Complex_Dragonfly_59

Complex_Dragonfly_59 t1_j7vjom2 wrote

Absolutely! Interestingly, there are many female novelists prior to Richardson (Eliza Haywood is perhaps the best known example ) who wrote much racier, less “moral” work, which was very popular with readers of all genders. Richardson is reacting to an already well-established genre of “romances.”

26

Complex_Dragonfly_59 t1_j19apv8 wrote

The phrase often used to describe Mann’s work is that they are “novels of ideas.” I always struggled with this description because I think every compelling novel is full of ideas, but in Mann’s case, I think the phrase is intended to signal a focus on the implications of events (what do events mean) rather than the sheer narrative excitement of the events themselves. In Mann’s work, the reader is asked to do more of the work of interpretation than in a plot-based novel, which is possibly why the narrative seems “lazy.”

Mann’s kind of novel isn’t for everyone, but there are too many wonderful books in the world to worry about that! For me, this has been a really worthwhile discussion because it’s allowed me to think through a term that has puzzled me for years. Cheers.

4

Complex_Dragonfly_59 t1_iu270m8 wrote

The progression you describe (the protagonist solves a problem in a manner that produces a bigger problem; repeat to finale) is the structure of a lot of popular fiction and movies. It’s the core strategy taught in many screenwriting classes. When the strategy is well done, the action feels like the inevitable result of the protagonist’s choices. When it’s not well done, the action feels like action for its own sake. It’s a shame the format is so glaringly obvious in the book you just read.

3