Patito de Hule
02-26-2012, 01:46 PM
I have just read Albion Tourgee's novel A Fool's Errand and I'm starting his Bricks without Straw. The former contains 3 or 4 chapters of history and politics about Reconstruction. Tourgee was a carpetbagger and judge in the South during Reconstruction, while trying to recover his health from injuries received in the Civil War. So I understand his agenda and am reading his novels to pick up some of the flavor. Generaly speaking, they are good novels and I'm not saying otherwise.
But it spoils a novel, as far as I am concerned, to have such blatant preaching (as I call it) included when it is not really necessary for the story (as I see it). I've discussed this previously, but I wonder what some literature lovers think of the common practice.
A few other novels come to mind. Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy (The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, The Amber Spyglass) had several passages which served only to expound the author's philosophy. Fyodor Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamozov did the same. While in each case the philosophy was integral to the novel, I always have the feeling that the author just isn't good enough a writer to integrate what he has to say into the plot. Keep the agenda hidden, if you will.
In Pullman's case, I got into a lengthy Internet discussion on a forum sponsored by the local newspaper, and most of the other forum members disagreed with me. In Dostoevsky's case I discussed it with my youngest daughter 20+ years ago when she was reading it in school. Of course she agreed with her Dad, but she had even stronger feelings about it than I.
I wonder what people on this forum might think of the practice.
But it spoils a novel, as far as I am concerned, to have such blatant preaching (as I call it) included when it is not really necessary for the story (as I see it). I've discussed this previously, but I wonder what some literature lovers think of the common practice.
A few other novels come to mind. Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy (The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, The Amber Spyglass) had several passages which served only to expound the author's philosophy. Fyodor Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamozov did the same. While in each case the philosophy was integral to the novel, I always have the feeling that the author just isn't good enough a writer to integrate what he has to say into the plot. Keep the agenda hidden, if you will.
In Pullman's case, I got into a lengthy Internet discussion on a forum sponsored by the local newspaper, and most of the other forum members disagreed with me. In Dostoevsky's case I discussed it with my youngest daughter 20+ years ago when she was reading it in school. Of course she agreed with her Dad, but she had even stronger feelings about it than I.
I wonder what people on this forum might think of the practice.