
Why the Novel Matters - pepys
https://www.newstatesman.com/%E2%80%8Beimear-mcbride-goldsmiths-lecture-why-the-novel-matters
======
Tycho
I heard one person say that reading a novel is the only time most people would
engage with something that has a complex logical/abstract structure. Must
people in their daily lives would not do anything like research or engineering
work.

------
Animats
Summary: Why novels are important, by a novelist.

Arguably, novels have been superseded by series. A single fiction book today
is a trial balloon. If it sells, sequels, trilogies, and more trilogies
follow. Book tours. Merchandise, and a movie or TV deal may follow.

The goal today is to create a brand. The brand may survive the author, as Tom
Clancy(tm) has done.

Shakespeare wrote for the box office. Dickens was serialized in newspapers.
Real authors sell.

~~~
keiferski
This is what happens when you let the businesspeople determine societal
values.

~~~
clSTophEjUdRanu
Business people don't determine societal values. Societal values determine the
values of business people.

------
sezna
This article feels disorganized. He switches context freely without alerting
the reader. I cannot tell if it is an intentionally wistful style, or just
disorganization. I’m curious, since the author claims to be a novelist and
obviously cares deeply about the state of the modern novel, why is it written
this way?

If you’re the author, I’d love to hear your response.

~~~
slowmovintarget
Having read the article, I don't think it is disorganized. It makes an
assertion, supports the assertion, explores the consequences, then returns to
another aspect of the assertion. In the end, she returns to the theme and
restates it.

The context switches, such as they are, come with the traditional signal to
most readers: the paragraph. Yet each paragraph is built in sequels (like you
would a novel): action (assertion), reaction (consequence).

Paragraph by paragraph:

Assertion from title: Novels are still important.

Question: Are they really? Reflection as context.

Assertion: I fear modern media leaves me only frightened.

Contradiction: Realization -- It won't.

Assertion: Novels exist outside of the political upheaval they arise from.

Resolution: _Doctor Zhivago_ as example of proof.

Section break (as a notice to the reader).

Assertion: Novels are an intimate communication between writer and reader.

Contradiction: "No one reads books anymore."

Assertion: People still read books.

Reflection: Orthodoxy of publishing and consumption has changed.

Assertion: The novel's purpose is to encapsulate its own world ("to be what it
is").

Reflection: _Anna Karenina_ was not the novel Tolstoy set out to write, but it
was the novel he had to write because he was skilled enough to write it. The
story was in control.

Resolution: Good novels matter because they exist as complete in themselves
without being slaves to the social forces from which they arise.

Break

...

She continues in this form, weaving layers onto the theme, like one writes a
novel. It seems to me like a clever way to write an editorial.

------
scottlocklin
Can HN name any living modern novelists who matter? Not science fiction
cheese, or mediocrities touted by the NYC circle-jerk; someone who will be
remembered in 100 years. Cormac Mccarthy is the only one that comes to mind.
Maybe Tito Perdue. That's pretty much all I can think of for English language
anyway.

~~~
clSTophEjUdRanu
Stephen King, David Mitchell off the top of my head.

~~~
spookybones
Stephen King definitely has a chance, not particularly for his craft, but his
memorable characters. Carrie, It, Christine, Annie Wilkes, and Jack Torrance
to name a few. Granted, movies will definitely help his longevity.

