Now, obviously, this reaction doesn't do a very good job of actually giving a clear definition of what a novel is and why Moby Dick "should" be classified as one. I typed in "novel" at google and got the definition "a fictitious prose narrative of book length, typically representing character and action with some degree of realism." Well, Moby Dick is definitely book length. And, though based on semi real events, it's still been fictionalized. It also has a degree of realism, so the answer is simple, right? It's obviously a novel.
If only things were that simple. We haven't gotten so far into the book that the real heavy descriptions on whaling and the ship that sound encyclopedic in nature and feel more like a how-to manual rather than a story driven by plot. Perhaps the attitude toward the book will change when it isn't conforming to what we as students and instructors understand a novel to be. Once Ishmael isn't making hilarious commentary on everything and instead is trying to teach the audience about a practice that was outlawed years ago we might change our minds on whether or not this can be classified as an entertaining read.
But that makes me wonder whether we can even really classify what a novel is in the first place. Obviously the definition has changed over the centuries. As mentioned in class, historians usually pinpoint the beginning of the novel in the 18th century, while others argue that novels are obviously found way before than. We are arbitrarily trying to confine the works of imagination and the understanding of individuals who have written about whatever tickles their fancy. The definition I cited above tries to limit novels to what has "some degree of realism" so does that not include fantasy novels and sci fi novels? Perhaps we have gone down the wrong path with constantly trying to categorize everything. Literature comes in as many shapes as human beings. No two think or say exactly the same thing, which when you think about it is incredible! There are 26 letters in the alphabet and no two books (besides reprints, come on guys) that are exactly the same. Maybe we should stop trying to force our literature into arbitrary categories and instead enjoy the richness for what it is -- the ideas and images of an individual as unique and different as ourselves.
Then again. Categorizing things makes it a lot easier to study. . .#firstworldproblems ;)
Today, it seems most critics agree with you about the limitations of classification. And as a general rule, the present age seems pretty comfortable with things that fall between categories, or that are categories unto themselves. (/Moby Dick/ certainly qualifies there!) But it's also important to remember that literary forms, however complex they may be, have histories, and that these histories in turn possess implications. In that respect, /Moby Dick/ is a fascinating tangle of networks of signification, each enigmatic passage in the text a kind of "link" to other networks. And that may help explain the value of the question of classification.
ReplyDelete