In Miranda’s case, within the theatre community he is recognized as a greatly talented artistic creator, but he also has a huge fandom outside of that as the charismatic celebrity author of a colossal Broadway-crushing blockbuster. So he gets the best of both worlds.
Short answer to the OP : yes, in France at least. Back when they were published as serials in newspapers the likes of Zola, Balzac or Hugo were HUGE. Hence why they became classics. You askin’ me, Hugo would never have remained a household name if people had had to swallow through the whole of Notre Dame de Paris in one sitting. WE GET IT, ASSHOLE ! IT’S A FUCKING DOOR WITH SCULPTURES AROUND IT ! MOVE THE FUCK ON !
(I may or may not have been forced to slog through that doorstopper back when I was 10. I tried again later, mind you. It’s still more ponderous than my nuts.)
They made you read Victor Hugo at ten? And they were allowed to raise children?
At ten people should read Jules Verne, giving them Hugo at that age is child abuse.
Are you saying that these people were not appreciated in their time? There are a few I don’t know anything about, but those I do know about, well, you’re wrong.
It doesn’t sound like you read the OP. I acknowledge from the beginning that many novels have been great art. You seem to believe that I don’t think any novels are great art. Seems as though you made up your own thesis to argue against.
LOL!
Maybe 11 or 12 ? Second year of *collège, but I had skipped one year of elementary school. *Then again I had already read Lord of the Rings at 9, so 
But yeah, French schools are insane with that shit. They make you read “the classics” way too early ; certainly earlier that anyone can really appreciate them both in terms of style or of story/human study. Consequently many French people hate the shit out of the classics well into their adulthood and most never revisit them.
Dude, read your own thread title. If all this thread is about is Sturgeon’s Law* then fine, just say that. It’s not like you’re hosting the Algonquin Round Table.
*95% of everything is crap. With novels, probably 99%. So?
Really?
Emphasis mine.
This would seem to be your thesis. You make a confusing (possibly even to yourself) statement that some novels are in fact true art. But then you say that they are actually just reveared and they we shouldn’t consider them art or even really revear them. You then make 3 numbered points that I already went through. Where did I make anything up?
You also say repeatedly in the thread that literary novels are boring and unreadable (or at least strongly imply this.) and that all novels that attempt to be art fail at being good novels. Again, maybe that’s not what you intended but maybe self reflection is necessary in that case. Or at least a sharpening of your writing skills. I pop off half cocked and write garbage on this board all the time but I don’t do it when I am trying to debate the merits or even value of the very existence of one of the major artforms of the modern age. The burden on you is to be clear right at the top.
Not only are novels a great and major art form, even non-fiction books can be highly valuable as art. Erik Larsen’s “The Devil in the White City” is a work of art, as well as a serious work of history.
Even crummy popular fiction can still be of significant artistic merit. “The Hound of the Baskervilles” or “Riders of the Purple Sage” are works for the masses, not for the acclaim of literary critics…but both are works of real art.
The trouble is that the argument is subtle. If I turn in a doctoral thesis, it would be TL;DR and trashed anyway (hey, it’s the Internet), but if I don’t then it’s trashed for not being at that level. Admittedly, it’s not. I just wanted to bounce an idea off smart people in an informal way, but hey, it’s the Internet. Maybe we should all just talk about Game of Thrones and be done with it. That’s what Cafe Society is for, right?
Note that I have not trashed any author in this thread. The OP says that great novels have been written. Acknowledged in the OP. I am saying that the novel was not a very strong art form from the beginning and, despite a good run, its best days are over.
But since people like to be pissed off (it’s the Internet), they have taken my thesis to mean the very thing that allows them to be pissed off the most: that all novels suck… and so does your favorite writer! Bwahahahaha, etc.
I don’t know about you, but I when someone raises a new idea, my first impulse is not to shoot it down with the vibe of you retarded motherfucker! I like to get inside the person’s head and consider the implications of what he or she is saying, play with the idea a bit. Heaven forbid that someone come into Cafe Society and have the sheer gall to think that they have something real to say! No, we should just weigh in on GoT, Beyonce’s latest album, and Batman v Superman.
All of that is fine! I enjoy those posts too. I’m just saying it’s not any fun when the only response to an OP like mine is rage, dismissal, and invalidation. And, largely, intellectual discussion about theses isn’t happening in Cafe Society, so… is that a good thing?
And no, it’s not a valid response to the above to say, “But you, sir, are a retarded motherfucker and are just getting what you deserve! Others will fare better.” Because one doesn’t know who other people are in here. Do you want, say, an 18-year-old in college with some half-baked ideas about literature to come in here and be afraid to share those half-baked ideas, knowing that s/he’ll just encounter rage, dismissal, and invalidation? Or do you want a forum in which people are inclined to “throw it out there,” have an interesting discussion, and everybody learns something? (I know I learned from the person who actually engaged with me here.)
But this isn’t an SDMB thing. It’s the Internet. People are pissed off, the world kinda sucks right now, and this is where people can vent one way or another. I get it. It’s just too bad, however.
I was talking about the present era, in which there is a division (in the minds of writers and readers) between serious/not serious that didn’t exist in the past. I am not actually saying that, in all cases, “serious” works could not be made into movies. I am saying that they don’t become popular enough for movie studios to smell money and turn them into movies. I agree with you that a lot of modern and post-modern novels are hard to turn into movies.
Hey listen, I am happy to have a conversation or debate or whatever about the state of modern novels or modern art in general, but everything you wrote in this post is directly contradicted by your OP. The reason why people are attacking your premise isn’t because they are angry and this is the Internet, it’s because it’s faulty in the state it was presented. It doesn’t need to be a doctoral thesis to be clear.
I’m sorry if you feel you are being nit picked to death but I don’t see anyone in the thread rushing to defend their favorite author because you think they suck. They are defending the novel as an art form because that’s what you asked for.
Ok, fair. When did this happen in your opinion? Because Mockingbird was pretty recent in the grand sceme of things. So it had to have happened post 1960.
At ten people should read Verne and have the option to skip the technical descriptions. Those who choose not to should get pointed towards the crafts and engineering.
We were made to read Cinco horas con Mario at 15 and it was already too fucking early. What 15yo can identify with a widow who spends the whole book talking a wall of text* to the corpse of her freshly-deceased husband? It’s the book that made Delibes famous - and an example of a writer who needed to barf up a big one before he could start writing readably.
- Not a single paragraph break. I still consider it un-fucking-readable, yet there are many other Delibes works which I’ve enjoyed enormously and I’m happy to re-read.
Aeschines, ITSM as if you’re the first one dismissing anything whose main purpose is to be entertaining as “not serious”, “not literary enough” and therefore “unworthy”. In fact, AFACT you’re quite alone in that regard.
I’m being lazy but I’m going to guess; nobody in this thread has set out any even passably clear definition of what constitutes a “really great art form”. Am I right?
Without that, you are all just pissing in the wind. I know that this post could be seen as a threadshit but I really don’t get it. The question of “what is art?” and “what is great art” and similar seems to be discussed endlessly without anyone cluing in to the fundamental truth that these are questions without answer, since “art” has virtually no useful definition.
Yup. Aeshines, your aspiration to have a good discussion is cool. Your desire to put forth a provocative thesis to stimulate discussion is also cool. This particular thesis, and your attempt to support it, isn’t working.
It feels very Monty Python: many more posters are debating you about the imponderability of your OP than they are actually discussing the topic you want to discuss.
If you are open to stepping back and figuring out a better thesis, this thread might end up less tangled.
I figure this is on the OP, and seems to be a lot of people’s main complaint with the OP.
There are really good ways to discuss the quality of both individual works of art as well as artistic media without resorting to "I like this, I don’t like that"or “opinions are subjective so whatever you like you like” sort of nonsense. Really great debates on all sorts of stuff could be had, but the question needs to be framed in such a way that we know what the heck we are debating. You are right though, bringing up phrases like “great art” or “True Art” will inevitably poison the well.
Questions like:
Or something sorta like that, are workable. What the OP wrote was sorta nonsense. I think that maybe the OP was trying to say something like that, but I didn’t get that until I started getting responses to my own posts.
It got pretty convoluted along the way but the original post was this:
And that was what I was refuting: your claim that anybody who had a reputation, had it in their own lifetime. I gave you examples of people whose reputations grew significantly after their deaths, which is not to say they had no reputation in their lifetimes.