Novels

An Extensive Republic - pg. 440-448
"Novels"
Elizabeth Barnes

I'm still hung up on the first paragraph, to be honest.

"At the turn of the nineteenth century, the genre of the novel was loosely defined, encompassing not only fictional narratives, but also a 'whole range of nonfictional reading materials, including sketches, captivity narratives, and travel pieces,' while works that are today readily classified as novels (e.g., Tristram Shandy) claimed other designations ('a sentimental history')." (440)

So. Here we are classifying non-fiction as "novels", while at the same time attaching labels such as "history" or "truth" to works of fiction. No wonder the history of the novel is such a complicated and interesting field of study. This passage really makes me wonder over the magical mystical written word. I mean, seriously-- what other medium could insist the truth of fiction and fiction of truth? It's madness!

But really, how cool is this? Film could never do this. Yes, I know, I talk about film a little too much for a Master of English (what, is it weird to call myself that?)-- but I can't help it. It makes me think about the movie Galaxy Quest and how the Thermians (I'm revealing my fangirl here, aren't I?) thought that the Star Trek-esque TV series "Galaxy Quest" was a "historical document", mistaking the actors in the show for an actual space crew.

It's kind of creepy, when you think about it. LabeNoling Charlotte Temple as a "tale of truth" and Tristram Shandy a "sentimental history"….giving a fictional character a gravesite?

I mean, jeez. We'd better clarify this stuff. Wouldn't want to confuse the alien visitors (or the people in the distant future!).