Exploring the Lineage of Modern Novel as a Transformative Genre Making: A Comparative Textual Analysis of Fielding’s Tom Jones and Nashe’s The Unfortunate Traveller.

Authors

  • Dr. Sahar Afshan Senior Assistant Professor, Bahria University, Karachi Campus. Author
  • Saba Ahmed Lecturer, Bahria University, Karachi Campus. Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.66021/

Abstract

This study examines the historical and literary development of the novel as a genre by tracing its transformation from early precursors to its modern form, while limiting its scope to a comparative case study of two picaresque novels from distinct historical periods: Thomas Nashe’s The Unfortunate Traveller and Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones. Nashe’s text represents an early experimental phase in English picaresque fiction, whereas Fielding’s work signifies a more mature and systematic culmination of the same tradition. Using textual analysis, the study focuses on narrative technique, specifically plot construction, characterization, and the role of the narrator, to establish a conceptual link between the two texts. The findings indicate that despite differences in style, historical context, and representation, both works collectively demonstrate the transformation of narrative practice that enabled the emergence of the novel as a distinct literary form. This continuity underscores the gradual evolution of novelistic tradition across centuries and suggests that modern novels represent transformed iterations of their precursors. The study further opens avenues for future research into comparative narrative techniques across periods highlighting broader continuities in novel-writing traditions.

Keywords: Literary evolution; Early modern novel; Textual analysis; Genre making.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2026-06-01

How to Cite

Exploring the Lineage of Modern Novel as a Transformative Genre Making: A Comparative Textual Analysis of Fielding’s Tom Jones and Nashe’s The Unfortunate Traveller. (2026). Annual Methodological Archive Research Review, 4(5), 399-412. https://doi.org/10.66021/