Death of the novel: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:54, 15 August 2012

The death of the novel is the common name for the theoretical discussion of the declining importance of the novel as literary form. Many 20th century authors entered into the debate, often sharing their ideas in their own fiction and non-fiction writings.

History

The novel was well-defined by the 19th century. In the 20th century, however, many writers began to rebel against the traditional structures imposed by this form. This reaction against the novel caused some literary theorists to question the relevancy of the novel and even to predict its 'death.'

Some of the earliest proponents of the "death of the novel" were José Ortega y Gasset, who wrote his Decline of the Novel in 1925^[1] and Walter Benjamin in his 1930 review Krisis des Romans (Crisis of the Novel).^[2]

In the 1950s and 1960s, contributors to the discussion have included Gore Vidal, Roland Barthes, and John Barth.^[3] Ronald Sukenick wrote the story The Death of the Novel in 1969.

Tom Wolfe in the 1970s predicted that the New Journalism would displace the novel. Italo Calvino is considered to have turned round the question "is the novel dead?", as "is it possible to tell stories that are not novels?"^[4]

Causes

As for causes, Robert B. Pippin connects the 'death of the novel' with the rise of nihilism in European culture.^[5] Saul Bellow, discussing Ravelstein which was loosely a portrait of Allan Bloom, commented on a connection to the idea that they are really saying that there are no significant people to write about.^[6]

On the other hand, David Foster Wallace^[7] connected the 'death of the novel' with the mortality of the post-war generation of American novelists.

Critical response

Contemporary scholars such as Kathleen Fitzpatrick argue that claims of the novel's death were highly exaggerated, and that such claims often reflect anxiety about changes in the twentieth-century media landscape, as well as more submerged anxieties about social changes within the United States itself.^[8]

Novelist and critic Robert Clark Young argues in his essay, The Death of the Death of the Novel, originally published in the Southern Review in 2008, that all arguments postulating the death of the novel are fallacious. Young goes back through literary history to show that F. Scott Fitzgerald, John Barth, Roland Barthes, Norman Mailer, Ambrose Bierce and others were incorrect when they claimed, at various times, that the literary novel was dead. Not only did literary novels continue to be published long after these writers announced the death of the novel, but many of the same writers, including Barth and Mailer, continued to publish literary novels—often to great acclaim—decades after arguing that continuing to do so was impossible.

Young also argues that new technologies such as radio, silent movies, talking movies, television, and the Internet have failed to destroy the novel, a genre which today enjoys higher sales than ever. With the advent of each of these new technologies, literary pessimists declared the death of the novel, and were wrong each and every time.

References

^ In Ideas sobre la novela. Cf
^ [1]: Döblin finds fault with the novel, since it focuses on individual characters or in its classic form of the Bildungsroman even recounts the education of the one protagonist. In his critique of the novel as genre, Döblin echoes considerations of both the literary discourse in Germany, which reflects on what has been called the 'crisis of narration', and the philosophical debate on the vanishing subject.
^ John Barth, "The Literature of Exhaustion", The Atlantic, 1967
^ Eugenio Bolongaro, Italo Calvino and the Compass of Literature (2003), p. 130.
^ Robert Pippin, Response to Critics
^ Ravelstein by Saul Bellow | Critics | Guardian Unlimited Books
^ [2], The New York Observer, October 13, 1997
^ The Anxiety of Obsolescence: The American Novel in the Age of Television (Vanderbilt UP, 2006)

External links

Death of the Novel Andrew Marr, The Observer, May 27, 2001
The Anxiety of Obsolescence: The American Novel in the Age of Television Kathleen Fitzpatrick (Vanderbilt University Press, 2006)
The Death of the (Canadian) Novel
Is the Novel Dead?, by Mark Mordue

[1] In Ideas sobre la novela. Cf

[2] [1]: Döblin finds fault with the novel, since it focuses on individual characters or in its classic form of the Bildungsroman even recounts the education of the one protagonist. In his critique of the novel as genre, Döblin echoes considerations of both the literary discourse in Germany, which reflects on what has been called the 'crisis of narration', and the philosophical debate on the vanishing subject.

[3] John Barth, "The Literature of Exhaustion", The Atlantic, 1967

[4] Eugenio Bolongaro, Italo Calvino and the Compass of Literature (2003), p. 130.

[5] Robert Pippin, Response to Critics

[6] Ravelstein by Saul Bellow | Critics | Guardian Unlimited Books

[7] [2], The New York Observer, October 13, 1997

[8] The Anxiety of Obsolescence: The American Novel in the Age of Television (Vanderbilt UP, 2006)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ==Critical response==
 Contemporary scholars such as [[Kathleen Fitzpatrick (American academic)|Kathleen Fitzpatrick]] argue that claims of the novel's death were highly exaggerated, and that such claims often reflect anxiety about changes in the twentieth-century media landscape, as well as more submerged anxieties about social changes within the United States itself.<ref>[http://www.anxietyofobsolescence.com ''The Anxiety of Obsolescence: The American Novel in the Age of Television''] (Vanderbilt UP, 2006)</ref>
+Novelist and critic [[Robert Clark Young]] argues in his essay, [[The Death of the Death of the Novel]], originally published in the [[Southern Review]] in 2008, that all arguments postulating the death of the novel are fallacious.  Young goes back through [[literary history]] to show that [[F. Scott Fitzgerald]], [[John Barth]], [[Roland Barthes]], [[Norman Mailer]], [[Ambrose Bierce]] and others were incorrect when they claimed, at various times, that the literary novel was dead.  Not only did literary novels continue to be published long after these writers announced the death of the novel, but many of the same writers, including Barth and Mailer, continued to publish literary novels—often to great acclaim—decades after arguing that continuing to do so was impossible.
+Young also argues that new [[technologies]] such as [[radio]], [[silent movies]], talking movies, [[television]], and the [[Internet]] have failed to destroy the novel, a genre which today enjoys higher sales than ever.  With the advent of each of these new technologies, literary pessimists declared the death of the novel, and were wrong each and every time.
 ==References==