Talk:Novel sequence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Not Proust

Proust's In Search of Lost Time is not really a good example of a "novel sequence": each volume does not have a "free-standing storyline" and while possible, a reader would be rather lost if they tried to read the volumes "independently or out of sequence." ISOLT is a single novel divided into several volumes, not a sequence of novels. Re. "roman-fleuve": for what it's worth, The New Oxford Companion to French Literature (ISBN: 0198661258) defines it as: "Term used to describe a series of novels following the fortunes of a character, a family, or a society" (713). Doesn't sound too far from Proust's novel, however, the Companion goes on to list six French authors (e.g. Balzac, Zola) who have written "romans-fleuves," but Proust is not among them.

Some valid points there, doubtless. You can read Swann's Way as free-standing. Thereafter it becomes harder. Proust's À la recherche is pretty much unclassifiable, however you cut it. It needs to be in this article, though. Charles Matthews 21:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Charles. I also think that the omission of Proust from any particular list isn't compelling enough; inclusion is positive evidence, but that doesn't mean that omission is negative evidence. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category issue

Please see Category talk:Novel sequences#Rename to avoid confusion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)