Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

    The book I'm reading at the moment, Big If by Mark Costello, is described on the blurb as being a 'Great American Novel'. So, some questions...

    Is this concept of the great national novel applied to other countries, or is it purely an American idea?

    What exactly is it? A state of the nation address? A probe into the national psyche? A snapshot of history? All of these?

    I can't think of what could be classed as the Great Scottish Novel. Maybe a McIlvanney? A Kelman? A Welsh?

    What about Kidnapped? it's got the national psyche and historical areas covered, at least.

    #2
    The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

    Lanark?

    Comment


      #3
      The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

      That's third...

      Comment


        #4
        The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

        What are the 'Great American Novels' then?

        It's something that's referred to quite a bit in other novels, films and TV - 'so-and-so's gone off to write the Great American Novel' - but I don't know if I've ever read one.

        Comment


          #5
          The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

          On the subject of Big If, I don't think I'm reading the same book as the reviewers that are quoted in the blurb.

          '...all the hi-tech thrills of an episode of 24 with dialogue worthy of The Sopranos.'

          'Big If is Taxi Driver meets The West wing.'

          Now, I've never seen The West wing but I can't see how the other three comparisons have been drawn, particularly the first one.

          Comment


            #6
            The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

            Great American Novels?

            I'll nominate The Great Gatsby.

            Perhaps Catcher In The Rye, too.

            I don't really know my Steinbeck, but I'm pretty sure Of Mice And Men would qualify.

            Comment


              #7
              The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

              I realise this won't be a popular view, but I really don't like Catcher in the Rye. It's just a spoilt rich kid from a private school wandering around New York complaining about how everybody else is such a phoney, seemingly oblivious to the fact that he's the biggest phoney in the book.

              Of Mice and Men is really short, just over a hundred pages. When I hear the words 'great American novel' I just imagine something much bigger. Not sure why. Perhaps Grapes of Wrath would fit the bill better?

              Good topic for a thread btw, I've never fully understood what is meant by 'The Great American novel' but seemingly neither do half of the people who do these book reviews.

              Comment


                #8
                The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

                It's a description I associate with Philip Roth or Don DeLillo, mostly thanks to reviewers.

                Comment


                  #9
                  The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

                  Oh and the Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye - massively overrated! Yes they are. I can't remember enough about Steinbeck even though I have read a few but he probably is and all.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

                    S'funny, but I find the concept of 'massively overrated' to be almost impossible. If a band sells a million albums, and fills concert halls, even if they're shit, they're probably not overrated. They're probably rated just right. Hence, if a book is as 'rated' as CITR or TGG, it's likely impossible for it to be overrated. Perhaps the right approach would be 'I had higher expectations'. Sorry, I'm not trying to be a dick. But the overrated thing just seems lazy to me.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

                      Guilty as charged. Far more accurate then to say that I don't understand the appeal of them one little bit, but that it's obv my personal problem as lots of other people do.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

                        The band comparison doesn't quite work for me. Boyzone sold millions of records and sold out large venues, but the music press never claimed that Boyzone were one of the great bands of the last 50 years. U2 did the same, but they often are refered to as one of the greatest bands ever - rock n' roll hall of fame, the Joshua Tree as one of the greatest albums ever etc. Boyzone aren't rated, so they can't be overrated. U2 on the other hand are overrated, because we are so often told how great they are. So it's not that they were so popular, but that there was so much consensus as to how great they are. The Catcher in the Rye is a literary equivalent of U2. Endlessly hyped as a classic 20thC novel, yet for me it was just dull. I can't think of a more appropriate description than to say it was overrated.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

                          I don't understand WOM's post at all.

                          I think the last book I read that had the label of "Great American Novel" attached to it was The Corrections. And that was very, very great indeed.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

                            Fair enough. But I think you're playing fast and loose with 'rated by fans' and 'overrated by critics'. If Boyzone are as popular as all that, then clearly they're rated by their fans. They're popular. People think they're good.
                            Flip that to say, The Fall, instead of U2. (U2 have critical appeal and they're popular, so they're an anomaly.) The Fall have strong critic backing, but have most people saying "What the fuck? That's not singing."
                            Now, back to CITR. To be fair, it's quite popular with readers and critics alike. If you didn't like it, that's fine. Perhaps it wasn't your cup of tea. More likely, you were expecting something else entirely based on what you'd heard. And I'll stick my neck out and say you're being disingenuous if you say "Nah, hadn't heard owt about it before I picked it up." Perhaps it was over-hyped, in your estimation. Maybe that's quibbling. I dunno. Maybe the frame of reference is wrong. Maybe CITR is an 'important work', rather than a 'good read'. I believe that's quite possible. See 'Trout Mask Replica' by Captain Beefheart for musical evidence of that idea.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

                              I don't understand WOM's post at all.
                              In what sense?

                              Comment


                                #16
                                The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

                                It's a description I associate with Philip Roth or Don DeLillo, mostly thanks to reviewers.
                                I always associate it with Philip Roth, too.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

                                  'To be fair, it's quite popular with readers and critics alike'

                                  So not a bad comparison to U2 then?

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

                                    This post isn't in response to anything. I'm just trying to get straight what I'm thinking:

                                    To me, to say something is overrated really means "I didn't think it was as good as I'd heard it was." or "I didn't think it was as good as I thought it would be."

                                    But to say it was overrated really says "It wasn't as good as the critic or reviewer said it was." Which isn't true. They said it was as good as they thought it was. Or, "they're not as good as their legions of fans would have you believe." Which isn't true, either. A band is exactly as good as their fans think they are. Objectively, they may not be as important to the overall musical cannon as their fans think they are (umm...see Oasis), but 'good' is a really subjective term.

                                    I think the above hold true for literature, too. To say something is overrated is to speak of your impression in the context of others' impressions. Whereas, saying "I didn't like it" is, to me, more sincere and accurate.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

                                      S'funny, but I find the concept of 'massively overrated' to be almost impossible.
                                      I agree, at least when it comes to things that are very difficult/impossible to actually rate objectively. In that circumstance, it seems to just mean, as Lyra implied, that someone doesn't like it as much as the popular consensus.

                                      Overrated is more useful as a concept when it comes to things with objectively measurable qualities, like, say, sports. For example, Derek Jeter, the NY Yankees shortstop, has been widely praised as an excellent defensive player, though most fielding statistics have him as average or much worse (NSFNBF: the link is to a long discussion of various baseball fielding metrics, and, therefore, may not be suitable for non-baseball fans). In that case, I think it's fair to say that Jeter's defense is overrated.

                                      EDIT: This might have been more germane to the discussion prior to WOM's last post, which I had not seen.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

                                        So not a bad comparison to U2 then?
                                        Not bad at all.

                                        U2 are a great case study in a lot of things. You can usually draw a line right down the middle of U2 fans. There's the pre-Joshua Tree crowd and the post-Joshua Tree crowd. I'm in the former camp. I enjoy a fair bit of their 'post' stuff, I'm sure as hell not going to be wearing a U2 t-shirt anytime soon.

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

                                          OK, I know I'm about a day late on this thread, but I think GO's "third" comment deserves a big "heh".

                                          Heh!

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            The Great (Insert Nationality) Novel.

                                            Haha re Roth. Now I feel like a twit. I honestly don't think I'd heard of that novel but maybe I had and had forgotten.

                                            Comment

                                            Working...
                                            X