Talk:Great American Novel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Gravity's Rainbow and Slaughterhouse 5

If someone could clear this up for me I'd be very grateful. The idea that a Great American Novel embodies "the spirit of life in the United States at the time of its writing" seems at odds with some of the examples. Gravity's Rainbow, for example, or Slaughterhouse 5, don't focus on life in the US, or life at the time of writing, both being set predominantly in Europe during WWII. Over here in Britain, we might describe some works that attempt to deal with contemporary national identity as being 'State of the Nation' novels; Dickens provides many classic examples, Martin Amis, London Fields or Zadie Smith's White Teeth would be more modern examples. Would the phrase Great American Novel be used in a similar way, something I could see in Huck Finn or Gatsby, or is it used more extensively to refer to any novel that happens to be 'great' and by an 'American', regardless of subject matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.170.105 (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Gravity's Rainbow and Slaughterhouse 5 are poor examples & that this represents a confusion between "THE GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL" and "really, really great American novels" (in some people's minds). It would seem to me that, at a minimum, The Great American Novel must deal with life in America. Over time, this could be corrected in the article by insisting that editors give references for these examples... Did acknowledged critics really tout Gravity's Rainbow and Slaughterhouse 5 as The Great American Novel? 140.139.35.250 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Gravity's Rainbow is called The Great American Novel here. It is also referenced as The Great American Novel on page 1 of A Gravity's Rainbow Companion, here Wolfehhgg (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for adding to this discussion without proper citations, but it could be easily argued that Slaughterhouse Five is more about the American wartime experience with a specific focus on how Americans are seen as particularly violent, war-like people, as when Billy Pilgrim tries to warn the Tralfamadorians about the human ability to destroy the universe based at least somewhat on the American work on the atomic bomb. ~~ChristianH~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.30.137 (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Slaughterhouse Five belongs (as do pretty much everything Vonnegut did) in the SciFi category. Besides that, it really doesn't fit the criteria of being an epic (which is often something seen as requisite for bestowing the mantle of The Great American Novel, hence the adjective 'great'). This whole article is a bit nebulous to be quite frank. Outside of some critical analysis (by which I mean scholarly works, not book reviews which are mostly paid opinions) there isn't a whole lot of readily available information to give a concrete definition to what is or isn't The Great American Novel. And critical analysis isn't the sort of work Wikipedia is meant to do. But I will concur that Gravity's Rainbow and Slaughterhouse-Five, while great books (and by great I mean works of genius), and American books, aren't quite what I think of when I think of The Great American Novel. They aren't definitive period pieces -- hell, Gravity's Rainbow almost thirty years after the war ended. If The Great American Novel has anything to do with zeitgeist, on that ground alone Pynchon's two greatest works (the other being Mason & Dixon don't really fit the bill. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed Gravity's Rainbow from the list of novels considered to be The Great American Novel because the citation offered does not refer to it as such. "piu' importante romanzo americano del secondo dopoguerra, Gravity's Rainbow di Thomas Pynchon (romanzo mai pubblicato in Italia, con grande vergogna dell'editoria nazionale)." English translation "most important American novel of post-WWII era, Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon (a novel never published in Italy, why great shame of the national publishing industry)". -Guido Almansi, L'estetica dell'osceno (1994), p.226. The most important American novel is not the same as The Great American Novel. Please don't add this title back to the list without a citation that refers to it as The Great American Novel. -ErinHowarth (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I restored Gravity's Rainbow to the list and added Wolfehhgg's citations to the article because they really do refer to the novel as The Great American Novel. -ErinHowarth (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am removing Gravity's Rainbow from the list because the sources are inadequate. The first is a hyperbolic review on what seems to be an independent website that is not trying to be scholarly. The second source indirectly quotes other critics thought to have found the GAN at last. Kafkabot83 (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sarcastic Usage

This is far from my field of expertise, so can someone add something about the sarcastic usage of the term "great American novel" and associated cultural references? This term, in my view, is used more often to ridicule someone than to give praise to anything. Like some blowhard with no career and no grip on reality, someone asks, "What's he doing now, anyway?" Someone replies, "I don't know, I think he's writing the great American novel..."--208.127.100.147 (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)--208.127.100.19 (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

McCarthy

While there is no telling if either of them agree with the Great American Novel criteria listed in this article, but both Roger Ebert and Harold Bloom have, perhaps unfortunately, called Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West by that name, as Google searching seems to support, though I have been unable to find a direct citation after a mere 15 minutes of browsing those results. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 23:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wire

Admittedly not a novel, however the HBO TV series The Wire can in some ways be seen to fulfill that role of the Great American Novel ... often cited as a televised 21st century War and Peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.122.147 (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC) This is the first time I've ever heard that. I've watched all the episodes of it, and read many Great American Novels in my time. I just don't understand what this comment serves, as it's not eligible for this page and cannot better the page. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as harsh; just found your comment more than slightly bizzare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.0.201 (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a Solution -- start an article on other forms of media and how the Great American Novel concept informs the idea of TV today. Otherwise, this article is for books. Whether on paper or a Kindle, it's still about books and only books (and for that matter, only novels meeting a certain criteria).Ryecatcher773 (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Completely disagree. I think The Wire fits perfectly into this category. The great American novel concept needs to be revised to incorporate all of the new forms of media currently present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.117.139 (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If we have reliable sources calling it the "great American novel" it fits here. If we don't, it doesn't. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Huck Finn Image

Don't get me wrong, I think Huck Finn is great and very worthy of the title, but having a photo of its cover near the top of the article might lead some to believe its status as the 'Great American Novel' to be a foregone conclusion. An article void of anything absolute would be the most worthwhile one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.131.20 (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well... to be fair --- and I say this having heard it countless times over the past 30 years from various teachers, professors and lit buffs, (and having read it a few times -- both as an assignment and on my own) --- Huck Finn is widely considered to be the original (or if you prefer definitive) work of the genre known as the G.A.N. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting argument you made (and then deleted for whatever reason). But consider this: 'widely held beliefs' and 'opinions' are in fact what define things as being great. In a Platonic sense, there is not an undisputed model of a 'great' anything somewhere that we can compare and contrast to. What is defined as being 'great' is entirely up to posterity. There is no source that will undeniably trump every other in an uncontested argument on what the Great American Novel is... (and FYI, before I forget, a G.A.N. is not a single genre unto itself). No one is contesting The Great Gatsby either... but chronologically, Huck Finn does precede it by nearly 40 years. A better argument would be for comparing opinions on Twain's magnum opus with Moby Dick. Although only part of that book even takes place in America, it holds up without much argument given the centralized theme Ishmael is narrating (in attempting to transcend borders and connect the whole world together through whaling).

Twain gets the nod from many scholars for his move away from romanticism, which is what defined older generations of lit that aren't American in origin. Melville and Hawthorne both being truly great writers, were a little high-brow and old-world leaning in their pursuits (i.e. not the zeitgeist of American culture by the end of the 19th century). Twain is at the beginning of a new tradition that is completely American in its premise. Either way, 'truths' bend a knee to opinions in cases such as the one we are debating. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember exactly why I deleted my response, but I think it had something to do with my sudden desire to avoid online debates in which I presented poorly-informed arguments written feverishly in the dead of night, something along those lines. Anyway, you had me sold with the romanticism bit. Mark Twain created truly American fiction I suppose. Great job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.131.20 (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A Thought on the Criteria of the Great American Novel

There are times in U.S. history when its citizens were forced to go abroad: Namely, wars. I propose that any novel dealing with Americans in:

• The Spanish-American War (especially the Philippene Islands theater) and its aftermath
• The Second Indo-China (U.S./Vietnam) War and its aftermath
  
• WWI and its aftermath
• WWII and its aftermath
• The Korean War and its aftermath
  

be considered as happening in the U.S. for the purpose of this list.
I'm sure that I'm missing others, but these are all that I can think of off of the top of my head.<br. />—NBahn (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that it's not a malleable subject that we can mold to fit. True, while wars (particularly the Civil War and WWII) have had a huge effect on the zeitgeist of eras in American history (and by default becoming either directly or indirectly a factor in a story's setting) war novels (meaning book s that take place in a theater of operation) in and of themselves -- no matter how great -- are not typically considered The Great American Novel.

Here's the thing to remember as a rule for grading The Great American Novel criteria: just because a novel is great, and written about an Americans, by an American, does not necessarily qualify it as The Great American Novel. It's a novel that captures the essence of the general experience of what a period in American history was like for the average person. It may include some remarkable feats (hence distinguishing it as worthy of a story in the first place), but it's not meant to be exclusionary to those who didn't, say for example, fight in a war. Hemingway's For Whom The Bell Tolls and Mailer's The Naked and the Dead are both epic pieces of war-related writing, and are considered among the 20th century's great works, but they aren't The Great American Novel.

Remember, this is a narrow category, and it isn't up to us as WP editors to have a panel discussion on what makes the list and what doesn't. Large bodies of literary criticism over a period of time (and guidance from groups like The National Book Foundation and American Library Association ) are what determines what is and what isn't a Great American Novel. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the source for all this? john k (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

A Slight Digression

I was wondering: Does anyone know if any reliable sources ever discussed Longfellow's The Song of Hiawatha in the context of The Great American Novel? I know that it's a large work, but its poetry, not prose. Can poetry fit the criteria of The Great American Novel?<br. />—NBahn (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Novels (even those by James Joyce) are prose. Poems (even epic ones) are not novels... Ryecatcher773 (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What about The Ring and the Book or Eugene Onegin? We have a whole article about novels written in verse. I agree that Longfellow's work is not a novel, though. john k (talk)

Atlas Shrugged

An I.P. address removed Ayn Rand without justification (see here). Normally, when something like this happens, I'll revert it; however, I never read the book, so I'm asking here if anyone knows of any reliable sources that discuss it as a contender.<br. />—NBahn (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ayn Rand was a philosopher who wrote novels to give a narrative to her philosophical theory, Objectivism. While The Fountainhead ranks in my top 5 favorites of all time (Atlas Shrugged was good, but not as good as Howard Roark's tale), I wouldn't qualify anything she wrote as symbolic of the zeitgeist of any era she lived in (arguably the biggest prerequisite of any Great American Novel). In short, whoever removed it; I can say it wasn't an act of injustice being that it doesn't fit the criteria. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Consideration should be given toward the movie adaptations and the reviews and commentaries if they refer to the original book as a Great American Novel. MMetro (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Foer's Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Child-like, mournful, with wonderment and without attention span. Also beautifully written. To my mind, this is the best zeitgeist-catcher of the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and I'd like to see it on that list at the bottom. (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Lemikam (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Feminism controversy?

Based on the recent brouhaha over Franzen's Freedom, it might be worth mentioning that 99% of these novels are by men. Also, shouldn't Richard Wright's Native Son be on here??Nocoleah (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm very happy to report that someone found a couple of references for To Kill A Mockingbird as The Great American Novel. It is currently the only novel on the list written by a woman, but I don't know if theat fact is worth adding to the article. The Great American novel is a highly subjective honor. -ErinHowarth (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Harriet B Stowe has Uncle Tom earlier up the list. But an argument for Little Women is made by A.N.Devers in Elle (magazine) (Dec 10 2019) If anyone can find a source slightly more illustrious than this surely Alcott's masterpiece deserves adding to the page- after all Tom Sawyer is already on there...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.224.91 (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Elaine Showalter writing in the London Review of Books (23rd March 1995) writes that Little Women is: 'A classic American novel that deserves to be read alongside Twain'. So near but is anyone going to quibble at classic instead of great? Almost the same thing, surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.224.91 (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Scarlet Letter

I removed The Scarlet Letter from the list of novels considered to be The Great American Novel because the source cited is inadequate. The source cited is an unsigned list at American Literature.com entitled Great American Novels. There has been considerable discussion here regarding the difference between a great American novel and The Great American Novel. It seems to me that to be included in this list the title must be referred to as The Great American Novel by a respected critique of American literature. I don't know exactly what qualifies someone to be a respected critic, but since the author of this list didn't even sign it, I'm sure that this source is inadequate. -ErinHowarth (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem with most of these titles -- there is no defined 'canon', which is why citing any of these is a dubious task. I will say this though: The Scarlet Letter is one of the original Great American Novels that arguably any librarian or English teacher/professor will name to a list. The rest of those you've eliminated I'll leave alone, but I'm putting this one back. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The citation you included is and excellent review from a highly repudable source. I'm glad you posted it. I'm glad I read it. I'm now interested in reading the novel for the first time ever. But your citattion does not refer to the The Scarlet Letter as The Great American Novel. It mostly discusses the greatness of the heroine. If "The Scarlet letter is one of the original Great American Novels that... any librarian or English teacher... will add to a list", then you ought to be able to find gads of references to it as such, so far, no noe has provided one. -ErinHowarth (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have another thought regarding The Scarlet Letter. I don't know if it is relevant or not, but the novel is not set in the time in which it was written. The author was using and earlier American society to comment on his contemporary society. Does this affect its status a contender for the title of The Great American Novel? Does it affect its ability to capture the spirit of the age? -ErinHowarth (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That criteria would disqualify Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, written roughly 45 years after the time period in which it is set. This is no small difference, given that those 35 years contain the Civil War and resulting end of slavery. 208.118.18.229 (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed titles without citations

I removed the following titles which had no citation at all. Another contributor merely tagged them about six weeks ago, but I think that is far too generous. We shouldn't be adding our favorite novels to this list as if nominating them for the title of The Great American Novel. The Great American Novel is often referred to as not yet having been written, so the list of novels that might qualify should be very, very short. Please find sources to cite before adding these titles (or any other titles) to the list. -ErinHowarth (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• 1935: James T. Farrell's Studs Lonigan Trilogy
• 1940: Richard Wright's Native Son
• 1946: Robert Penn Warren's All the King's Men
• 1952: Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man
• 1955: William Gaddis's The Recognitions
• 1962: Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
• 1965: Norman Mailer's An American Dream
• 1985: Don DeLillo's White Noise
• 1985: Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
• 1987: Toni Morrison's Beloved
• 1993: E. Annie Proulx's The Shipping News
• 1996: David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest
• 1997: Philip Roth's American Pastoral
• 2000: Michael Chabon's The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay
• 2002: Jeffrey Eugenides' Middlesex

Henry James

I removed three titles by Henry James as novels considered to be The Great American Novel because the citation was quite inadequate. The citation lead to something like a library reference card which did not include a critique of the novel let alone one that referred to it as The Great American Novel. Please do not restore these titles unless you can find a source that refers to them as The Great American Novel. -ErinHowarth (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• 1902: Henry James's The Wings of the Dove
• 1903: Henry James's The Ambassadors
• 1904: Henry James's The Golden Bowl

Light in August

I removed William Faulkner's Light in August (1932) from the list of books considered to be The Great American Novel because the citation was woefully inadequate. The citation leads to a bookseller rather than a scholarly critique of the book. It includes this phrase: "Publisher Comments: One of Faulkner's most admired and accessible novels, Light in August reveals the great American author at the height of his powers." Faulkner might be generally considered to be The Great American Author, but not because his publisher says so. Please don't restore this title to the list unless you can find a source that refers to the work as The Great American Novel. -ErinHowarth (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Road

I removed The Road from the list of novels referred to as The Great American Novel because the citation does not actually refer to it as such. "He suggested Cormac McCarthy’s The Road as a recent possibility of a pretty Great American Book. If you haven’t read it yet, go get it. The Road really could be the most recent Great American Novel." The author only says that it might be The Great American Novel. Pleas don't add this novel back to the list unless you can find a critic who is more certain of his assessment. -ErinHowarth (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Underworld

I removed Underworld from the list of novels referred to as The Great American Novel because the citation does not actually refer to it as such. But DeLillo more than makes it work: Underworld is his best novel and perhaps that most elusive of creatures, a great American novel. The author only says that it might be The Great American Novel. Pleas don't add this novel back to the list unless you can find a critic who is more certain of his assessment. -ErinHowarth (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A Confederacy of Dunces

I removed A Confederacy of Dunces from the list of novels known as The Great American Novel because the citation did not refer to it as The Great American Novel. Early this year, the Book Review's editor, Sam Tanenhaus, sent out a short letter to a couple of hundred prominent writers, critics, editors and other literary sages, asking them to please identify "the single best work of American fiction published in the last 25 years." The best American novel is not the same as The Great American Novel. Please don't add this title back to the list without a reference referring to it as The Great American Novel. -ErinHowarth (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Catch 22

I removed Joseph Heller's Catch-22 (1961) from the list of novels referred to as The Great American Novel because the citation offered does not refer to it as such. The citation leads to a list of Top Novels chosen by experts. Top Novels are not the same as The Great American Novel. Please do not restore this title to the list without a reference that actually refers to it as The Great American Novel. -ErinHowarth (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

To Kill A Mockingbird

I removed Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird (1960) from the list of novels referred to as The Great American Novel because the citation does not refer to it as such. This is one of my favorite books, so I looked around a bit on the Internet, and I found a lot of bloggers voting for it as The Great American novel, but the best scholarly thing I found on it only said that it might be The Great American Novel - very disappointing. I hope somebody can restore this title to the list with a decent reference that refers to it as The Great American Novel. -ErinHowarth (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hurray! It's been restored - with some very nice citations, too. -ErinHowarth (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

On the Road

I removed Jack Kerouac's On the Road (1957) from the list of novels referred to as The Great American Novel because the citation does not refer to is as such. "If On the Road wasn't the Great American Novel, then Kerouac can make a fair claim to the Great American Fantasy Baseball League. Please do not restore this title to the list without a reference that refers to it as The Great American Novel. -ErinHowarth (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I put it back because you just need to Google it for 5 minutes and you can find numerous places that mention it as a great American novel. i dont know how to add citations so i didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.254.160.244 (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Moby Dick

I removed Moby Dick from the list of novels referred to as The Great American Novel because the citation does not refer to is as such. I'm CERTAIN that someone somewhere has referred to Moby Dick as The Great American Novel. Please find one before you restore this title to the list. -ErinHowarth (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Sound and the Fury

I removed William Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury (1929) because there was no citation. Please do not restore it to the list without a citation of someone somewhere referring to it as The Great American Novel.

Jonathan Franzen

I removed both Franzen books from the list because the content doesn't match the source -- notably, that there is a difference between calling something a great American novel, and dubbing it The Great American Novel. Not to mention the "source" was a scrolling graphic of upcoming books that might be great reads. It really begs the question of how long after publication a book can reasonably be considered The Great American Novel. It's easy for an overzealous literary critic to throw the term around. But in the case of Franzen's "Freedom," the bad reviews were as scathing as the good reviews were positive. The same is probably true for McCarthy's "The Road," but I haven't had time to look into it yet. Jeditor17 (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the above comment about length of time after publication is extremely to the point. The citation for Franzen's book is from an Esquire book review from the year it came out? Seriously? How on earth can one legitimately call something that has had a shelf life of less than a year "The Great American Novel"- to use a sports analogy, its kind of like saying someone should win the Heisman after the first week of College Football. It makes no sense because TIME is an essential ingredient in the determination of what works can honestly be even be included in the conversation. I know Wikipedia has really lose criteria for what to include, but I'm sure there are dozens and dozens of books that have at some point been cited as "The Great American Novel" and if that's the case, hypothetically the list could be much much longer... So what makes Franzen's book deserved and NOTHING from someone like Hemingway or Henry James... or a dozen other greats that have endured the test of time. I'm perplexed. Tominrochester (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)TominrochesterTominrochester (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, so I´m prejudiced in this regard.....

There have recently been a number of anon. I.P. edits — most of them being deletions — that are without any explanations. I am taking the liberty of reverting some (albeit, not all) of them. I am not saying that the edits are ipso facto unjustifiable, just that an explanation is in order — especially when editing with an anon. I.P. address.<br. />—NBahn (talk) 05:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

From Weltanschauung to Zeitgeist

As a novelist in his late Sixties, may I provide some historical perspective? You've redefined what we meant by "the Great American Novel" when we originally used it (and that's fine. We quit using it.) Google nGram tells me the phrase shot up from nothing to great popularity between 1900 and 1920, fluctuated, and faded badly after 2000. I thought the notion had become quaint, but I find you've reinvigorated it. You speak of a book which captures the Zeitgeist, the Hegelian "spirit of the age"-- though I notice that lately your "ages" only seem to last two or three years, like your "generations." We originally meant the opposite: a book which triumphed over the Zeitgeist. It would capture the American Weltanschauung, the essential American World Outlook which endured despite all changes in the Zeitgeist. It would be something like our national epic, as someone commented above. Books I heard mentioned as contenders were HUCK FINN AND MOBY DICK, but also, very often, STUDS LONIGAN, THE GRAPES OF WRATH, USA. However, we gave up on the idea, and you have revived it in a useful form. http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=great+American+novel&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3 Profhum (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete Everything After "History"

This is absurd. If the base criterion for being included in an encyclopedic list of books considered at one time or another to be "The Great American Novel" is that some reviewer in a fit of hyperbole has in one independent publication referred to the book as "the Great American Novel," or as a book that "may well be" the Great American Novel, or as a book that "could earn the title" of Great American Novel; or that Frederic Jameson ironically referred to it as the Great American Novel; or that it is "such a book," which would seem to diminish the singularity of the status; or that someone writing about an actor who starred in a film version of the book would refer to the book that way; or that it "came close"; or that it is "still frequently nominated"; or any of the other highly questionable and mostly entirely ephemeral instances found here, then I suggest that such a list, far from being authoritative, is useless. My own book was described as "a contender for Great American Novel status" in a large-circulation UK print magazine; flattering though that is, I would never dream of including it on a list of great novels, American or otherwise. 69.119.59.55 (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with the above. Its hard to take the criterion for a book's inclusion on this page seriously. Tominrochester (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)TominrochesterTominrochester (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Freedom

Is there synthesis being applied towards the citation for Freedom, the most recent novel? The Esquire review talks about the Great American Novel as a concept that may have gone away, but hopes that Freedom is evidence that it has not, while never explicitly naming Freedom as a Great American Novel. In fact, the Wikipedia article cites that several reviews were negative, and there was no mention of it being a Great American Novel. But even if Freedom is not an example of the Great American Novel, the citation does help to define what the concept is. MMetro (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Classification as Great American Novel?

It seems relevant that the statements classifying some of the more examples as a Great American Novel are from non-Americans. I put that in the text, but this was reverted. How important does this fact seem to others? Pete unseth (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a random observation. Feminists labeled by men, cults labeled by Catholics, socialists labeled by fascists, whatever. Either they are reliable sources or they aren't. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Book of Mormon?

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=great%20american%20novel%20mormon%20smith&es_th=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.114.233 (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Great American Novel/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Having read both the article and talk pages, I cannot help but agree that the article not only needs editing for citations, but that it needs more information as well; but both need to be done by an English major and I'm not an English major. --NBahn (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 16:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great American Novel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100915171907/http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/pynchon_grintro.html to http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/pynchon_grintro.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Great American Novel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101016090658/http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=57&aid=60488 to http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=57&aid=60488
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111129221749/http://www.atlantic-books.co.uk/our_books/browse_catalogue.asp?css=1&genre=8400&pg=23&order=date&pre=true&edition=1275 to http://www.atlantic-books.co.uk/our_books/browse_catalogue.asp?css=1&genre=8400&pg=23&order=date&pre=true&edition=1275
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141102084742/http://blogs.publishersweekly.com/blogs/PWxyz/2013/03/28/what-did-we-learn-from-our-great-american-novel-poll/ to http://blogs.publishersweekly.com/blogs/PWxyz/2013/03/28/what-did-we-learn-from-our-great-american-novel-poll/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318230019/http://www.rbooks.co.uk/product.aspx?id=0099771918 to http://www.rbooks.co.uk/product.aspx?id=0099771918

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Uncited

I put the "Section Uncited" template on the lede because there are no sources for the statements there either in the lede or in the article.

Maybe should be "Article Uncited" but there are cites for individual novels in the list.

The "citations needed" for individual paragraphs have been there since 2013.ch (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC) ch (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

@Fireflyfanboy: Anybody can voice their claim that XYZ is "The Great American Novel", but that is not sufficient. The source you use for Slaughterhouse-Five and Catch-22 is Manuel Garcia, Jr., an ex-physicist writing on a political site. It has to be someone with literary credentials. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that you and only you have unilaterally decided what is and is not sufficient for inclusion. (Let's not forget when you deleted the vast majority of the list a few days ago without saying anything on the talk page for little more than you just didn't like it.) You even seem to take some sort of sick satisfaction from removing things you deem unworthy, as you did with your "slaughtered" pun in the edit summary. Where exactly are your literary credentials, if I may ask? Fireflyfanboy (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I also take issue with the idea that the only source is required to be people with, as you say, literary credentials. Part of the idea of a "Great American Novel" is that it, like the country it represents, is a democratic notion. The decision of what constitutes a GAN is NOT and never has been based solely on academics or people with "literary credentials," but by the general public and scholars from many different fields beyond just literature. If George Will wrote something about what he considers the GAN, would that not be included because his background is as a political commentator? He is notable public intellectual, and his opinion deserves merit even if he himself doesn't come from the realm of literature, necessarily. Does that excuse your saying that a physicist is not allowed to make the case that something is the GAN? The conversation has typically brought in multiple people from multiple backgrounds, who says a source shouldn't be included solely based on the background of the author? Must every source now include a background check for the author to see if their opinion is backed up with "literary credentials"? It seems to fit your (and truly, only your) very specific standards. If you truly believe that inclusion on this list should be based solely on the topic of previously established literary credentials and want to make the case for that being the policy going forward, then this is the place for that (and I'm just glad you've finally decide to incorporate talk-page discussion). But from what I'm seeing, there is no rule specifically governing what is and is not a "sufficient" source because the very concept of what constitutes a GAN and who gets to say what a GAN is has and remains very fluid. If you can point to any specific Wikipedia rule or policy that would back up your opinion, I welcome it. But for now, I see an overzealous editor pushing an agenda with little supporting evidence for their cause.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I am aghast at your lack of understanding of how sourcing in Wikipedia is supposed to work. WP:Verifiability is one of the core policies. A physicist's opinion has no weight on something he does not even claim to be an expert on. Per WP:SELFPUBLISH, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The same thing, only much more so, applies to an informal poll of anonymous voters. And yes, it is your duty to do a "background check" on your sources. Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Overview, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

As for your asking about my own literary credentials, what exactly is your point? I'm not making any claims about what is or is not the GAN. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You strike me as yet another WikiZealot. I've encountered your lot before, and I'm convinced your overzealous nature and righteous indignation are making this website a worse place, so thanks for being part of the problem. You've ignored my main point about the GAN being subjective to claim that you're "aghast" about my ignorance about sourcing (well, I'm still aghast that you thought you could delete half an article without consulting anyone about it, so there you go). If you noticed, I'm not including the poll (so thanks for putting words in my mouth) I was mostly responding to your logic of "no literary credentials= automatically can't be included." You conveniently sidestepped this issue to say I'm arguing against or misunderstanding WP:Verifiability, (neither of which are the case, so thanks for putting words in my mouth again). If a source that makes a point clearly and articulately but doesn't come from a literary background, does that automatically mean they can't be included? You're arguing "yes," but none of the things you cited specifically say that, they merely talk about the broader striving towards accuracy. But what does accuracy mean when dealing with such subjective circumstances? You were right when you said "Anybody can voice their claim that XYZ is "The Great American Novel," and if it's well-argued (because a lot of this is about effective arguments for inclusion for consideration of something as a GAN), why shouldn't it be included? I continue to poke holes in your argument and logic, and like a typical WikiZealot, you have nothing but misconstruing actual policy to fit your agenda, righteous indignation and a holier-than-thou "I (think I) know the rules better than you do" attitude. Again, my main point is that the subjectivity of what constitutes a GAN means that sources that come from sources without "literary credentials" can and should be considered. There is no strict definition of what constitutes a GAN, it's a subjective and (I would certainly argue) democratic concept, and unless someone posts something blatantly out of place (like the person who keeps trying to add the Fantastic Four), as long as they are properly sourced and the sources withstand scrutiny beyond WP:I just don't like it (which, ya know, you're kinda falling into), I would argue for their inclusion no matter where they come from. This is a subjective list for a subjective topic. Perhaps this just means adding multiple sources to each entry, I don't know. I personally would actually be in favor of a dramatic restructuring of this article so that it more resembled an article like List of films considered the best (which, oh no, someone without established film credentials is cited, guess Citizen Kane has to be removed accordingly) so that a lot more types of novels could potentially be included. All I know is that, rather than trying to come at the issue with an open mind and an attempt to build consensus, you're being stubborn, potentially obstructionist, all the while accusing me of ignorance. You claim you're not making any claims about what is or is not a GAN, yet will delete anything that doesn't meet your ridiculously high standard. You even deleted something because the source said it was "A great American novel," not "THE great American novel," so it seems like you're desperate enough to play the semantics cards. You're gonna call me out for not knowing WP: Verifiability by heart, but I guess you conveniently forgot another important Wikipedia policy. But whatever, I'm not aghast about it because I have more important things to worry about in my life. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You asked for policies, and I provided them. WP:Assume good faith ends when you refuse to accept legitimate counterarguments based on them and resort to name calling and personal insults. Since we're obviously at an impasse, I'm going to ask for a WP:third opinion. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

P.S. "A great American novel" is a significantly lower standard than the subject of this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

If you truly believe that the difference between "a" and "the" is "a significantly lower standard than the subject of this article," then you're less qualified to edit this article than I previously thought. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you even read the article? It's clear that you don't grasp the concept at all. A. O. Scott wrote, "many, many books have been sighted—er, called—the Great American Novel, or at least one of them, or at least a great American novel, which is a decidedly different thing." (bolding mine) (Caveat: The quote is secondhand, but I see no reason why anyone would fake it, and the distinction expressed is correct.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Who says the "distinction expressed is correct"? Opinions are not facts! Is there an corresponding congressional decree that says exactly that? Just because A.O. Scott said so? He's a film critic, so first off, that's totally against your idea of "literary credentials." Moreover, it's one person's opinion, and as I have frequently argued but apparently still hasn't soaked in, the notion of what a GAN is democratic and fluid. Are we supposed to change the entire perception of a thing because of one quote from someone in, GASP, an unrelated field????

P.S. Are you telling me your only basing your ideas on the GAN from solely what's on the article itself...? Because I'm not. I've read the article, but I formed my own ideas from other experiences and sources before I came to the article. There's a bunch of other, better resources I'd love to direct you to. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No, unlike you, I already had an accurate idea of what the GAN is, but then I'm not a WP:reliable source (another distinction you seem not to comprehend, especially with regard to yourself). That's why I referred you to the article, which is replete with them. Contrary to what you assert, the GAN is a specific genre, not just any great novel. It seeks to "the picture of the ordinary emotions and manners of American existence" (first ref.), is a "uniquely American book" (second), and tries to "incorporate the diverse perspectives of the United States in a grand explanatory narrative" (fifth). Even the physicist Garcia recognizes this, stating it "captures some universal quality of American life and popular aspiration". So, against all of these reliable (and unreliable) sources, you stand alone with your own (unstated) definition. You are not an authority on the subject, far from it. You say you have "other, better resources". Where are they? Produce them. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Flying in the face of our core policy of sourcing authorities in the field, you support Garcia in his claim that Slaughterhouse-Five is a good example. (How a man who becomes unstuck in time and gets abducted by aliens illustrates the American experience is beyond me.) Let's see what the experts say:

• English professor Robert Tally: "The novels of Kurt Vonnegut are not generally the first to come to mind when one thinks of the great American novel. ... Throughout his career, Vonnegut's iconography advances a literary project-far too highfalutin a term, perhaps-to produce what Melville and others imagined the American novel could accomplish: an expression of the multitude and diversity of American life in its time. This is the project of the ever-elusive great American novel, and although Vonnegut has not produced this legendary work, he has reasserted the value of such a project in the postmodern world."[1] (bolding mine) Also note that Tally provides yet another GAN definition that goes against your claim that any great American novel is a GAN. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Writer and literary critic Alfred Kazin: Vonnegut "is at his best not in 'Slaughterhouse-Five' (really a satire on the Great American novel) ..."[2] Clarityfiend (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Also note the discussion in the first section of this talk page, in which Slaughterhouse-Five is dismissed as a poor example.

So, to summarize, your definition matches that of nobody of any repute. Your "source" for Vonnegut is contradicted by experts, and you yourself seem to be an adherent of the "if it's on the internet, it must be reliable" school of referencing. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Ignorance is not a crime, but refusing to acknowledge it when presented with the facts should at least be a misdemeanor.

P.S. I don't cite Scott as a source for whether a work is or isn't a GAN, merely for clarification of the definition of the term, a less demanding task. As a film critic, he would plausibly have some knowledge of its meaning (heck, even your physicist knows better), and the quote is so apropos. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: Rather than examining policy, I'm going to look at the needs of the article for this one. I fear that if the list were "democratized" to include anyone's opinion, then the list would quickly become bloated and meaningless. Any book notable enough to be considered for this list should have had commentary from multiple reliable sources, and I feel as though the criteria should be multiple reliable sources or a consensus of reliable sources, ideally including both critical literary and sociology sources to account for its literary merit and its reflection of American culture/American experience, per the broad definition. Maybe they shouldn't have to universally call it the "Great American Novel" but to attribute to it those characteristics of the Great American Novel. I feel also, that because it may take time to form a consensus (note the negative reviewers of Infinite Jest who later reconsidered their position) and to show influence on later literature, that perhaps novels which are less than 10 or 20 years old should not be considered at all.

Honestly, I'd advise calling an RfC on this to get broader opinion on (1) what the list should actually be, and (2) how to form the inclusion criteria from available sources. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how the Fantastic Four is a bad example. It is well written, fits in with lots of American themes, and the source cited by editors is from someone who researches American fiction on a daily basis. To not include it would be insanely naive! By that logic, we shouldn't include Infinite Jest because our cautions for it being a Great American Novel come from book reviewers with no credentials studying American Culture. And before you flash the "It's a comic book" card: 1. Graphic Novel! 2. Many of the books already included were originally published in serialized forms. Just saying. - Watcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:A80:1F7D:3509:8600:D284:B86F (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Clarityfiend is the sole judge of what qualifies as a GAN, and that's a problem

A quick look at the edit history and at this talk page show that it is User:Clarityfiend who is responsible for purging potential GANs from this article. An article like this deserves multiple voices and users determine a system for assessing what is and is not a GAN. This user seems to be acting unilaterally as the sole judge of what is and is not considered a GAN, and anything that does not meet their standards is immediately deleted. Just yesterday, a massive purge of novels listed that could be considered GANs was deleted because this user, and only this user, believed the sources were "inadequate," without any discussion whatsoever on this talk page. One of these novels was Beloved by the late Toni Morrison, and the fact that this user sought to delete the entry without doing any further research that would have found plenty of claims to it being a GAN (TM won a Nobel Prize, after all), only shows continued ignorance. This is unilateral editing, at odds with Wikipedia's standards and concept. I believe there is more than enough room to include the many more novels that this article used to include, and that novels that have already can purged can instead be ADDED to with better sources. Apparently that doesn't not pass the litmus test of the one user who is solely determining what is and is not a Great American Novel. This philosophy of purging whatever novel has "inadequate sources" rather than trying to find better ones is inherently problematic, and I implore User:Clarityfiend to use this talk page to discuss any future edits, including purges and deletions, to this article that they have taken such a vested interested in before acting in such a unilateral fashion. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

You have a problem with my deletions? Dig up better sources than the pitifully inadequate ones provided. Joe Blow's opinion isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

What a pithy, immature response from an editor who has shown such blatant unprofessionalism. Why don't you act like someone who actually wants to contribute something and go the extra mile by, say, I dunno, FINDING THEM YOURSELF??? Only an egotist would dismiss things they disagree with or that they personally (because it is just you personally) don't find up to snuff as the musings of "Joe Blow." Elitist much? WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

For example, I deleted On the Road just now because the "source" had zip, nada, zilch to do with the GAN. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Congrats on explaining your train of thought on this talk page for one of the first times ever? (Still doesn't explain Beloved...) That would have been nice to have had a discussion about before you acted unilaterally, or refused to do any additional research. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

First times ever? Check the section above! Another example of woefully bad work: J R, supported by a bookstore website review that, once again, doesn't even claim it is the GAN. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

As for Beloved, "Best Work of American Fiction of the Last 25 Years" is not the same as GAN. Sheesh, read this article for the definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

All I see are your personal opinions (which you had never previously expressed before unilaterally deleting things), not backed up with consensus, and a lazy refusal to do any additional legwork. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

You just don't get it. This is not a list of just any great American novels, of which apparently Beloved is one. This is for a specific genre/subset which somehow celebrates the American spirit or culture. As such, a source must make an explicit claim using the term for a candidate. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much the entire talk page addresses this distinction, and I'm not the only editor who understands that. So why don't you read the other comments? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

"You just don't get it." You're not even gonna attempt to hide the elitism now, are you? Also, I'd like to see this explanation backed up with an actual citation from an actual admin (because, yeah, I read the other comments, a lot of it feels like your interpretation, which I have said all along, and not anything solidified as actual policy), because you of all people realize that mustn't be too reliant on "inadequate sources," now can we? WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The fact that clarityfiend's removed the page that Describes Fantastic Four as an Great American Novel MULTIPLE TIMES is enough for me to see that they are an FIEND that should stop controling over this page like some sort of whinny child historian who thinks wikipedia is an lego toyset! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:A7F:C40:AC46:6B7F:5F21:8187 (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Why Gone with the Wind should be included

Let me list the very long list of references that refer to Gone with the Wind as the Great American Novel.

• The Oxford Learner's Dictionary lists Gone With the Wind as an example of the Great American Novel[3]
• The BBC refers to Gone with the Wind as belonging to a "list of widely accepted GANs".[4]

These are the highest quality references that refer to Gone With the Wind (which will be shortened to GW from now on) as the Great American Novel, but there are endless amounts of others:

• Georgia Public Broadcasting claims it "has long been heralded as The Great American Novel."[5]
• The St. Louis Public Library refers to GW as "heralded by readers everywhere as The Great American Novel."[6]
• Writer's Digest refers to it as being a possible GAN[7]
• Harvard Magazine discusses it as a contender [8]
• "late columnist, Joe Sobran, considered Gone With The Wind to be The Great American Novel" [9]
• Simon & Schuster refers to it as "heralded by readers everywhere as The Great American Novel."[10]
• "widely considered the Great American Novel"[11]
• "widely considered The Great American novel"[12]
• Even Walmart claims it "has been heralded by readers everywhere as The Great American Novel"[13]

Perhaps I would understand @Clarityfiend:'s strict maintenance of this page if they maintained only the highest quality of sources, but that simply is not the case. Some of the current sources include a youtube lecture and a scanned newspaper article from 1994. I personally thinks these sources are sufficient, as I have not contested them. Clarityfiend may claim that my supplied sources are not anything more than passing references, but the current existing sources are exactly that. The source for Huckleberry Finn by American Heritage mentions the GAN in one sentence. Judging by the past discussions on this talk page, Clarityfiend may be of the mentality that they own this page, but "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." ~ HAL333 23:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You have totally missed the point. Anonymous blurbs, such as Georgia Public Broadcasting, St. Louis Public Library, etc., do not qualify as sources. I'm also less than impressed with your Writer's Digest link: topping a poll of "WD social media followers" is risible. Even more laughable is the Fairfax County poll; it isn't even for the GAN, but rather the "Great American Read". Walmart and Simon & Schuster? Seriously?

However, Lucy Scholes, the author of the BBC article, is qualified, so GWTW can stay. That's all I asked for. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Awesome. ~ HAL333 16:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)