Talk:Great American Novel

Fair Use

Hi, @HAL333: and other willing editors. I see you're the most significant editor and have an active interest. I've recently made two additions to the table. The first Blood Meridian was already present I just fixed it. The second is Freedom. You'll notice that neither currently have their covers displayed as they aren't freely licensed or in the public domain. So I'm wondering if it is worthwhile adding fair use rationales for them, comparable to one's already present in their respective articles. DMT biscuit (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be fine. ~ HAL333

@Brandt Luke Zorn: Hi. I previously raised the issue of copyright regarding non-public domain books. I suggested they be uploaded under fair use rationales however i think the instances you implemented on Blood Meridian and Beloved are preferable. However the last example Freedom is subject to no such luxury. I feel that it's cover should be uploaded under a FU rationale; requesting your thoughts. Thanks. DMT biscuit (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: @DMT biscuit: Unfortunately, a fair-use rationale for the cover art wouldn't work here. The "identification" rationale only applies when copyrighted covers of books/movies/games/etc. are used to identify the subject of an article itself. Otherwise, the image itself has to be the subject of critical commentary. For example, the article Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time can't show the copyrighted cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band merely to visually identify the album; on the other hand, the cover image does appear in The Beatles § Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band because there's additional commentary about its historically significant graphic design. The GAN cover designs are not being commented on in this article, so we can't use a copyrighted cover design here.

That said, I just uploaded and added the title page, a basic text-only design simple enough to be in the public domain. —BLZ · talk 21:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the help - thanks again BLZ. ~ HAL333 21:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead Image

Hi, @HAL333 and Brandt Luke Zorn: Simply put, I don't think Moby Dick is the appropriate image for the lead; certainly an important book in the American literary canon, I, however, don't think it's the best image to use given the context of the article. Instead, I think Uncle Tom's Cabin should be the leading image, considering both Deforest and Buell held it in reverence and claimed it to be the closest example. It also holds more refs supporting it than Moby Dick, presently.

To avoid a repetition of the book's cover, I would recommend Uncle Tom and Little Eva be the lead image.

P.S. there's a handy article on Literary Hub which collates multiple articles discussing the GAN: Brief Survey of the Great American Novel(s). DMT biscuit (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty partial to Moby Dick, but I would be fine with you changing the lede image to that. Do you plan to nominate this for FL? ~ HAL333 19:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I would certainly like to see it raised to at least GA status—the article is categorised as an article. DMT biscuit (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I talked to one of the FL coordinators and they said it was a list... Kind of a grey area, I guess. ~ HAL333 21:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess we'll see if ever it goes through.DMT biscuit (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Image in Analysis

Do you think this section would benefit from the inclusion of an image? I'm conscious that for a small article it is has a copious amount of images. Do you think we should have a section that breaks from it or do you think it would be improved with an image? DMT biscuit (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a specific one in mind? ~ HAL333 19:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

See below. DMT biscuit (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: Hi, @HAL333 and Brandt Luke Zorn:, recently in the Analysis section I've added a para about equivalents to the GAN, including the GA painting. The one bestowed the title was Corinne Michelle West blinding lights which makes me think it should be included. The article Blinding Light: The ‘Great American Painting’? is the only place I could find a copy of it however it features a copyright tag. Thus I wonder if we should include it with a FU rationale? Also, would this tag have to be cropped and if so does that affect the FU rationale.?

The article mentioned other paintings such as American Gothic and Nighthawks, both in the public domain. If either of these are to be included i would personally elect Nighthawks as it's size would affect the article far less. Thanks. DMT biscuit (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: Any thoughts? DMT biscuit (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I prefer Nighthawks too. ~ HAL333 12:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Cool. @Brandt Luke Zorn: Any thoughts? Regarding either Nighthawks or Blindling Lights? You seem to the best of us in terms of fair use, would like to get your input of the latter at least.

I think either Nighthawks or American Gothic would be a fine choice because they've both been unambiguously established as public domain. Determining whether an American painting from 1926–1977 has entered the public domain is unusually difficult, often impossible in most cases (at least, not without being a professional art historian with access to much better information than our amateur-online-researcher resources). The problem is that—unlike for movies, books, magazines, etc.—the task of figuring out whether a painting was "published" or not is notoriously difficult. A painting's first public exhibition rarely qualifies as a "publication" for the purpose of copyright law. From an aesthetic standpoint, I prefer Nighthawks. I tried putting them side-by-side in a multi-image but their proportions are too different and American Gothic ends up looking squished. —BLZ · talk 06:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

To Kill A Mockingbird

I would like to point out that "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee is only mentioned once in the entire article. It is a very relevant and important novel that has been noted many times as the GAN. Could someone perhaps add a bit more about it in the article, and perhaps mention how it was chosen as "The Great American Read" by PBS' TV show of the same name? 174.94.0.81 (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

American Pastoral - Philip Roth

American Pastoral by Philip Roth came out in 1997, and though I enjoyed Underworld more, they are both fine novels and both should be considered the GAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.228.7 (talk • contribs)

This Wikipedia page does not decide which novels are the Great American Novel—or even which should be up for consideration—it merely records the use of the term. If you have reliable sources that discuss these books as the GAN, please feel free to post them here. — HTGS (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• The Great Gatsby Cover 1925 Retouched.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

An Important Shout-Out Has Been Left Out

This is the Great American Novel we're talking about. There has to be some reference to Snoopy somewhere.

- AAEexecutive (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Potential Addition of Middlesex

Should Middlesex by Jeffery Eugenides be added to the current list of Contenders? on its page it contains several references to critical discussion around it being a GAN contender, and is certainly a highly critically acclaimed and examined work, especially focusing on American literary topics. Underthames (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect citation

Absalom, Absalom! has been said to represent Lawrence Buell's "romance of the divide". The cited source by Adam Kirsch doesn't say that. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)