Talk:Great American Novel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

News This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details.

The citation is in: ""Happy New!"" (January 1, 2006). Other Magazine. [1].

Contents

[edit] Moby Dick

Um... I am not any sort of expert in literature, but I'm wondering if Moby-Dick should be listed in this article as well. It is certainly called a very American novel in its style and subject matter, and it predates Huck Finn. Any thoughts? func(talk) 01:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, it would fit the title, but I'm not so sure we need more examples right now. Maybe when the article gets longer it could be added in if a reason to use it as an example comes up. As for Huck Finn, I used that because it is the most commonly cited 1st Great American Novel. Moby Dick may have came first, but Huck Finn gets the credit more often. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 02:30, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
I'm with Func - when I hear "Great American Novel," I think Moby Dick, not because I agree with that sentiment but because it's an extremely common sentiment. Moby Dick seems to earn that appellation at least as much as Huck Finn. I'm adding it to the article. | Keithlaw 21:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doonesbury?

I think I'd have to see some documentation to believe that Doonesbury is mentioned often enough as a "Great American Novel" to merit its inclusion here, so for now I've pulled the ref. --Dvyost 15:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Holder

I'm not sure whether this guy's opinion should be counted as usable for the sake of this article. I have never heard of him and can't find an entry for him either in Wikipedia or in similar websites. For all I know this could just be some random guy on the internet. Could someone (specifically the person who added him) explain why we should be using his opinion in this article? -- LGagnon 18:05, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree; I just looked and couldn't find his name outside of his own blog. I'm pulling the reference for now, pending someone providing some secondary sources citing him as reshaping people's ideas of "Great American Novel." --Dvyost 21:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Just noticed that this editor went on to create an article about this blog; possibly it's vanity, maybe it's just a fan, but it doesn't really seem to belong here. --Dvyost 21:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On the Road

Can whoever just added this in offer a justification for its inclusion? I know this novel has its devotees, but is it commonly discussed as a "Great American Novel" in the way that Grapes or Gatsby is? --Dvyost 16:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't add it, but I wouldn't oppose its inclusion. The idea of a "road novel" originated with that book, and it made a number of the top-100 lists that appeared around the turn of the century. | Keithlaw 21:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly On the Road is often cited as the Great American Novel. I confess that for me there is considerable ironic value in so doing: On the Road absolutely typifies that genre, ie: (1) a book written by an american that in general only other Americans (or non-Americans obsessed with American culture) will enjoy, (2) having no artistic or other merit, (3) (crucially) absurdly over-rated, (4) (optional) largely plot free, (5) over written and painful to read.

[Having said all of that I agree that some of the other works referred to in this article are of the highest quality (eg Huckleberry Finn, To Kill a Mocking Bird etc) and have none of these attributes.]

Anyone trying to write the Great American Novel will inevitably produce a work that has most or all of these qualities - a classic example being Bonfire of the Vanities.

I'm as happy as the next person to waste a few hours reading the Great Gatsby but is it seriously suggested that this is one of the greatest works of literature that America has produced? To be compared with English writers such as Jane Austen or Shakepeare? Good grief.

Dr Spam (MD) 14:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeitgeist

Zeitgeist: the spirit of an age. The definition this post gives of "Great American Novel" is "a novel which represents the spirit of the time". So the Great American Novel is that which embodies the Zeitgeist of the time. On The Road embodies the Zeitgeist of the 1950s, Huckleberry Finn embodies the Zeitgeist of the antebellum 1800s... it's a clear connection. Wikipedia is all about making useful connections between different ideas. glasperlenspiel 05:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The question remains, however, not whether you and I would consider On the Road representative of the 50s zeitgeist, but whether critics commonly refer to this book as a Great American Novel in the same way they often use the term for Huck, Moby, Grapes, Gatsby, etc. I remain unpersuaded that they do, but since I'm obviously outvoted I'm just noting my objection here. =) --Dvyost 08:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Glasperlenspiel was responding to a question I posted on his talk page asking why he added the link to Zeitgeist. And I have to say I find his explanation above unsatisfying. The connection is tenuous at best - far from "clear" - and as I said in my initial post on this matter, there's no overlap in content between the articles. This link doesn't belong here; it's just going to create confusion. | Keithlaw 14:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I think I agree, Keithlaw. I'll tenatively remove that text and put it below, at least until someone can provide some good citations as to why it should be included. As a general stylistic note, I think it's silly to have any "See Also"s in Wikipedia--95% of the time, they're alreaady linked in the text itself, and if they're not, then the connection may be too tenuous to justify. I'm not necessarily saying that's the case here, though; I just want to see some citations.
Excised text:
See also
I think you are wrong and that you should not have deleted the link to Zeitgeist. I think it was a valid reference because it takes the reader to a similar concept. Don't you ever spend time jumping around from article to article for the sheer hell of it? That's the best feature of Wikipedia, after the collective editing. glasperlenspiel 02:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving this article forward

How about some suggestions for improving this article? Right now it's more of a placeholder. Can we find any articles or books that discuss the Great American Novel? How about a line or two on candidate novels and why they may or may not qualify? | Keithlaw 03:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

A fine question. I just poked around a bit in some scholarly databases, but kept getting snagged on articles about Moby, or Huck, or Gatsby, rather than an article tracing the phenomenon itself--though surely such an article exists. Wherever it may be, it's clearly what we need. --Dvyost 04:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Supersexyspacemonkey's edit

I deleted today's additions from Supersexyspacemonkey for two reasons:

  • It was unsourced and appeared to comprise the editor's opinions, and
  • It was quite prolix.

I tried to clean it up, but any attempt just resulted in cutting out all of what had been added. I don't see why the GAN is "unreachable" when so many novels have earned that appellation, and I don't see that there's a separation between the "figurative" and "actual" senses of the term GAN. If someone can back up these arguments with sources, then I won't stand in the way of their inclusion. I was confident enough to make the change, but I'm always open to suggestions. | Keithlaw 20:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

With respect your desire for a citation, I will not edit until I find an appropriate academic source; however, having a degree in English, I believe that my definition is correct and reflects academic usage. That is not to negate the idea of "Zeitgeist." Nor am I denying the fact that the current article definition reflects one aspect of popular, even scholarly usage.

As for GAN being "reachable," that depends entirly on how it is defined. Like the idea of "American Dream," it might be perfectly reachable in one context, but merely figurative, Utopian, or a false generalization/myth in another sense. The explanation I gave is perfectly comprehensible and makes it obvious why, in that context, GAN cannot be achieved literally. But again, the issue is which definition(s) of the term is/are correct to begin with, and I have not yet provided a scholarly source. It is unfortunate that Oxford does not contain a definition.

With regard to "So many novels" having "earned that appellation," I strongly disagree. Individual novels might receive that apellation very informally, and frequently, by fans of a particular work, and such practice is not limited to great works of literature. But, in a scholarly setting, I dispute the notion that the term "Great American Novel" is widely used to reference specific works, but is instead more the abstract ideal I described. That is my opinon, but I will not impose it at this time

With regard to my one small paragraph being "prolix," don't be absurd. ;o) My summary was perfectly concise and short.

Finally, I don't expect to make any changes soon, as my intent was to casually introduce an alternate usage, based on my own personal knowledge and scholarship in the matter, while respecting the one that was already provided. The article will remain as is untill I find the time/interest to link reliable supportive data.

So, cheers. :o)

--Supersexyspacemonkey 04:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I changed my mind and decided to research sources, so here are two scholarly articles:
  • Knox, George. The Great American Novel: Final Chapter. American Quarterly [[2]]
  • Brown, Herbert R. Great American Novel. American Literature [[3]]
They explain how the term "Great American Novel" has its origins in an ideological call for the "American Shakespear," and
is much more a philosophical mandate, a national ideal, than a specific work, and is the figurative aim of all American writers.

--Supersexyspacemonkey 05:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for running that down, Spacemonkey, and double kudos for the citations! I've tried to merge your edit a little more, and tweaked the claim a bit, but other than that I've left things intact. Cheers! --Dvyost 06:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It would help to have paranthetical citations for each of these references. As it stands, we don't know what they are meant to be references for. -- LGagnon 15:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. And it would also be useful if any of us could see the citations; those links don't work for me because they appear to require a subscription. We have no idea if what they say backs up SSM's edit. | Keithlaw (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delete them both?

I don't think Keithlaw's edit was justified. Deleting the original words does not improve the article; it just removes information from it. -- LGagnon 20:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Neither one of those books is commonly referred to as the Great American Novel anyway. So why include them? If you can find several citations for Ellis's work as the GAN, then put it back. I Googled both books with the term "Great American Novel" and got fewer than 400 hits for each, and most resulting pages didn't actually refer to the novel in question as the GAN. Removing information is valid if the information isn't good or verifiable. | Klaw ¡digame! 20:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Most? As in some did? That seems like we have some verification. -- LGagnon 21:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
If that's the standard, then this page will have a list of a hundred GAN candidates or more. Looking at the Rainbow results, the first one is an essay by a Swarthmore undergrad; the second is a comment on a blog entry about Infinite Jest. The third [4] looks legit, although I don't know who the author is, and he made a point of tagging his entry with "April Fool's Day." The fourth dismisses GR as a contender for the GAN crown. LTZ returns less compelling results, IMO: result #1 says Ellis "may or may not have written the GAN;" this page is #2; #3 doesn't call LTZ the GAN; #4 mocks this article for including LTZ; #5 has fake letters from authors to the NY Times Book Review (F. Scott Fitzgerald's is funny, where he says Gatsby is the GAN [5]). That's not verification; it's a handful of opinions of a few random bloggers, and a lot of noise. | Klaw ¡digame! 21:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I have to say, I, too, would be astonished to find that Ellis's novel would be one of the leading contenders for GAN. Why pick that one out of so many possible choices? --Dvyost 21:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/e/Talk%7EGreat_American_Novel_328a.html"