Novels are Novels

[IamFogHat]

<p>So for&nbsp;a little while now I've been trying to determine how people divy up their book collections (btw, I've worked in a library for 5 years).&nbsp; Anyways, I am definitely a literary snob moreso than a music or even film snob, but I believe I have been mistaken recently and now I've got it.&nbsp; Novels are novels.&nbsp; I can appreciate Chuck Palahnuik's primal minimalism in the same way that I can appreciate Marcel Proust's elaborate, sweeping prose.&nbsp; And after discovering this I came to the conclusion that I already knew but never realized; I can put Postal Service up against any classic rock band that I love, because we are here for a short time, and art is a matter of interpretation, not how perfect it ages as a fine wine may.&nbsp; I've been reading almost exclusively 'classic' novels lately (Dostoevsky, Kafka, Faulkner, Joyce, Tolstoy ect.) and while I enjoy them more than anything else I come across, I now realize that time has no bearing on me saying that people like Vonnegut, Brett Easton Ellis, or Chuck Palahnuik.&nbsp; Art is art, just as history is history, whether we are living in it or not.</p>

[narc]

Whatever shit you've been smoking, send me up some. <br><p> Incidentally, I agree with you. But I don't think I could have put it such profound prose.

[jeffdwright2001]

<p>I agree with the general idea you put forth, but would probably clarify it a little bit more.</p><p>You can't equate a novel is a novel and art is art.&nbsp; You would need to broaden it to Prose is Prose.</p><p>Art is very broad while the traditional definition of Novel is specifically narrow.&nbsp; It's primarily defined by the length of the prose.&nbsp; That's the difference between a Novel and a Novella (short story).</p><p>I know you used quotation marks around the &quot;Classic&quot; term for the novels you've been reading.&nbsp; But it too is a key modifier when discussing literature.&nbsp; I can an do enjoy many contemporary and genre novels, but I enjoy them differently than some of the other works you listed.&nbsp; </p><p>One of the difficulties that many literary (and other types) of snobs have is that they are unable to appreciate or enjoy a piece of work in the medium and style it was intended to be appreciated.&nbsp; </p><p>In simpler terms, I'll use the following analogy:</p><p>&nbsp; Many people complain that the movie (or TV series) isn't as good as the book.&nbsp; This is because they are comparing two distinct mediums.&nbsp; There are instances where a movie is extremely good, but different enough from the written material that those who were first familiar with the written work are dissapointed or upset.&nbsp; Yet, the chances are good that if they had not read the book, they would have enjoyed and appreciated the movie.&nbsp; (This isn't to say that there aren't also just some suck ass movies out there based on written material - but those are just out and out poorly made movies).</p><p>It's best to evaluate each piece of work (whether written or otherwise) in the way the creator intended.&nbsp; Stephen King is a highly successful genre writer.&nbsp; Whether it is macabre, science fiction, or western (or a combination) - no one can argue with his success.&nbsp; His books can also be classified as being towards the top in the art form they were intended to be enjoyed.&nbsp; As a whole, genre books don't have the status applied to them as some of the more traditional novels you mention because they tend to focus on a tighter audience and more limited themes.</p><p>Schools try to address this now by exposing students to a variety of types of stories (long and short).&nbsp; Poe's &quot;The Raven&quot; offers a look not only at a form of poetry but touches on his Arabesque style of writing and will usually rest on the teaching agenda along with his Tell Tell Heart or Cask of Amantillado.</p><p>Danielle Steele will not be taught in classrooms 20 or 30 years from now because she is limited in theme.&nbsp; But she is excellent at what she does and that's why she sells the number of books that she does.&nbsp; </p><p>I'll re-read Hawthorne every 3 or 4 years, but I'll re-read a Rex Stout (Nero Wolfe) mystery just about every year.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because I enjoy mysteries and in particular that style of mystery and character development.&nbsp; I'm also a sucker for a spider man comic book.</p><p>I'm concerned far less with what someone reads than I am with the number of people who choose not to read altogether.&nbsp; It exercises a different part of the brain and is one of the best ways to stimulate thought on new ideas and perspective.</p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by jeffdwright2001 on 6-1-06 @ 12:11 PM</span>

[Furtherman]

<strong>jeffdwright2001</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Many people complain that the movie (or TV series) isn't as good as the book.&nbsp; This is because they are comparing two distinct mediums.&nbsp; There are instances were a movie is extremely good, but different enough from the written material that those who were first familiar with the written work are dissapointed or upset.&nbsp; Yet, the chances are good that if they had not read the book, they would have enjoyed and appreciated the movie.&nbsp; (This isn't to say that there aren't also just some suck ass movies out there based on written material - but those are just out and out poorly made movies).</p><p>Thaaaaaaaaank you.&nbsp; </p><p>Whenever I hear &quot;The book was better&quot;, I want to crush their face with a heavy, rusty pipe.</p>