - it is a genre of literature uniquely suited for distilling wisdom. Such a form will never die. There will always be intelligent people in the world who realize this advantage, and thus endeavor to read fiction.

Painting, poetry, and classical music have their own advantages as well - that is why people have been engaged in these art forms for centuries. These forms, like many others, will also never die. They might be marginalized by the masses, but they will always have people who understand the unique things they have to offer and engage them.

[JBI]

Is Shakespeare modern fiction? If so then I must be traveling through time. If he isn't modern fiction and Twilight, Harry Potter, etc is, then I can see why it's relevant.

Because, something can be dead and still prospering, that's art.

For instance, I doubt anybody would say that Theatre is what it was 400 years ago, does that imply that Shakespeare is not popular?

Form evolves, the same way we are no longer homo-erectus, the novel is changing, or dying if you will. The same way Elizabethan poetry has undergone reforming - to the point where musical accompaniment at one point the centre of poetry, was all but abandoned.

The whole idea is that form can die, as in, lose its life force - that doesn't mean people can't write in it, or try to revive it if you will - but seriously, the great age of novels as readable entertainment was probably 1856-1900, and the great age of novel as experimental form came to a close a while ago - what new authors are doing is becoming less and less novel, and more and more post-novel. Hence, the novel is dying, or dead, as the tradition seems to want novels less.

I can smear things on walls, but I would argue the art of cave smearing is long dead.

As for painting being dead St. Lukes - I am sure there are periods when it dies for a while, before something new comes in, or someone new comes in - for instance, conceptual art and pop art had some yells - but the reason it persists is quite simply there is nothing particularly interesting or more advanced about conceptual or pop-art that art doesn't already contain. A urinal is just a urinal as they say, but I wager renaissance painting is dead.

Novel is to prose fiction what renaissance painting is to painting, or, we should say, novel is a changing definition, so it in its original sense has long been dead.

[spookymulder93]

Because, something can be dead and still prospering, that's art.

For instance, I doubt anybody would say that Theatre is what it was 400 years ago, does that imply that Shakespeare is not popular?

Form evolves, the same way we are no longer homo-erectus, the novel is changing, or dying if you will. The same way Elizabethan poetry has undergone reforming - to the point where musical accompaniment at one point the centre of poetry, was all but abandoned.

The whole idea is that form can die, as in, lose its life force - that doesn't mean people can't write in it, or try to revive it if you will - but seriously, the great age of novels as readable entertainment was probably 1856-1900, and the great age of novel as experimental form came to a close a while ago - what new authors are doing is becoming less and less novel, and more and more post-novel. Hence, the novel is dying, or dead, as the tradition seems to want novels less.

I can smear things on walls, but I would argue the art of cave smearing is long dead.

As for painting being dead St. Lukes - I am sure there are periods when it dies for a while, before something new comes in, or someone new comes in - for instance, conceptual art and pop art had some yells - but the reason it persists is quite simply there is nothing particularly interesting or more advanced about conceptual or pop-art that art doesn't already contain. A urinal is just a urinal as they say, but I wager renaissance painting is dead.

Novel is to prose fiction what renaissance painting is to painting, or, we should say, novel is a changing definition, so it in its original sense has long been dead.

I think we're talking about 2 different things lol.

I brought up Twilight, Harry Potter etc to give an example of modern fiction that is far from being dead.

[JBI]

I think we're talking about 2 different things lol.

I brought up Twilight, Harry Potter etc to give an example of modern fiction that is far from being dead.

I beg to differ; those are both texts now - they are not in the process anyway - they aren't serialized - they've been published. All published texts are dead in that sense.

The only difference between Potter and Shakespeare when it comes to selling is the fact that Rowling is raking it in, while Shakespeare is mere bones. Both texts are dead though - if Rowling wasn't alive it probably wouldn't change the text much, in terms of how it is read.

[stlukesguild]

Because, something can be dead and still prospering, that's art.

For instance, I doubt anybody would say that Theatre is what it was 400 years ago, does that imply that Shakespeare is not popular?

Form evolves...

The whole idea is that form can die...

I can smear things on walls, but I would argue the art of cave smearing is long dead.

As for painting being dead St. Lukes - I am sure there are periods when it dies for a while, before something new comes in, or someone new comes in - for instance, conceptual art and pop art had some yells - but the reason it persists is quite simply there is nothing particularly interesting or more advanced about conceptual or pop-art that art doesn't already contain. A urinal is just a urinal as they say, but I wager renaissance painting is dead.

Novel is to prose fiction what renaissance painting is to painting, or, we should say, novel is a changing definition, so it in its original sense has long been dead.

To an extent, I'll agree. Art forms continually evolve... and certain art forms become central or dominant... thriving... and others survive through the efforts of a few talented individuals who continue to work in the genre. certainly the novel as it was... the nouvelle romans... the "new romance"... is dead. The novel as a form that was so new it could be dismissed as something unworthy and incapable of achieving anything of literary merit by figures such as Johnson and Swift is no longer with us. But fiction... the extended narrative... story-telling and the invention and development of characters I suspect will always be with us in one form or another, just as theater as Shakespeare's age understood it may be "dead"... but it is still very much alive... perhaps even more so today... in the form of film and even television.

I suspect that "painting"... the desire to make marks upon a surface... to create images... to draw or paint things... is just as fundamental a human urge as the need to tell stories. It has survived at least from 50,000 years in the caves in the South of France and Spain. Its forms have changed... but at its essence it remains the same. Brief flirtations with Dada, Conceptual Art, Performance Art, Video Installation etc... have remained but casual dalliances. Every child still wants to paint and draw, and almost no one enters art school wanting to be a Conceptual Artist. Of course one might argue that Installation art has been with us forever... what is the interior of a Gothic Cathedral... or even the caves at Lascaux if not marvelous "installations"? What is the theater... the opera... film... or the very rituals of the Catholic Church... complete with the paintings, gilding, sculpture, stained glass, incense, chants, music, etc... if not performance art? Conceptual Art? The very "concept" seems confused. All art is rooted in ideas. The ideas without the form seems more the domain of philosophy than art, and artists are not philosophers... and those who attempt to be as much tend to be rather embarrassing.

[Stendhal]

The vast majority of fiction has, unfortunately, always been dominated by shallow stories which do not force us to reevaluate our vision of the world around us. However, like always, there are still authors who make statements about our world. One need only pick up fiction such as The Reader or Revolutionary Road to know that. Shakespeare's time had its Twilights and Da Vinci Codes, but they have been forgotten. The great works will survive, but for now we can still see all the bad writing.

[dafydd manton]

Fiction dead? Again? Oh dear. Again.