# Were novels ever really a great art form? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 27, 2016, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516 "2016-06-27T13:52:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/41 "2016-06-27T20:16:07Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > No, you’re really not, but I’ll leave you to whoever has more patience than I do. Patience is a virtue! ---
**Author:** ![Frodo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/frodo/32/302_2.png) [@Frodo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frodo)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/42 "2016-06-27T20:55:49Z")
Novels are THE greatest art form. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/43 "2016-06-27T21:08:11Z")
> [@Frodo](#): > > Novels are THE greatest art form. And let me guess… Tolkien is the greatest novelist!!! ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/44 "2016-06-27T21:36:56Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > And let me guess… Tolkien is the greatest novelist!!! Of course not. Everyone knows the Council of Elrond dragged on way too long for it to be considered great art. Also, there is an insufficient number of snobby intellectuals writing papers about it from their ivory towers. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/45 "2016-06-27T22:13:38Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > In this article, Will Self says, > > [The novel is dead (this time it’s for real)](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/02/will-self-novel-dead-literary-fiction) > > I have an elaborate theory about why the novel was never really a great art form, but I’m going to give you the TL;DR version, as I’m more interested in hearing your thoughts. Here it is: > > The novel is a successful entertainment medium in that it, by definition, contains (or is supposed to contain) a story interesting enough to hold the reader’s attention for several hundred pages.\*\* Yet that requirement is antithetical to the subtlety that true art requires.\*\* That is why no one reads literary fiction: it’s boring. It doesn’t have the BIG stories full of Voldemorts and vampires and teens dying of cancer but finding true love. :: post snipped :: The bolded part above is nonsense. Art can be subtle or blatant. Bach or the Ramones. Slee ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/46 "2016-06-27T22:23:38Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > My theory is that the popular and acclaimed works of the time are the _candidates_ for future respect and renown. Thus, what you say is true, if we agree that nothing that is not famous today will be picked up and be famous 100 years from now. I don’t agree with this. I think there are plenty of examples of great art that went unrecognized in the artist’s lifetime. Sometimes it takes society a while to catch up with the cutting edge of its own culture. ---
**Author:** ![Frodo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/frodo/32/302_2.png) [@Frodo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frodo)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/47 "2016-06-27T23:03:33Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > And let me guess… Tolkien is the greatest novelist!!! Of the second half of the 20th century, yes I think, in five hundred years one of the few novels to be remembered from this time will probably be LOTR, as Don Quixote is remembered now. (probably (like Don Quixote) as some boring brick of a book that very few people read of their own volition and most read because is required in some education course, sadly) ---
**Author:** ![Frodo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/frodo/32/302_2.png) [@Frodo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frodo)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/48 "2016-06-27T23:05:55Z")
As for novels being great art and so on, let me put it this way: I could live without paintings, I would hate it but I could live without music, ditto movies, theater, poems and short stories. I could not live without novels. What would be the point?. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/49 "2016-06-28T00:41:18Z")
In my opinion, novels are probably the best art form for conveying subtle ideas. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/50 "2016-06-28T01:48:29Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I don’t agree with this. I think there are plenty of examples of great art that went unrecognized in the artist’s lifetime. Sometimes it takes society a while to catch up with the cutting edge of its own culture. Yet… do any examples come to mind? I think there are some. Melville was mostly forgotten at his death. _Moby Dick_ revived later. But this book had been well received when it was published, though not a huge seller: > **[Moby-Dick](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby-Dick#British)** > > Moby-Dick; or, The Whale is an 1851 novel by American writer Herman Melville. The book is the sailor Ishmael's narrative of the maniacal quest of Ahab, captain of the whaling ship Pequod, for vengeance against Moby Dick, the giant white sperm whale that bit off his leg on the ship's previous voyage. A contribution to the literature of the American Renaissance, Moby-Dick was published to mixed reviews, was a commercial failure, and was out of print at the time of the author's death in 1891. Its... So it can be a continuum of how much something is known in its time, how much it is appreciated later. I think examples of something truly unappreciated in its time becoming very much appreciated later are rare. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/51 "2016-06-28T02:21:46Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Yet… do any examples come to mind? Jane Austen, Johann Sebastian Bach, Charles Baudelaire, William Blake, Julia Margaret Cameron, Kate Chopin, Hart Crane, Henry Darger, Philip K. Dick, Emily Dickinson, John Donne, Paul Gauguin, El Greco, Dashiell Hammett, Robert Johnson, Franz Kafka, John Keats, Stieg Larsson, H.P. Lovecraft, Vivian Maier, Georges Melies, Claude Monet, Mervyn Peake, Sylvia Plath, Edgar Allan Poe, Arthur Rimbaud, Georges-Pierre Seurat, Henry David Thoreau, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Vincent van Gogh, and Johannes Vermeer. ---
**Author:** ![Fretful\_Porpentine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fretful_porpentine/32/2873_2.png) [@Fretful\_Porpentine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fretful_Porpentine)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/52 "2016-06-28T03:20:42Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Jane Austen, Johann Sebastian Bach, Charles Baudelaire, William Blake, Julia Margaret Cameron, Kate Chopin, Hart Crane, Henry Darger, Philip K. Dick, Emily Dickinson, John Donne, Paul Gauguin, El Greco, Dashiell Hammett, Robert Johnson, Franz Kafka, John Keats, Stieg Larsson, H.P. Lovecraft, Vivian Maier, Georges Melies, Claude Monet, Mervyn Peake, Sylvia Plath, Edgar Allan Poe, Arthur Rimbaud, Georges-Pierre Seurat, Henry David Thoreau, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Vincent van Gogh, and Johannes Vermeer. I’m not sure Austen counts; she died about six years after the publication of her first novel, but her books were well-reviewed and popular in her own lifetime (the future George IV was a fan; Austen did not reciprocate). And Monet was definitely a successful, influential painter by the time he died, even if some of the critics hated his work at first. A few of the others qualify because they died young, but would almost certainly have been appreciated by their contemporaries if they’d lived longer (Stieg Larsson, for sure; one could probably make a similar case for Keats, who was wildly popular by the middle of the nineteenth century, when he would have been in his fifties if he’d lived, and who certainly had Shelley as a champion during his lifetime). I’ll definitely give you Dickinson and Blake, though. ---
**Author:** ![GovernmentMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9c0ed/32.png) [@GovernmentMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GovernmentMan)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/53 "2016-06-28T03:22:31Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Is that the Hamilton person? First, no way. Guys like Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams were treated (still are?) as great playwrights. That category of fame just doesn’t exist for playwrights now. I have heard a lot about Hamilton but not about the writer. Are you crazy? I doubt Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams had the huge teenage girl following that Lin Manuel Miranda does ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/54 "2016-06-28T03:38:41Z")
> [@Fretful\_Porpentine](#): > > I’m not sure Austen counts; she died about six years after the publication of her first novel, but her books were well-reviewed and popular in her own lifetime (the future George IV was a fan; Austen did not reciprocate). And Monet was definitely a successful, influential painter by the time he died, even if some of the critics hated his work at first. Austen was popular in her lifetime but I don’t think she had a reputation as a “serious” author, which developed after her death. Monet was popular in his lifetime but his reputation has climbed much higher since his death. I think it’s like I described in my previous post; it took a generation or so for what Monet had done to really sink in. ---
**Author:** ![NAF1138](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naf1138/32/3245_2.png) [@NAF1138](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NAF1138)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/55 "2016-06-28T04:50:12Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > That’s my thesis in brief. Tell me your thoughts! Ok, so I didn’t read the rest of the thread yet, but I find your thesis lacking. Largely because you don’t define what counts as great art. Also because your points don’t actually support it. > [@Aeschines](#): > > 1. The art form was new in 1719 (Robinson Crusoe), and the body of extant novels was still small at the beginning of the 19th century. You could write about anything and not be redundant with the past. This is a nonsense argument. Either art is good or it isn’t. Context is important for appreciating it, but there are tons of novels no one has ever heard of from that that era (which seems to be anything before 1920 in your mind as far as I can tell) because they aren’t good. Quick, name Louisa May Alcott’s other novels. Moreover long-form storytelling has been around as long as we have history. “The novel” was just another way of presenting it. There is nothing new under the sun and coming up with fresh ideas was always hard. > [@Aeschines](#): > > 1. We find 19th century prose and settings charming and artistic and are massively forgiving of the writers of the past, like Dickens, in ways we are not of modern novelists (Dickens’ coincidences and poorly drawn female characters do genuinely hurt his reputation). Ok, so I don’t like Dickens, so I won’t go after that particular example, but do you think that these novels sat around unread until someone in a future time would find them nostalgic? How does this account for novels that were written in other languages and cultures? Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Dostoevsky, Cervantes, Milan Kundra, Tolstoy, Dumas, Proust, all made great are that holds no nostalgia for me. Works written in languages I don’t speak taking place in places I have never been and frequently know little about. Also, as far as English language writers go, if you know them it’s because people at the time thought they were good…and then people generations later still thought they were good. You might not. But your opinion is only your opinion. Right now it isn’t being particularly critical either, it would seem. Mark Twain made great art. Melville made great art. Louisa May Alcott’s novel Little Women was great art. So was stuff I personally dislike like The Scarlett Letter and Great Expectations. So was more modern stuff like Hemingway and Fitzgerald, and even more modern stuff like To Kill A Mockingbird or In Cold Blood (which is a novel, though one based on a true story) and crazy stuff like James Joyce and David Foster Wallace. None of these are nostalgic. See the thing is, if we are just going to throw around unsupported assertions about what is and isn’t great art we can go all day long and never get anywhere. So… You are making the rules here. Tell me why they are not great art. > [@Aeschines](#): > > 1. The vast majority of attempts at writing an artistic novel were not successful. Most has been thrown into the dustbin of history. The list of novelists who are considered great is also quite small. The list of novelists generally is quite small. Writing a whole novel is more work than most people want to put in. 90% of everything is crap and it doesn’t sound like you have read a ton, but I could be wrong on that front. I just provided a list of above of 15 or so authors or specific books that are all great art or artists. And I left out a lot. I didn’t mention the Bronte’s (2) of Henry James, or Kipling or any genre writers who also create great art that changed moder culture (Chandler, Phillip K Dick, Neil Gaimen, Jules Verne) or many others since this is sort of off the top of my head. So let’s see you lists of 20 great poets since the 1800s (have to be fair and keep time periods consistent) painters, short story writers, composers since 1800. Maybe we look to include playwrights too. Any other list you think is producing great art. If you are going to say the field is shallow, whay IS deep? As might be obvious I think your point 3 is also a nonsense argument. Nope, this thesis doesn’t work for me. Ok off to see what others thought. ---
**Author:** ![NAF1138](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naf1138/32/3245_2.png) [@NAF1138](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NAF1138)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/56 "2016-06-28T05:00:43Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Indeed. Boring, serious lit-fic doesn’t become popular, so then the crap that is popular becomes the movies and video games. (Not that I think all that is popular is crap.) Gah! Seriously? To Kill A Mockingbird? Um, Huckleberry Finn? The Great Gatsby? All serious lit fiction. In the post modern era really great novels only work as novels. Catcher in the Rye can’t be make into a film because approximately 90% of what makes it great is that it’s told from the perspective of a person who is lying to you as a reader almost the whole time. You can’t do that on film. But it’s a flipping popular book. David Foster Wallace is pretty damn popular and his stuff was never and will never be made into movies. Kurt Vonegut keeps having his stuff attempted to be adapted because he is so popular but it also doesn’t work in other media. These are not unpopular artists. I should go to bed before I read more. But [duty calls](https://xkcd.com/386/) ---
**Author:** ![NAF1138](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naf1138/32/3245_2.png) [@NAF1138](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NAF1138)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/57 "2016-06-28T05:09:47Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Is that the Hamilton person? First, no way. Guys like Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams were treated (still are?) as great playwrights. That category of fame just doesn’t exist for playwrights now. I have heard a lot about Hamilton but not about the writer. > > And fame seems quite fleeting even for those who write hit shows. I saw Avenue Q a few months ago, even looked up the writers on Wiki. One has been more successful than the other, but I don’t remember their names, and I bet few people do. The musical world hasn’t seemed to have birthed a big brand-name writer/composer since Weber’s era. Theater as an art form is not popular like it was. I would venture to guess you have heard of Sam Sheppard though. Probably Tom Stoppard too? David Mammet? Possibly even Neil LeButte? August Wilson? In theater it takes longer to be accepted as a legitimate force. If it happened less than 20 years ago it’s still a fad. And no one takes musicals seriously right or wrong\* (and they never did). \*it’s wrong, they should. But whatchagonnado? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/58 "2016-06-28T12:06:04Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I would ask you this: What is the last novel to have had cultural impact and still be considered a work of art today? _To Kill a Mockingbird_ (1960) comes to mind, though I’m not religiously wed to that. I would call that a decline, or a significant symptom thereof. Catch-22? Portnoy’s Complaint? Sophie’s Choice? The Color Purple? The Bonfire of the Vanities? The Satanic Verses? Confederacy of Dunces? The Giver? ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/59 "2016-06-28T14:55:26Z")
[QUOTE=Aeschines] I would ask you this: What is the last novel to have had cultural impact and still be considered a work of art today? To Kill a Mockingbird (1960) comes to mind, though I’m not religiously wed to that. I would call that a decline, or a significant symptom thereof. [/QUOTE] An obvious example is **David Foster Wallace’s _Infinite Jest_**. Like Joyce’s Ulysses, it is cited far more than it is read, so the OP will argue it has limited cultural impact. That would be foolish, though, because DFW’s elevation after his death has been big and ongoing. When Jason Segel and Jesse Eisenberg star in a movie about an interview you did on a book tour, you have pop culture resonance. DFW is the Patron Saint of many, many young writers looking for a new sincerity in their voice, and IJ is lauded as the work of a postmodernist genius. Again, I feel like the OP is asking me to do his homework. ---
**Author:** ![NAF1138](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naf1138/32/3245_2.png) [@NAF1138](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NAF1138)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/60 "2016-06-28T15:26:54Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Catch-22? Portnoy’s Complaint? Sophie’s Choice? The Color Purple? The Bonfire of the Vanities? The Satanic Verses? Confederacy of Dunces? The Giver? One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest too. All of the works of magical realism in Spanish language literature. Beloved by Toni Morrison. The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Rabbit Run. There are lots. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516.md?page=4)