Talk:Bildungsroman examples (post-1930)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] baffling film/book organizational structure

Why is it that the book/novel examples were split out from the main article, and then excised, while the films (many of which are not good examples) are left in as the primary examples? If anything, this should be reversed, but I'm more inclined to re-include bildungsroman examples from books and films that can be cited as such in this article, and redirect the two book articles here. Please comment or note any objections to such a course of action, preferrably on Talk:Bildungsroman for coherent discussion purposes. -- nae'blis 17:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition?

Can The Autobiography of Malcom X be a bildungsroman when it was primarily based on interviews and was intended as a biographical work? -- Charlie (Colorado) 14:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Dodó: I am not quite sure. I'm just writing an essay on this... But I would definitely add Alice Walker's The Color Purple and most works.

[edit] Catcher in the Rye?

I could be wrong, I often am, but- why is J.D. Salinger on the list of bildungsromans? As defined by the main page a bildungsroman is "...a novel which traces the spiritual, moral, psychological, or social development and growth of the main character from (usually) childhood to maturity."

If I recall correctly- isn't Catcher in the Rye the description of the emotional breakdown of Holden Caufield? Holden doesn't develop in the novel, he- I'm hesitant to say regresses- but certainly reaches a point where he cannot function, at least for a period of time, in society.

So, should it really be on the list? Nullius in Verba 00:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His Dark Materials

This series should not be on the list. To do so is to stretch the definition of bildungsroman to meaninglessness. I'm removing it. Deepak 16:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which order?

Why on earth are the novels in this list ordered according to the authors' first names? As far as I'm concerned, it would make much more sense to list them

(1) chronologically (year of first publication) or
(2) according to their titles or
(3) according to the authors' surnames.

Which of the three would be preferable? Comments, please! <KF> 06:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)