is+this+a+novel?

We have read this God-awful book that has been labelled a novel. But I do not think that this work can be called a novel.

Let's all ignore Smiley for a second. A novel is supposed to have an introduction, rising action, a climax, falling action, and a conclusion. But "Jacob's Room" is relatively lacking in all of these. The "introduction" is dsupposed to be the time in which characters are introduced. But in this book, it is merely a time at which we are plunged into a time and place so suddenly that we have no idea what's going on for some time. Furthermore, there is little to no rising action. All we get are a few abstract allusions to military mobilization. And there is no conflict. It's supposed to be this time at which Jacob is unable to continue favoring classics, but I found nothing that could imply this except for the end, in which Jacob has simply run away. Even taking this as evidence of a climax is risky, because it is so ambiguous. And there is no falling action, nor is there a conclusion. The book just ends with the mention of a pair of shoes.

So, what do you think? Is this worthless work a novel? 1201368774

added in an edit today: One of you guys proposed that I am just saying that I am making my conclusion because I hate this book. Not so. There are other novels out there that I don't like (i.e. Pride and Prejudice), but they still qualify as novels. They fit my requirements. This atrocity does not.

First of all, I wouldn't call Jacob's Room a worthless work, but I do agree that it doesn't fit the traditional definition of a novel. If Woolf was indeed trying to put a spin on what a novel is, she certainly succeeded. Was Woolf just trying to see how far she could stretch her work until it can no longer be considered a novel? I agree that there really isn't any introduction in Jacob's Room. Throughout the book Woolf fails to introduce readers to new characters. I know that this led to a lot of my confusion because it doesn't separate the important characters to the less important characters. Due to the jumping of the plot through out the book there isn't really a consistent problem or conflict that readers can follow through out the story. Woolf definitely created a one of a kind work. I would almost say that Jacob's Room is a series of very short stories that share some common themes and rely on common events that are about the same character. I think that the book is more true to this definition than the definition of a novel. How far can the definition of a novel be pushed before a work is no longer a novel? Has Woolf reached this limit with this book?1201493827

Although I didn't despise this book as much as JHe seemed to, I do have to admit that the book doesn't seem to qualify as a novel, at least with the traditional definition of having an introduction, rising action, climax, falling action, and conclusion. It is completely stream-of-consciousness and doesn't seem to follow the typical story outline. But if Jacob's Room isn't a novel, what is it? I can't imagine it being called a short story either. It's obiously not poetry. Now that I'm considering it more, I think that Jacob's room could be considered a novel, although the requirements certainly do not come in order. We are introduced to characters with simply their name most of the time and then we learn about them later through their actions and how they relate with others. Though it's not the traditional introduction, we are introduced to the setting, background, and characters. The introduction is present all throughout the novel. As for rising action, climax, and falling action, I'm not sure... the book felt rather calm throughout, so I can't think of a climax off the top of my head. Any thoughts anyone? Even though the book "just ends with the mention of a pair of shoes," it has a conclusion nonetheless. The conclusion does not have to be completely satisfying to the readers to be considered a conclusion.1201568167

Ok... we were talking about this in class today, and I think that I've been convinced that it is a novel. It has all the separate parts of a novel, just repeated at times, and at others, hidden. I think that because we are plunged into the beginning of the novel at the shoreline, we are introduced to several characters that have main impacts in the rest of the book. Just because the timeline jumps around like crazy, doesn't mean that no climax, rising action, or conclusion exists. I think that all of us are used to the outlined story with everything in place before we even reach that part of the story. We can almost predict what will happen, when the next action scene is going to appear, and when the action will be over. I think that several times throughout this novel we see all of those things. I don't even think that it's a bunch of separate stories. If we were to write our own lives down on pieces of paper, I'm sure that at least half of them would be just as confusing because of the random things that happen to us every day, the people we meet, and the choices we make. I think that Woolf isn't giving us the cookie-cutter story, but molded her own story over and over again. 1201573887

this book is definately walking a fine line between being a novel and not being one. I agree with john's argument wholeheartedly, however I do have one argument with his theory. If this book is not a novel, how would you classify it. It must be classified into some larger grouping other than "book" so I wonder what John whould classify it as. I do not think it can be nonfiction, it has to be fiction of some sort. Also, it isn't poetry, its prose so that narrows it down. I think for this reason it would have to be classified as a novel but for all other reasons I do not see how it can be one. To me, it seems more like a satire, though Jacob's room isn't particularly strong on its demeaning connections to political or social life at the time. It's text follows the same sort of style; the author focuses less on understanding of the plot and more on the underlying issues. user:PSp-c

I admit to being thoroughly befuddled by this question. John's objection to it being a novel seems based on what he sees as a lack of dynamic plot development. I'd say that this, if it is such, is merely a disagreement with one of Woolf's artistic choices, a technical device in the narrative. But it doesn't touch the generic form of the book at all.

It does meet Smiley's criteria for a novel ... and almost anyone else's. It may not meet one's individual criteria for a "good" novel or an "exciting" novel" ... but it is a novel. John's second sentence begins with "A novel is supposed to ..." but I'm not sure who is doing the supposing. Who laid down that law?1201575994

I think that Woolf is just using her creative license as a writer to sneak around the general form of a novel, but I think that it meets the definition of a novel. It may seem like it doesn't have a plot or climax or anything because it contains so many plots and scenes that jump around. Toward the end, this novel started to grow on me, and I realized that although it's confusing, you just need to break the code that is Woolf's writing. Once you figure out how it works, it is clear that this is not only a novel, but a really ingenious literary work. I think the central plot is there, and maybe some other mini plots throughout, and it is just confusing because it isn't all laid out at one time. The plot comes through in various spots and travels back and worth a lot, but in the end, I think you could put together a substantial plot line for this book and I certainly would say it could be called a novel, with conflict, and a climax, and everything that classifies a novel. 1201639530

I hate to say it but I think this book is a novel too. I see the debate of calling this particular book a novel comparable to some of the poems we’ve read in class. There are quite a few poems that are supposed to be in a set form, have a set rhyme scheme, and have a set number of lines. However, it is easy to see just how much poets play around with the rules regarding poetic form. If poets are allowed just as much poetic license as they want, why can’t other writers enjoy the same freedom? It seems to me that people are having a difficult time with the unconventionality of the work. Just because Woolf’s work is unconventional does not mean that we have to exclude it from being a novel. Look at ee cummings. His poems are strange and don’t seem to fit any forms but they actually do in some strange ways. In some strange ways, Woolf’s work does fit as a novel and that’s all it needs. Just because it does not follow a conventional plot line does not mean that it needs to be excluded. Some people have raised the question of “what is this book if it’s not a novel?” If you look at poetry, they have a simple solution…free verse. The poems don’t fit into any particular form so they just call it free verse. Why can’t we do the same? If the book is not a novel, why can’t it just be fiction? 1201648113

I’m sorry John, but I do not think that your definition of a novel is accurate. If a novel only needs to have an introduction, rising action, a climax, falling action, and a resolution, then “The Tempest” would have to be considered a novel. Obviously it isn’t. The term novel deals with more than just a specific structure. But nevertheless, __Jacob’s Room__ is considerably different than the typical form for a novel, so does it still fit into the category of a novel?

Personally, I stand by what I said in class. I think that this book is a fictional biography. An historical biography deals with the life of a person, as Virginia’s book does. Within a biography, the biographer will often give snippets of events and the lives of certain people contemporary to the central character’s life in order to give the reader knowledge of that particular time frame. __Jacob’s Room__ has many such snippets, which may or may not involve Jacob but are nonetheless characteristics of his society. And a biography will not have the aforementioned structural elements because a person’s life does not build to a crescendo in the way that a true story might. Likewise, this book has no crescendo and needs none. Whether or not a fictional biography is a novel I cannot really say, but maybe it might help you accept the unorthodoxy a little more. 1201656698

Yes, of course it's a novel! It kind of bothers me why we have to beat these things to death. If Virginia Woolf wants her book to be a novel, and she calls it a novel, then why can't we just accept it? It has the important characteristics that make a novel a novel, so why can't we just call it a novel. Why do we constantly have to box things in? Why do we have to challenge the title given to this great piece of literature? It's an author using her gift of writing in great length, and therefore it is a justified novel. Any questions? 1201658798

Well, this topic is certainly fun. I'm going to continue to stand by my opinion that this is not a novel. Just because a novel does meet someone else's requirements for being a novel does not mean that the ruling is absolute truth. We can disagree with what these people say. I think Gass and Nobokov are both idiots, for example. My requirements for being a novel are obviously different. I stand by what I said before. It has to have rising action, climax, etc., but also must meet some of the standards Smiley metions (I concede that). And as I outlined before, this work is lacking in all these and therefore, to ME, not a novel.

TRu: I read your statement on the Tempest and I have this to say: The crescendo is not unique to the novel. Anything can have it. My journals for Fr. Bob can have it. But that doesn't make them novels. What does make a novel? I just told you above.

So what is it? Who knows. Woolf's works are unique. But they aren't novels. Maybe they fit under some new, unknown type of literature. Quite honestly, I don't care. For to me, they all fall into one category: GARBAGE. This woman writes like an opium addict.

There, I said it. My opinion on Woolf's works will not change, so don't try to persuade me. I'm a German Catholic. I'm stubborn. Sorry. 1201662240

Ah, well, sorry John, but you need to learn a little tact. Everything is not awesome or worthless. Also, I might tend to think that this is indeed a novel, and by no stretch either. The fact that the story is slightly harder to follow because there are intermitten thoughts does not affect the fact that there is a story, with characters, setting, plot, etc. For instance, in your first argument you yourself admit that there are references to these, and actions in the plot, etc, but that it's somewhat ambiguous. It's not really ambiguous, persay, just in Woolfe's great woman-minded-style, she alludes to all the actions by not directly stating the actions themselves. One of your favourites: the ending in Jacob's Room. Well yes, they do not admit "HE IS DEAD!" - that wouldn't be VW's style. Hers deals more with, describing everything else to get an idea of what's there or what's missing. Like abstract art's use of empty space, or foreground images to block the subject from view. You learn what's happening from studying the effects of what has happened on everything else. If a woman lost her son, for instance, describing a flow of water down rosy red cheeks, and flood of all this bending the light of the image of the last shoes her son wore all portray "he's dead" (yes, I know it didn't happen like I described it, it was an example) The fact that the whole book uses this technique is interesting, but does not disqualify it from being a novel. Dracula etc. are all novels, and it doesn't even flow paragraph to paragraph. It's a series of letters but expressing a continuous plot, etc. It's a novel.

BTW I don't think it lacks the other stuff you described, but remember, novels don't have a rigid structure. count the number of rising actions, climaxes, etc. in some of the most popular novels, or even unpopular ones (to us) and you'll see that just as many as strictly follow the regular setup don't follow the regular setup.

1201664807

I understand if JHe decides not to follow the definition given by Smiley, Gass, or Nobokov. Certainly, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and that is what their works were -- their opinions on literature. However, I would find it hard to dispute the given definition given by the dictionary of what a novel is

an invented prose narrative that is usually long and complex and deals especially with human experience through a usually connected sequence of events http://www.m-w.com/dictionary

For all of Virginia Woolf's jumping around between different characters and different scenes, the book definitely follows a sequential organization. Even if it did not, the definition allows that saying "usually". The definition allows the artistic leeway for writers like Virginia Woolf to interpret the novel genre in whatever way suits them. The important part of the definition is that it deals with human experience, the common triumphs and trials that we all experience at some time in our lives. Virginia Woolf's focus on how little we actually know about our fellow man, even our closest friends, delves intimately into the human experience and the various psyches of her many, many characters. I would without a doubt say that Jacob's Room is a novel; it clearly fits the given definition. 1201748821

I don't really understand the point in arguing over whether this book is a novel or not. Here's my question: Would you read it differently if it was not considered a novel? I don't think I would. It's a narrative with ficticious prose. It has length, and it definitely has complexity. But what really is the importance of the title "novel"? Is it an insult to say that Jacob's Room isn't a novel? I don't really think it is. This book is a book--novel or not. However, I do think it's funny how this book is "novel" in another sense. It's style was new--something not seen before. I guess I'll just think of it in that way rather than arguing over the other unclear meaning of the word "novel." 1201751466

woah, this topic is quite intense. jhe, you are titled to your opinion, but you are overreacting, which is frankly faulting your own logic: you are arguing that the work is not a novel, when all you are really saying is that it is garbage. so, in your opinion, it is a crappy novel. who says a novel must be a good book? one cannot argue against a fact; if the book fits a definition, it is a novel, just as it fits into the category of fiction. in one's opinion, it may be bad fiction or pointless fiction, but it is still fiction, just as it is still a novel. __jacob's room__, however random and twisted, is narrative; however profound, is prose; however distorted, is a written series of events with characters.

MOrEovEr, //in my opinion//, this WAS a good novel. it was different, deep, thought-provoking, and most of all, it was written in one of my favorite styles --yes-- stream-of consciousness. what is a more appropriate manner to compose a "long and complex [narrative that]deals especially with human experience" (m-w.com/dictionary defn) than through the means of human thought, aka writing in the way that we //think//. what is more, woolf wrote about her passions --all the topics discussed and more, including the potential of women and the meaning of life-- and about the behavior of people in general. it is so applicable to anyone who takes the time and effort to listen.

it made me think about the interconnectedness of human nature, about the vaguely explainable--but nevertheless important--observances and events in life, about the mystery and paradox of life. Despite the absence of a personal education, Woolf blended intellect and intrigue into her novel, crafting more than a mere book, but rather a work of art. It is fluid and creative. Rather than reading as far as I wanted, the novel encouraged me to read past my own experiences and into a different realm.

that's right 1201752474

Wow, okay. So I also have to say that I totally think that this is a novel. As KGa pointed out, it's a narrative, it has fictional prose, it has length and it is extremely complex. To me this is a novel. It might have been written differently than the novels that we are used to reading but that doesn't mean that it isn't one, it just made it a little bit harder to understand. Every writer has a different style and Woolf's just happens to be a little confusing and although it sometimes seems like a totally random work until you get into it, I still believe that it is a novel and that is the opinion that I am going to stick with.1201814009

I guess I am confused by this topic. I have always considered this to be a novel. TRu brought up that it was a biography, and I wonder if biographies cannot be novels sometimes too. What defines a novel? There are the many interpretations set out by Gas and others, but to me a novel includes characters within a plotline. Jacob's Room does just that. Maybe I do not have a very strict definition of a novel but I also do not understand why this has bothered so many people. True, there are poetic sections to the book and long stints of description, but it is all put in there for a reason. All of the description is necessary to help the story develop and flourish as it does. Again, I would agree that it is not your typical novel, but what is a typical novel? And why do we always have to read them? 1201825412

KRi, I really have to agree with you, and I also really enjoyed how you compared the novel to music because in all reality they are both forms of art. I think that "Jacob's Room" is a novel, obviously not in the traditional sense, but its sort of like the poetry book. The poems at the beggining of a section of poetry are clear cut and directly follow the established pattern and all the rules, but the last poems of a section don't even seem like they belong. That is "Jacob's Room." Woolf's book is a novel that doesn't seem like a novel, but certainly is a novel. I also agree with KRi on her point that if we really wanted to fully understand what Woolf is trying to tell us in this novel that we would have to read it a multiple of times. Br. Tom said he read this book like 6 or 7 times, and his much deeper understanding during class discussions is clearly evident. I did find the book annoying at times because it jumped around alot, but it was also cool because it was different. Lots of writers these days try too hard to imitate others' works when they could be developing their own unique writing styles like Virginia Woolf. Just think what would happen to literature if more authors wrote books like Virginia Woolf, books that don't quite follow the definition of a novel. 1201841771

When i read this topic i thought about how debatable we were over Gass's opinions over characters. Well, in this case i think we are doing the same type of arguing. Some of us did not agree at all with what he was saying and had our own ideas of what is right and wrong when it comes to our relationship with characters and how we should read a book. We deviated from what he was saying to justify our opinions and i think we can deviate a little from the concrete and straightforward definition of a novel. We cannot say that a novel has to fit these requirements becuase we will have too many novels that are reduced by our ideals into a nothing that is just a bunch of pages put together. I don't think that that is fair to the novel at all. I agree with most of us here that Jacob's Room is a novel. Who cares if I can't fill the spots of the rising action or the climax or whatever. Some novels that do have a climax can be weak climaxes...does that make it any less a novel? I don't think so and that is why i think we should have a more lenient point of view. 1201884422

As most other of my classmates agree, __Jacob’s Room__ is a novel… just not in the typical sense. We all have clearly defined ideas of what constitutes a “novel” due to our varying interests in literature; clearly some of us are prone to disagree due to differing perspectives. __Jacob’s Room__ certainly isn’t the “cookie cutter” model of a novel, but that is actually what I like about it. I am glad that AHA brought up the definition of a novel to us: “an invented prose narrative that is usually long and complex and deals especially with human experience through a usually connected sequence of events.” Breaking down the pieces of the definition helps prove to me that __Jacob’s Room__ is indeed a novel: Any opinions aside, I think we can all agree that __Jacob’s Room__ is an “invented prose narrative” in which Woolf tells the story of a man named Jacob. Also, I think many students will agree that this story is not necessarily long but “complex.” The rich details and stream-of-consciousness style makes this a challenging read but also an engaging experience. The novel definitely deals with human experience through the several characters portrayed; at the same token, these “human experiences” are linked to one another, thus validating the “connected sequence of events” in a novel. By the way jhe, it may be a little extreme to call Jacob’s Room an “atrocity.” Being open-minded never hurt anybody. :) 1201890721

Sorry JHe, I'm going to have to agree with the majority of everyone else who has posted on this: __Jacob's Room__ is definitely a novel. Don't get me wrong, I didn't like it either, but I see no evidence to suggest that it's not a novel. We discussed in class how it's written in a style that's unlike any other around this time. It's certainly stream-of-consciousness, but that doesn't mean that it's not a novel. If it weren't a novel, what would it be considered? It's certainly not a short story, it's not a play, and it's not a poem. Actually, the definition of a novel that I found seems to fit __Jacob's Room__ quite well. "a fictitious prose narrative of considerable length and complexity, portraying characters and usually presenting a sequential organization of action and scenes." __Jacob's Room__ is certainly a prose narrative, it has the correct length to be a novel, and as we all know, it's //extremely// complex. We may not completely understand the "sequential" nature of the novel, considering that it jumps around quite a bit, but it's still there. It's hard to understand, but there's still a plot involved. I think there's overwhelming evidence that __Jacob's Room__ is a novel, albeit hard to comprehend at times. 1201898906

While I will be the first one to admit that I never had an enjoyable moment reading this book that does not mean that it is not a novel, it just didn't have things in it that I ususally enjoy in a novel (such as the plot that you suggested) but that does not mean that it should be cast out of being a novel just because one element is missing. The thing is I'm not even sure that the plotline is missing from the novel. Now I do realize that it by far doesnt fit the normal plotline that looks like this: However that dosnt mean that the plotline is completely missing it has just been adapted to fit the new form of writting that Wolf is trying out. The novel __Jacob's Room__ has a plotline that looks more like a scatter plot. Each dot appears to be completely separate from eachother however they tend to stay near a line that runs throughout the novel and builds up towards the end. If you notice throughout the book Jacob begins to develope more and more as a character and the threat of war begins to be ever more present. This culminates in the climax of the last page in which Jacob is dead and all we are left with is his room. Looked at this way the plotline of __Jacob's Room__ looks more like this: It is definently not traditional and I would definently argue that it wasnt really enjoyable but as you can see from this conception there is a definent pattern to the seeming madness that can be seen as forming a plotline.

From Shakespeare's //Romeo and Juliet//, 1594:

JULIET: 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy; Thou art thyself, though not a Montague. What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot, Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part Belonging to a man. O, be some other name! What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd, Retain that dear perfection which he owes Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name, And for that name which is no part of thee Take all myself.

The point is that it doesn't matter what the book is called. It is what it is. Whether you want to call it a fictional biography or a novel neither gives nor takes anything from the work itself. Would anyone really think any differently of it if it was classified as a fictional biography rather than a novel? What matters is what Woolf wrote, not the classification of what she wrote. 1201916527

While this book may not fall into some traditional concepts of what it takes to earn the apparently prestigious title of a novel, I think that it is, and that it pushes back the limits of what a novel can do. Some people are defending the concept of a novel as if it is some kind of exclusive club that only certain things can get into but does really all a novel seems to need is some kind of story that is written in prose, and that is long enough to escape the classification of short story. Jacobs Room has all of that and more. Jacobs room has also added something that had never before even been attempted by novels, the ablitiy to be more like real life. In real life we don't get a nice even plot line with a climax at the end. If we were to graph a line of our life, (which is something I seem to remember doing recently) it would have many peaks, and vallys and would be all over the place, because we can't always be up and we can't always be down. Woolf is able to make a book that captures a better glimpse of what life is like that any "novel" that came before it and that does not seem like a good enough reason to declare that it has not earned the title of novel. 1201921555

Well first of all JHE, I would have to say that your forceful language and hatred toward this book in your statement is only asking for forceful or rude contradiction. Perhaps try to state your argument in more objective or humble terms and it will be received with much more objectivity and acceptance. But anyway, on to the question. I don't really see the point in having such strict rules and definitions for novels, or any art for that matter. When you start making rules and restrictions, you are doing a diservice to the art. You are impeding change and progress. Yes, this type of novel like Virginia Woolfe's "Jacob's Room," with its scattered plot and stream of consciousness type of style, may even cause for a change to our commonly held beliefs about what a novel or work of fiction actually is. But that isn't necessarily bad. Just because the future changes does not mean that the past will change. Books like this will not ruin the plot and writing style of other novels before it, no matter how contempory, modern or different its own may seem. I say, allow for change and adaptation, afterall that is how we got to where we are now. Why would we put the breaks on our creativity and imagination now?1201931126

Yea, JHe i can see where you would begin to doubt this book being a novel because of its unorthodox style, but you should try to see the value it has. Despite its lack of a normal plot and straightforward motion, the book still tries to get the same points across as any other traditional novel would. What I did to reconcile the seemingly large difference between this book and other novels was compared it to some of the poetry we have read. Even though something may break a few of the established rules of being a villanelle or a sestina, it still doesn't make it any less of one. The whole modern movement is about modification and personalization that comes with the kind of individualism we have today, and Jacob's Room is a very good example of that. Woolf communicated her thoughts and ideas to us in a way that was easiest for her, and in her case it wasn't a traditional novel, but it still fits most of the other characteristics. That's why i think this book is a great example of a modern novel. 1201931376