A Misconception About the Novel Form

[Jassy Melson]

It seems that many have a misconception about what constitutes a novel. One thing the novel must contain is a plot. That is why such stories as Gulliver's Travels, Robinson Crusoe, and Don Quixote are not novels. They lack a plot. The first novel ever written was Samuel Richardson's Pamela--because it was an extended story that contained a plot. It's that simple.

[SilvanDitties]

I think you may have misconceptions about what a plot is.

[Calidore]

Interesting topic for discussion. Merriam-Webster's definition goes thus: An invented prose narrative that is usually long and complex and deals especially with human experience through a usually connected sequence of events.

And from their "Concise Encyclopedia": Fictional prose narrative of considerable length and some complexity that deals imaginatively with human experience through a connected sequence of events involving a group of persons in a specific setting. The genre encompasses a wide range of types and styles, including picaresque, epistolary, gothic, romantic, realist, and historical novels. Though forerunners of the novel appeared in a number of places, including Classical Rome and 11th-century Japan, the European novel is usually said to have begun with Miguel de Cervantes's Don Quixote. The novel was established as a literary form in England in the 18th century through the work of Daniel Defoe, Samuel Richardson, and Henry Fielding. The typical elements of a conventional novel are plot, character, setting, narrative method and point of view, scope, and myth or symbolism. These elements have been subject to experimentation since the earliest appearance of the novel.

[Charles Darnay]

Gulliver's Travels is not a novel - you are correct on this.

Don Quixote is credited with being the first "novel" - it certainly has a plot. So does Robinson Crusoe

Now, Pamela is certainly the first introspective novel: a novel that really focuses on the psychological development of a character (poorly, but still....). many 18th and 19th century novelists draw on Richardson more than Cervantes and Defoe.

[Calidore]

Don Quixote is credited with being the first "novel" - it certainly has a plot. So does Robinson Crusoe


I don't think I've heard Don Quixote called the first novel before. Wasn't Don himself a reader of novels, which led to his insanity? I'd thought The Tale of Genji 500 years earlier was considered the first novel.

[SilvanDitties]

I don't think I've heard Don Quixote called the first novel before. Wasn't Don himself a reader of novels, which led to his insanity? I'd thought The Tale of Genji 500 years earlier was considered the first novel.

Genji predates the Chinese classic novels, but they can still be considered in a discussion of the first novel, I think.

[JCamilo]

The problem is novel or romance are vague terms and they get even more vagues when similar terms are used in different languages for diffrent things. That is all.

[OrphanPip]

I don't think I've heard Don Quixote called the first novel before. Wasn't Don himself a reader of novels, which led to his insanity? I'd thought The Tale of Genji 500 years earlier was considered the first novel.

The Don is a reader of Renaissance prose romances like the Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia.

I have a hard time seeing Pamela as the first novel, mainly because even if we are going to use the bizarre definition of an extended prose narrative with a plot then Defoe's Moll Flanders and Roxanna predate it, as does Eliza Haywood's Love in Excess. And that's just sticking to English. It would be bizarre to call Pamela the first novel when the word was already in wide use by that time to refer to long unified prose works. The Concise Encyclopedia definition is fine though it gives perhaps too much credit to Ian Watt's holy trinity of the novel.

As to Genji being the first novel, I prefer to exclude non-European texts from a discussion of a modern European artform which is characterized by far more than just plot. After all, if we want to look for the first long prose text we could credit The Golden ***, but I don't think that adds much to our understanding of what the modern novel is and where it came from.

[JBI]

What of Thomas Nashe as a clear earlier writer, fitting virtually all these descriptions more or less. The Unfortunate Traveller seems to fit the bill more or less.

[OrphanPip]

What of Thomas Nashe as a clear earlier writer, fitting virtually all these descriptions more or less. The Unfortunate Traveller seems to fit the bill more or less.

Ian Watt, who I don't personally agree with, argued that the novel was fundamentally intersubjective and about the interaction between fictional people in realistic ways, such that it modeled the way we relate to the world in day to day life. For Watts, simply being a long prose narrative with plot could not be a defining feature of the novel, because he felt the novel was a "loose baggy monster" formally and incorporated any technique and device and source it could in pursuit of what was a unifying ideological framework rather than a formal one. I tend to think that this is solely a characteristic of the Eighteenth Century novel and there is a clear continuity between the picaresque works of Nashe and Cervantes with later works.

[mona amon]

I think Don Quixote is considered the first great novel of western literature, or the first modern novel (whatever that means).

[Lokasenna]

I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that those texts you mention don't have plots... but I suppose that does somewhat depend on what one's subjective definition of a plot is. But if a plot consists of a series of events that fit together into a story, then all three of the examples you give are potentially viable novels.

As for the earliest novels, I (and many other medievalists) will bang one of our usual drums and suggest that the Icelandic family sagas constitute the earliest example of the novel form in Western Europe.

[Eiseabhal]

Plot is not the story. It is the how and why. All the ones mentioned have plots just that some are developed and some are primitive.

[Pen Name]

So there is no Plot in the Odyssey?

Strange I have read it twice because I thought the plot was so good.

Obviously I am delusional, and Homer didn't write the first romance.

Next time I watch "39 Steps" I must remember there is no plot. It must be all character analysis lol.

Or am I mixing up Buchan's plot with one of those in Homer ha ha.

I suggest Jessy does some homework.

[Jassy Melson]

I've done enough homework, thank you. I still stand by my assertion that Samuel Richardson's Pamela is the first novel.

[PeterL]

I've done enough homework, thank you. I still stand by my assertion that Samuel Richardson's Pamela is the first novel.

Stand there all you want, but Oroonoko is a short novel by Aphra Behn that was published in 1688. Moll Flanders and other novels also preceded Pamela.

[Charles Darnay]

It's funny: I took a class in university which centred around this very same debate, with the same results.

The catch is that the definition is not static. Boccaccio referred to the Decameron as a novel - today we would call it a collection of stories. This is what makes it both a frustrating and fascinating designation.

Personally, I like Ian Watt's interpretations - that's just me. This is why I go with Cervantes and Defoe as the fathers of the novel.

[JBI]

And not Nashe because?

[JCamilo]

The words novel, romance, etc. are all mixed up in the past in portuguese, spanish, etc. It was not about plot, prose, verse, etc. It was about length and therefore chapters. If you are going to track back on time and trying to impose moderm terminology on different cultures, you better be ready to waste a lot of time and go nowhere.

[AuntShecky]

The original poster's definition of a novel emphasizes plot and that's fine. A broader definition would include the other works mentioned in the various replies. I for one would hate to see Ulysses and Tristram Shandy left out simply for the lack of a "plot."

Denis Donoghue's intro to Flann O'Brien's The Third Policeman puts forth Northrop Frye's four forms of book-length prose fiction:
novel (Pride & Prejudice)
romance (Wuthering Heights)
confession (Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man)
anatomy

"Anatomy" is the most varied type of prose fiction, includding Menippean satires such as Candide, Gulliver's Travels, and the novel under Donoghue's discussion, The Third Policeman. According to this preface, the perfect Menippean satire is Alice in Wonderland.

Menippean satire concerns itself with "mental attitudes," "diseases of the intellect" from "pedants, bigots, cranks, parvenus, virtuosi, enthusiast, rapacious and incompentent professional men. . .handled in terms of their 'humor' or ruling passion, their occupational approach to life as distinct from social behavior."

There are plenty of "comic" novels which would easily fit in this "anatomy" category, the fact that they may or may not lack a "plot" beside the point.Some prose works may have attributes of more than one category, maybe all four.

The aforementioned Pamela, for instance, is an epistolary novel with elements of romance as well as confession. The form didn't originate with Richardson as several English and French examples of the type already existed.Though highly popular, the "hypocritical morality" of Pamela inspired many mocking parodies: Shamela whose authorship was attributed to Fielding, who continued the parody in the opening to Joseph Andrews.
(source: Oxford Companion to English Literature.)


Incidentally, if you wonder what was the "first" novel, you have to go way, way back to Roman times with Trimalchio's Dinner, part of the Satiricon of Petronius. (At least that's what they taught us in Latin class, which goes back almost as far!) Incidentally, Trimalchio's Banquet was the working title for The Great Gatsby.

[Jassy Melson]

Neither are novels

[Jassy Melson]

A novel must contain a plot. Pamela is the first novel because it contains a plot. All the other works mentioned do not contain a plot. They are a mere grouping of adventures or incidents.

[PeterL]

A novel must contain a plot. Pamela is the first novel because it contains a plot. All the other works mentioned do not contain a plot. They are a mere grouping of adventures or incidents.

Not all novels have plots. The ordinary definition of novel is as follows:

nov·el 1 (nvl)
n.
1. A fictional prose narrative of considerable length, typically having a plot that is unfolded by the actions, speech, and thoughts of the characters.
2. The literary genre represented by novels.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/novel
and

nov·el
1 [nov-uhl] Show IPA
noun
1. a fictitious prose narrative of considerable length and complexity, portraying characters and usually presenting a sequential organization of action and scenes.
2. (formerly) novella ( def 1 ) .
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/novel?s=t

Why do you think that all novels have plots, and do you think that Oroonoko does not have a plot?

[OrphanPip]

A novel must contain a plot. Pamela is the first novel because it contains a plot. All the other works mentioned do not contain a plot. They are a mere grouping of adventures or incidents.

Well, that's simply false. The Princess of Cleves clearly has a plot: a young woman comes to Paris and marries an older man, but she falls in love with a younger man, she is falsely suspected of cheating on her husband and her husband dies soon after making her swear not to marry the man he suspects her of cheating on him with, the girl is honest despite the fact that she does love the other man and she goes into a convent, the end.

[Darcy88]

My definition may sound crude, and feel free to tear it to shreds, but to me a novel is simply a long work of fictional prose. By long I mean more than 75 or so pages.

[Pen Name]

It's not even the first 'English' novel, leaving aside Beowulf, and Piers Ploughman, (which you obviously wouldn't regard as fiction)?, and don't even start to try and sound superior by suggesting that Fiction isn't a Novel, going by fiction with a plot and series of being a novel development then Mort D'Arthur predates Sam Richardson and Chaucer's Tales are earlier still (not original as he used the Decameron as his blueprint)

And the use of Letters merely changes from characters telling a story, so the letter merely takes the place of the Characters observations in Chaucer or Decameron.

In the end it all goes back to Homer (all fiction does) and the Odyssey, where we have the Gods debating fates of humans, Richardson merely came up with the 'Novel idea' of using letters, as the modus operandi, otherwise he is not original.

Last time our lass watched 'Seven Brides for Seven Brothers' the plot was still based on The Rape of the Sabine Women, which goes back to Ancient Rome, but don't confuse that Plot using seven 'Innocent' Women and locking them up until they agree to marry with Richardson's plot, oh no we shouldn't do that.

Otherwise we might end up suggesting that Richardson stole the idea of the PLOT for Pamela, well okay he did, but hey it was a best seller in its day.

[PeterL]

A novel must contain a plot. Pamela is the first novel because it contains a plot. All the other works mentioned do not contain a plot. They are a mere grouping of adventures or incidents.

Do you have your own definition of plot or does this definition from dictionary.com com work? (I am deleting the several unrelated definitions.)

plot
noun
2. Also called storyline. the plan, scheme, or main story of a literary or dramatic work, as a play, novel, or short story.

If you use this definition, then Oroonoko certainly is a novel, and some of the other works probably are novels, but I haven't red all of them, so I can't be sure, and Robinson Crusoe is a novel also and Moll Flanders, too. If you have some other definition of plot, then you should explain that, because it is well outside the mainstream.

[JCamilo]

Maybe Jassy can tell me if this resume could work as a plot: A king gets mad because the betrayal of his wife and starts marrying and killing every maiden of his kingdom. To save the kingdom, a maiden sacrificy herself, marrying with him, but delay her death telling stories that leave the king curious for the end. She goes with this for several nights, until the wisdom of the stories she selected carefully make the king put aside his maddening anger and they live happily ever after.

[Jassy Melson]

I repeat, Samuel Richardson's Pamela is the first novel. All the other works mentioned are nothing but collections of incidents and adventures.

[Volya]

Methinks somebody is a bit of a Samuel Richardson fanboy...?

Why do you not consider any earlier stories as having a 'plot'? How does Gulliver's Travels not have a plot?

[PeterL]

I repeat, Samuel Richardson's Pamela is the first novel. All the other works mentioned are nothing but collections of incidents and adventures.

Have you read any of the other novels mentioned? While the plot in Robinson Crusoe is rather diffuse, the plot of Oroonoko is clear and complete from beginning to end.

[i]Gulliver's Travels" slipped my mind. That is a novel, a satire, and a parody of a variety of other works. The central conflict is the character of Lemuel who changes over the course of the novel from an ordinary, unthinking person to an experienced, thinking misanthrope. It has the unity that a novel requires. GT has a structure that is unusual, but that doesn't diminish from it being a novel.

[Jassy Melson]

I've said all I have to say on this subject. As far as I'm concerned, this thread is dead.

[cafolini]

Excuse me, important: We lost 19 of the best firemen in Arizona. I don't get it. We absolutely know that heat travels toward cooler areas. These men should have had portable fire shelters before the firefighting started, and they should be moved by helicopters working close to them. This has happened several times before.

[Ecurb]

They did have portable fire shelters. Unfortunately, the shelters don't work very well. Out here in Oregon, firefighting is a rite of passage; a great many young men sign up for summer work (because of the 24-hour days on the job, you can make decent summer money in a short time). Most of them work safer firefighting jobs (the smoke jumpers and hotshots have more dangerous jobs). However, I knew a young guy who died in the Storm King fire in Colorado, almost 20 years ago. Doug Dunbar. Great guy. The firefighters trapped on Storm King were also Hotshots.

"Young Men and Fire" is Norman MacLean's account of the Mann Gulch fire in Montana, that killed 10 or so Smoke Jumpers way back in 1949. It's a very good (if tragic) book.

[cafolini]

They did have portable fire shelters. Unfortunately, the shelters don't work very well. Out here in Oregon, firefighting is a rite of passage; a great many young men sign up for summer work (because of the 24-hour days on the job, you can make decent summer money in a short time). Most of them work safer firefighting jobs (the smoke jumpers and hotshots have more dangerous jobs). However, I knew a young guy who died in the Storm King fire in Colorado, almost 20 years ago. Doug Dunbar. Great guy. The firefighters trapped on Storm King were also Hotshots.

"Young Men and Fire" is Norman MacLean's account of the Mann Gulch fire in Montana, that killed 10 or so Smoke Jumpers way back in 1949. It's a very good (if tragic) book.

No, they didn't. They had their own individual overall shelter protection. Nothing of the structured housing that could have saved their life. Check again.

[Ecurb]

I thought you were talking about the aluminum blankets that they did have. I'm not familiar with what you're calling "portable fire shelters". What are they? Do many forest fire fighters have them?

[Darcy88]

So what is Don Quixote if not a novel? I suppose you'll have to invent your own new term for it and similar books.

[Jassy Melson]

Don Quixote lacks plot. It is a collection of the misadventures of a madman.

[cafolini]

Well, that's the plot. It's the plot of a madman.

[Darcy88]

Don Quixote lacks plot. It is a collection of the misadventures of a madman.

I don't think Tropic of Cancer is a novel according to you either. Okay, so what do you call these books? How about "long fictional prose works," which is the definition of a novel anyway? Might make most sense if we just kept calling such books novels, since that is what they are.

[JCamilo]

Wonderful, this means we discovered a new genre. Can we have a top list of "Works that are like a novel but lack a plot*" of the last 2 centuries?

*plot according the definition not given by Jassy

[papillondemai]

My definition may sound crude, and feel free to tear it to shreds, but to me a novel is simply a long work of fictional prose. By long I mean more than 75 or so pages.

I like this definition. The definition which started this discussion is too narrow. I also agree with the observation that the originator of the thread may have misconceptions about what a plot is.

[stlukesguild]

Why is anyone even debating with this clown who imagines that his/her interpretations and definitions of literary genre are the last word. The only misconception here is the assumption that lies with the ignorance and close-mindedness of an individual in ignoring the merits of the comments of individuals with far more experience and knowledge with regard to literature than him/herself.

[cafolini]

I thought you were talking about the aluminum blankets that they did have. I'm not familiar with what you're calling "portable fire shelters". What are they? Do many forest fire fighters have them?

Every firefighter, I think, has one of those. The problem with getting the real thing is that it requires very expensive space-age technology. The real thing is fireproof housing, very much like a spaceship. I know a moderate amount about firefighting because when I was in Montana I had a very close firefighter friend and he was also an inventor of devices.

[papillondemai]

I've said all I have to say on this subject. As far as I'm concerned, this thread is dead.

You've been rather dogmatic on this issue. Sounds like you have a vested interest in your definition of "novel." You started the thread with a one sentence commandment. I am open to you persuading me that you are right and everyone else wrong. How about some sort of intellectual defense of your position. How did you come to your conclusion?

[papillondemai]

I don't think Tropic of Cancer is a novel according to you either. Okay, so what do you call these books? How about "long fictional prose works," which is the definition of a novel anyway? Might make most sense if we just kept calling such books novels, since that is what they are.

I always thought Tropic of Cancer was an autobiographical account of Henry Miller's experiences trying to get laid as much as possible (the plot?). I was really into Henry Miller in college and read many of his books. Cancer, Capricorn, Sexus, The Air conditioned Nightmare, Quiet Days in Clichy, The Intimate Henry Miller. On the back cover of the Evergreen Black Cat edition of Sexus a quote by Lawrence Durrell refers to "The completion of his seven volume autobiography..." If a basic element of a novel is that it be fiction. Then Tropic of Cancer would be excluded from that category. How about Truman Capote's In Cold Blood. The "novelization" of nonfiction? Perhaps that is what we could call the new genre: Novelizations

[Jassy Melson]

Tropic of Cancer is a non-fictional work. It's not a novel.

[OrphanPip]

Tropic of Cancer is a non-fictional work. It's not a novel.

Tropic of Cancer is only superficially non-fictional. Nor are fictionalizations based on real events a new creation either. Aphra Behn's The Fair Jilt is based on a scandalous newspaper article from the continent (very loosely). Defoe's Journal of the Plague Years combines a first person narrative of a plague survivor (Defoe himself was only a child when the plague occurred) with meticulously research facts about the progress of the outbreak, collected anecdotes, and completely fabricated episodes.

[Jassy Melson]

And none of them are novels.

[Volya]

Why are Gulliver's Travels and Robinson Crusoe not novels?

[cafolini]

Why are Gulliver's Travels and Robinson Crusoe not novels?

Because some capricious idiot says so.

[PeterL]

And none of them are novels.

Why do you think that? Please read the definitions of novel that I posted below. Then perhaps you might educate those of us who have bothered to study literature in the matter of why novels are not novels.

A novel is a long prose narrative that describes fictional characters and events in the form of a sequential story, usually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novel
Definition of NOVEL
1: an invented prose narrative that is usually long and complex and deals especially with human experience through a usually connected sequence of events
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/novel

. A fictional prose narrative of considerable length, typically having a plot that is unfolded by the actions, speech, and thoughts of the characters.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/novel

I could paste dozens of additional definitions that say essentially the same thing, but that should be unnecessary. Can you provide a single source besides your imagination as to what you think that a novel is? If so, then please post a link. If not, then you might want to study literature a little.

[papillondemai]

Because some capricious idiot says so. Come on now with the ad hominems, Caf ol buddy! The proper thing to do here, would have been not simply to call someone a "capricious idiot" but to actually enumerate the constituent elements of the person's character, personality, behavior, thought processes, etc. which could arguably be said to demonstrate both capriciousness and idiocy combined in that "just so" special way that any reasonable man could see constitutes "capricious idiocy." In that way you are not attacking the person, themself (?) (sic) you would be attacking what they say and what they do. Unless of course they open the door to it. Then its no holds barred.

[MarkBastable]

Why is anyone even debating with this clown who imagines that his/her interpretations and definitions of literary genre are the last word.

Indeed. Someone should explain that this is a discussion forum, not an completelyunsupportedassertionfollowedbysulk forum.

[Jassy Melson]

None of the works mentioned contain a plot. I have already stated that in my opinion, this thread is dead, so if you comment on my "idiocy" or try to insult and personally attack me, you will miss your target, for I'm through with this thread.

[Volya]

cafolini is right, you're an idiot.

[PeterL]

None of the works mentioned contain a plot. I have already stated that in my opinion, this thread is dead, so if you comment on my "idiocy" or try to insult and personally attack me, you will miss your target, for I'm through with this thread.

So it's purely your opinion. Then that's fine, but it would be simpler in the future if you made it clear that you were giving personal opinions rather than giving the impression that you were trying to be factual.

[ennison]

I am sorry to see folk falling out and taking piqué over such matters. I have noticed that there is a common misapprehension of what plot is in the minds of most readers. It is NOT the story line. It is the manipulation of the story to engage and explain. I'm pretty sure that R Crusoe has a plot - thin though it may be.

[Jassy Melson]

sticks and stones, little children...

[Darcy88]

sticks and stones, little children...

You offered up nothing in defence of your claim. You started a thread with an undefended claim and then when people gave you well thought up replies you pronounced the thread dead. On page three no less! I've never seen anything like it throughout my 4 years on this forum.

[Jassy Melson]

You're only seeing what you want to see. I gave plenty of defenses in my opening post.

[Darcy88]

You're only seeing what you want to see. I gave plenty of defenses in my opening post.

You gave your own definitions of what is a novel and a plot but offered absolutely nothing to back those definitions up.

[PeterL]

I am sorry to see folk falling out and taking piqué over such matters. I have noticed that there is a common misapprehension of what plot is in the minds of most readers. It is NOT the story line. It is the manipulation of the story to engage and explain. I'm pretty sure that R Crusoe has a plot - thin though it may be.

Once again, this is a new and different definition for something that anyone who has paid attention to fiction should know.
Plot is a literary term defined as the events that make up a story,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_%28fiction%29

Also called storyline. the plan, scheme, or main story of a literary or dramatic work, as a play, novel, or short story.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plot?s=t

Plot refers to the series of events that give a story its meaning and effect. In most stories, these events arise out of conflict experienced by the main character.
http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/virtualit/fiction/elements.asp?e=1

I could paste dozens more definitions most of which would say something equating plot and storyline. Plot is more than simply the story line, but that its the essence of it.

[PeterL]

You're only seeing what you want to see. I gave plenty of defenses in my opening post.

You gave no defense, nor did you provide any sources or references. You presented an opinion in a manner that suggested that you thought it to be fact. As they say: You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

[ennison]

It is odd that the voice of chaos and anarchy should seek the definition of plot in such bastions of conservatism as these. And erroneous definitions too which is why so many people do not realise plot is a technique not the tale. Even plays have plots to explain actions. Stating that plot is NOT story line is emphatically NOT new.

[PeterL]

It is odd that the voice of chaos and anarchy should seek the definition of plot in such bastions of conservatism as these.

And I suppose that you can better define my opinions than I can. What kind of anarchist develops an opinion simply because it is not a popular position? Otherwise your comment above is absurd and inappropriate. If it hadn't been amusing, then I would have taken it as an ad hominem argument.


And erroneous definitions too which is why so many people do not realise plot is a technique not the tale. Even plays have plots to explain actions.

Just because a word means something other than what you wanted it to mean is no reason to be upset. Plot is storyline. That is the case whether one states that directly, or, as you did, state it sideways. The nature of definitions is such that the definition held by most people is usually the best definition to use. If one opts for an unusual definition, then one must establish that as a valid definition at the beginning, unless one is playing at being Humpty-Dumpty.


Stating that plot is NOT story line is emphatically NOT new.

Neither is splitting hairs.

[ennison]

Well one should never stand in the way of the lemming hordes. Plot is a technique which can be analysed. It is different from storyline. The same story can be told in several different ways by the variations available through plotting. It is quite possible to make a dull story interesting by skilful plotting. That is something that most successful thriller writers grasp instinctively if not intellectually. And as the other fellow said I have no dog in this game and have no aim to educate. Enjoy yourself and have a nice day etc.

[PeterL]

Well one should never stand in the way of the lemming hordes.

That's why I let the ignorant run into the ocean on their own.


Plot is a technique which can be analysed. It is different from storyline. The same story can be told in several different ways by the variations available through plotting. It is quite possible to make a dull story interesting by skilful plotting. That is something that most successful thriller writers grasp instinctively if not intellectually.

Yes the plot is the story line that can be analyzed, and there may be several interlocked story lines in a single work.

I have no dog in this game, but I regularly find myself trying to educate people who have little capacity for learning.

[Jassy Melson]

I wasn't aware that it was required to post an essay on this thread. This thread is made up of posters posting their opinions and assertions. They don't back them up. Why should I? I could have posted an essay complete with footnotes, sources and references and "back-up," but space is a definite limitation. Why should I be required to supply back-up, sources and references when no one else is required to do so?

[Jassy Melson]

I'm not required to back my assertion up on this thread. No one else does.

[PeterL]

I'm not required to back my assertion up on this thread. No one else does.

You aren't required, but if you expect anyone to take your opinions seriously, then you may want to provide some rationale for your opinions. You might have noticed that I provided outside support for my opinions, and as a result you indicated that you were finished with this thread.

[ennison]

I note the references to "outside support". Which basically means you rely on dictionaries rather than thinking for yourself. And since it is commonly thought that plot equals story then that's what these simple definitions give. Still wrong though. And of course mr or mrs Jassy Melson is not required to back up his/ her assertions but if there is no definition given of plot how does one know it is not present in, for example, "Robinson Crusoe"?

[PeterL]

I note the references to "outside support". Which basically means you rely on dictionaries rather than thinking for yourself. And since it is commonly thought that plot equals story then that's what these simple definitions give. Still wrong though. And of course mr or mrs Jassy Melson is not required to back up his/ her assertions but if there is no definition given of plot how does one know it is not present in, for example, "Robinson Crusoe"?

Apparently you don't understand the nature of communications. Without general agreement on definitions there can be no communications.

[Jassy Melson]

I have truly finished with this thread (believe me). I will end with this: My simple assertion was that Samuel Richardson's Pamela is the first novel. It is the first novel because it contains a plot. All literary works prior to Pamela, such as Robinson Crusoe, Gulliver Travels, and Don Quixote--and the Oriental works--are not novels because they do not contain a plot. They are chronicles of the incidents and adventures in a character's life. This does not make a novel. A novel must contain a plot. What is a plot? you may ask. For one thing, a plot is more than a collection of adventures and incidents in a character's life. A plot involves intrigue and complications. Above all, a plot must have a satisfactory ending, satisfactory in the sense that the reader is left satisfied and fulfilled. Even a Greek tragedy has a happy ending, in that all loose ends are tied up and the reader or viewer of the tragedy is left with a feeling of completion and rightness.

Regardless, this thread has inspired me to compose a dialogue which I have entitled A Dialogue Inspired by A Misconception About the Novel Form. I will post it soon.

[PeterL]

I have truly finished with this thread (believe me). I will end with this: My simple assertion was that Samuel Richardson's Pamela is the first novel. It is the first novel because it contains a plot. All literary works prior to Pamela, such as Robinson Crusoe, Gulliver Travels, and Don Quixote--and the Oriental works--are not novels because they do not contain a plot. They are chronicles of the incidents and adventures in a character's life. This does not make a novel. A novel must contain a plot. What is a plot? you may ask. For one thing, a plot is more than a collection of adventures and incidents in a character's life. A plot involves intrigue and complications. Above all, a plot must have a satisfactory ending, satisfactory in the sense that the reader is left satisfied and fulfilled. Even a Greek tragedy has a happy ending, in that all loose ends are tied up and the reader or viewer of the tragedy is left with a feeling of completion and rightness.


That's a Humpty Dumpty definition of plot: ('When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'). What is this "satisfaction" that a plot is supposed to have? Does that mean that the plot (storyline) is complete and there is resolution? Does it mean that there need not be plot resolution, but has to give the reader a warm feeling? Or what? Is there any reason for there to be a new and different meaning for the word "plot"?

[Lykren]

Irritating as Jassy's behavior may be, I think what (he? she?) is getting at is that a plot is composed of events which cause each other, not a series of logically unrelated occurrences. Nevertheless, there are causal relationships between events throughout many pre-Pamela prose narratives, though they are apparently not neatly tied together enough to suit Jassy's tastes. Moreover, I find the need for such neatly-drawn conclusions distasteful - as Chekhov said, the role of the artist is to ask questions, not answer them.

[PeterL]

Irritating as Jassy's behavior may be, I think what (he? she?) is getting at is that a plot is composed of events which cause each other, not a series of logically unrelated occurrences. Nevertheless, there are causal relationships between events throughout many pre-Pamela prose narratives, though they are apparently not neatly tied together enough to suit Jassy's tastes. Moreover, I find the need for such neatly-drawn conclusions distasteful - as Chekhov said, the role of the artist is to ask questions, not answer them.

Yes, he is referring to the storyline, which is called a line, because the events lineup. This sort of a plot can be seen in Gulliver's Travels, Oroonoko, and Robinson Crusoe. I can forgive people for not seeing much of a plot in Robinson Crusoe, but anyone who misses the plot development in Gulliver's Travels or in Oroonoko probably hasn't made it past the second grade. Swift ended up knocking readers over the head with the plot and character development; although some parts seem almost irrelevant.

I prefer plot that come to resolution, but I don't care if there is only partial resolution. I do expect that the plot development lead to the ending. Alas, that isn't as common as one would think.

[Pen Name]

There is a point here Jassy, most of the people joining in this debate, wanted debate.

Making an assertion is not a debate, just saying Pamela was the first novel does not make a case for your defence, and that is what some are getting agitated at.

Also stating that other suggstions were merely a series of adventures, would be fine, however the evidence I gave was that Odyssey was held together with a plot, the very thing you say isn't true.

If it isn't, then why isn't it, just saying 'it isn't' doesn't hold water, that is no argument or explanation.

In point of fact I might come over to your side Jassy just to prove my case, after all I am someone who on another board when a young lad asked for advice to defend Bad King John in a debate, 5 others had answered saying it couldn't be done.

I laid out exactly why Good King John was a hero, and the following day the lad had won the debate, hands down lol.

You don't have a case while you just say Pamela was the first novel, as you sound like a child having a tantrum and throwing teddy in the corner lol.

[Eiseabhal]

Man finds his country embroiled in civil war. He chooses sides according to his tribe. He does not join the army. He does what he can to support his side. One day he is inveigled by an agent provocateur and attempts to carry out an act of sabotage against an important bridge. He fails and is captured. He is set to be hung from the bridge. He looks down to the river and imagines himself escaping to the safety of home. He drops from the bridge and his neck breaks.

That is a storyline. It is the storyline of something well known. It has no plot. The plot has been extracted. Plot is not storyline. It has a resolution - the saboteur is hanged.

[Nate]

lol

thank god i'm not distracted by pseudo intellectual questions like "what is a novel?"

the thread starter is repeating something he heard somewhere and doesn't understand well enough to defend. don't bother trying to discuss it with him

[ennison]

Thank you Eiseabhal. It's good to have a stance which cometh not from "the land of the dull and the home of the literal". Which having come from one who hailed from there just proves it is not true in the particular