# Reading > General Literature >  What is THE American novel?

## five-trey

I'm sure this has been beat to death, but I have not been here to witness it. haha 

I like to believe its Moby-Dick. I just loved the style, the plot, etc. And Ahab's struggle really felt American; out there to conquer nature because of some unholy force within compelling him to sail against the tides of fate. Driven by a self-professed religion, never acknowledging failure as an option.


I've heard some people say, however, that the novel really doesn't portray the "American voice" because like other mid 19th century literature, it tries to immitate the British style. I wouldn't say so. The only American work that I have honestly thought to sound British was Stevenson's _Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde_. I was shocked to find out Stevenson was American.


Huck Finn is supposed to be "the American voice" but I just can't bring myself to give it that title. That's mostly out of my dislike of Huck as a character.


Discuss.

----------


## Virgil

> I'm sure this has been beat to death, but I have not been here to witness it. haha 
> 
> I like to believe its Moby-Dick. I just loved the style, the plot, etc. And Ahab's struggle really felt American; out there to conquer nature because of some unholy force within compelling him to sail against the tides of fate. Driven by a self-professed religion, never acknowledging failure as an option.


What religion is behind Ahab? I don't recall any. If anything he's rejecting religion.




> I've heard some people say, however, that the novel really doesn't portray the "American voice" because like other mid 19th century literature, it tries to immitate the British style. I wouldn't say so. The only American work that I have honestly thought to sound British was Stevenson's _Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde_. I was shocked to find out Stevenson was American.


Stevenson wasn't American.




> Robert Louis Balfour Stevenson (13 November 1850  3 December 1894), was a Scottish novelist, poet, essayist and travel writer. He was the man who "seemed to pick the right word up on the point of his pen, like a man playing spillikins", as G. K. Chesterton put it.[1] Stevenson was greatly admired by many authors, including Jorge Luis Borges, Ernest Hemingway, Rudyard Kipling, Vladimir Nabokov,[2] and J. M. Barrie.[3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Louis_Stevenson

----------


## five-trey

Religion, as in figuratively speaking. He was of no established religion but he was following the superstitions and prophecies of Fedallah (Fed_Allah_?) like a type of religion almost. As you recall, he baptized his harpoon in the name of the Devil with blood from the three harpooners. You can make a case for some religion, but I was not referring to a real religion.


As far as Stevenson, that's even more surprising. My English teacher told me he was American and it didn't really fit with me.

----------


## mayneverhave

The English department chair at my university claimed it was "As I Lay Dying", to which I had to disagree - if only because I think "The Sound and the Fury" superior.

If I had to choose one, I would choose "The Great Gatsby" in its treatment of the American dream, and the paradoxical nature of attitudes toward America.

Faulkner is the best American novelist, however.

----------


## Lokasenna

I'm glad no one has mentioned Salinger's _The Catcher in the Rye_, which people always seem to tout as the definitive american voice. I personally think its hideously overrated.

Would it be twee to say T. S. Eliot? I know he was completely anglicised, but he was _technically_ American... :FRlol: 

Can't really think of an american novelist I like, so actually I'll go with Emily Dickinson - she can be a voice for America!

----------


## Virgil

> Religion, as in figuratively speaking. He was of no established religion but he was following the superstitions and prophecies of Fedallah (Fed_Allah_?) like a type of religion almost. As you recall, he baptized his harpoon in the name of the Devil with blood from the three harpooners. You can make a case for some religion, but I was not referring to a real religion.
> 
> 
> As far as Stevenson, that's even more surprising. My English teacher told me he was American and it didn't really fit with me.


Oh I see what you're alluding to in Ahab. You're right, there is an element of an anti-religious ferver, quite religious in zeal. Gotcha. As to Stevenson, wow, how did your teacher make that kind of mistake?




> I'm glad no one has mentioned Salinger's _The Catcher in the Rye_, which people always seem to tout as the definitive american voice. I personally think its hideously overrated.
> 
> Would it be twee to say T. S. Eliot? I know he was completely anglicised, but he was _technically_ American...
> 
> Can't really think of an american novelist I like, so actually I'll go with Emily Dickinson - she can be a voice for America!


Good points Lok. Those are good picks. I've never heard anyone say that The Catcher in the Rye was the definitive American voice  :FRlol:  but that is a novel that has exxagerated importance. 

I will say there are many American voices, probably becasue we are such a huge country and the speech patterns are different across the nation, especially before television and movies brought about a singular voice. So I'm not sure one can say there is a quitessential American voice. Some have always said Twain's Huck Finn, but I don't speak anything like Huck. The voices are varied. One voice that gets forgotten, though I have always thought it quite original to my ear is that of James T. Farrel, who wrote The Studs Lonigan Trilogy. He has sort of faded as an important writer, if he ever was one, but I do think his voice was particularly American from an immigrant and city life point of view. You can read about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_T._Farrell.

----------


## mortalterror

Huck Finn, Moby Dick, or Gatsby. All three are fine works of fiction and I wouldn't mind any of them taking the laurels. Your choice will differ of course depending on your own particular taste and view of America. In this case, all three of the works are so tremendous that it is no shame to be second to any of them. They remind me of what Livy said at the beginning of his book:

Countless others have written on this theme and it may be that I shall pass unnoticed amongst them; if so, I must comfort myself with the greatness and splendour of my rivals, whose work will rob my own of recognition.- The History of Rome

----------


## joseph90ie

There's only two types of novel - the good and the bad. Art has no nationality. Who knows, perhaps rubbish writing does. All other distinctions are the purest waffle.

----------


## Lokasenna

> There's only two types of novel - the good and the bad. Art has no nationality. Who knows, perhaps rubbish writing does. All other distinctions are the purest waffle.


I'd disagree, to be honest. The cultural background of a novel can inform our opinions of that culture, and indeed may be rooted in that culture - I can't believe that any literature can exist beyond nationality and culture, because they are so pivotal to the realms of art. Hamlet, for example, is rightly considered one of (if not the) greatest thing ever written, and is in its nature quite transcendental. Nonetheless, in order to fully understand the concepts it plays with, you would have to have a least a basic understanding of the social constructs of Renaissance Europe.

I would perhaps invert your argument, and say that only rubbish writing could exist with requiring reference to external factors.

----------


## semi-fly

Shouldn't the American novel incorporate the westward movement of the mid-to-late 19th century?

----------


## JBI

> I'm glad no one has mentioned Salinger's _The Catcher in the Rye_, which people always seem to tout as the definitive american voice. I personally think its hideously overrated.
> 
> Would it be twee to say T. S. Eliot? I know he was completely anglicised, but he was _technically_ American...
> 
> Can't really think of an american novelist I like, so actually I'll go with Emily Dickinson - she can be a voice for America!


Eliot, from The Wasteland on, seems more the poet of London, than anything else, despite his American style and influences.


Strangely enough, when I consider the concept, I think I come up with a book most people will not agree with - Willa Cather's My Antonia. I don't particularly like the concept of "The Great American Novel", as that seems to be such a propaganda statement (I don't hear anyone mentioning the Great German novel, or the Great French novel, or The Great Canadian Novel, yet we all know the American term) and in truth, I feel the term comes from the whole manifest destiny mentality of the 19th century in America, with the desire to prove the greatness of said nation, which sort of became extreme in the 20th century. But even so, if I were to vote for the concept, My Antonia seems the best bet.

Faulkner talks for Mississippi, and to a lesser extent, the south. Melville talks for new England. Fitzgerald about the North, and mostly the East (though he mentions the differences between West and East) and without a mention of the South. 

I think Cather, though very rooted in the Prairies, seems to speak of a more important American concept - the immigrant experience, and the opportunities of the new world, and its deceptions and destructiveness, in addition to feminist preoccupations, which add to the scope. I don't think many of you will agree with me, but really, Cather offers a more important American feel, in terms of the Platonic ideal of The Great American Novel.

----------


## Virgil

> There's only two types of novel - the good and the bad. Art has no nationality. Who knows, perhaps rubbish writing does. All other distinctions are the purest waffle.


Surely that is only partly right. But a writer can only write from experience, from what he knows. I could never write a novel from the perspective of someone say, just to pick a far away place from me, Indonesia. The novel, probably more so than any other art form, requires an identity from which to see.

----------


## JBI

> Surely that is only partly right. But a writer can only write from experience, from what he knows. I could never write a novel from the perspective of someone say, just to pick a far away place from me, Indonesia. The novel, probably more so than any other art form, requires an identity from which to see.


Only in contemporary times - Anatole France for instance, wrote Thais about early Christian Egypt. The actual foundation of the novel, I think mostly in English, from Swift's Guliver, through Lewis's The Monk, all the way from Otranto, through Gaskell, Walter Scott, and all the way to the 20th century didn't need to follow this convention. In truth, the romance genre still tries to not follow this convention in many examples, in adhering to dated Gothic sentiments about setting. I think the real reason for the "writing about where you know" comes out of the fact that so many writers begun to be rooted in particular settings. One thinks of Dickens, Eliot, Hardy, or even modernists like Woolf, Joyce, Faulkner, and Cather. 

The convention of course, has taken an even greater turn in the States more recently, where it is expected for, for instance, African Americans to write about African American issues, and other peoples to write about issues concerning their own group, or even region.

There is though, nothing that says one must write about this or that setting. I think the emergence of Fantasy and science fiction, in some ways, is a way around that - although, I think there haven't been many efforts to write great fantasy fiction, or, more likely, many successful efforts.

----------


## joseph90ie

> I'd disagree, to be honest. The cultural background of a novel can inform our opinions of that culture, and indeed may be rooted in that culture - I can't believe that any literature can exist beyond nationality and culture, because they are so pivotal to the realms of art. Hamlet, for example, is rightly considered one of (if not the) greatest thing ever written, and is in its nature quite transcendental. Nonetheless, in order to fully understand the concepts it plays with, you would have to have a least a basic understanding of the social constructs of Renaissance Europe.
> 
> I would perhaps invert your argument, and say that only rubbish writing could exist with requiring reference to external factors.


hey Lokasenna! I don't know that we disagree. I think it's more a case of having conceptions which are so different, they don't contradict or clash, but are out of sight of one another, like we're not in the same solar system; as if it's not a question of who is closer to the light or the sun, but more like, we may be equally close to two altogether different suns in different systems. But that's euphemistic talk; we do disagree.

When you mention cultural background and stories not being able to exist beyond nationality and culture, I'm sure I agree; but I prefer to eschew those terms, since really, I never think they mean anything - they give me no clear images in my head when using those words and phrases. If language doesn't give me clear images, I steer clear of it and suspect humbug.

I never say a story or a character can exist outside anything or transcend anything - culture, or whatever the meaningless words might be. To say that we need to be aware of some of the details and history of the time to appreciate the truth of a story is simply not true. I know nothing of Spain, but understand Don Quixote, Sancho Panza - and their creator, Cervantes - I understand all these people like my next door neighbours of today. I see literally no difference between those characters of 400 years ago and the people I meet today: none whatsoever. If there were differences, I wouldn't read the book, because I would not be able to learn anything.

I don't know why you feel the need to talk about Hamlet being the best this or that. Who says that? Some men and women in educational institutions? Their opinion is no better than yours or mine. All I can say is, I enjoyed Bill Shakes's words as much as I've enjoyed many other mens' words and that's the end of it. William Shakespeare deserves no more praise than that, and would not want any, and rightly so. Anyway, Shakespeare isn't one of my favourite writers. Putting things into a hierarchy is false talk and snobbery. Your message showed not a sign of any of that; I just say, the elite intellectuals - the arbiters of taste - tell us what we should think, and we end up imbibing their bad habits, and limited ways of thinking and talking. 

The humble are more intelligent than those people who, though they have cleverer brains than the rest of us, they have malevolent, intellectually competitive hearts, so they've nothing to teach me: I ignore them. It's like the race between the tortoise and the hare. In academia, they are all proud hares who take a nap and lose the race. Because really, it's no race.

----------


## Dedalus114

I would call the Great Gatsby the greatest. Other serious candidates include The Scarlet Letter, Moby Dick, The Sun Also Rises, The Sound and the Fury, and The Grapes of Wrath.

----------


## Bitterfly

> I don't particularly like the concept of "The Great American Novel", as that seems to be such a propaganda statement (I don't hear anyone mentioning the Great German novel, or the Great French novel, or The Great Canadian Novel, yet we all know the American term)


Maybe because they needed, not only to prove the greatness of their nation, but to establish their nation as something more than an ex(tra) European colony? If I remember well, there was a drive at the end of the 19th century to create a culture that would be distinct from the European one. For me, the quest for the typically American voice springs from an identity problem, one that didn't really exist for European nations. I wonder whether the same issue isn't apparent in other ex-colonised regions - the Caribbean, for instance, or the "négritude" movement in Africa and the Antilles.

----------


## joseph90ie

Lokasenna, you mention social constructs of Renaissance Europe. Man, that is not you talking. Whoever you're listening to or reading is feeding you swill and poisoning your individuality. I'm 28, and I remember with horror that I used to use those phrases you're using now - I used them up until the age of about 25, I think. That phrase about social constructs, are you honestly telling me it puts an image in your mind, something graspable and comprehensible in a plain, ordinary way? Because, if it can't be understood in such a way, then it's no business being in the mind in the first place. It's all rotten lies. Formal education can ruin a decent mind. Renaissance Europe? There was no such thing. There were people, absolutely no different to you or I in all their daily habits of farting and arguing and staring into space - there were people loving and living; no more, no less. All the other talk is to allow scholars waste paper and ink to make a living.

----------


## JBI

> Maybe because they needed, not only to prove the greatness of their nation, but to establish their nation as something more than an ex(tra) European colony? If I remember well, there was a drive at the end of the 19th century to create a culture that would be distinct from the European one. For me, the quest for the typically American voice springs from an identity problem, one that didn't really exist for European nations. I wonder whether the same issue isn't apparent in other ex-colonised regions - the Caribbean, for instance, or the "négritude" movement in Africa and the Antilles.


This isn't the 1850s though - The States haven't been a colony for over 200 years. The concept of nationality, and The American way though, is still highly prevalent. I see what you are saying, but I think you just reinforce my point - such a concept is a mere political ploy.

Harold Innis worte:

IT is perhaps a unique characteristic of civilization that each civilization believes in its uniqueness and its superiority to other civilizations. Indeed this may be the meaning of culture - I.E., something which we have that others have not. IT is probably for this reason that writings on culture can be divided into those attempting to weaken other cultures and those attempting to strengthen their own. ("Industrialism and Cultural Values" , _The Bias Of Communication_, 132).

In truth, this makes sense within the context of American nationalism, and jingoist sentiment, which carries over to this day (though not as profoundly as it did earlier, and not as unanimously). The point though is, how dated is the concept - how dated is this image of America as a new Eden? I think American authors take enough issue with it - one thinks of Pynchon, DeLillo and McCarthy here - but the mere idea of one book encapsulating all of what America is, is no longer possible (or was it ever possible?) - someone is bound to be left out, and I'm sure we all know who it isn't going to be.

Seriously though, I don't want to pull out Daisy Miller again, and bring up the "I'm an American Boy" bit again, but I think that's the feeling behind these Best American Novel, or Best American short story, or Best American poems. Why not just read the best poems?

----------


## kelby_lake

> I would call the Great Gatsby the greatest. Other serious candidates include The Scarlet Letter, Moby Dick, The Sun Also Rises, The Sound and the Fury, and The Grapes of Wrath.


Let's have Gatsby and Of Mice and Men  :Smile:

----------


## Lokasenna

> hey Lokasenna! I don't know that we disagree. I think it's more a case of having conceptions which are so different, they don't contradict or clash, but are out of sight of one another, like we're not in the same solar system; as if it's not a question of who is closer to the light or the sun, but more like, we may be equally close to two altogether different suns in different systems. But that's euphemistic talk; we do disagree.
> 
> When you mention cultural background and stories not being able to exist beyond nationality and culture, I'm sure I agree; but I prefer to eschew those terms, since really, I never think they mean anything - they give me no clear images in my head when using those words and phrases. If language doesn't give me clear images, I steer clear of it and suspect humbug.
> 
> I never say a story or a character can exist outside anything or transcend anything - culture, or whatever the meaningless words might be. To say that we need to be aware of some of the details and history of the time to appreciate the truth of a story is simply not true. I know nothing of Spain, but understand Don Quixote, Sancho Panza - and their creator, Cervantes - I understand all these people like my next door neighbours of today. I see literally no difference between those characters of 400 years ago and the people I meet today: none whatsoever. If there were differences, I wouldn't read the book, because I would not be able to learn anything.
> 
> I don't know why you feel the need to talk about Hamlet being the best this or that. Who says that? Some men and women in educational institutions? Their opinion is no better than yours or mine. All I can say is, I enjoyed Bill Shakes's words as much as I've enjoyed many other mens' words and that's the end of it. William Shakespeare deserves no more praise than that, and would not want any, and rightly so. Anyway, Shakespeare isn't one of my favourite writers. Putting things into a hierarchy is false talk and snobbery. Your message showed not a sign of any of that; I just say, the elite intellectuals - the arbiters of taste - tell us what we should think, and we end up imbibing their bad habits, and limited ways of thinking and talking. 
> 
> The humble are more intelligent than those people who, though they have cleverer brains than the rest of us, they have malevolent, intellectually competitive hearts, so they've nothing to teach me: I ignore them. It's like the race between the tortoise and the hare. In academia, they are all proud hares who take a nap and lose the race. Because really, it's no race.


I suppose it depends a fair bit on what persepctive you are trying to get out of a piece of work. I'll admit that I don't personally into the whole Barthist "Death of the Author" stuff - I personally believe that understanding the society that produces a work is, to a greater or lesser degree, necessary to the understanding of the work itself.

I guess that one's perspective is, like the concepts of good and bad literature, entirely subjective. :Smile: 

It's been at least eight years since I last read some Cervantes, but if memory serves, then Don Quixote arguably, in order to get the full impact of it, must be read with some knowledge of the chivalric tradition, and does have large elements of satire in it to do with the contemporary Spain. I'm not saying that you can't enjoy the novel without knowing about, but, if nothing else, it adds a different colour to your reading experience and understanding.

I apologise if my little Hamlet tangent got a bit side-tracked - no pro-Shakespeare agenda here! I do like most of his plays, but some (R&J springs to mind) are pretty awful. My main aim was just to try and illustrate that good literature, and using an example that most people would consider good, could be read in a social context. I could have gone for something in my field, like _Njála_, which requires at least a grounding in Medieval Icelandic politics and law to fully appreciate the storyline.

Definitely agree about the pretentions of some academics - I usually choose to ignore them! :FRlol: 




> Lokasenna, you mention social constructs of Renaissance Europe. Man, that is not you talking. Whoever you're listening to or reading is feeding you swill and poisoning your individuality. I'm 28, and I remember with horror that I used to use those phrases you're using now - I used them up until the age of about 25, I think. That phrase about social constructs, are you honestly telling me it puts an image in your mind, something graspable and comprehensible in a plain, ordinary way? Because, if it can't be understood in such a way, then it's no business being in the mind in the first place. It's all rotten lies. Formal education can ruin a decent mind. Renaissance Europe? There was no such thing. There were people, absolutely no different to you or I in all their daily habits of farting and arguing and staring into space - there were people loving and living; no more, no less. All the other talk is to allow scholars waste paper and ink to make a living.


I'm not saying there was a homogenous Europe, by any stretch of the imagination! And I'll agree heartily that people are generally people. What I was trying to express is the idea that the social structure of Europe at the time varied little from country to country. In a play about princes, kings and noble duty, I think it helps to be aware of these factors, particularly those which would have been self-evident to a contemporary audience, but perhaps less so to a modern one.

Yeah, I am still getting to grips with technical vocab, and maybe I am getting wrong. I'm only 21, so I guess I get another four years? :Biggrin:

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> I do like most of his plays, but some (R&J springs to mind) are pretty awful.


Not in Shakespeare's top 10 maybe but "pretty awful" is surely way off? It's still a pretty decent play with some beautiful poetry.

Interestingly you mention Barthes, I don't think that Barthes is saying (in DOTA) that understanding of cultural or social knowledge about a work is redundant, just that the ultimate meaning must lie with the reader and not the writer. Which is surely true isn't it?

----------


## joseph90ie

I won't deny that, the more a reader knows about the time in which the book was written, the more he'll catch on to details. But that has nothing, in my view, nothing to do with what makes the best part of the book - the truthful part, and the only part worth preserving. I think the good writer is not going to depend for effect on the changeable aspects of human beings; he'll be aiming for the small, almost invisible bullseye, which remains perfectly still throughout all the ages - all the way back as far as homo sapiens had the same, unchanging physiology we have today: same cranial capacity, nervous system, muscle layout, and all that. That's an uneducated guess on my part, but it's what I believe. 

If the people I see in ancient writings are not less than identical to the men I meet today, then things don't change or progress: change and progression must only be appearances to keep things looking fresh and maintain the motivation and healthy sense of belief of each new generation: a necessary illusion, but an illusion nonetheless. The timelessness of good writing bears witness to this, I think; I think that's the astonishingly valuable thing about good novels and why there's more truth in fiction than history, and why truth has a hieratic ascendancy over fact. History, in comparison, looks like a receipt of acts committed. But then, the best history is literature and art. So, I take back those ignorant remarks. 

I can't agree with you: the only thing you need to understand good fiction is some awareness of your own heart. On the other hand, if you don't have that, and you have all the knowledge of the period, you're not fit to read the simplest novel.

----------


## Lokasenna

> I won't deny that, the more a reader knows about the time in which the book was written, the more he'll catch on to details. But that has nothing, in my view, nothing to do with what makes the best part of the book - the truthful part, and the only part worth preserving. I think the good writer is not going to depend for effect on the changeable aspects of human beings; he'll be aiming for the small, almost invisible bullseye, which remains perfectly still throughout all the ages - all the way back as far as homo sapiens had the same, unchanging physiology we have today: same cranial capacity, nervous system, muscle layout, and all that. That's an uneducated guess on my part, but it's what I believe. 
> 
> If the people I see in ancient writings are not less than identical to the men I meet today, then things don't change or progress: change and progression must only be appearances to keep things looking fresh and maintain the motivation and healthy sense of belief of each new generation: a necessary illusion, but an illusion nonetheless. The timelessness of good writing bears witness to this, I think; I think that's the astonishingly valuable thing about good novels and why there's more truth in fiction than history, and why truth has a hieratic ascendancy over fact. History, in comparison, looks like a receipt of acts committed. But then, the best history is literature and art. So, I take back those ignorant remarks. 
> 
> I can't agree with you: the only thing you need to understand good fiction is some awareness of your own heart. On the other hand, if you don't have that, and you have all the knowledge of the period, you're not fit to read the simplest novel.


I dont think we're actually in a great degree of disagreement here! Of course feeling and emotion are the back-bone of understanding literature. But, as you yourself seem to be saying, knowledge of the specifics helps you to get at and appreciate the subtler details and delights.

@Neely:
 :FRlol:  It's more the storyline I dislike than the poetry! It's well written, I just think the protagonists are morons... :Biggrin: 

As for Barthes, at least in my interpretation of what he was saying, the more you know about the author, the more preconcieved ideas you take to the literature. I don't disagree; I was just using it as an example of an area where selective ignorance of a certain text might be encouraged. But for someone who specialises in the early medieval period, where we have so little contextual stuff to go on, it feels sort of wrong to ignore them! :Biggrin:

----------


## joseph90ie

Well, agreement or disagreement isn't so important, once there's no venom in our conversation, which seems to be absent, I'm glad to say.

You say specifics helps you appreciate the more subtler details and delights. No, I'd say it enables you to observe all the unimportant, basic details. All the subtlety and delight - all the wisdom and best of humour - is not bound by detail. If it is, it's not worth much. All the good stuff, without exception, is preserved and speaks to the untutored and honest heart of every new human being. I think you're right, I think we do agree.

But you're not allowing yourself to speak, because you keep using terminology, which isn't doing you any favours. It took me a long time to kick that blasted habit, and I curse third level education for it; because it's not just about words, it affects the whole cast of mind and feeling.

----------


## five-trey

> Lokasenna, you mention social constructs of Renaissance Europe. Man, that is not you talking. Whoever you're listening to or reading is feeding you swill and poisoning your individuality. I'm 28, and I remember with horror that I used to use those phrases you're using now - I used them up until the age of about 25, I think. That phrase about social constructs, are you honestly telling me it puts an image in your mind, something graspable and comprehensible in a plain, ordinary way? Because, if it can't be understood in such a way, then it's no business being in the mind in the first place. It's all rotten lies. Formal education can ruin a decent mind. Renaissance Europe? There was no such thing. There were people, absolutely no different to you or I in all their daily habits of farting and arguing and staring into space - there were people loving and living; no more, no less. All the other talk is to allow scholars waste paper and ink to make a living.



That's just going too far, my good sir. The people of one era have a different tendency from those of another.

If you compare 18th century Puritan America, to early 19th century secular America, you will see that they are in no way the same people. You might say that the individual of the time is similar to us, in some deeper and more esoteric ways, but traditions change.

The "acceptable" changes from decade to decade. The rules of society change. And most people of the time, change to satisfy the standard, creating a completely different culture.

----------


## joseph90ie

How do you explain that, in the space of two years, while Byron was in Venice I think, he estimated that he had at least 200 women? Do you really think his behaviour was exceptional for a strong-willed attractive man? Such people are to be found today, as they were back then, as they were in Shakespeare's time, as the were in Abelard & Heloise's time, and St Augustine's time, and Plato, at the time of Alcibiades. 

You say 18thC Puritan America was very different to 19thC Secular America. But it's those terms and ways of describing as Puritan and Secular that I disbelieve in. Where do you get that info? It's not from the great novels. If you read The Scarlet Letter, and compare it with - well, I don't think I've read any American 18thC novel - but compare it with an 18thC English novel, like Tom Jones: the people to be found in both books are absolutely no different; the same human nature on display. There's no mention of puritanism and secularism at their most insightful part.

All such terms don't flourish until you read the parasitical commentaries, which is the writing least read in all times.

----------


## phoenix151

This is a great discussion. I like what JBI is saying about Faulkner, Melville, and Fitzgerald having localized voices and as Virgil states, the same goes for Huck Finn. I think about this topic often, and for me personally, the Great American Novel is Call of the Wild by Jack London followed by On The Road by Jack Kerouac.

Objectively, I have to agree with semi-fly 



> Shouldn't the American novel incorporate the westward movement of the mid-to-late 19th century?


According to this criteria, I would award the title of The Great American Novel to East of Eden by John Steinbeck.

As for the recent turn in this conversation, I have one statement:
America is not a country, it is an expanse of land - a landscape popupulated by individuals each with their own attributes and nuances of perspective. Therefore, the varied political climates, social spheres, and religious ideologies that have become our cultural watermarks should be omitted from consideration in this topic as they are more fabrications and generalizations than inherent truths. Patriotism and nationalism and all that jazz belongs in the arena of "The United States", NOT America. We seem to be confusing mountains and freedom with parades and flags.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> That's just going too far, my good sir. The people of one era have a different tendency from those of another.


If I could rudely jump in here and throw in my thoughts of where Jose is heading, I think he is looking at the unchanging make-up of human nature, which I certainly would agree with. Human beings have the same basic drives as they always have and probably always will have, it's basic biology, it doesn't change. Therefore, we could look at literature written a few hundred years ago and identify, and more importantly relate to, the traits of those we see around us today. It doesn't matter what time or country you are born into at all, to state that "people of one era have a different tendency" is nothing but absurd, thought I appreciate that I may be taking that statement out of its original context. I believe you were talking about culture that changes, which is true, but you forget that even if culture does change people and biology do not.

----------


## Virgil

> I don't particularly like the concept of "The Great American Novel", as that seems to be such a propaganda statement


Actually just the opposite JB. The term The Great American Novel came out of an insecurity that European cultures were far advaanced to the American culture of wilderness and agriculture and then industry. The term was a hope for an American to write something that equaled the Europeans. At some point the term stuck, mainly because it seemed that American wrters produced a single great work in their opus.

----------


## JBI

> Actually just the opposite JB. The term The Great American Novel came out of an insecurity that European cultures were far advaanced to the American culture of wilderness and agriculture and then industry. The term was a hope for an American to write something that equaled the Europeans. At some point the term stuck, mainly because it seemed that American wrters produced a single great work in their opus.


Originally, yes, but look at the books being named - the term has long since lost its meaning - Faulkner, even, sits outside that. Melville perhaps is the last in the line - I don't particularly care for Twain, or for Hawthorne for that matter, but really, the fact that such a term can be applied to a modernist work is absurd - the notion should have, by your definition, died with the turn of the century, or at least the Great War, but still you hear this term thrown around a lot. What more could it mean than simply the great American vision, the great American piece of art. I don't see people speaking that way about, for instance, Manzoni, who is perhaps the most read Italian novelist, and I would think most certainly wrote the most read Italian novel, I Promessi Spossi, yet we don't go out and say, the Great Italian novel.

In truth, the term only works because of the language issue - England had great writers, and shared a language, therefore we must establish what we have and they do not, or what we produce as greatness equal, or greater than there own. In other words, we need to prove that Americans are somehow better in some things than others, which is part of the whole claiming the land mentality of the 19th century.

The term has gotten beyond a post-colonial frame, I don't think one can ignore the validity of Innis's view of culture as a have, or a they have not.

Post-colonialism is one thing, but, by your definition, this whole "which is the greatest" should have ended at least 100 years ago, which it has not. 

I think the problem then becomes, for instance, a way to approach works like The Great Gatsby. One such as myself, would simply read it for what it is, yet another, perhaps influenced more by what you are speaking of, would read it as the Great American Novel, cowboy hat and revolvers, and all.

I don't think it's to large a stretch to equate the notion of The Great American novel with the notion of American Exceptionalism, which like other nationalist sentiments, is a propaganda device.

----------


## five-trey

> How do you explain that, in the space of two years, while Byron was in Venice I think, he estimated that he had at least 200 women? Do you really think his behaviour was exceptional for a strong-willed attractive man? Such people are to be found today, as they were back then, as they were in Shakespeare's time, as the were in Abelard & Heloise's time, and St Augustine's time, and Plato, at the time of Alcibiades. 
> 
> You say 18thC Puritan America was very different to 19thC Secular America. But it's those terms and ways of describing as Puritan and Secular that I disbelieve in. Where do you get that info? It's not from the great novels. If you read The Scarlet Letter, and compare it with - well, I don't think I've read any American 18thC novel - but compare it with an 18thC English novel, like Tom Jones: the people to be found in both books are absolutely no different; the same human nature on display. There's no mention of puritanism and secularism at their most insightful part.
> 
> All such terms don't flourish until you read the parasitical commentaries, which is the writing least read in all times.


Excuse me for using saying 19th century America. What I was meant to say was early, secular 20th century America, or very late 19th century. 

Anyways, compare the society portrayed in The Scarlett Letter to that in The Great Gatsby.


Of course humans have the same natural drives throughout history, but as the standards of society change, so does the definition of these drives. All men want success; in The Scarlett Letter that is defined as being a good Chrsitian, remaining in your role, and following "the way of God;" in The Great Gatsby, that success lies in material gain and expensive entertainment. Most end up hollow and hypocritical, but that doesn't change the fact that the two time periods are far different from each other.

----------


## The Comedian

I'll say it's Walden -- it has the voice of protest, the hypocritical undertones, experimental spirit, soul-searching, delight, agrarianism, and more. It contains the kind of life, the kind of soul that most Americans would be proud to own.

----------


## Virgil

> Originally, yes, but look at the books being named - the term has long since lost its meaning - Faulkner, even, sits outside that. Melville perhaps is the last in the line - I don't particularly care for Twain, or for Hawthorne for that matter, but really, the fact that such a term can be applied to a modernist work is absurd - the notion should have, by your definition, died with the turn of the century, or at least the Great War, but still you hear this term thrown around a lot. What more could it mean than simply the great American vision, the great American piece of art. I don't see people speaking that way about, for instance, Manzoni, who is perhaps the most read Italian novelist, and I would think most certainly wrote the most read Italian novel, I Promessi Spossi, yet we don't go out and say, the Great Italian novel.


I can't speak for the Italian novel, but I do know they also feel a sense of insecurity when it comes to modern literature. I maintain that Americans still feel insecure about the novel. Frankly other than Faulkner we do not have a novelist that has churned out more than one great novel. What was the last great American novel? It's still pathetic compared to European tradition. Perhaps Bellow is OK, and Morrison has Beloved and Capote has In Cold Blood. Updike is superficial and while I've never read Pynchon or DiLilio, they don't strike me as heavyweights. I maintain that we Americans are still insecure about the novel, and so we still search for that Great American novel.

----------


## jon1jt

> This is a great discussion. I like what JBI is saying about Faulkner, Melville, and Fitzgerald having localized voices and as Virgil states, the same goes for Huck Finn. I think about this topic often, and for me personally, the Great American Novel is Call of the Wild by Jack London followed by On The Road by Jack Kerouac.
> 
> Objectively, I have to agree with semi-fly 
> 
> 
> According to this criteria, I would award the title of The Great American Novel to East of Eden by John Steinbeck.
> 
> As for the recent turn in this conversation, I have one statement:
> America is not a country, it is an expanse of land - a landscape popupulated by individuals each with their own attributes and nuances of perspective. Therefore, the varied political climates, social spheres, and religious ideologies that have become our cultural watermarks should be omitted from consideration in this topic as they are more fabrications and generalizations than inherent truths. Patriotism and nationalism and all that jazz belongs in the arena of "The United States", NOT America. We seem to be confusing mountains and freedom with parades and flags.


You pay us Americans a big compliment. I'll leave it there.

Twain never inspired anybody and neither did Faulkner or Steinbeck. Call Of The Wild is a nice adventure story. Melville wrote a masterpiece that just happened not to rise to Great American Novel status. Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby died with the Stock Market Crash of 29. The Great Gatsy was a fun story. 

The award goes to Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises and Jack Kerouac's On The Road. Unlike Hemingway and his book, On The Road was written in America about America by an author who loved and appreciated America and saw himself as an American traveling the land and writing about the good and sometimes ugly things he did. Most critical lit mags as well as US high school and college textbooks in history, culture and society agree with this selection. Now you don't have to agree, but that's the consensus---a consensus I should mention, that goes beyond America's borders.

----------


## PabloQ

> I will say there are many American voices, probably becasue we are such a huge country and the speech patterns are different across the nation, especially before television and movies brought about a singular voice. So I'm not sure one can say there is a quitessential American voice. Some have always said Twain's Huck Finn, but I don't speak anything like Huck. The voices are varied.


Joining the party late kids and staying on theme of the The American Novel. I don't believe the original question says Greatest or Best, so I think this thread qualifies as interesting discussion. It qualifies as the usual thread of this kind in that includes Ye Olde Rat Hole, that dungeon of off-topic tripe seemingly designed to bore the crap out of me. :Smile: 

Anyway, Virgil's point about the vastness of the United States (and yes, kids that is what we mean by American in this discussion) is key. The work has to capture the width and breadth of this country, its vastness, the diversity of its peoples, its culture, its ethos, and its heartbeat. With all due respect to the other novels nominated, I put forth _USA_ by John Dos Passos. Although it is written in three novels it is a comprehensive whole. What qualifies it for this discussion is that its a landscape and not a portrait. 
One of Dos Passos' inspirations for the style of _USA_ is the work of Mexican muralist Diego Garcia. Dos Passos uses vignettes he calls NewsReels to capture headlines, snippets of news stories or ads, song lyrics, and quotations to provide some of the range of events indicative of the times. He includes a series of biographies on influential individuals who helped to form the character of the US in one form or another. He includes brief recollections that he calls the Camera's Eye. The reader is never quite sure who the narrator is, but they are stream of conscious recollections appropriate to moving the story along. But most of all _USA_ is the story of people. These people cross each other's paths. They interact with the times between 1900 and the stock market crash of 1929. Some of those characters actually make a part of that history.

Gatsby is a portrait and may be the best written novel by an American author (according to some), but that wasn't the question. Steinbeck is to California what Faulkner is to Mississippi. And I don't mean to begrudge any American author his or her due, but the arguments are in this thread against the regional voice and the points are well made. Dos Passos transcends regionalism and gives a truly nationalistic view, although his politics do drip through the seams more than a few times.

One last thought, when you start a post with "I haven't read the Great Gatsby, but..." and then go on for four more paragraphs, none of us should read beyond those first seven words. So in conclusion, JBI, I haven't read _My Antonio_, but it's sitting yonder on the shelf and I look forward to reading it based on your comments.

----------


## jon1jt

> Joining the party late kids and staying on theme of the The American Novel. I don't believe the original question says Greatest or Best, so I think this thread qualifies as interesting discussion. It qualifies as the usual thread of this kind in that includes Ye Olde Rat Hole, that dungeon of off-topic tripe seemingly designed to bore the crap out of me.


Well maybe that's because the OP asks, *What is THE American novel?* the capitalization creating the ambiguity. All interpretations being equal, that Ye Olde Rat Hole of off-topic tripe includes your commentary, which in fact bored the crap out of me.  :Smile:

----------


## five-trey

> I haven't read the Great Gatsby, but I've read similar novels from the same time period, so I know what you're talking about.
> 
> We're not going to agree on this, so I won't keep going on, but I do want to answer your last post.
> 
> The people who seek material gain in the Great Gatsby, do you really think such people were not to be found in the society Hawthorne was observing, every inch as materialistic and successful as the people from a 20thC novel? And equally, do you also think the humble, homely, grateful, but fiercely strong woman who bore the scarlet letter was not to be found in the society observed in Gatsby, or Tender is the Night? If not somewhere acknowledged in the novel, then written about by another novelist down the road from Fitzgerald?
> 
> To let one idea define a whole time, I think that way of conceiving of the past is totally half-baked. It does not correspond to the facts: there were wealthy, powerful people in the society to be found in the Scarlet Letter novel. Did they get that by being pious and knowing their station? No, of course not: wealth is to be had by aggressive assertion and cunning wiles in any time period. Hawthorne could only do so much in one novel. These definitions you talk about are wiped off the face of the earth by a novel like War and Peace, which, in the space of one novel, contains all these sorts of people which you bracket off stiffly into different time periods. So, how do you explain the existence of a panoramic novel like War and Peace? Your definitions for certain time periods do not allow it.
> 
> Everyone seems to have this funny way of looking at history, like it's some one-dimensional fairytale land that you step into. There is no reason to think that at any stage the past has been different to how things are today. Of course, I take into account advanced technology, that some countries are wealthier than others, that some laws are more oppressive. But the behaviour on the ground on a daily basis was identical - identical, I must re-iterate. And it is all this daily activity that life is made up of and which novels reflect, else they'd have no relevance. Otherwise, ancient poetry and fiction would simply not make sense to us today.


Read The Great Gatsby. What I'm describing to you, is not just parts of the population, its an enormous culture that Fitzgerald portrays. Society in the two novels is so wholey different. I know people are composed of the same drives and ideas throughout history, but the time they grow up in has a tremendous impact on them.


The main thing to compare is the contrasting views of adultery. The Scarlet Letter shows it as something completely immoral; absolute damnation. The Great Gatsby shows adultery and promiscuity as a nonchalant act that everyone is used to and society accepts.

----------


## PabloQ

> Well maybe that's because the OP asks, *What is THE American novel?* the capitalization creating the ambiguity. All interpretations being equal, that Ye Olde Rat Hole of off-topic tripe includes your commentary, which in fact bored the crap out of me.


Insights such as these truly advance the discussion of the thread. Looking forward to more.




> The award goes to Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises and Jack Kerouac's On The Road. Unlike Hemingway and his book, On The Road was written in America about America by an author who loved and appreciated America and saw himself as an American traveling the land and writing about the good and sometimes ugly things he did. Most critical lit mags as well as US high school and college textbooks in history, culture and society agree with this selection.


Well, if the US high school is the source to be trusted, I nominate Treasure Island.  :Biggrin:  I doubt The Sun Also Rises qualifies but it's next on my list and I'll see how it compares to USA. I doubt it captures the broad landscape of America that Dos Passos does. And I guess I'm going to be forced to read Kerouac so I can refute the view or be overwhelmed by how wrong I am about Dos Passos.

----------


## phoenix151

I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused about The Sun Also Rises. I get the whole "expatriate" and "lost generation" thing, but how does one associate the book with the "American novel"? It isn't set in America - it isn't about America - I'm not even sure there is any mention of America in it whatsoever. It is a "war is bad but life goes on anyway" story in which a group a people wonder around, argue, get drunk, and go fishing. The book's original title was Fiesta and although charming, it is aimless and cheeky. 
I DID enjoy the book, and I revere Hemmingway, but I can't wrap my mind around how the book is considered in this thread.

?????

----------


## Virgil

> I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused about The Sun Also Rises. I get the whole "expatriate" and "lost generation" thing, but how does one associate the book with the "American novel"? It isn't set in America - it isn't about America - I'm not even sure there is any mention of America in it whatsoever. It is a "war is bad but life goes on anyway" story in which a group a people wonder around, argue, get drunk, and go fishing. The book's original title was Fiesta and although charming, it is aimless and cheeky. 
> I DID enjoy the book, and I revere Hemmingway, but I can't wrap my mind around how the book is considered in this thread.
> 
> ?????


Most of the major characters are American, including the central character who reflects on his Americanism. Actually the other countries stand in contra-distinction to Jake's American values.

----------


## phoenix151

That makes sense. Thanks.

----------


## jon1jt

> Insights such as these truly advance the discussion of the thread. Looking forward to more.


Pot calling the kettle black, eh? Now if you only listened to the advice you give others the discussion would advance. 

Just in case others missed it, I want to let them know what you said about those who didn't follow the thread according to Pablo.





> Joining the party late kids and staying on theme of the The American Novel. I don't believe the original question says Greatest or Best, so I think this thread qualifies as interesting discussion. It qualifies as the usual thread of this kind in that includes Ye Olde Rat Hole, that dungeon of off-topic tripe seemingly designed to bore the crap out of me.


*
*




> Well, if the US high school is the source to be trusted, I nominate Treasure Island.  I doubt The Sun Also Rises qualifies but it's next on my list and I'll see how it compares to USA. I doubt it captures the broad landscape of America that Dos Passos does. And I guess I'm going to be forced to read Kerouac so I can refute the view or be overwhelmed by how wrong I am about Dos Passos.



From what I've read of yours, Pablo, Treasure Island is a good reading level for you, yes.

----------


## phoenix151

I think the criteria for these discussions boards includes one having a penchant for banter, and I think we all meet this requirement.

----------


## hellsapoppin

I agree that *Moby Dick* was the definitive 19th century novel. What a visionary Melville was to write a book of such great depth!

Back then Melville was laughed at. Critics said his writing was the most stupid book ever written. Today the book is acknowledged by many as the USA's greatest writing.

Imagine what a daring thing it was for someone to portray a black man such as Queequeg forging a brotherhood with a white man like Ishmael. An integrated church in segregated New England presided over by a black preacher in Father Mapple. Mapple was a fictional character based on Edward Thompson Taylor who preached in integrated churches -- very unusual for that era. 

The color white is usually portrayed to this day as representing good, purity, or cleanliness. In *Moby Dick* it is portrayed as being the embodiment of evil (the whale is white; see also Chapter XLII where several examples are given which display white as evil). Critics of that era viewed that as blasphemy!

There is so much to that book that one could write an encyclopedia just to analyze it. What a writing!

----------


## five-trey

^^^Queequeg wasn't black as I recall. The way Melville described him, he sounded more like a kind of Mayan/Aztec or some type of South American tribe. Maybe African but not black. Dagoo was a black harpooner and I doubt Melville intended for two of the three to be of the same ethnicity.


But yeah, Moby-Dick is so deep and has so many interpretations. Its really brilliant.

----------


## Virgil

> I agree that *Moby Dick* was the definitive 19th century novel. What a visionary Melville was to write a book of such great depth!
> 
> Back then Melville was laughed at. Critics said his writing was the most stupid book ever written. Today the book is acknowledged by many as the USA's greatest writing.
> 
> Imagine what a daring thing it was for someone to portray a black man such as Queequeg forging a brotherhood with a white man like Ishmael. An integrated church in segregated New England presided over by a black preacher in Father Mapple. Mapple was a fictional character based on Edward Thompson Taylor who preached in integrated churches -- very unusual for that era. 
> 
> The color white is usually portrayed to this day as representing good, purity, or cleanliness. In *Moby Dick* it is portrayed as being the embodiment of evil (the whale is white; see also Chapter XLII where several examples are given which display white as evil). Critics of that era viewed that as blasphemy!
> 
> There is so much to that book that one could write an encyclopedia just to analyze it. What a writing!


Queequeg was south pacific; Tashtego was native-american, Daggoo was African; Fedallah was Parsi. I don't recall Father Mapple being black. Perhaps I'm not recalling correctly but I don't think you're right about that.

Interesting about the black/white color scheme in reference to the racial issues of the time. I have never seen that in any criticism. I also don't really see racial themes inside the novel, but i guess one can make the argument. Melville has a very universal cast of characters, certainly by intention.

----------


## kelby_lake

The most exciting part of that book was when Queequeg and Ishmael were in bed together, except they didn't do anything, much to my 13 year old self's chagrin.

I argue that Gatsby and Of Mice and Men are, because the first is about living the American dream, and the second is about yearning for it. If you don't have an interest in America, you lose something from reading them.

What about Lolita? Yeah, it's not American, but it's about Europe vs. America...

----------


## Bancini

Winesburg, Ohio by Anderson comes to mind. To this day it can describe life in small town America.

----------


## hellsapoppin

''Queequeg was not black ... he was south Pacific''


The narrative describes him as a south Pacific 'savage' who had a ''bald purplish head''. You may recall the old story of the so called ''purple people eaters'' and this should help illustrate his skin tone. As for other south Pacifics, consider these:





Father Mapple is described as having ''large brown hands'' [p 51] and a ''swarthy forehead''[p 56]. To the people of that era, Mapple and Pacific islanders would have been called black rather than brown because they were not as racially sensitive as we are today.

Still, the idea of a black/brown man as brother to white man was astonishing to people of that time. This was a reason why the book was so hated by those critics.



see *MB*, Riverside Edition, 1956

----------


## kelby_lake

Moby Dick is very very boring

----------


## GX4146

an american tragedy, what else. lol

----------


## Virgil

> ''Queequeg was not black ... he was south Pacific''
> 
> 
> The narrative describes him as a south Pacific 'savage' who had a ''bald purplish head''. You may recall the old story of the so called ''purple people eaters'' and this should help illustrate his skin tone. As for other south Pacifics, consider these:
> 
> Father Mapple is described as having ''large brown hands'' [p 51] and a ''swarthy forehead''[p 56]. To the people of that era, Mapple and Pacific islanders would have been called black rather than brown because they were not as racially sensitive as we are today.
> 
> Still, the idea of a black/brown man as brother to white man was astonishing to people of that time. This was a reason why the book was so hated by those critics.
> 
> ...


The point of Queequeg is the exotic nature of his character, that he is a cannibal, or at least was. I think it does suggest a universal friendship across cultures. But it does not really suggest (at least to me) the specific racial issues of negro slaves in America. I think the character of Pip, the little black boy, may suggest that. As to Father Mapple, I have found no one who refers to him as a black man. Those details you point out can mean anything and if Melville wanted to make a black/white theme with his character he would have been more explicit.

----------


## bounty

am glad to hear other people bashing (rightfully so) _moby dick_ besides me! the only other book ive read that comes close to being as disappointing was _catcher in the rye_ (thank you lokasenna). 

i like semi-fly's question but id like to go a bit earlier and id have to put forth something by james fenimore cooper---_the pathfinder_, or _last of the mohicans._

----------


## Bluenote

Having read this entire thread I must as this question. CAN the " Great American Novel" be quantified? 


It rather depends upon the era one selects from and ones individual criteria does it not? It's likewise dependent upon what given tome "hits the nerve" and resonates resoundingly within ones soul. 

For some of us who came of age in the '60s and '70s it may well be from the beat generation writers and those influenced by them ,Kesey comes to mind as does "Bible" of the Beats i.e. " On The Road" ( of course already mentioned) , but there's much more to Kerouac that just that pivotal volume. 

For a certain body of readers it may well be the three by Steinbeck mentioned within this thread , but once again there's much more to his body of work than Of Mice and Men , The Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden. 

Likewise with Fitzgerald or Faulkner , Hemingway and myriad and sundry other writers. 


For some it may well be a "road book" such as On The Road , or William Least Heat Moons " Blue Highways" or Steinbecks " Travels With Charlie". 

For some it may well be something of contemporary nature such as " The World According To Garp , Heller's " Catch 22" or The Milagro Beanfield War by Nichols or any given Tom Robbins novel , some may vote for certain Mailer volumes , some for Studs Terkel , some for Capote , some for James Baldwin. 

There are a thousand and one candidates , but personally I'd be thoroughly unable to pick a sole volume as the definitive 'great American novel"...... 

And I for sure wouldn't pick Moby Dick , my bias against Melville is well known and quite longstanding. 

As regards Fitzgerald , don't miss Tender Is The Night , The Beautiful and The Damned and This Side of Paradise. 

Faulkner? Light in August was good but Absalom, Absolom and The Sound and The Fury and his last work The Reivers were easily it's equal. 

And for southern writers , how can we forget Tennessee Williams , Robert Penn Warren, Flannery O'Connor , Eudora Welty and Twain? 


The original question is highly subject to individual likes/dislikes and interpretation and thus unquantifiable. 




B.

----------


## five-trey

I must play advocate to ye landsmen...


I understand some people don't like Moby-Dick because its long and it has those slow, philosophical chapters. But those same people won't mind those great 600 page Russian novels with the expansive plot. If you focus on the plot of Moby Dick, however, you are missing Melville's purpose. 

Half of the novel is not there arbitrarily; to compare a Right Whale's head and a Sperm Whale's head; or to ponder the history of "white." Its there to first off, give you more background information on the book you're reading and second, it lets you think about the subtleties of Moby Dick. The reason its a great piece of literature is because it can be interpreted in so many different ways and your interpretation of it is key to understanding it.

----------


## hellsapoppin

''Those details you point out can mean anything and if Melville wanted to make a black/white theme with his character he would have been more explicit.''


As was pointed out by another poster here, you cannot get more explicit than by having two guys sharing the same bed (this, after declaring their brotherhood for life). 

 :Wink:

----------


## kelby_lake

And Ishmael WATCHES Queequeg get undressed. Isn't that a bit pervy?

----------


## Emil Miller

> Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby died with the Stock Market Crash of 29. The Great Gatsy was a fun story.



If Gatsby died with Stock Market Crash of 1929, how come that between 1941 - 1949 there were 17 reprints of the book and it is still being reprinted today? Your off-hand reference to it as "a fun story" is refuted by many of those who have written introductions to those reprints; such as Ruth Prigozy;Professor and former Chair of English at Hofstra University,Hempstead, New York. Her introduction shows how such influences as Keats, T.S.Eliot, Spengler etc. are embedded in the novel and that, "The Great Gatsby is an original novel that traces through the history of one shadowy man the history,hopes,dreams, and fate of a nation and ultimately leads us to consider a human quest that lies beyond geographical, even earthly boundaries."
Prof. Prigozy concludes her introduction with: "Surely that image of the individual pursuing his destiny, however, is the greatness of Gatsby, and perhaps of us all."

----------


## Emil Miller

> Nothing off-hand about calling something a fun story; that's the most flattering compliment any author can get. All those professors writing introductions: those brains are ten a penny.


I think it's clear from the general tone of jon1jt's post that he was being dismissive of Gatsby rather than complimentary. I would agree with you that a novel should be enjoyed as a story and not just as an intellectual exercise.
Here is something I posted on a fortmer thread:

[QUOTE=Brian Bean;671315] When I read a book, I expect to be informed AND ENTERTAINED,but a host of 'GREAT' writers featured on this forum fail miserably in the entertainment stakes. One of the few writers who combines intellectual insight with an entertaining story is Scott Fitzgerald whose Tender is the Night I am currently reading. If I were to name the writers that I think boring, I would be thought to be an utter philistine but my literary interests cover French and German writers in their original language. I have no time for writers whose works flounder in the kind of intellectual obscurantism that gives them an importance that registers with a comparatively narrow stratum of the intelligently literate population.[/QUOTE

However, there is a clear difference between pulp fiction and writing that both entertains and informs the reader. 
As for Prof. Prigozy, I found her introduction to The Great Gatsby very informative and exceptionally enjoyable; I can recommend it as a fun read.

----------


## kelby_lake

Well, it wasn't jolly.

----------


## ihavebrownhaira

Tom Sawyer hands down. Anybody care to argue with me I'll zap your butt into oblivion. Because, we do exist. :Alien:

----------


## PabloQ

> Tom Sawyer hands down. Anybody care to argue with me I'll zap your butt into oblivion. Because, we do exist.


Zap away, ET. To date in this thread, we've cast off great American authors whose works are regional and less representative of the entire of the nation as a whole. Tom Sawyer falls into that category. Beyond being representative of Twain's Missouri/Mississippi River writings, TS isn't even the best offering in that regard. Huck Finn is far better.

The original post ask what is THE Amercan Novel and offerd Moby-Dick for discussion. For the sake of this discussion, I don't feel that Twain wrote anything better than Moby-Dick. Moby-Dick is a great novel with strong themes written by an American, but it's themes seem universal and not particularly American. That's what I jokingly refer to as Ye Ol' Rat Hole. I don't argue that any one work doesn't qualify as great. I argue that the novel doesn't capture an essence that is specifically and particularly American. And to qualify as THE American novel it needs to capture the diversity and grandeur of this nation.

I personally find this version of this topic (I've seen at least 3 other attempts flounder and die) interesting. I have a new list of novels (The Great Gatsby, On The Road, My Antonia, and Moby-Dick) to read to see if any one of them alters my opinion that Dos Passos' USA (a single story written in trilogy) captures the essence of Americain novel form.

I do know it isn't Tom Sawyer. Fine book. Not it.

----------


## Virgil

How about I bring this more up to contemporary times. I would include Truman Capote's In Cold Blood as a Great American novel. It's almost epic in scope and it revolutionizes the mixing of fact and fiction into the novel art form.

----------


## book_jones

Well that question is very easy. The American novel is The Grapes of Wrath. It shows all the sides of the American people and contains an epic movement across the country. It's hard for me to think of one more American.

The U.S.A. trilogy by John Dos Passos should also be mentioned, although I haven't finished reading it yet and can't really talk about it. It is quite excellent though.

----------


## mystery_spell

_The Scarlet Letter_ by Nathaniel Hawthorne, _The Great Gatsby_ by F. Scott Fitzgerald, _As I Lay Dying_ by William Faulkner, and _The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn_ by Mark Twain are all great American novels. However, I believe that this topic can be argued forever seeing as it is all based on opinions. I really don't think there is a definitive American novelist.

----------


## PabloQ

I just read The Sun Also Rises by Hemingway. It is not the answer to this question. THE American novel needs to have an American theme. Its a nationalist question that I think is focused on the nation rather than the novelist. The US has produced some great novelists (as have other countries) and those novelists have generated some great novels. Hemingway is certainly a great American author, but TSAR doesn't have an American theme to be found. Expatriate Americans living in Paris and going to the bullfighting fiesta in Pamplona does not capture any theme that is intrinsically American. It's one of the reasons I dismiss Henry James' works from consideration.
Virgil, interesting offering In Cold Blood. The difficulty I have with that one is it's almost non-fiction. Capote was diligent in getting all of the facts right and his narrative is truly chilling. I read this book over 30 years ago and I still remember that image of one of the murderers chewing aspirin out of the bottle. I'll update this thread as I work my through the other candidates for THE American novel.

----------


## Virgil

> I just read The Sun Also Rises by Hemingway. It is not the answer to this question. THE American novel needs to have an American theme. Its a nationalist question that I think is focused on the nation rather than the novelist. The US has produced some great novelists (as have other countries) and those novelists have generated some great novels. Hemingway is certainly a great American author, but TSAR doesn't have an American theme to be found. Expatriate Americans living in Paris and going to the bullfighting fiesta in Pamplona does not capture any theme that is intrinsically American. It's one of the reasons I dismiss Henry James' works from consideration.
> Virgil, interesting offering In Cold Blood. The difficulty I have with that one is it's almost non-fiction. Capote was diligent in getting all of the facts right and his narrative is truly chilling. I read this book over 30 years ago and I still remember that image of one of the murderers chewing aspirin out of the bottle. I'll update this thread as I work my through the other candidates for THE American novel.


Well, In Cold Blood is a breakthrough in fiction if you ask me. The blurring of fact and fiction. 

Nonetheless i think I disagree with you about The Sun Also Rises. The American themes are imbedded. For instance the contrast on the theme of morality from an American versuses a European point of view. There eare many contrasts to be made. Even the sense of freedom between the various characters.

----------


## jglobe

The great American novel has to be On The Road. Forget Gatsby, no one does the American journey like Kerouac. He develops the diaspora between the East and West while exemplifying the haunted life. Not that I don't love The Great Gatsby but Kerouac put it all together in a way that meant much more to me.

----------


## kelby_lake

We have to think- could an aurthor of any other nationality write the story and it would still work? It would be a monstrosity to have had an American author write Brideshead Revisited.

----------


## Scheherazade

> Well that question is very easy. The American novel is The Grapes of Wrath. It shows all the sides of the American people and contains an epic movement across the country. It's hard for me to think of one more American.


I would agree with that.

----------


## Emil Miller

> We have to think- could an aurthor of any other nationality write the story and it would still work? It would be a monstrosity to have had an American author write Brideshead Revisited.


Kelby, even the most Gung Ho American writer would have steered well clear of Brideshead Revisited, but Evelyn Waugh's novel The Loved One, of which I have just read, through fits of laughter, the synopsis on Wikipedia, is pobably a more accurate depiction of the American commercialisation of death than any American could write. Being a recent convert to Waugh, I will make a special point of reading The Loved One.

----------


## Virgil

> We have to think- could an aurthor of any other nationality write the story and it would still work? It would be a monstrosity to have had an American author write Brideshead Revisited.


Good point. Novels are all linked indellibly to an author's time and place. You know I would consider Brideshead the great British novel. (Among other of course.)

----------


## The Grim

Let's hear it for Henry James! So many wonderful novels and short stories intimately showing the American experience and thought life. He helped establish respect for the American author to a degree few have matched. Whether the story is entrenched in American life and place (eg. Washington Square), or showing how Americans carried their prejudices with them to Europe (eg. The Ambassadors), James never left the American nature of his characters fail to show through. No matter that just before the end of his life he defected to the mother land...

----------


## Bastable

Hmmm... well the only American novel I really liked was On the Road. In fact I thought it was pretty brilliant, it even influenced me to pack my bags at the end of last year and travel around Australia...

----------


## PabloQ

> Let's hear it for Henry James! So many wonderful novels and short stories intimately showing the American experience and thought life. He helped establish respect for the American author to a degree few have matched. Whether the story is entrenched in American life and place (eg. Washington Square), or showing how Americans carried their prejudices with them to Europe (eg. The Ambassadors), James never left the American nature of his characters fail to show through. No matter that just before the end of his life he defected to the mother land...


So which novel do you pick? No doubt James is a great American author, but that's not the question. I have difficulty accepting that any of James' works qualify as the American novel and I'd have to see a pretty sound argument to convince me. The James novels I've read seem to treat Americans and American themes from a distance. I'm not sure that the American novel can take place in France or England or any other distant place. That's why I'm more likely to accept Gatsby or The Grapes of Wrath or even On The Road as a potential answer to the question.

I've spent a lot of time of late reading through American novels and I have a long list in front of me. I'm open to any argument that gives me a basis to understand why a particular work qualifies as THE American novel. I don't buy anything by James as the answer.




> Well, In Cold Blood is a breakthrough in fiction if you ask me. The blurring of fact and fiction.


I had to read In Cold Blood in high school a gazillion years ago and back then you had to go to the nonfiction section of the library to find it.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

I couldn't pick one, as I think several books are equally important for depicting different aspects of American society. But my list would include _Huckleberry Finn_, _The Great Gatsby_, _On the Road_, _To Kill a Mockingbird_, _The Colour Purple_.

Although not novels, I would want to mention _Walden_ and _In Cold Blood_ as two great American books. However, I know _In Cold Blood_ is arguably a novel.

Also, a novel I would like to include, that maybe doesn't appear often on such a list, is _Fahrenheit 451_. Although it doesn't depict an actual America, I think it depicts an important aspect of an American mindset.

----------


## kelby_lake

> Good point. Novels are all linked indellibly to an author's time and place. You know I would consider Brideshead the great British novel. (Among other of course.)


So would I, and you have just inspired a new thread. x

----------


## kelby_lake

How important do you think masculinity is in American Literature?

----------


## Kennedy S.

The Catcher In The Rye, Huck Finn or The Great Gatsby

in my humble opinion

Took me a couple of reads to truly appreciate The Catcher In The Rye. I feel it sums up Americans best. Spoiled whiny/angsty/scared teenagers.  :Smile:

----------


## Ecurb

> How important do you think masculinity is in American Literature?


It was important to Hemmingway, but not to Truman Capote.

----------


## Patrick_Bateman

Some Americans would say The Bible is THE American book


They actually would

----------


## Rores28

> I couldn't pick one, as I think several books are equally important for depicting different aspects of American society. But my list would include _Huckleberry Finn_, _The Great Gatsby_, _On the Road_, _To Kill a Mockingbird_, _The Colour Purple_.


Huck Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird I think are too narrow to be called THE American Novel and On the Road I don't think is of sufficient quality. The Great Gatsby seems to me the most appropriate choice. F451 is an interesting choice thematically I think it is very appropriate but when actually comparing the quality of the prose to something like the Great Gatsby I think it falls woefully short. I'm kicking around the idea of whether or not I might consider Blood Meridian to be THE American Novel.

----------


## mortalterror

Moby Dick, The Great Gatsby, or Huckleberry Finn

----------


## Gilliatt Gurgle

.
The Grapes of Wrath 
The Great Gatsby
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn 



.

----------


## PeterL

_Naked Lunch_

----------


## The Comedian

My Antonia -- it directly deals with immigrant experiences, with the idea of an "open" land, with gender, with the function of stories in culture. . . .I could go on.

----------


## Jassy Melson

Look Homeward Angel is the great American novel

----------


## laymonite

I propose that we start a new thread for each decade of American literary publications: "What do you think is THE American novel of the ____s?"

:-)

----------


## Rores28

> .
> The Grapes of Wrath 
> The Great Gatsby
> The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn 
> 
> .


Grapes of Wrath is a good nomination too...

----------


## Ecurb

There's always "The Great American Novel" by Phillip Roth. It begins with a long discussion between Earnest Hemmingway and the (fictional) sports reporter writing the novel on this very subject, in which Hemmingway trashes all the potential contenders. 

By the way, for any baseball fans who have not read "The Great American Novel", it's highly recommended (although it probably isn't the ONE).

----------


## Alexander III

I have to cast my vote for the Great Gatsby, it deals with the quintessential keystone of America, the american dream. Now if it was only that and a compelling plot and characters, It would be hardly worth to mention it, but what seals it's place as with all great novels - beautiful prose, which is borderline with no longer being prose, but the novel being a mesh of prose passages and free verse passages, and no american novel I have read has been able to stand next to Fitzgerald in this quality.

I should however mention that I have not read Moby Dick yet, so Dick may very well outdo Gatsby.

I should also mention, in regards to On The Road, that the plot and characters and theme are definitely worthy, but the prose just lacks, and thus the novel falls short. In no way am I saying that Kerouac had bad prose, I think he was capable of producing beautiful prose, unfortunately in On The Road this didn't happen, he himself considered it to be one of his minor works. I only Kerouac had combined the prose of Visions Of Cody and Maggie Cassidy, with the characters and plot of On The Road, then we would have a good contender.

----------


## Rores28

> I have to cast my vote for the Great Gatsby, it deals with the quintessential keystone of America, the american dream. Now if it was only that and a compelling plot and characters, It would be hardly worth to mention it, but what seals it's place as with all great novels - beautiful prose, which is borderline with no longer being prose, but the novel being a mesh of prose passages and free verse passages, and no american novel I have read has been able to stand next to Fitzgerald in this quality.
> 
> I should however mention that I have not read Moby Dick yet, so Dick may very well outdo Gatsby.
> 
> I should also mention, in regards to On The Road, that the plot and characters and theme are definitely worthy, but the prose just lacks, and thus the novel falls short. In no way am I saying that Kerouac had bad prose, I think he was capable of producing beautiful prose, unfortunately in On The Road this didn't happen, he himself considered it to be one of his minor works. I only Kerouac had combined the prose of Visions Of Cody and Maggie Cassidy, with the characters and plot of On The Road, then we would have a good contender.


I'm actually surprised to see Moby Dick so much. It is an excellent novel but I don't think thematically it is the appropriate choice for THE American Novel.... maybe for "One of the best novels ever written by _an American_"

Also I found the plot and characters of The Great Gatsby to be very compelling... well the characters anyway... but I was definitely never bored with the plot

----------


## kelby_lake

I think there is something quite American about Moby Dick. The manly need to conquer nature...I never finished it but there was definitely something American about it. I don't think a Brit could have written it.

----------


## Alexander III

Yes I think the theme of Moby Dick, could only have been writ by an American. A man who rejects fate and any higher power, who will kneel to no man, a man who treats men equally, and a man driven crazy by his pursuit of an unattainable goal ? It is the essence of America. Or at least the country which was created by the founding fathers. Im quite sure if they were to look at America now, they would not be smiling.

----------


## kelby_lake

I'll go for The Great Gatsby. I think that covers all the themes I'd associate with American literature: the Dream, 'Lost Generation', masculinity, money...

----------

