http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14153343&postcount=19
Very simply, novel is a kind of book which consists of a single fictional narrative. Other kinds of books include collections of short stories, collections of poetry, and non-fictional works.
A novel is a single work of fiction.
I believe the book quoted is actually a collection of short stories, so it’s not a single story.
A novel is a prose narrative, usually telling a coherent story, fairly lengthy and usually fictional.
A book is a physical object consisting of pages, covers, ink etc. Novels are traditionally found printed in books (although these days they can exist in other forms such as computer files), but books can contain many other sorts of texts: non-fiction, short stories, poetry etc.; or non textual content, such as maps or pictures. Indeed, even if the pages are completely blank, such as in a new notebook, it is still a book.
As most novels have their principal existence as printed in books, people sometimes use “book” as a loose synonym for novel, but if the words are used in their strict meaning they are not the same thing at all.
I was going to say that you should have added the word prose the the phrase “single fictional narrative,” but then I saw that you had mentioned collections of poetry in the next sentence.
I’m still going to say it, though. 
And I’ll also add that there’s a certain minimum length of a novel – I’d say 25,000 words & up. But that’s just me being a jackass.
Yes, I should have said prose. For example, Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey are not novels, since they are poetry.
Novels were (and sometimes still are) also found in magazines or newspapers, serialized over days or months.
How does Lord of the Rings figure in?
It’s one story, divided into 6 books, usually published as 3 volumes. Is the entire story a novel?
I would call it one novel, just as Proust wrote one novel (Rememberance of Things Past) in seven volumes, and
First off I ignore the fact that LotR is published in 3 volumes. It wasn’t written as three separate books, and none of the volumes stand alone; the usual division is arbitrary.
Anyway, I’d call LoTR a romance, not a novel. The majority of its characters are not rounded in the way novelistic characters are, and it is not concerned with a “realistic” setting or theme.
That’s not meant to be a criticism, by the way. LotR is among my favorite books. If I want realism I’ll go outside.
Ideally stated.
To me, “novel” is one of those basic, everyday words that I assume everyone knows, so I am gobsmacked when every once in a while I run across someone (in the reader reviews on Amazon.com, for example) referring to a book that is clearly nonfictional, or to a nowhere-near-book-length short story, as a “novel.”
Nowadays I don’t see very many people distinguishing between a novel and a romance (in the old-fashioned sense in which you’re using the word here). Everyone just uses the word “novel” to refer to any book-length work of prose fiction, regardless of genre or level of realism (fantasy novels, science fiction novels, etc.).
But indeed there used to be a distinction, with the term “novel” being applied more narrowly to more realistic works. For example, Nathaniel Hawthorne called his book The House of the Seven Gables a “romance,” saying
In case the OP was asking specifically about the post he linked to, The Dying Earth is a collection of short stories set in a common background.
:: cough Truman Capote’s True Blood cough ::
I agree with you entirely about length, though. Novels are long. If it’s not more than 25,000 words it ain’t a novel.
And in fact I agree with you about fiction versus non-fiction. it is essential to the idea that a novel be relating made-up events.
You’re correct, of course. It’s just that occasionally I feel the need to trot out my useless undergraduate degree.
You just called me old, son. I’d respond with appropriate vitriol but as I need a nap I must demur. Anyway, get off my lawn.
I suspect the author’s intent has to make some difference.
Maybe it’s not written as three separate books, but JRRT definitely meant it to be published as 6 separate books. The divisions are there, and he did not like the fact that it was published as 3 books rather than 6. The division is not entirely arbitrary.
“Book”, like “car” and “house” are general categories. Everything else is a subset.
Book>novel, history, short story collection, poetry, etc.
There is no difference between a book and a novel, as a novel IS a book.
And a novel is fiction. A book can be fiction or nonfiction.
Trying to mentally picture my local library here …
I think something like less than a quarter of the bookshelves of my library contain fiction. And even several of those are short story collections and what not. So novels aren’t a big fraction of a neighborhood library collection.*
And thinking about the college libraries I’ve been in, novels are hardly a blip on their radar.
So I hardly consider a typical book to be a novel at all.
- But the “new books” shelves seem to be about 50-50 fiction and non-fiction. I ascribe this to the capricious rules the librarians use for deciding what gets put there and for how long (especially after being checked out and returned).
I’ve seen nothing to suggest that, and plenty to suggest he considered that it was a single story. The division into 3 books is somewhat arbitrary, being more for the convenience of the publishers than anything else.
I am not certain you understand what the phrase “there is no difference between …” means. The novel is a subset of the general class book; that does not mean that the two terms are identical, which your phrasing implies. The fact that all novels are books does not mean that novel and book are synonymous.