Talk:First novel in English

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some explanation here would be nice: how can it be seriously claimed that Moll Flanders is the first novel if Robinson Crusoe was published earlier? By what standards could Robinson Crusoe not be a novel? DJ Clayworth 17:08, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See also Talk:Robinson Crusoe but we still need the reasoning behind these various choices. Rmhermen 18:30, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

This was exactly the point that led to this page. How can Robinson Crusoe be the first novel in English when it is not even the first novel by Defoe? Explanation added, also some more candidates — Gdr 11:00 2004-04-02.

On the "First novel in English" page, the author states that "Some critics require a novel to be wholly fictitious and so exclude Robinson Crusoe which is based on the true story of Alexander Selkirk." Anyone know who these critics are? It seems really absurd because hardly any works of literature are COMPLETELY fictitious. Most of them, ESPECIALLY novels, contain real places, historical events, people, etc. Also, by the way, it is not entirely clear whether or not Defoe did base his novel on Selkirk's story. There were other stories he could have drawn from and in one of the sequels that Defoe wrote to Robinson Crusoe he claimed that the text was an allegory. - Awadewit 23 July 2004

I wrote the line. This was what I was taught in my English literature class. I think the idea is ridiculous but I wanted to give a wide spectrum of views on what constitutes a novel. It would be nice to track down a particular critic who argued this. Gdr 21:05, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

[edit] Le Morte d'Arthur

I think the reasoning for potentially disqualifying Le Morte d'Arthur is incorrect. I think if you are to discount it then the reasons you would use would be that firstly it is intended to be a chronicle (much like the book of The Bible which also contain what some would call "fantastic elements") and that also it is a collation of earlier fables. Mintguy (T)

Well, there might be many reasons for disqualifying a particular work. The romance/novel distinction is used in the Short Oxford History of English Literature, so I don't think it's incorrect, maybe just incomplete. So feel free to add more reasons for disqualification to the list. Gdr 15:26, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Shouldn't this be called "First novel in Modern English"? Ardric47 02:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I know of no truly valid candidate for the status of "novel" in either the Middle English or Old English corpus, so I don't see why "English" would be invalid. Before the printing press, satisfying the criteria associated with the general definition of "novel" was fairly inherently impossible. --Yst 15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)