Print

Print


Still, it is reasonable to assert, for all its overlays, allsuions,
and circuitous sensibilites founded deeply in the past, THE WASTE LAND
was novel.
Childe Roland to the bildungsroman came... fee, fie....

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Jennifer Formichelli
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 2004-Oct-26 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: A novel?; a reply to Francis ; was , Re: Tarot and Huxley

Dear Francis,

I'm sorry, but I don't follow you here, or there, or elsewhere. Are the
characters in TWL really characters?  Here are my 2 cents.

Penny one:

> -- what you
> seem to be saying is that The Novel as an art form since the onset of
> Modernism is pretty much a mess compared to its late Nineteenth
century
> expression.

I hope I don't seem to be saying that, because I don't know what it
means.

Penny two:

> The point of my referring to Prufrock and TWL as novels is that they
> carry
> all of the above elements minus the flesh. Their narrative flow, their
> allusions, their conclusions have been cookbooks for modern fictive
> prose
> since their inception.

I don't think that just because Prufrock and TWL have inspired or been
alluded to in novels means they too are novels, since they aren't.
Also, what above elements? And what narrative flow, what conclusions?
Minus the flesh? I'd guess that missing the flesh is to be missing
quite a lot, though I don't think of poems as being novels without
flesh.

Do you ?

Yours, Jennifer


On Tuesday, October 26, 2004, at 11:37  AM, Francis Gavin wrote:

> I don't think it really matters whether he took it seriously or not --
> it
> only matters whether the characters in TWL take it seriously. Nor does
> it
> particularly matter whether the cards in TWL are completely accurate -
> no
> they aren't.
>
> Only the allusion as metaphor matters, as you previously mentioned.
> And in
> the novel, (at the very least since Joyce) there is a bounded,
> rule-based
> universe set about with engines and devices for purposes of
interaction
> which will, given a set of events plus a voice or set of voices,
> reveal the
> creator's intentions.
>
> And whether you accept my definition of a novel is immaterial -- what
> you
> seem to be saying is that The Novel as an art form since the onset of
> Modernism is pretty much a mess compared to its late Nineteenth
century
> expression. What kind of value you weight said mess with is a subject
> unto
> itself.
>
> The point of my referring to Prufrock and TWL as novels is that they
> carry
> all of the above elements minus the flesh. Their narrative flow, their
> allusions, their conclusions have been cookbooks for modern fictive
> prose
> since their inception.
>
>
>
> on 10/26/04 7:35 AM, Jennifer Formichelli at [log in to unmask]
wrote:
>
>> By the way, I said 'reasonably sure'. Who can be? I can be. Eliot did
>> not take fortune-telling seriously; everything he has written on the
>> subject has so suggested. Can someone show otherwise? I believe
>> someone
>> wrote in to N & Q at some point to show that even the cards in TWL
are
>> incorrect.
>