Can some published novels miss their initials points and become inedible?

[jayat]

I don't know if the subject is already brought up but, anyway. I gave up reading a couple of novels of one hundred pages pages each (more or less) because the main point disappear/was missed and the plot was substitued by an overflowing amount of sentences which yet tell me nothing and even interested me less.

Thoughts/comments/empathies? I agree anyone. Please, don't be rude. Short span life time, better smiles/jokes.

P.S. I'm not enough brave to write its titles although I can say are not writen by English authors...neiher asiatic ones.

[PeterL]

I have never, yet, eaten a novel, but that would be novel in itself.

There are an amazingly large number of novels that don't make much sense, and there are a few that are so bad that one cannot read more than a few pages; The Last Immortal by J. O. Jeppson is such a novel, and I am not the only who has thought that.

[Charles Darnay]

I find Henry Fielding to be quite inedible, even when sprinkled with cinnamon.

[cafolini]

Usually the inedible situation occurs when the writer starts with a generalization and framework that counterfeits the possibility of continuing to make a point. Watch closely the generalization and framework because it can be predicted much earlier that it will be inedible.

[stlukesguild]

What is the "main point" of a novel? This sounds like the sort of analysis done in grade school in which the plot, character, and theme of a novel are stressed above all else. It seems to me that the "point" or the "meaning" of the novel... or any work of art... lies within the experience of the work itself. I can think of any number of novels (and other texts) laden with digressions that remain an absolute joy to read.

[islandclimber]

Plot driven narratives, with a single linear pathway to this "main point" surely aren't the prevalent notion in "good" literature. Literary texts of merit do not have that single purpose or meaning. A stable Authorial identity, with a single and easily-identifiable intent is an invented notion, a construct, and leads to quite a superficial analysis of a literary text. An individual meaning or even existence is created by each reader for any given text.

StLukes puts it well by saying that the "'point' or 'meaning' ... lies within the experience of the work itself."

[cafolini]

There is no in-itself.

[jayat]

All your comments are very useful to me. I thought 'edible' could work in this context (figuratively. readable?) Well, thank you for your answers.

[Drkshadow03]

I don't know if the subject is already brought up but, anyway. I gave up reading a couple of novels of one hundred pages pages each (more or less) because the main point disappear/was missed and the plot was substitued by an overflowing amount of sentences which yet tell me nothing and even interested me less.

Thoughts/comments/empathies? I agree anyone. Please, don't be rude. Short span life time, better smiles/jokes.

P.S. I'm not enough brave to write its titles although I can say are not writen by English authors...neiher asiatic ones.

Well, if you're not enjoying it and you're not getting it I would suggest there isn't much of a point in reading it. However, there is always a handful of questions one should ask:

1) do I need more historical and cultural background knowledge to understand it

2) do I need a better grounding in the aesthetic considerations of the writers.

3) do I need to be older to appreciate the ideas and issues within the text.

[JBI]

What is the "main point" of a novel? This sounds like the sort of analysis done in grade school in which the plot, character, and theme of a novel are stressed above all else. It seems to me that the "point" or the "meaning" of the novel... or any work of art... lies within the experience of the work itself. I can think of any number of novels (and other texts) laden with digressions that remain an absolute joy to read.

Well, if we extent the idea of point to mean, what is the idea here being expressed, or what am I supposed to take from this book, and with that being unclear, we could say the work is a miss. Many authors have called works misses on similar grounds. T. S. Eliot tried to only understand works in these terms, it would seem, and that is why his criticism was often a miss, since he missed the bigger points.

Lets say we were to take out the cliff-hangers in Dan Brown, the book would become a miss. No more suspense, no more tension. IT therefore can almost be said that the experience and the appeal of reading such novels rests on their use of suspense to encourage readers to keep turning the pages. The same can be said of TV dramas and Soap Operas, which rely on melodrama, mixed with repetitive over-plotting to keep readers tuning in.

That then is the vital element of the work - without it, the work would fail. Now, lets say Dan Brown were to try and make a novel in a different style, such as J. K. Rowling tried - we could see a miss again, since the basic appeal is lost (in Rowling's case, by accounts of her fans, the charm of her magical world and its quirks, by Brown's fans, the ability to get people turning pages). It is quite possible for works to miss, especially if their authors have an already established reputation and known style. Some of Hemingway's works can also be counted as misses, in that they don't inspire as much as similarly styled works by the author.

Time itself generally sorts out the miss from the success. However, some artists try to do to much, or try to fake a former insight they once had (such is the case with much of Wordsworth). In such cases, they can lose cohesion or sense in their work, and make the book simply existent based on the reputation of its author's other works.

[jayat]

I was thinking about the same kind of answer, JBI. And yes...Drk, that is the other side of the question. The answer to the three ones is a large, big yes.

[My2cents]

Usually the inedible situation occurs when the writer starts with a generalization and framework that counterfeits the possibility of continuing to make a point. Watch closely the generalization and framework because it can be predicted much earlier that it will be inedible.

Jayat, to echo cafolini, start somewhere but don't write for the sake of padding. A framework is only good if the indelible factor factors into the framework as well.

[jayat]

Jayat, to echo cafolini, start somewhere but don't write for the sake of padding. A framework is only good if the indelible factor factors into the framework as well.

I haven't padded him, explicitly at least. I laughed at some of his comments (barra brava, ja)...and I expressed it brought by some kind of rare empathy but yes, once you said that, I must admit what happens with those two kind of novels I try to "smoke" till the last word and I couldn't was some sort of weariness which didn't happen to me with other novelists.

"Watch closely the generalization and framework because it can be predicted much earlier that it will be inedible." Sorry but I couldn't agree more. You My2, by saying "A framework is only good if the indelible factor factors into the framework as well" , has mentioned the writtings of a genius mind (capable of reverting bad in good) but unfortunately it happens rarely and it was not the main question.

P.S. Can anybody tell me the meaning of "factor" as a verb? I'm able to figure it out but I can't pull factor out from the cathegory of noun, almost in my non anglosaxon, latin language. Thanks