Talk:Great American Novel/Archive 1

Moby Dick
Um... I am not any sort of expert in literature, but I'm wondering if Moby-Dick should be listed in this article as well. It is certainly called a very American novel in its style and subject matter, and it predates Huck Finn. Any thoughts? func (talk) 01:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, it would fit the title, but I'm not so sure we need more examples right now. Maybe when the article gets longer it could be added in if a reason to use it as an example comes up. As for Huck Finn, I used that because it is the most commonly cited 1st Great American Novel. Moby Dick may have came first, but Huck Finn gets the credit more often. -- [[User talk:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 02:30, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm with Func - when I hear "Great American Novel," I think Moby Dick, not because I agree with that sentiment but because it's an extremely common sentiment. Moby Dick seems to earn that appellation at least as much as Huck Finn. I'm adding it to the article. | Keithlaw 21:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Where are the references for "extremely common sentiment" and "most commonly cited 1st Great American Novel?" Pallas sun 04:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where are the references for just about anything in this article? john k (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Doonesbury?
I think I'd have to see some documentation to believe that Doonesbury is mentioned often enough as a "Great American Novel" to merit its inclusion here, so for now I've pulled the ref. --Dvyost 15:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Holder
I'm not sure whether this guy's opinion should be counted as usable for the sake of this article. I have never heard of him and can't find an entry for him either in Wikipedia or in similar websites. For all I know this could just be some random guy on the internet. Could someone (specifically the person who added him) explain why we should be using his opinion in this article? -- LGagnon 18:05, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree; I just looked and couldn't find his name outside of his own blog. I'm pulling the reference for now, pending someone providing some secondary sources citing him as reshaping people's ideas of "Great American Novel."  --Dvyost 21:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that this editor went on to create an article about this blog; possibly it's vanity, maybe it's just a fan, but it doesn't really seem to belong here. --Dvyost 21:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

On the Road
Can whoever just added this in offer a justification for its inclusion? I know this novel has its devotees, but is it commonly discussed as a "Great American Novel" in the way that Grapes or Gatsby is? --Dvyost 16:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't add it, but I wouldn't oppose its inclusion. The idea of a "road novel" originated with that book, and it made a number of the top-100 lists that appeared around the turn of the century. | Keithlaw 21:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Rightly or wrongly On the Road is often cited as the Great American Novel. I confess that for me there is considerable ironic value in so doing: On the Road absolutely typifies that genre, ie: (1) a book written by an american that in general only other Americans (or non-Americans obsessed with American culture) will enjoy, (2) having no artistic or other merit, (3) (crucially) absurdly over-rated, (4) (optional) largely plot free, (5) over written and painful to read.  [Having said all of that I agree that some of the other works referred to in this article are of the highest quality (eg Huckleberry Finn, To Kill a Mocking Bird etc) and have none of these attributes.]  Anyone trying to write the Great American Novel will inevitably produce a work that has most or all of these qualities - a classic example being Bonfire of the Vanities.  I'm as happy as the next person to waste a few hours reading the Great Gatsby but is it seriously suggested that this is one of the greatest works of literature that America has produced?  To be compared with English writers such as Jane Austen or Shakepeare?  Good grief.  Dr Spam (MD) 14:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I would rather read 100 "Great American Novels" with the criteria you suggested than Austen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.118.51 (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out, in response to the idea that On the Road in some way represented the zeitgeist of its time, that, well, it didn't. The nation was not flooded with beatniks, and while Kerouac, Ginsberg, Cassady, etc., may have inspired the future hippies, they certainly didn't speak for their entire generation. I believe it was Ginsberg himself who said you could fit the whole of the "Beat Generation" in a living room. While I personally think that On the Road is a great novel, it is certainly not an example of the Great American Novel. --J.Dayton 19:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Minorities always characterized the spirit of a certain time. There has never been something like a mainstream movement with the same beliefs and lifestyle but there is always a special group who will be remembered by the following generations. And - if you like it or if you don't like it - the beat generation and its most important book "On the road" influenced artists all over the world in a way which cant be overestimated. Today "On the road" is livelier than most of the other "Great American Novel"s. -- NSK

Zeitgeist
Zeitgeist: the spirit of an age. The definition this post gives of "Great American Novel" is "a novel which represents the spirit of the time". So the Great American Novel is that which embodies the Zeitgeist of the time. On The Road embodies the Zeitgeist of the 1950s, Huckleberry Finn embodies the Zeitgeist of the antebellum 1800s... it's a clear connection. Wikipedia is all about making useful connections between different ideas. glasperlenspiel 05:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The question remains, however, not whether you and I would consider On the Road representative of the 50s zeitgeist, but whether critics commonly refer to this book as a Great American Novel in the same way they often use the term for Huck, Moby, Grapes, Gatsby, etc. I remain unpersuaded that they do, but since I'm obviously outvoted I'm just noting my objection here.  =)  --Dvyost 08:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Glasperlenspiel was responding to a question I posted on his talk page asking why he added the link to Zeitgeist. And I have to say I find his explanation above unsatisfying. The connection is tenuous at best - far from "clear" - and as I said in my initial post on this matter, there's no overlap in content between the articles. This link doesn't belong here; it's just going to create confusion. | Keithlaw 14:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I agree, Keithlaw. I'll tentatively remove that text and put it below, at least until someone can provide some good citations as to why it should be included.  As a general stylistic note, I think it's silly to have any "See Also"s in Wikipedia--95% of the time, they're already linked in the text itself, and if they're not, then the connection may be too tenuous to justify.  I'm not necessarily saying that's the case here, though; I just want to see some citations.
 * Excised text:
 * See also
 * *Zeitgeist --Dvyost 15:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you are wrong and that you should not have deleted the link to Zeitgeist. I think it was a valid reference because it takes the reader to a similar concept. Don't you ever spend time jumping around from article to article for the sheer hell of it? That's the best feature of Wikipedia, after the collective editing. glasperlenspiel 02:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Moving this article forward
How about some suggestions for improving this article? Right now it's more of a placeholder. Can we find any articles or books that discuss the Great American Novel? How about a line or two on candidate novels and why they may or may not qualify? | Keithlaw 03:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * A fine question. I just poked around a bit in some scholarly databases, but kept getting snagged on articles about Moby, or Huck, or Gatsby, rather than an article tracing the phenomenon itself--though surely such an article exists.  Wherever it may be, it's clearly what we need.  --Dvyost 04:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Supersexyspacemonkey's edit
I deleted today's additions from Supersexyspacemonkey for two reasons: I tried to clean it up, but any attempt just resulted in cutting out all of what had been added. I don't see why the Great American Novel is "unreachable" when so many novels have earned that appellation, and I don't see that there's a separation between the "figurative" and "actual" senses of the term Great American Novel. If someone can back up these arguments with sources, then I won't stand in the way of their inclusion. I was confident enough to make the change, but I'm always open to suggestions. | Keithlaw 20:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It was un-sourced and appeared to comprise the editor's opinions, and
 * It was quite prolix.
 * With respect your desire for a citation, I will not edit until I find an appropriate academic source; however, having a degree in English, I believe that my definition is correct and reflects academic usage. That is not to negate the idea of "Zeitgeist." Nor am I denying the fact that the current article definition reflects one aspect of popular, even scholarly usage.


 * As for Great American Novel being "reachable," that depends entirly on how it is defined. Like the idea of "American Dream," it might be perfectly reachable in one context, but merely figurative, Utopian, or a false generalization/myth in another sense. The explanation I gave is perfectly comprehensible and makes it obvious why, in that context, Great American Novel cannot be achieved literally. But again, the issue is which definition(s) of the term is/are correct to begin with, and I have not yet provided a scholarly source. It is unfortunate that Oxford does not contain a definition.


 * With regard to "So many novels" having "earned that appellation," I strongly disagree. Individual novels might receive that appellation very informally, and frequently, by fans of a particular work, and such practice is not limited to great works of literature. But, in a scholarly setting, I dispute the notion that the term "Great American Novel" is widely used to reference specific works, but is instead more the abstract ideal I described. That is my opinion, but I will not impose it at this time


 * With regard to my one small paragraph being "prolix," don't be absurd. ;o) My summary was perfectly concise and short.


 * Finally, I don't expect to make any changes soon, as my intent was to casually introduce an alternate usage, based on my own personal knowledge and scholarship in the matter, while respecting the one that was already provided. The article will remain as is until I find the time and interest to link reliable supportive data.


 * So, cheers. :o) --Supersexyspacemonkey 04:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I changed my mind and decided to research sources, so here are two scholarly articles:
 * *Knox, George. The Great American Novel: Final Chapter. American Quarterly []
 * *Brown, Herbert R. Great American Novel. American Literature []
 * They explain how the term "Great American Novel" has its origins in an ideological call for the "American Shakespeare," and is much more a philosophical mandate, a national ideal, than a specific work, and is the figurative aim of all American writers. --Supersexyspacemonkey 05:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for running that down, Spacemonkey, and double kudos for the citations! I've tried to merge your edit a little more, and tweaked the claim a bit, but other than that I've left things intact.  Cheers!  --Dvyost 06:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It would help to have parenthetical citations for each of these references. As it stands, we don't know what they are meant to be references for. -- LGagnon 15:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. And it would also be useful if any of us could see the citations; those links don't work for me because they appear to require a subscription. We have no idea if what they say backs up SSM's edit. | Keithlaw (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete them both?
I don't think Keithlaw's edit was justified. Deleting the original words does not improve the article; it just removes information from it. -- LGagnon 20:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither one of those books is commonly referred to as the Great American Novel anyway. So why include them? If you can find several citations for Ellis's work as the Great American Novel, then put it back. I Googled both books with the term "Great American Novel" and got fewer than 400 hits for each, and most resulting pages didn't actually refer to the novel in question as the Great American Novel. Removing information is valid if the information isn't good or verifiable. | Klaw ¡digame! 20:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Most? As in some did? That seems like we have some verification. -- LGagnon 21:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If that's the standard, then this page will have a list of a hundred Great American Novel candidates or more. Looking at the Rainbow results, the first one is an essay by a Swarthmore undergrad; the second is a comment on a blog entry about Infinite Jest. The third looks legit, although I don't know who the author is, and he made a point of tagging his entry with "April Fool's Day." The fourth dismisses GR as a contender for the Great American Novel crown. LTZ returns less compelling results, IMO: result #1 says Ellis "may or may not have written the Great American Novel;" this page is #2; #3 doesn't call LTZ the Great American Novel; #4 mocks this article for including LTZ; #5 has fake letters from authors to the NY Times Book Review (F. Scott Fitzgerald's is funny, where he says Gatsby is the Great American Novel ). That's not verification; it's a handful of opinions of a few random bloggers, and a lot of noise. | Klaw ¡digame! 21:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I, too, would be astonished to find that Ellis's novel would be one of the leading contenders for Great American Novel. Why pick that one out of so many possible choices?  --Dvyost 21:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

John Dos Passos...Really?
I don't understand why he has been included here. Thoughts? --J.Dayton 19:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * U. S. A. in its massive scope, coast to coast, gutter to gala, has been frequently been interpreted as a deliberate attempt to write the Great American Novel - the title was not chosen accidentally. There is no doubt t]]hat Dos Passos, especially his more "socialist" works, have somewhat fallen out of favor with critics, but from the thirties up to the forties and fifties, with most of the leading critics leaning far leftwards, Dos Passos was a strong pretender to the title. --Janneman 21:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no.--J.Dayton 19:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * uh, could you be a bit more specific on that point...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Janneman (talk • contribs) 20:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Sure. Essentially, we've said more on the talk pages concerning the Great American Novel than has been said on the Great American Novel page. If you read the talk page you would have at least some understanding of what the Great American Novel is. It needs to be not well written, but as near perfect as man can write. It needs to fundamentally represent America of a given period in time. John Dos Passos does not come close to these criteria, and just because it is some author's "deliberate" attempt to write the Great American Novel, does not make it a Great American Novel. If this were the criteria, we'd all be Great American Authors, and the title would mean nothing.--J.Dayton 13:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing. How can we list two men of the Lost Generation as having written their generation's Great American Novel? These works are supposed to have best represented their given time. Best. John Dos Passos, sadly, was not the best. All of this, of course, is of the general opinion at most major lit programs in America. The Professors are making the call, here, in teaching Gatsby and the Sun Also Rises over U.S.A. You may disagree with them. I may disagree with them. But this is an encyclopedia, not a place to write about what we like, or to change history. --J.Dayton 13:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dos Passos was widely considered to have best represented America-in-toto in his time. As I wrote before, this is no longer the case. However, here's Norman Mailers opinion, recorded by the St. Petersburg Times in 2004:
 * The Great American Novel is no longer writable. We can't do what John Dos Passos did. His trilogy on America came as close to the Great American Novel as anyone. You can't cover all of America now. It's too detailed..
 * Uh, and btw one of the main reasons why USA is hardly ever taught in lit.programs is that it runs to well over a thousand pages. --Janneman 11:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "John Dos Passos does not even come close to any of these criteria," - that is POV

No, that is fact.--J.Dayton 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"All of this, of course, is of the general opinion at most major lit programs in America," - that's a very sweeping statement, one which I don't find the logic in: so the novels that are taught in literature programs are by necessity the "best"?

No, not the "best." The Great American Novel has less to do with judgments on quality than it does with all of the previously listed criteria. I listed the lit courses for a representation of popularity, not quality. I really don't have the patience to go over this entire discussion for you, so I'll kindly direct you to the top of the page. --J.Dayton 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm reinstating Dos Passos.
 * Attaboy! --Janneman 13:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What? On what grounds? Can there be two Great American Novel? I thought this was generational. That is what we've previously decided on. If Passos goes in than Hemmingway or Gatsby must come out. Unless we're willing to make the trade, Passos should stay out. I know that you like him, that's obvious, but this is not a fan site. --J.Dayton 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am NOT a fan of his, but I have in fact explained AND sourced Dos Passos claim to fame. Brush up on your literary history books; try Daniel Aaron for a start. -- Janneman 01:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion is confusing. Who says the Great American Novel is generational? What does the USA trilogy have to do with the Great Gatsby, apart from their authors belonging to the same generation? Fitzgerald and Steinbeck were also part of the same generation, does that mean Grapes of Wrath must go? Surely the Mailer quote justifies the USA trilogy's inclusion as "a worthwhile candidate for the title" of the Great American Novel? Note that were only talking about candidates to the title here.


 * I'm not American, for someone who hasn't studied US literature in college I am relatively knowledgeable on American literature, but I've never ever ever ever heard of Dos Passos before. U.S.A. might have been acclaimed as the Great American Novel at the time of its publication and during Dos Passos' lifetime, but seeing that you never encounter it now would make a strong case for not naming it as novel that is now considered to come close to the Great American Novel. This is in contrast to The Great Gatsby, which was not much of a commercial success during Fitzgerald's lifetime, but was rediscovered after his death. So if contenders are to be listed it might be a smart thing to split the list in two: one for novels that were once considered an example of the Great American Novel (which I might say will be the longer list as publishers and critics will make more claims than are realistic), and novels that are still considered as such: Huck Finn, Moby Dick, Gatsby, On the Road, Catcher in the Rye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.166.237 (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've at least heard of all the others and I'm pretty well read (the only other one I haven't read is On the Road). All the others are widely discussed and considered a/the Great American Novel. But not U.S.A. I think it should be removed unless more sources other than an online quote from a single author (albeit a somewhat influential one). An endorsement from Harold Bloom would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not matter in the least which of the books you happen to have read or liked. Not in the least. Why should Harold Bloom beat Norman Mailer? Oh yeah, btw, so far U.S.A. is the only book in this here article that has a verifiable and substantial endorsement ref-tagged to it. --Janneman (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, There are dozens of sources, old and new, which support U.S.A. as a candidate for the Great American Novel. It's odd that this is even an issue here. Take, for example, the reference work "Academic American Encyclopedia" (1989), which refers to U.S.A. as "a radical critique of American life and may be the closest contender for the title of 'the great American novel.'" 81.234.202.62 (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To everyone who is wondering why JDP's place here is being doubted, don't worry: this champion of encyclopedic veracity, J. Dayton, also champions such uncited phrases as "No, that is fact." and similarly ludicrous, less grammatical phrases as "All of this, of course, is of [sic] the general opinion at most major lit programs in America." Chicopac (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I misspelled "of?" --J.Dayton (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, you didn't misspell it, you misused it grammatically. The phrase "of the opinion" is only used after the subject, as in "James is of the opinion." You should have said "All of this, of course, is the general opinion at..." Of course, that's only the grammar; it would still have been a completely un-cited claim. Chicopac (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually (if I may chime in rather late), to the contrary of the editor who discounted simply because he/she had not previously heard of it... this trilogy is quite well known, and has garnered much critical acclaim. Besides that the board at Random House (only the largest publisher of English-language books in the world by the way) felt so inclined to place it at #23 on its authoritative list, The 100 Greatest Novels of the 20th Century ) -- the consensus definitive list which was also included in the 1999 edition of the World Almanac --- the USA Trilogy was also notable for the structure of its prose. Capsules of stream of consciousness are inserted between chapters in a way reminiscent of Mailer's arrangement of supplementary in-between-chapters in The Naked and the Dead. For those who doubt the importance of JDP's magnum opus, perhaps looking past your own self-relative criteria for what is and what is not 'important' (and/or 'well-known') in American Literature, you'd do your research and find that Dos Passos epic most certainly warrants being named on this list. Even better than merely doing the research -- try giving it a read! Ryecatcher773 (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the phrase
The article cited here by John William DeForest as the origin of the phrase is an incorrect reference. The Nation archive here (http://www.thenation.com/archive/) does not have any articles listed with the great American novel as titled or anything with DeForest as author and there was no issue of the Nation on the date given in the article. I think the citation is a straight copy paste from here: http://www.allgreatamericannovels.com/ which, whilst pretty in design, seems unfinished and is quite unsatisfactory on this topic. I'm goanna do some book research and try to find the origins of the phrase and I'll do some edits if I find some reliable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.55.142 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hemingway inclusion
I don't quite understand the inclusion of "The Old Man and the Sea" in the list at the end of the article. By the definition of the beginning of the article of the Great American Novel as "a novel that most perfectly represents the spirit of life in the United States at the time of its publication", it is hard to see how "The Old Man and the Sea" qualifies, being that it is not about the United States or the spirit of life in the United States in any outwardly perceptible way. It is about a Cuban fisherman. How could that be the Great American Novel, I wonder.--Alhutch (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially since The Old Man is usually classed as a short story or novella. --Janneman (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Man, is Ellison's Invisible?
Not only does Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man qualify by definition, it has in fact been cited as such since its publication in 1952. It is, in my opinion, the quintessential Great American Novel which most directly braves the expressed challenges of race and class prejudice in America (especially for those individuals with no homeland actualities outside of the 50 states), alienation, and the ideals of assimilation into the formerly oppressive social order; the evolution of self within the bittersweet soup becoming America; in culture classicism and the mimicry of oppression. These are just a handful of the boons challenged within the novel. Not to mention, much of what is inherent to the Male the experience in American, despite a racial distinction. (i.e. Old Boys Club, nature vs. nurture, and the list goes on.) African-American literature is somehow swept into a kind of mythological sub-category, as if, drawn from an illegitimately Americanized well of experience. I was surprised to find that it had not been included in the article, and therefore took it upon myself to make the correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R. R. Harris (talk • contribs) 18:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, two years later, about Ellison, though for the sake of commentary I'll say it's the only black-American novel I've read which either wasn't written poorly or written poorly on purpose. I'm reminded art can embody politics, but politics cannot embody art. Propose morality in art, but do not consider art's merit based on the opinion of politics. In high school like 3/4ths of the books we read were written by black people, and since America isn't 3/4s black, there was politics afoot. I wouldn't have minded if Zora Hurston had actually written well. On another note, I've never thought of Salinger's Rye as the Great American Novel, but I suppose it fits. Yalk (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A possibility for an expansion of the article
There's a bit of a contest going on (there's no award for a winner, though) here. We might want to consider using the results as a — as opposed to the — basis for creating a section called, say: The Contenders and then using literary criticism to list the pros and cons of each book. Just my 2¢.--NBahn (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)