Talk:List of American novelists

List format & criteria for inclusion

Since I've made a lot of changes to this page recently, I thought I should describe what I've done, and open up the discussion about who does and doesn't belong on this list. The MoS (WP:MOS) in fact demands that every list have "membership criteria" (WP:LIST); of course, it also says that the criteria should be "clear, neutral, and unambiguous", which, when it comes to deciding whether or not a writer is "notable", means we're in the territory of the impossible--but here goes.

• "This is a list of novelists..."
  • In order to be included in this list, the author must have written at least one novel (i.e. an extended work of fiction—and please follow the links if you need further clarification). Simple, no? No. What about novellas, novelettes, and books of linked short stories, that some would call a novel but others would call a collection? So far, I've included writers whose exemplary work is one or another of those.

• "...from the United States."
  • The writers on the current list incude born U.S. citizens, naturalized citizens, those who were born and lived a substantial portion of their lives in the U.S. before taking up residence in another country, and at least one long-time resident alien who has written all his books in English and published them first in the U.S. (Qiu Xiaolong).

• "Novelists on this list should be notable in some way..."
  • All, or nearly all, of the writers on the current list fall into one or more of the following categories:

1. Winner of a major literary prize, even if the winning work was a story collection rather than a novel. The Pulitzer and the NBA are the obvious examples, but also the ABA, NBCC Awards, Orange Prize, and some others. (Note: The only Pulitzer winner for Fiction not on the list is James Alan McPherson, who has never published a novel.)
2. Had several massive bestsellers, or even just one huge seller that has entered the cultural lexicon (Grace Metalious and Peyton Place, for example).
3. Having a substantial body of work, widely respected and reviewed, and perhaps often nominated or a finalist for major awards.
4. A pioneering literary figure, possibly for the style or substance of their entire body of work, or for a single novel that was a notable "first" of some kind in U.S. literary history. This would include influential African-American, Asian-American, Hispanic, LGBT, etc. writers.
5. A leading figure--especially award winning, or with crossover appeal to mainstream readers, reviewers, and scholars--in a major genre or subcategory of fiction: SF/F/H, mystery, western, young adult fiction, regional or "local color" fiction, proletarian fiction, etc.

As I said, these categories cover nearly all the writers on the list--but not all. Especially younger writers: Is their body of work substantial enough? Well respected and reviewed enough? I'm sure I included some writers that many others would not, and left off writers that others would have included. For my part, I tried to be more inclusive than exclusive. My thinking was that if this list started as something substantial (that is, after replacing the raggedy, hit-or-miss list that this used to be), it could, with some pruning here and some additions there, grow in the right direction.

• "...and ideally have a Wikipedia article."

They all don't yet, of course, but I'd like to see all that red turned to blue (and, as they like to say here, "You can help!"). I think every writer on the list deserves an entry. Not every title does--but certainly each could have a separate section on the writer's page that the title link could point to.

One other thing: I decided when I started working on the page to give each author one representative title, and to make that the limit, just to help people identify the author. When I began, many authors had 2, 3, or more--and many had none. If an author has more than one noteworthy title, then that author probably already has a page, and the curious can go there to find the other titles.

Anyway, that's what I did and why I did it. I'm sure there's a bunch of stuff I left out or underexplained. Comments? Suggestions? Criticisms? Or just go edit the list--that's what it's there for, eh? ShelfSkewed 03:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Should novelists who wrote in a language other than English, and produced their most famous work in languages other than English, and then relocated to the United States after their production, be included as well? I refer to Vladimir Nabokov as an example. He wrote Lolita in another country, in another language that required translation into English. My issue with this is not the title of the article, but the derived implication that the literary work is the product of the United States (or for that matter any country where lists of novelists are applied), when in fact, at that point, the novelist had not even been to the United States, let alone the literature be a product of his or her experience in the U.S., as this cannot be more misleading. If so, then the title of this article should be redefined... Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• You are mistaken on several counts. Nabokov had moved to the U.S. and become a naturalized citizen well before he wrote Lolita, which was written in, and set in, the U.S., and was, in fact, originally written and published in English. Lolita was the author's third English-language novel.--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Columns

I thought I'd try putting in columns, since this is such a long page to scroll through, and columns would, obviously, cut the length about in half. But does it make it look too cluttered, or too hard to read? Comments? --ShelfSkewed [Talk] 19:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest breaking this page in half, or quarters. It much too long. HammerHeadHuman 21:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Name deletion

I delete Stephenie meyer. I hope others agree upon why she shouldn't be on this list. LOL. :)

) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.210.22 (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL is not an appropriate comment in relation to an edit here. Name was added back, as she is notable, regardless of what some people think of her writing (name one famous/successful author who doesnt have detractors).(mercurywoodrose)66.80.6.163 (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Filipacchi wrote a New York Times column [[1]] discussing how Wikipedia editors had removed women from the list and relegated them to the sub-category of "Female American novelists." It would be worth clarifying on this page, when such removals would be valid or invalid.

• Nothing done on this page really related to Amand Filipacchi's article. She basically ignored that there was even this list, there have been virtually no removals of women from this list, it just is not well maintained. Lists can give you a lot more information than categories, but they have to be specifically developed and do not grow naturally with articles formed, and it takes energy to add to them, so such is not done on huge lists like this. Also, up until recently the criteria for this list was possibly too restrictive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

example novel

Is there any criterion for what example novel is used? It seems rather random. Light in August rather than The Sound and the Fury for Faulkner? Washington Square rather than Portrait of a Lady for James? The article itself provides no guidelines for what novel is listed; hell, it doesn't even mention that example novels are listed. john k (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

We should include all American novelists we have articles on

We should include all novelists we have articles on. There is clearly a demand for a comprehesive, all-inclusive list of American novelsits. We should make this clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This list has suffered a little from people thinking it should not overlap with List of American women writers, but not much. It mainly suffers from being underdeveloped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Split by leter

I just realized that considering this probably only has at best a sixth of the articles it really should have, and yet it is already really long, it probably should be split. I think the best way to split it would be by letter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)