Over Thanksgiving, I was visiting my family and happened to read an article in the Lansing State Journal (in the “What’s On” section). The article discussed the difference between a “film” and a “movie.” The author’s consensus seemed to be, not too surprisingly, that if and when people make a distinction between the two words, they assume that “films” are works of art, while “movies” may not be.
I wondered if this discussion could be adapted to the difference between “books” and “novels” or between a “story” and a “narrative.” Semantics aside — I realize the “novel” as a genre is usually credited to the English in the 18th century (although check out Wikipedia’s take for an interesting history lesson on this…) and a “book” can include nonfiction, children’s literature, textbooks, etc. But let’s put that distinction aside for the sake of discussion. The question of when to qualify a work as a mere book rather than as an elevated novel has been present in my life for years — when reading hundreds and hundreds of Advanced Placement literary analyses, in which students repeatedly referred to The Sun Also Rises as a “book,” I’ll admit I would cross ”book” out and write the word “novel” instead. But after a session of towering essays, little quirks of adolescent diction (like overusing the word “show” — truly, it’s amazing I never poked out my own eyes w/ a sharpened pencil). But nit-picking and self-mutilation aside, questions of semantics can be revealing.
Let’s assume for a moment that “novel” implies a work of art, while “book” not necessarily so. How do we know when to use the more elitist word? When does a book become a novel? The aforementioned papers were always on works of accepted canonical merit — The Sun Also Rises, Metamorphosis, The Great Gatsby, The Scarlet Letter, The Awakening, etc., so I knew I was safe making the (annoying) distinction.
But I am currently in the middle of creating a custom kit for A Thousand Splendid Suns — rereading it for the second time — and it doesn’t hold up quite as well the second time. Don’t get me wrong… it is still a fast-paced, page-turning read with compelling characters and a fascinating setting. But the second time around, the characters don’t seem quite as well-rounded. The bad guy (Rasheed) seems a little too bad, a little too unsympathetic, and the good guys (Mariam and Laila) seem a little too good, especially considering their surroundings and the fact that we are privvy to their private thoughts. And the writing is fast-paced and filled with nice imagery, but not quite lyrical.
So, maybe one criteria for a “novel” is that it must stand up to multiple readings? It must be able to engage the reader’s mind, heart, spirit, etc. on multiple levels the second — or sixth — read as well as the first? This is the first kit I’ve created where I’ve liked the “novel” less than the first time. In fact, since I taught To Kill A Mockingbird, My Antonia and The Color Purple, I imagined creating those kits would be easy but a little dull. In fact, I found new appreciation for each one and was reawakened to just how truly great they are. Of course, the problem with the multiple readings theory is TIME! Voracious readers rarely have time to read books once, nevermind novels twice!
Hmm..Very interesting distinction. I will definitely agree not all movies are films-most summer “blockbusters” come to mind. At the moment I am having trouble thinking of works that I have read that could be considered “novels”. I’m only in this apartment for 6 months so I didn’t want to unpack all of my books. I unpacked about 1 shelf worth of text books and business/school nonfiction, but only unpacked my Diana Gaboldon series hardcovers for fiction. These I would definitely consider to be “novels” since I am currently reading them for at least the 8th time.
I look forward to checking out Diana Gaboldon’s work — I’m not familiar with her yet. Always looking for a new “novel”!!