Great Novels In English: Are There Any?

[Bumfluff]

I think what zoomy and mandryka (alter egos peut-etre?) condemn in the English novel is its tendency to become a "loose baggy monster" (James). This epithet, of course, was strictly applied to a certain type of formless novel, seemingly without a controlling artistic hand at the tiller. It should be acknowledged that James' description was applied not only to English novelists (in particular Thackeray) but also Dumas and Tolstoy. Of course, this reaction overlooks such obviously intricately woven novelistic achievements as Woolf's Mrs Dalloway; Joyce's Portrait of the Artist; Conrad's Nostromo(a French novel in English, surely, if ever there were one?) and The Secret Agent; Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49; Burgess' A Clockwork Orange; Wuthering Heights; Wells' The Invisible Man; Ford's The Good Soldier; Melville's Moby Dick; Heller's Catch 22; Lawrence's Sons and Lovers; Lowry's Under the Volcano;.... [That's enough novels - Ed.]

None more loose, baggy or monstrous than Dostoyesky surely, and he was one of the antidotes..

[amateur51]

A novel is its own thing: it may be (self-evidently) good or (self-evidently) bad for various reasons; you may enjoy it or find it boring.

Certain works, like War and Peace or A la recherche du temps perdu have become, if you like, 'icons'. But that also does not not quantify their greatness as against each other or other works. The notion that other works would be just as well-known if they were 'great' novels is nonsense.

In what sense is Balzac greater than Dickens? Or Dickens greater than Gissing? Having studied literature for decades, I can't say that that was ever a consideration that arose. There's usually some kind of mundane practical reason for these 'Best Novels' 'Greatest Poets' competitions: sales, publicity &c.

The OP's focus was merely 'great' rather than 'greatest' or 'best'; but even then he wasn't able to define what he meant.

He is not alone by the look of it

[french frank]

The OP's focus was merely 'great' rather than 'greatest' or 'best'; but even then he wasn't able to define what he meant.

That's just the thread title. The OP said:

"Dickens, Melville, etc. may be OK, but did anything they did measure up to the best of the best of the Russians/French, etc?

I think not."

Which implies comparison. No?

[amateur51]

That's just the thread title. The OP said:

"Dickens, Melville, etc. may be OK, but did anything they did measure up to the best of the best of the Russians/French, etc?

I think not."

Which implies comparison. No?

Well we can agree that at best it's confused and confusing, as we have demonstrated

But if we can't define great how do we move on to a comparison?

Your move.

[french frank]

But if we can't define great how do we move on to a comparison?

Your move.

Why do you want to compare on that particular point? That's the weakness.

[amateur51]

Why do you want to compare on that particular point? That's the weakness.

I'm happy with it