Print

Print


Penny one: It means I gleaned Madame Bovary to be your prime citation of
what you considered to be a novel as literary form as opposed to a poem like
TWL. I found it rather telling that you would compare something from the
Nineteenth with something from the Twentieth century.  While Bovary is a
book with a theme that is timeless, it is still very much a book of its
time. And between that time and the coming of Modernism everything changed
forever. I think a person who was brought forward in time from the 1920's
would have a much better chance of grasping and surviving in this world,
this time, than one brought from the 1860's to the 1920's. Few people from
Flaubert's period would have considered TWL a novel or a poem.



on 10/26/04 8:47 PM, Jennifer Formichelli at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> 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: I wasn't referring to the allusive metaphor of Prufrock and TWL
as directly cited in other novels -- I was referring to the narrative voice
or voices in the works themselves and their components. About which you also
misconstrue my point. It is not that any given novel owes its existence to
these two works, it is that their elemental constructs, their very voices
got into the language the way Poe and Baudelaire and LaForgue and perhaps
most importantly Conrad got into them and that recombinant literary DNA
spread into the system of literature like a virus where it lives to this
day.

The flesh, if you want to beat on that perhaps unfortunate metaphor just a
little longer is just a quantifier. A fat book is only a fat book. Lots of
those, few that are art even among the ones purported to be. As far a being
a novel minus the flesh I think of Joyce and "Sphoenix...a happy novel in a
single word." With what what might be considered at best to be only the
skeletal working points of a novel regarding either Prufrock or TWL I see
the flesh. Its lack of physical intrusiveness makes it all the more present.


on 10/26/04 8:47 PM, Jennifer Formichelli at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> 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 ?