I was extremely surprised the other day when a fellow poster on the Internet told me off for using the term “novel” in association with 1984. After gathering evidence for my side including a dictionary.com definition as “a fictional prose narrative of considerable length” and the mention of the word in the novel’s introduction, I was told that that may be the case for general usage, but it was not under “the acadamic defintion”.
Well, I’ve done some preliminary searching on the Internet, but so far been completely unable to find a definition that would exclude 1984. Could some cleverer brains help?
Officially, a novel is a work of 40,000 words or more (Nebula and Hugo qualifications), though most these days are 80,000+. “1984” is most certainly a novel.
It’s possible that “Animal Farm” is only a novella – that’s 7,500-39,999 words.
Don’t search the Internet; have the Bozo cite his source with the cry of the Philosopher (i.e., “Define your terms”). If he’s saying it’s not a novel, have him explain why not.
Even if he comes up with another definition, the other poster is a git, as the Internet is not the Academy, and general usage definitions should prevail. Unless this was a particularly academic forum you were in?
Even if it was, shouldn’t he, if he’s going to tell people off, provide the “academic definition” himself? Or is the phrase “put up or shut up” not erudite enough for him?
Count me on the list of people who have no idea what this “academic definition” might be.
There is no such thing as one “academic definition” of what constitutes a novel. It’s a subject of some debate (among scholars trying to decide what could count as the first novel). If you’re curious, Ian Watt’sThe Rise of the Novel is the classic book on the subject.
But I can’t think of any definition that would exclude 1984.
I took a Lit class last quarter in which we discussed exactly what it requires to be a novel. Our discussion was fueled by the book “The Things They Carried” by Tim O’Brien though, and not “1984.” In TTTC each chapter is a stand alone piece of writing and each chapter does not necessarily follow a continuous or chronological storyline. O’Brien also takes a sort of “time out” at points to explain what and why he is writing what he is.
The fact that we all agreed on (and of course one class’ agreement does not an academic definition make) was that the defining characteristic of a novel is that it follows a continuous story from beginning to end. Even considering that definition however (and the above mentioned length requirements), there was a good portion of the class (myself included) that maintained that TTTC was indeed a novel, merely written in a very identifiably Post-Modernist way.
With those two primary conditions in mind, I cannot see how “1984” could not be considered a novel and I’m curious what that brainchild would classify it as if not a novel. If they would suggest it were a novella or a short story, they might have an argument (though not a strong one), but I suspect it to be a case of someone that did not enjoy the book and would rather create dissent than allow others to enjoy it themselves.
The person in question claimed 1984 to be a “polemic.” On further questioning what exactly a novel was, he gave me the rather glib “The novel,- a piece of prose with something wrong with it!” and advised me to look into William Golding’s “The Fable”, the essays & writings of W Somerset Maugham and to read Patricia Waugh’s long piece on metafiction. To be honest, none of this seemed very much like a precise definition to me, but I was unable to get anything more.
The initial setting wasn’t academic and the person in question has admitted that I could probably get away with “novel” in general usage, but stands by the idea that it’s not adequate for an academic context, something which is apparently common knowledge between English students and teachers. As it was only a few weeks ago where I did an English exam in which I’m fairly sure I threw out the term with wild abandon, I must admit some interest!
I spent many years in university English departments, on both sides of the desk. 1984 is a novel, and it is also a polemic; “polemic” refers to content, “novel” to form and length.
And anyone who makes a strong argument about terms, and then can’t define the terms, should go do some more research before he starts arguing. He could be some kind of academia-troll; they’re not unknown, sadly.
The best general definition of novel I know is that a novel is a piece of fiction published as a book or books (rather than part of a book) that doesn’t feature the words “short stories” anywhere on the cover or title page. This can be used for most practical purposes. In academic terms, I would recommend you consult a bibliography of the appropriate author which will tend to classify works according to form.
I can think of a number of things similar to a novel which are occasionally held to be not a novel: (1) the romance (e.g. Don Quixote, Mallory’s Morte Darthur (spelling?), and other medieval/renaissance prose works of a fantastical nature, (2) the short story, the novella, and the novelette, generally defined by length, (3) the collection of linked short stories (e.g. Joyce’s Dubliners, Sherwood Anderson’s Winesburg Ohio), (4) non-fiction, notably biography and autobiography, which often touch on fiction, (5) trilogies and longer series, which may be considered a single novel or a group of novels. None of these describes 1984.
1984 may not have the most coherent structure, and may have more than its fair share of digressions, but it tells the tale of fictional characters with a plot that has a beginning, middle and end. To claim it’s not a novel seems to me to be on a similar level of criticism to claiming the works of Stephen King or Dean Koontz or Catherine Cookson are not novels.
“Polemic” and “Novel” are not mutually exclusive terms. A novel can easily be a polemic (See Joanna Russ’s The Female Man. A polemic is a work written to make a political/social point; it can be in the form of a novel, short story, essay, poem, or even a painting (say, “Guenerica”).
The term novel, as I understood it (narrowly defined) is a book that encompasses realistic settings with ordinary people in relatively mundane situations. I know that isn’t how the term is used but I think that’s closer to it’s narrowest “true” definition.
and advised me to look into William Golding’s “The Fable”, the essays & writings of W Somerset Maugham and to read Patricia Waugh’s long piece on metafiction. To be honest, none of this seemed very much like a precise definition to me, but I was unable to get anything more.