Just generically, the novel is hybrid of many traditions that are explicitly didactic in intent: the allegory (Pilgrim's Progress), satire (Cervantes, Swift) & social comedy (Austin). Didacticism is in bad repute among formalists but it is part of the novels' DNA.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It certainly was. I think non-fiction and novel adaptations resonate more now.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
IS or CAN BE?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It kind of depends on the novel, right ?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
not the crap they right nowadays.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The novel uniquely as a specific subset of art? Because it seems difficult to argue art doesn't lead to social change.
-
So if we then make the distinction by type, how do people of 2021 actually interact with novels versus say, music or movie or miniseries broadcast? Is it a tighter cluster of self selected demographic who looks to novels to turn those gears slowly to manifest output and action?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think all novels are political &some novels can cause us to rethink norms/ideas etc., but I think the Moshfegh quote is resonating bc people are reading differently, approaching story in a moralistic way, asking limiting questions like "are the characters good or relatable?"
-
Yeah, readers looking for obvious messages do a disservice to fiction. I'm just wary of not recognizing that any serious novel isn't, on some level however indirect, an argument with the world.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.