[LMB] History of Novels
elbju at yahoo.se
Sun Jan 9 12:14:21 GMT 2011
John Lennard wrote about the history of novels, disputing the claim of novels existing in the Classical Era novels that I (not Paula; she was quoting me) that I'd picked up from the work "The True Story of the Novel" by Margaret Anne Doody.
> John: Mmm. No argument about the complexity, worthiness
> &c. of the works Doody cites, but novel form is not just a matter of
> taste - and what Doody leaves wholly out of account is the plain fact
> that the novel as we have it is a child of the printing press.
> It's easy to think a new technology is just a distribution
> system for an old one (photography, cinema, TV, video ...) but it usually
> ain't, and printing was not merely a way of copying and distributing a
> pre-existing narrative form. It took a century or so for metamorphosis to
> complete, with late Elizabethan pamphlets at one end (Nashe et al.) and > the emergent novel at the other (Behn, Defoe et al.), but, however slow, > the change is sure, and as a long prose form written for a mass market
> served by a publishing industry much about the novel is distinctive.
> Doody's quite right to trash critical attitudes that suppose the newer
> to be intrinsically superior, and does a good rescue job for older
> romances and classical tales of various kinds, but her chosen argument
> is one long fudge.
John, you may very well be right about the importance of the printing press and the new mass market for what we call "novel". In any case, I have not studied the question enough to feel confident abut further arguing that point.
So, leaving the matter of pre-printing era long prose fiction aside, I was still a bit surprised to see you cite Defoe and Behn but not Cervantes, as I usually see "Don Quixote" mentioned as either the first true novel, or one of the first, in other books of literary history. How would you classify that work?
More information about the Lois-Bujold